Sitting of 11 July 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 18 July.

  ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC(TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Rail Services (North-West)
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What recent discussions he has had with Virgin Trains on the rail service to Manchester and the north-west. [128400]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): It is the franchising director's responsibility to monitor the two franchises that Virgin Trains holds: west coast main line and cross country. He is in regular contact with Virgin Trains about all its services, including those to Manchester and the north-west.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the travelling public in the north-west, served by Virgin Trains, hold the strong view that the standard of that service is appalling? It is not punctual often enough; it is shoddy and shabby; and, more importantly, is it very over-priced. Can he get the message across to Virgin Trains that we do not want to live for ever on promises from it? Can he scotch the rumours about delays in upgrading the west coast main line? As he is well aware, it is important to invest in that infrastructure so that we can have a world-class train service on the west coast and up to Scotland.
    Mr. Prescott: I am well aware of the complaints made about the services of Virgin Trains; I travel by train quite often and passengers come up to me and make that point very clearly. The company's target was that services should arrive within 10 minutes of the expected time and about 80.6 per cent. of services achieved it. The service has improved by 8 per cent., but that is a pretty miserable record. To be fair, the desperate need for investment in the west coast line has to be taken into account. We faced problems in that Railtrack and Virgin reached an agreement on the cost of modernisation, which they estimated to be about £2.3 billion; the figure is now £5.2 billion. That two private companies can produce such different estimates does not make it easy to modernise the west coast line. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall ensure that the modern standard of line that has been guaranteed is delivered. He knows that the Director General of Fair Trading and the regulator are questioning Virgin Trains about fares.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that, unless more trains arrive in accordance with the timetable—thus reducing the lateness that is so typical of the north-west line—the transfer of people from road to rail will not be achieved? Does he also agree that a town such as Macclesfield deserves a modern railway station as it is one of the major profit centres for Virgin in the north-west? Will he press Virgin, Railtrack and all those involved to make the necessary investment in the station and the track as well?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the reliability record is far worse than under public ownership, but I make it clear that investment is still the critical factor. I have already referred to the major miscalculation of the resources needed to modernise that line. The regulator is investigating, with Virgin and Railtrack, the cost of that operation. I hope that there will be a statement shortly, especially on Railtrack's contribution, and that we can get on with modernising the line. The Strategic Rail Authority is very much involved. There is an important difference between the previous Administration's approach under privatisation and ours; we are trying to bring back public interest in the management of our railways.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Although I do not condone the performance of Virgin or Railtrack, the upgrading has started—we have waited many years for it—and the new tilting trains have been ordered, for which my right hon. Friend should take some credit. I have received a briefing from Railtrack today, and it seems to be getting its act together, but does he not agree that it is a great shame that all the track-laying equipment—and other heavy equipment—used to modernise our railways has been built abroad? Will he consider ways in which to help British manufacturers to get involved in those contracts?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is right. We are already seeing an increase in the number of people travelling by rail, even on Virgin. There has been an increase of about 17 per cent. on average in rail passenger numbers since May 1997. The improvements that we are making and our

    683
    commitment to the long term are important contributory factors in that. My concern about the manufacturing of rolling stock goes back to when we were in opposition. The problem is that no one was prepared to make a commitment to the long-term planning of the rail industry. We are now correcting that and, with our announcement on the 10-year transport plan, we will give a future to the long-term development of the railways and transport in this country.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least acknowledge that the west coast main line upgrade has started and that the money is being provided by the privatised rail industry—money that he would never have been able to obtain from the Treasury? In comparison, as we approach the general election, why are we still waiting for Labour's so-called transport plan to be announced, let alone started? What have the Government been doing for the past three years? As they feed the press, day after day, with speculation about £50 billion, £80 billion, £140 billion or £160 billion, will he reflect on his own words about what people really think? Did not he say, "They think, 'Isn't this spinning and spinning is about lying'"?
    Mr. Prescott: In 18 years of a Tory Administration, we had a decline in the use of the public transport service and disinvestment on a massive scale, but in three years, this Government have produced their first White Paper, the first piece of—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!] If the Opposition had thought a hit more about what they were doing, they would not have ended up in a mess. We have a White Paper, legislation and a major announcement of long-term investment in transport. That is why people now have faith in the development of an integrated transport system.

    Portland
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If he will make a statement on the progress of the South West of England regional development agency in letting the former HMS Osprey site on Portland. [128401]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The South West of England regional development agency is developing a framework plan for the former Royal Naval air station on Portland and a public consultation exhibition seeking local views was held at the end of June. I understand that the hon. Gentleman met the deputy chairman of the RDA yesterday to discuss development of the site.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer, but she will know that three years ago, the South Dorset economic partnership was dealing with the former Ministry of Defence sites very effectively. However, there is no permanent tenant on the site as yet and I am told by the South West of England RDA that dealing with other Government agencies—namely the MOD and the Crown Estate—is the problem. It also tells me that it is being held up by a consultation over flooding with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Can she please make sure that Ministers take a personal interest in
    684
    the matter to cut through the problem and get some of the so-called joined-up government that we hear so much about?
    Ms Armstrong: I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the RDA is getting on with the job. It took responsibility for the site from 30 March and has already got a public consultation up and running. Although he was unable to attend the exhibition, he has seen the plans, which are working well, so he knows that there is a site of special scientific interest within the site. Obviously, we have to deal with that properly and undertake proper consultation, but I can assure him that the RDA, with our backing, is doing all that it can to make sure that proper and appropriate development takes place on the site.

    Rural Economy
    Dr. George Turner: What plans his Department has to encourage the economic development of rural economies. [128402]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The regional development agencies, established in April 1999, have all drawn up regional economic strategies, which fully recognise the needs of rural as well as urban areas. In pursuing rural development, they have at their direct disposal the £29 million rural programme and round 5 single regeneration budget funds, which included some £70 million to be spent on rural areas.
    Dr. Turner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that the rural group of Labour MPs has recently published a manifesto. Although we acknowledge that the Government have done much and are doing much, there is a lot still to be done. Can he tell us today when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to publish the rural White Paper, for which we are waiting? Can he commit the Government to ensuring that the White Paper represents an action plan to address problems in rural areas? In particular, will he assure the House that changes will be made to the planning regime to ensure that it helps to achieve the diversification that so many of our farmers need if they are to secure a reasonable income?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right to say that the manifesto produced by many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches is an extremely good document by any standards. We expect to publish the rural White Paper in the autumn. It will take account of my hon. Friends' proposals, and it will be a wide-ranging, practical and ambitious paper covering the whole range of rural services : regeneration, access to services, new directions for agriculture, social exclusion, rural empowerment, conservation and recreation, and rural proofing.
    My hon. Friend asked a particular question about diversification. We are well aware of that problem, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning recently held a seminar on the issue. We recognise the

    685
    need for farmers to diversify their businesses beyond agricultural operations, and we have issued national guidance to assist farm-based diversification.
    Mr. Don Foster: If the Minister is so committed to the regeneration of rural economies, why are so many of the Government's initiatives on regeneration massively underspent? Is he aware that the single regeneration budget has been underspent by £45 million since 1997, that the European regional development fund has been underspent by £0.25 billion since 1994, and that the Minister's wonderful new scheme, the new deal for communities, spent only 2 per cent. of its budget in 1998–99 and less than half last year? Does he accept that, as a result of the massive mountain of bureaucracy and the Government's failure to co-ordinate these initiatives, rural economies have been offered a feast but are getting a famine? Will he at least publish details of those underspends and the reasons for them, and take action to stop them?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We are aware of underspend, but we are working with local communities precisely to increase their capacity to utilise those funds. He has ignored the fact that the actual spend on countryside programmes will increase in the current three-year period from £128 million in 1998–99 to a projected £174 million by 2001–02, which is an increase of almost 40 per cent. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the rural development plan, which includes a 60 per cent. increase to £1.6 billion and a degree of modulation for expenditure on the countryside. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, in making a fair point, did not acknowledge the huge increase in expenditure that is now going into the countryside.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given that a good, well-maintained water supply is vital to any regeneration in rural communities, has my right hon. Friend had time to study the Kelda proposals to sell Yorkshire Water back to its users? It seems blatantly to be trying to foist its debt on to my constituents and others in Yorkshire. Does he agree that there should be a public inquiry into this so-called sell-off, and that the managers, who have been incompetent and greedy over the years, should be held to account? They have put us all in danger by mismanaging a vital resource.
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the Kelda proposals for Yorkshire Water. This is primarily a matter for the Director General of Water Services, whose approval is required before such proposals can proceed. He issued a consultation paper, which has not quite run its course—I think that the process ends on 17 July. Ministers do not have a direct responsibility in this area, but I have overriding responsibilities to ensure public health and to meet environmental obligations. I am expecting to see the Director General of Water Services later this week to discuss this very issue.
    Mr. James Paice: Given that agriculture, which is the major industry in rural areas, has experienced a 70 per cent. decline in income under the Government, that 400 post offices closed last year and
    686
    many more expect to close in the coming weeks and months, and that the Royal Mail has decided to stop delivering post by private vehicle, which will detract from the service provided to countless rural businesses, how can the Government take any credit for any development in rural areas? [Interruption.] If the question is about—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a question, but because of the noise, it has not been heard. Will the hon. Gentleman begin again at "How will the Government"? I at least heard him.
    Mr. Paice: I will willingly repeat my question, Madam Speaker.
    How, in responding to a question about encouraging the development of rural economies, can the Government take any credit for what has been going on in real rural areas over the last three years? If that is what happens when they encourage rural development, what would happen if they discouraged it?
    Mr. Meacher: I must say that I cannot but admire the brass neck of representatives of the Tory party who talk of the state of the countryside and rural areas, after the rundown of virtually every kind of service throughout the last two decades. By 1997, buses did not go to many villages. There has been a decline in the number of doctors' surgeries, and schools have closed.
    The hon. Gentleman may be thinking particularly of the decline in agricultural incomes, which is unquestionably very severe—probably the worst for half a century or more. However, it preceded the present Government, and it has gained pace under the present Government for much wider international reasons. We are trying to deal with it; the Prime Minister held an agriculture summit, which was extremely well received by the farming community.
    I repeat that we are putting more money and more services into rural areas in an attempt to regenerate them after the collapse that occurred in so many villages. The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Ken Purchase: What contribution the regional development agencies are making to the development of regional economies. [128403]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The RDAs are emerging as strategic drivers of economic development in their regions. They have had an excellent first year, putting £400 million into regenerating the most deprived areas and creating or saving some 35,000 jobs—including 5,000 new jobs in the west midlands.
    Mr. Purchase: My right hon. Friend played an important role in ensuring that RDAs were at the heart of Labour's economic motor in the regions. I pay tribute to what he did well before we were in government. Does he accept that the competitive agenda for the global economy as it applies to the regions is best driven along by further decentralisation to the RDAs, to improve their powers? Does he agree that the more quickly their lines of

    687
    accountability can be developed, the sooner they will be able to take more control of national budgets, and thus bring about decentralisation from this place to the regions?
    Mr. Prescott: I have always believed that the RDAs can play a major part in reducing disparities of economic growth within and between the regions, and in the record level of inward investment that Britain has just achieved. To that extent, I believe that the RDAs should be given more influence—and, indeed, more resources—so that they can get on with their job.
    In my hon. Friend's area, the RDAs have played a significant part in regard to the Rover taskforce, which had a special job to do in diversifying the economy and at the same time encouraging new investment by, for instance, Marconi. I believe that they are already a success following their first 12 months in operation, and that the spending review will show just how important we think their future is.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen House of Commons Library research which suggests that the Government have abused the boards of the RDAs by packing them with Labour supporters and cronies? Can he confirm that RDA membership contains six times as many Labour supporters as Conservatives, and that 70 per cent. of all board members with known affiliations are Labour supporters or trade unionists? Is not the real truth that the Deputy Prime Minister has used the RDAs to extend the culture of cronyism, rewarding his friends in failed Labour councils with well-paid positions on regional quangos?
    Mr. Prescott: The evidence does not show that. Clearly, we believe that the RDAs properly reflect industrial interests as well as local authority and political representation in the region. About 100 Tory councillors are involved in the regional chambers alone. About four Tory members are involved in the boards of the eight regional development agencies. The Tories did not get many votes in the last election. It was in all the papers. Did the hon. Gentleman not read it? The number is proportional to that.
    We believe that the regional development agencies should be retained. Even the Tory councillors are asking us to ensure that we keep the RDAs. If Conservative Members feel so strongly about abolishing them in England, why are they leaving them in Scotland and Wales? Why should the English regions be denied the possibility of keeping RDAs?
    Mr. Norman: Can the Deputy Prime Minister now confirm that the RDAs are costing £17 million in administration alone, while spending on the ground on urban regeneration has gone down compared with spending under the previous Government? Does he agree with last week's report by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which described regional intervention under the present Government as confused and badly co-ordinated?
    Is not the real truth that the only thing that has gone up under the Deputy Prime Minister is spending on advertising in his Department, which has doubled; spending on spin doctors—there are up to 40 in the
    688
    DETR, up 20 per cent. on last year; and spending on bureaucracy, on cronyism and on trips abroad? It is Britain's inner cities that are paying the price.
    Mr. Prescott: I think that the House generally agrees that the interventions of the hon. Gentleman, whether in speeches or at Question Time, can lead only to the certainty that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will shortly replace him on the Conservative Front Bench. As for the investment of £10 million, I have already informed the House that £400 million in regeneration and 35,000 jobs have been secured by the active intervention of the regional development agencies. On its own, that is a justification for the investment, but, since we introduced development agencies in Scotland, it has seen an improvement: it went from having the seventh highest GDP in the United Kingdom in 1986 to the fourth highest. That shows the success of the development agencies in Scotland and Wales. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to deny that for the English regions, or is it just a promise made in opposition to be changed in government?
    Mr. Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the work of the Rover taskforce and of Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency there, in the economic strategy for the west midlands. Does he agree that, to deliver that economic strategy, it is vital that there is a transport infrastructure, particularly in an industrial heartland such as the west midlands, which is a major trade route from south-east to north-west and beyond
    Given the fact that, between 1992 and 1999, capital investment in public transport in the west midlands was only 5 per cent. of that in the capital, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we get much more investment into our road infrastructure, our rail infrastructure and public transport in the west midlands area?
    Mr. Prescott: I readily accept that there is a strong connection between the two: investment in the infrastructure and the level of economic prosperity in the regions. The RDAs are playing a part. They produced their regional plan within the first year. We are changing our planning mechanism to allow them to influence the regional transport planning structure. We must await the spending review to see how much we are prepared to put into transport.

    Brown Trout
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What proposals he has to combat the effects of acid rain on the brown trout population; and if he will make a statement. [128404]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Government measures to reduce acidifying emissions include the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Gothenburg protocol, the

    689
    proposed national emission ceilings directive, the proposed amendment to the large combustion plant directive and the sulphur content of liquid fuel directive.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I know that he is something of an expert in environmental matters and has a great track record in that area, but may I urge upon him the need to move quickly with regard to intrinsic stocks of brown trout? They are dwindling now. May I suggest that the Environment Agency's remit be extended, so that a full audit is prepared and it can then look at ways of combating the present trend?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on a matter that we are very concerned about. I am glad to say that, as a result of the string of directives that I read out, United Kingdom emissions of sulphur dioxide—which is the main cause of acid rain—have decreased by 57 per cent. compared with 1990 levels, and are expected to decrease by 84 per cent. by 2010. However, I understand that further action is needed.
    I believe that liming—which I understand to be the practice of treating acidified waters with calcium oxide—is proving very successful. The latest evidence shows that the river Tywi—which is in south-west Wales, and was almost fishless in 1990—has had an increase of about 600 adult salmon and 2,500 adult sea trout returning to the river each year. However, we shall keep a very close eye on the issue and take account of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: When considering work to improve the environment, will my right hon. Friend have a word with his colleague the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about promoting research and development and a private finance initiative in clean coal technology—which will help not only to improve the environment, but to secure jobs within both the electricity generating industry and the mining industry?
    Mr. Meacher: Yes, I certainly shall. Although my hon. Friend's question is fairly wide of the main question, I am very happy to have such discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I think that clean coal technology is indeed very interesting. It is not yet commercially viable, but it has the potential of achieving continued and high levels of coal production in a manner that minimises the impact on the environment. We are certainly keen to see further research done, both in the private sector and in the public sector, to secure that technology.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the Minister accept that the greatest impetus to a healthy brown trout population is the existence of fishing? Is not the reason why so many Labour Members are enthusiastic supporters of the practice of fishing the fact that fishing is good for conservation? However, if that is true, why do not the same arguments apply to the co-existence of a healthy fox population and hunting?
    Mr. Meacher: That is a very good try. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but I am afraid that there is no analogy between the two issues.

    Transport Infrastructure
    Gillian Merron: What progress regional development agencies are making in developing transport infrastructure in the regions. [128406]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The RDAs are expected to work within the regional transport strategies, which are key parts of the regional planning guidance. The RDAs are making a significant input into those strategies, and will also be invited to comment on the forthcoming 10-year plan for transport.
    Gillian Merron: Bearing in mind the inextricable link between economic development, prosperity and transport—which is why my constituents so welcomed the Government's commitment to dualling the A46, and the fact that work on that will commence next year—can the Minister say what action she will be taking to ensure that regional development agencies are able to inform and support the development of much-needed train links to places such as Lincoln? Such a link would enable my constituency not only to be drawn more fully into the regional and national rail transport system, but to benefit more fully from economic opportunity.
    Ms Armstrong: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very constructive role that she has played in establishing the Lincoln rail forum. We would expect that the regional development agency would work closely with the local authority and with the franchise director, who operates within guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the provision of rail services within Great Britain. The guidance requires the franchise director to maintain effective liaison with the RDAs. It is, therefore, linking the national, regional and local imperative that will allow us to develop rail services across the country that really meet local people's aspirations while fitting into a national programme.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: That all sounds very fine, but where in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 does it make any mention of transport as a responsibility of RDAs? Is not that something that RDAs have complained about? Is it not also symptomatic of the widespread confusion about the role of RDAs and their relationship with Government, which has been criticised by the Government-appointed RDA board members as follows:
    too many overlapping national and regional bureaucracies, confused delivery systems…too many joins in joined up…a system full of treacle…disjointed, contradictory and very complex…?
    At the crisis meeting in Birmingham last month, the Deputy Prime Minister promised new tools to pursue a wider leadership role for RDAs. Apart from the sacking of the chief executive of the west midlands RDA—Advantage West Midlands—just a week later, what exactly did the Deputy Prime Minister mean?
    Ms Armstrong: Everyone else in the House recognises that for economic development it is vital to have an effective transport infrastructure. Therefore any organisation that is considering economic development will of course liaise with the organisations responsible for the transport infrastructure. That is precisely what is happening and what RDAs are participating in, and why they meet regularly with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.
    As for the second part of the question, the meeting with RDA chairs in Birmingham was to discuss with them the way in which funding will be allocated and developed in the future, and their role in the future. They warmly welcomed the Government's paper and produced a response to it last week. We will publish our views after the spending review next week.
    Mr. David Taylor: Given that the East Midlands development agency was recently very positive about the regenerative potential of the Ivanhoe rail line through north-west Leicestershire and south Derbyshire, is my right hon. Friend confident that next week's comprehensive spending review will free sufficient resources to back such local projects and improvements to the rail infrastructure? Will she encourage one of her colleagues to receive a delegation from Leicestershire, including local Members of Parliament, to discuss the finance potential for that project?
    Ms Armstrong: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport is always happy to meet Members of Parliament to discuss their commitment to developing local transport initiatives. The recent local transport plans demonstrated the Government's commitment to building up local transport that will make a real difference to local people, both in terms of economic development opportunities and more effective public transport. I am sure that those factors will be taken into account in the spending review for the next three years.

    Brownfield Development
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What proportion of houses in England has been built on brownfield sites in the last three years. [128407]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The latest year for which estimates are available is 1997—the last year of the previous Administration. In the three years to 1997, 56 per cent. of new dwellings were built on previously developed land or provided by converting existing buildings.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen to answer this question himself. Does he recall saying that the green belt was a great Labour achievement and we should build on it? Would it not be a better achievement if we stopped the present rate of building on greenbelt and greenfield sites and gave
    692
    developers some real incentives to build on brownfield sites, so that we could meet the Government's target of 60 per cent?
    Mr. Prescott: The area of greenbelt land has increased by 2 per cent. under this Government. In the last four or five years of the previous Administration, it did not increase at all. It might have been useful for the hon. Gentleman to consider the implications of the 56 per cent. development on brownfield sites. That means that 44 per cent. of development under the previous Administration was on greenfield sites.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been extremely successful in getting some regeneration into inner-city areas, mainly on brownfield sites? Is he aware that there is now a major problem with the European Union's refusal to let us continue with gap funding? Can my right hon. Friend say something helpful to ensure that developers can carry out redevelopment of brownfield sites and existing buildings in our inner cities to continue that urban renaissance?
    Mr. Prescott: I very much agree not only with what my hon. Friend says, but with what the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, of which he is a Chairman, has been pointing out to us—namely, that we should increase the amount of building on brownfield sites. I gave a commitment to the House to increase building on such sites to 60 per cent. by 2008 and we will stand by that commitment. I am not sure what the Opposition's commitment is—it has changed five times in five years. The previous Administration stated that it would be 50 per cent. in their housing White Paper of 1995; their household growth Green Paper said 60 per cent.; at the election they said 60 per cent.; the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said 70 per cent. in October 1997 and 66 per cent. in January 1998; and by March 2000 it was 70 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell the House which figure they are picking ready for the election.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is it not the case that under this Government the proportion of new development on brownfield sites is falling and that there is no prospect in the real world of the Government hitting even their own targets? Is it any wonder that the Secretary of State is poised to ignore the democratic voice of the south-east regional planning committee and permit large tracts of the south-east to be concreted over?
    Mr. Prescott: I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not give us the latest version of the percentage figure that the Opposition accept at present. He is wrong to suggest that the proportion of new development on such sites is falling. I said that in the last year for which figures are available—1997—it was 56 per cent. and the figure for the two previous years was 56 per cent. That is exactly where we are at the moment. To be fair, it fell in only one year, which was 1997—I should have said that it was 55 per cent. then, not 56 per cent. Our target means that we have to increase it by 0.5 per cent. a year. It is a tough target, but we have already spelled out to the House

    693
    how we intend to do it: with the land database, the urban report by Lord Rogers and other things that make it clear that the change to the sequential testing means that one has to show that one is building on a brownfield site before there is any agreement for a greenfield site.

    Humber Bridge
    9. Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on tolls for the Humber bridge [128408]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Humber bridge board, which owns the bridge, is responsible for its operation and its finances, and for proposing any changes in the tolls to be charged. The Secretary of State has responsibility for determining applications to revise tolls solely according to certain statutory criteria.
    Shona McIsaac: While I welcome some of the action that the Government have taken to assist the board to restructure the debt on the bridge, does my hon. Friend agree that Europe's plans to impose value added tax on tolls will have a devastating effect on the communities north and south of the Humber? If that is to happen, I suggest that he does one of two things: restructure the debt again so that there is no increase in the tolls, or wipe it out completely.
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these matters on behalf of her constituents. She has acknowledged that the Government have made considerable progress in finding a solution to the debt problem of the Humber bridge.
    On VAT on tolls, I must enter the usual caveat that that is a matter for the Chancellor and the Paymaster General. Having said that, the position, as my hon. Friend said, is that we await the European Court's judgment. As she knows, the United Kingdom has staunchly opposed the Commission's view that tolls involve a business activity and should be taxable at the standard rate. We take the view that tolling is an exempt activity of a public body in pursuit of a statutory obligation. I can make no further commitment with regard to restructuring the debt. Naturally, we hope that our view will prevail in Europe. If the tolls of all tolled undertakings had to rise to take account of VAT, it would not be right to mitigate the effect of VAT by subsidy for the Humber bridge alone.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Perhaps we can revisit this matter when the European Court has given its ruling.
    Does the Minister agree that the proposed £1 toll on the Millennium bridge is too high? What would be the impact of VAT on that toll?
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are on the Humber bridge at the moment and I know where that is—it is nowhere near that other bridge.

    Tenant Initiatives
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: If he will make a statement on the progress of initiatives to give tenants a greater role in running their own estates. [128409]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The introduction of best value in housing and of tenant participation compacts from 1 April 2000 should ensure that tenants have more influence over the way in which their homes are managed. We will be monitoring whether local authorities have introduced compacts, and their performance on tenant participation generally, through this year's annual housing investment programme assessment process. We have also recently commissioned research to monitor how best value in housing and compacts are being introduced and developed. The initial findings will be available next year.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He is undoubtedly aware that a number of large housing estates are run by housing associations, sometimes after large-scale voluntary transfer. Will he encourage such associations to follow the lead of those such as the Swaythling housing society in Southampton in introducing programmes of tenant participation and tenant management on their estates, so that the benefits of the programme that he outlined can be extended to other estates?
    Mr. Raynsford: I very much agree with the approach described by my hon. Friend, and can confirm that the Government are working closely with the Housing Corporation so that the introduction of best value in respect of local authorities and tenant participation compacts is mirrored by measures taken by housing associations to ensure that they adopt best value principles and that they fully involve their tenants in an appropriate participation framework.
    Mr. John Bercow: Which three steps would most empower tenants?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman asks which three steps would most empower tenants, but, if he had read our housing Green Paper, published in April, he would know that the measures that we are taking to give tenants greater choice, greater opportunity in respect of lettings policy and fairer rent structures will all give tenants a far greater say and involvement in their housing. That will lead to greater tenant satisfaction.

    Drinking Water
    Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the water quality consultation on regulations for drinking water. [128410]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The consultation period for proposed new regulations on drinking water quality closed on Friday 30 June, and almost 350 responses were received by that date.

    695
    The 10th annual report of the drinking water inspectorate, which will be published tomorrow, shows a welcome further improvement in water quality, and reports that water companies are well placed to meet the quality improvements required by the new regulations.
    Jane Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply.
    No one likes furry kettles, so will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituent, Mrs. Sandy Campbell and her company, SC Softeners? Given that the regulations under consultation appear to propose a more stringent regime than the EU regulations on which they were based, will he give my constituent some assurance that she can continue to contribute to water softening and improved water quality under the new regime?
    Mr. Meacher: I certainly can give that assurance. My hon. Friend is right: under the new EC directive, we had the option to reduce controls on sodium or artificially softened water. On the advice of the Department of Health, we opted not to do so. The reason for that is the concern that when sodium is used in conjunction with infant formula, it should be safe for babies to drink without putting them at risk of the condition, infant hypernatraemia.
    A problem has arisen because of an orchestrated campaign of misinformation: people, who may include my hon. Friend's constituent, have been told that they will have to blend their softened water with hard water in order to achieve the desired result. That is not true. The regulations will have no impact on them whatever.
    Officials from the Department of Health are meeting representatives of British Water—because they have the greatest concerns about the matter—further to discuss the regulations.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister consider carefully the provisions under any new draft directives emanating from Brussels on the quality of drinking water? Is he aware of estimates showing that 50 per cent. of previous EU directives have not dealt with aspects of health and safety, but were entirely to do with the colour and taste of water? It can thus fairly be said that this country has spent hundreds of millions—if not billions—of pounds on meeting unnecessary standards.
    Mr. Meacher: Of course the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the health and safety of drinking water is absolutely at a premium, but I believe that he understates how important it is that all householders should receive water that is not unpleasant to taste or discoloured. Some 300 or 400 incidents a year are reported. I believe that, as we shall learn tomorrow, the number is gradually decreasing, but it is a matter of serious concern. It is true that, partly as a result of the investments that began under the previous Government but which we have extended substantially, the quality of drinking water in this country is second to none—as good as it is anywhere in the continent, and I would say considerably better than that of bottled water.

    Local Deprivation
    Ms Karen Buck: If he will publish the underlying data used to compile the proposed index of local deprivation. [128411]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Last December we published for consultation the information relating to local authority district rankings on five different measures of deprivation. As part of the consultation exercise we also offered each authority information on the ward scores and rankings for their area. I am today arranging for the updated ward scores and rankings to be sent to each authority for information. The summary report will be published later this year along with the deprivation scores and rankings of all wards and districts in England. The report will provide details of where to obtain, subject to any confidentiality constraints, the underlying raw data.
    Ms Buck: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply. She will be aware of the concern that exists in some London boroughs about the possible implications for the index. I wonder whether she will allow a period of formal consultation following the publication of the data that she has announced today, to allow authorities to respond on the basis of that new information. Will deprived wards or ward clusters that fall outside the new index of local deprivation priority rank be able to access Government funding streams targeted at certain deprived areas?
    Ms Armstrong: The work is a research project which has been carried out for the Department and for the Government by Oxford university. It provides considerable new information. We are now using 33 different factors to give us better information about wards. That information has been shared with authorities over the past six months. The formal consultation finished earlier this year and additional work has been taking place to refine that.
    We shall ensure that, before the index is used to allocate money, it takes account of the fact that we are in a changing position, and therefore we would of course institute transitional arrangements if and when we do proceed. This is a very difficult issue. No statistics tell the whole story. None of us trusts statistics wholly. However, we want to ensure that we obtain the best information available, so that local authorities know where deprivation is occurring and where they should target their money in order to tackle that deprivation.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister accept that if her local deprivation index takes into account access or lack of access to a local sub-post office, it is set to show increasing deprivation because of the Government's cancellation of £400 million of revenues going to sub-post offices? Can she further confirm that the so-called guarantee against closures of sub-post offices will be completely worthless, because the fine print shows that the Government will still allow them to close if they cannot find anyone willing to run them because they have rendered them unprofitable?
    Ms Armstrong: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the right hon. Gentleman his answer some questions ago: that under the present Government there has been a concerted effort to improve access to services for people, wherever they live. The index and the work that I mentioned, as well as other work through the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, will enable us better to ensure that people, wherever they live, have access to the services that they need, including post offices. The statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a couple of weeks ago demonstrates that the Government will follow through that commitment, and that support for rural post offices—and post offices in urban areas that have been struggling—will now be much more secure than it ever was under the regime of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

    Affordable Housing
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will revise planning guidance to allow local authorities to require that all housing developments in their area include at least 50 per cent. of homes at affordable cost for members of their local community. [128412]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Planning policy guidance note 3 "Housing" and circular 6/98 "Planning and Affordable Housing" recognise a community's need for affordable housing as a material planning consideration, and allow local authorities to require an appropriate percentage of such housing on suitable sites, where a local need exists. We have no plans at present to revise the guidance.
    Mr. Hughes: That is an unsatisfactory answer. I have not seen the minutes of the policy forum in Exeter, but would the Labour party like to think about a slightly radical policy for the next general election? Would it like to allow local councils, which at present are able only to have housing built to meet demand, not need—expensive homes rather than affordable homes—to decide that up to 50 per cent. of the properties in any housing development should be affordable? Can we have homes for people on lower incomes rather than big profits for property developers?
    Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman bothered to look at reality rather than producing soundbites, he would realise that that is possible under the existing guidance that he ridiculed. The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has recently agreed a major new private development with a 50 per cent. element of affordable housing. If it can do it in London, so can other authorities. The hon. Gentleman, who represents a London constituency, should check his facts in future before mouthing soundbites.
    Ms Claire Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the increasing demand for affordable housing is making it difficult in Hertfordshire, and especially in my
    698
    constituency, to recruit teachers, nurses and many other public sector or lower-paid employees to work? What advice and hope can he give to those communities that the Government will introduce measures to assist local councils and housing associations to provide affordable accommodation and thereby ensure that we can fill those important jobs within the public sector?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. She will know that in the housing Green Paper that we published two months ago, we set out a number of proposals for tackling precisely those needs. Those proposals include the starter home initiative, which is designed to help precisely the categories that she mentions—teachers and nurses—who need accommodation to enable them to work in the area in which they live. She will also be aware of our concern to introduce more effective measures to ensure a good supply of affordable housing provided through both the Housing Corporation-funded programme and planning agreements such as the one to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: But why are the Government building fewer affordable houses than the previous Government? Surely if the previous Government could do it, this Government ought to be able to do it.
    Mr. Raynsford: Before the hon. Gentleman asks such a question, he ought to do a bit of homework. He would then know that the programme that we inherited from the previous Government involved a dramatic and damaging decline year on year—1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. We have stopped the decline. We have guaranteed the funding for the Housing Corporation. The hon. Gentleman will obviously have to wait until after the spending review to see plans for the future.

    Green Belt
    Mr. James Clappison: What plans he has to give additional protection to the green belt. [128413]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government remain firmly committed to the protection of green belts. Planning policy guidance note 2 contains a presumption against inappropriate development in designated green belts.
    Mr. Clappison: Earlier the Secretary of State spoke about obtaining more information about brownfield sites, but is he aware that in authorities such as Hertsmere, the planners have already done their homework and, in that borough as in many others in the south-east of England, there are precious few brownfield sites left in the sense of previously developed sites, let alone derelict or damaged sites? Is he aware that the greater the housing targets required of boroughs, the greater the incursion will be into the green belt, at the expense of the countryside, the environment and quality of life? Will he consider real

    699
    policies to strengthen the green belt, rather than concreting over huge swaths of countryside, and will he listen to the views of Serplan?
    Mr. Raynsford: As a former Minister in the Department that we have succeeded, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the very considerable range of policy development that has taken place in the three years since we took over responsibility from him and his
    700
    colleagues. He will know about PPG3; he will know about the sequential approach; and he will know about the proposals on increasing densities. They are all designed to ensure that we make better use of brownfield sites, that we provide for the housing needs of our country and that we do so while taking no more greenfield land than would otherwise have been required. That is practical, sensible politics, designed to balance a responsible attitude to the environment with a responsible attitude towards meeting housing needs.

Type 45 Destroyers
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the procurement of the first type 45 destroyers.
The strategic defence review set out the Government's firm commitment to a modern and effective destroyer and frigate force for the Royal Navy, including substantial investment in new ships.
I am pleased to be able to announce today that we have decided to procure the first type 45 destroyers, part of a planned class of up to 12 ships. The type 45s will be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy.
Subject to the satisfactory completion of negotiations, a contract will be placed later this year with BAE Systems for the construction of the first three of these ships, and certain large items such as the propulsion plant for a further three, at a total cost of about £1 billion. The first ship will enter operational service in 2007. 1 expect a contract for the second batch of ships to be placed in about 2004.
These ships represent a huge improvement in capability over the type 42 destroyers that they will replace. Their key weapon system will be the highly advanced and capable principal anti-air missile system—PAAMS—already being procured in collaboration with France and Italy.
The type 45s equipped with PAAMS will defend other ships against the most dangerous supersonic sea-skimming missiles as well as enemy aircraft. In this role, the type 45 will protect a wide range of our maritime assets, from aircraft carriers to logistics vessels. In addition, the type 45 will be a highly potent, multi-role platform capable of operations across the spectrum of tasks from peace support to high-intensity warfare.
The design will be capable of evolutionary improvement over the life of the class, through an incremental acquisition plan—a key feature of smart procurement. Its size, at about 7,200 tonnes, will ensure that space is available to allow for both additional and enhanced capabilities to meet this plan.
Our procurement strategy for the build phase has been developed with the maximum participation of the prime contractor, in line with smart procurement principles. This has allowed a rapid recovery following the demise last year of the tri-national Horizon programme—a programme which had been running since 1994 to meet the Navy's need for a new area air defence ship. Under the control of the prime contractor, a single design definition is being developed involving the two shipbuilders, Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems Marine, in a risk-sharing design team. This means that from the outset we have a design that can be efficiently constructed by either company.
Our intention to place a first-build contract for three ships is a further break from the traditional way of contracting for destroyers and frigates. Previously we would have ordered only a single first of class. This approach means better, cheaper procurement.
Our approach in this programme will ensure that experience in type 45 construction is spread between BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft. That will assist future competition for follow-on ships.
702
Radical modular construction techniques will also assist competition. We will invite bids from both traditional shipyards and from wider industry for the manufacture of modules. These might be a section of the ship from keel to main deck, with equipment and systems already installed.
This method of construction represents a revolution for warship building in this country. Although it has been successfully employed in the commercial shipbuilding sector and overseas, we have never before used it for Royal Navy ships. It will permit more efficient construction of the warships and provide a basis for effective competition from a wider industrial base.
Provided that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed between the prime contractor and the two shipbuilders, we intend that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE Systems Marine and the second ship by Vosper Thornycroft. Both companies will be able to compete independently for the assembly of batches of follow-on ships.
The type 45 programme will sustain up to 3,000 jobs directly in the shipyards over the next 10 years, and it will sustain or create almost as many elsewhere in the defence industry. It is part of the largest programme of warship construction in this country since the second world war. The first of class is expected to be launched from the BAE Systems Marine Scotstoun yard on the Clyde. I understand that Vosper Thornycroft is examining the possibility of building type 45s at Portsmouth as an alternative to Woolston.
Finally, I am pleased to announce that the class is to be named the D class. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed to the first of class being named HMS Daring, and the second HMS Dauntless. This revives two famous names that have served the Royal Navy well since the early 1800s. As the seventh ship to bear the name, Daring's most recent predecessors were destroyers from 1932 to 1940 and from 1952 to 1974. It will be the sixth time that the name Dauntless has been used; the last warship of that name was a cruiser from 1918 to 1946.
Today's announcement clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to maintaining the shipbuilding industry in this country, and our determination to procure military equipment faster, more cheaply and better than we have in the past. It is good news for Britain and Britain's shipbuilding industry, and it is good news for the Royal Navy. I commend these proposals to the House.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his courtesy in passing the statement to me reasonably early, so that I would be able to respond.
I unequivocally welcome the announcement of the order for the two ships and I congratulate the yards that have been successful in obtaining the orders. Although I welcome the statement, it is worth pointing out—only in passing, of course—that this is the first warship order to be placed by this Government in the past three years. It is good news, but the Secretary of State needs to assure the House that older ships in need of refit will not be paid off early over the next few years as a result of the order. I would like him to make that point unequivocally at the Dispatch Box.
The Secretary of State also referred to the nature of the contract, and said that the design had been produced by two companies that subsequently bid for the contract. Will

703
he tell us how he will balance that fact with the competition element, if yards such as Swan cannot bid because they do not have access to commercially sensitive information? How will he deal with that matter, and maintain a competitive environment?
Today's announcement of the type 45 is in many senses tied up with the roll on/roll off ferry order, which is not, it appears, going to Govan. Will the Secretary of State remove any doubt and tell us whether that order will go to British yards, or is he preparing to let it go overseas? Is he using this announcement as a smokescreen to try to make that sound like good news at this moment?
The Secretary of State referred to the air defence system, but then moved quickly on to other matters. Why was he so coy about all the other systems? An order has been placed for the ships' hulls, but the key question relates to the fact that their capability will depend wholly on the systems used. Therefore, I have a few questions about the systems, which I hope that he will answer.
On Merlin, will the Secretary of State dispel the doubts that have appeared in the press? Will he confirm that the type 45 will be able to carry, and will carry, Merlin helicopters, and that the landing systems on the ships will be designed to carry them? Otherwise, the capabilities of the ships will be much reduced.
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the ships will receive the very best and latest design of command and control, and that they will not be hamstrung by costs so that they have to accept a lesser system, as has been reported and leaked by the Navy?
Will the ships have surface-to-surface guided weapons capability, and if so, will he tell us which one that will be? Will they have a good close-in weapons system—or is it, as reported, unlikely that they will get one at all?
The launchers will be critical and the Secretary of State referred briefly to them in connection to PAAMS. However, is it the case that the ships will not be able to fire tactical Tomahawks using the launchers because the launchers are not capable of accommodating tactical Tomahawk or Tomahawk as it exists today? Will that not limit their capacity to operate in the environment that the Secretary of State described?
The Secretary of State's strategic defence review rightly said that our troops are likely to be at risk in future from ballistic missiles in theatre. Will these ships have any anti-ballistic missile capability to deal with that, or is the Secretary of State planning to design in any capacity, as referred to in his own SDR? Will he assure the House that the Sylver launcher will be adapted to make such flexibility available, and tell us what the cost of that will be? What is his response to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence that such flexibility should be incorporated?
We have heard reports that either the sonar capability will be very limited or there will be none at all, certainly in coastal waters. Is it not a reality that more and more potential aggressors whom we might face are investing money in the coastal capability of submarines? Will the Secretary of State clarify the position, as without either a Merlin or such coastal capability, does this ship not become vulnerable to attack?
The Secretary of State said that the ship would be designed on commercial lines. Will he explain the Navy's attitude to that in relation to the protection of the ship?
704
What lessons have been learned on damage control, especially from the Falklands, and can those be implemented? Will sacrifices on damage control issues be made for commercial reasons?
In conclusion, we welcome today's statement about the order for ships, which we have been urging the Government to make for some time. However, serious questions remain about the systems. The ships alone are not good enough, as they rely on the systems to operate properly. This weekend, the comments of a naval officer were leaked in the press. He said that if the ships do not get the best systems, it will be a case of
cut price ships for a cut price Navy.
In short, is this going to be a first-rate Royal Navy ship—or a Treasury ship?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, at least for his opening remarks and his conclusion. I am not quite sure about what he said in between, and I shall try to deal with that in due course.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman, or any Conservative Back Bencher, is in a position to criticise too much the fact that we have made this announcement today. I mentioned the date that the Horizon programme started, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might just have noticed that that was during the Conservative Administration. The programme failed—and frankly, one reason for the delay in making the announcement is the fact that we had to deal with the failure of the previous Government. We have managed to turn that failure around with the outstanding success that we are announcing today. The hon. Gentleman does not have much ground for complaint. If there were delays, they were the creation of the Government whom he supported.
As for competition with other yards, the idea underlying the use of modules is partly that we can extend the opportunity for constructing parts of these ships to yards other than the two that I mentioned. Equally, clearly we can involve those who are not necessarily shipbuilders, either historically or traditionally, which will be good for competition and for British industry, as it will diversify the necessary skills and ensure that others are involved in the process. There will be real opportunities for the shipyard that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as well as other shipyards—and, indeed, those who, perhaps, have not previously seen themselves as in the business of making ships.
I see no connection whatever between that and the order for ro-ro ferries. The total of this order already amounts to some £1 billion. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I do the House, that the Government are not in the business of spending £1 billion of taxpayers' money as a smokescreen. This is a vital capability required for the Royal Navy, and is long overdue as a result of the failure of the previous Government to organise procurement effectively.
The hon. Gentleman asked detailed questions about systems. I shall simply back his concluding point, as he is right to say that it is vital that we rely on the systems to make sure that these ships operate effectively. In the past the Royal Navy, like navies throughout the world, has had the problem that the technology moves on much more quickly than does the ability, for example, to build a ship.

705
That also applies more generally to procurement of high-technology equipment. Central to the way in which the ships are to be designed is the fact that they will be capable of adjustment as the technology changes and develops. In response to the hon. Gentleman's points about Merlin, command and control, surface-to-surface guided weapons, close-control weapon systems and tactical Tomahawk, there will be an ability to deploy each of those weapons, should they be appropriate when the ships enter service in 2007. We shall be able to consider the strategic situation in the years leading up to 2007.
Let me make it clear that the ship's design and development is firmly in the hands of the Royal Navy, which is advising Ministers about the decisions that are made. The Navy is happy not only with the particular decisions made about these ships, but with the sophisticated range of warship building on which the Government have embarked, so I see no cause for concern. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Merlin?"]
This will be a very different approach from that taken in the past, when technology has overtaken the vehicle carrying the various systems. Instead, we will be able to adjust. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Merlin?"] Opposition Members keep repeating the word "Merlin". I have made it clear that it will be possible to use Merlin from the ship, if necessary. Those judgments will have to be made in light of the circumstances closer to the in-service date of 2007.
Mr. Syd Rapson: I welcome the statement, especially as it places contracts with British shipyards. Of particular interest to me is the possibility—and it is only a possibility—of shipbuilding returning to Portsmouth, whether in my constituency at Vosper Thornycroft or in the dockyard in the constituency of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). We would both support that. I hope that the statement does not undermine Vosper in the competition process, or with regard to the company's capacity for ship repair. We will look into that later, but I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and the welcome possibility of shipbuilding returning to Portsmouth.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to use the word "possibility"; ultimately, a commercial decision will be made by Vosper Thornycroft, but I understand that it is considering the matter carefully.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It would be churlish not to welcome the placing of this order—and, in particular, not to recognise the innovative approach being adopted for design, with the involvement of BAE and Vosper at that stage. Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the advantages of the design will be to provide a higher standard of accommodation for all ranks who serve on the ship?
I respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman that he rather pushed aside the question of the roll on/roll off ferries, and there is no doubt that there is considerable anxiety about that order. I hope that he will be able to tell the House that he expects to make an announcement about the Government's position very soon.
Should not we recognise the fact that there has been some trade-off between cost and capability because of funding constraints? The Secretary of State does not have
706
to take my word for that; he can accept the conclusions of Jane's Defence Weekly, which said that the type 45 would enter service without some desired capabilities, several of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks for the official Opposition. Is not the real question the extent to which the overall capability of the vessel will be affected if it goes into service without them? What assessment have the Government made of its ability to fulfil the likely tasks that will be imposed on it in the foreseeable future without the particular capabilities that have already been drawn to the Secretary of State's attention?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. He is right to say that one of the advantages of the new designs is significantly to improve accommodation for those who work on board the ship. I know that he had to raise the question of ro-ros, but I am at a loss as to why that is considered relevant to today's statement. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends suggests that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, every cloud has a silver—[Laughter.] Perhaps I will forget about that, but it was a good joke the way my hon. Friend told it to me.
As for cost and capability, we have to recognise that there are limitless capabilities that can be incorporated into any given ship. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned some, and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) mentioned others. It is always necessary to make an assessment of what we want any given ship to do. The Royal Navy is entirely happy—indeed, pleased—about the prospect that this ship, whose primary function will be defensive, against an attack from the air, will have a full range of equipment for that purpose. In addition, there will be opportunities for adjusting and enhancing that capability in future. That is built into the design. As I have said, the danger, otherwise, is that we design a ship for today's technology, knowing that it cannot enter service until 2007, as this one will. The reality is that technology and the strategic situation will have changed by then, and we shall not have the opportunity of making adjustments to the design. The design of the ship allows for changes and enhancements as we go along; that must be a smart way of dealing with the problem of a changing strategic environment.
Mr. Frank Field: Is the Secretary of State aware that as he was preparing his statement, Cammell Laird was declaring record profits, output and employment growth? Does it puzzle my right hon. Friend as much as it puzzles me that this premier group of yards, which wins its orders from a worldwide market, finds it so difficult to fight its way through the public procurement procedure? If he is as puzzled as I am, will he ponder on that before he makes his next group of announcements, to which I look forward?
Mr. Hoon: Certainly, as I made clear, there will be the opportunity for other yards to bid for the modules for the construction of the third ship and for subsequent ships, bearing in mind the fact that we have made an announcement in relation to the first three of a planned

707
class of 12. Clearly there will be opportunities for other yards, including Cammell Laird, to participate in what will be an exciting programme.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is it smart procurement to make the statement months before a contract will be placed?
Mr. Hoon: The issue for the House is to be informed of the Government's intentions as soon as those intentions become clear. We have done that. Had we delayed, we would have been criticised for delaying. We are giving the House as much information as we can as early as we can.
Mr. George Galloway: Please forgive me, Madam Speaker, for appearing before you improperly dressed. I had not expected this statement to be made today.
Will the Secretary of State accept from me that this is wonderful news for the Clyde, for Glasgow and for the hard pressed economy of west central Scotland? It is especially gratifying that the first of class of the new type 45s, which I hope will never have to be used in anger, will go down the slipway of the first-class Yarrow shipbuilders in Scotstoun in my constituency, where the work force is grieving the untimely death, at a very young age, of the shop stewards' convener, Stewart Crawford? In a dark week for the work force, my right hon. Friend's announcement will come as great news.
Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that it is "dauntless", even "daring", for us to have an unexpected visit from the three Scottish National party Members? If they had their way, made England a foreign country and broke up the United Kingdom, none of those ships and none of those jobs would be coming to Scotland.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly good news for Glasgow, for the Clyde and for the United Kingdom, whose Royal Navy is ordering these ships.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not ironic that the most Europhile Secretary of State for Defence that we have had for a long time should be announcing, in essence, a national programme to fulfil an area of our defence requirement for the Royal Navy that could not be fulfilled either by the NFR 90 or by the Horizon project collaborative European programmes before it?
Is there not a risk that the type 42s will have to continue for an inordinately long time—longer than anticipated—at an extra cost to the Exchequer, as estimated by the National Audit Office, of £537 million? Furthermore, is there not a risk that the principal anti-air missile system, which is in essence a Franco-Italian ASTER missile system, could be late, with a further augmentation to cost and a further deficiency in the overall capability of an already under-equipped ship?
Mr. Hoon: As I made clear to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on defence, we
708
are making the announcement today because of the failure of a joint programme entered into by the Conservative Government whom the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—sometimes—supported. We had to pick up the pieces from that failure. I made it clear that the reality of modern warfare for a modern Royal Navy is its involvement in sophisticated joint projects. The defence systems that will be employed will be joint projects involving France and Italy. Sophisticated collaborative projects are inevitable in the modern world, and we need to ensure that the Royal Navy is equipped with the very best and latest technology.
Mr. Ian Davidson: May I tell the Secretary of State clearly and unequivocally what a wonderful man he is for announcing the order, which will create and safeguard so many jobs on Clydeside? May I say how much I, and my constituents south of the Clyde, welcome the way in which the ships will be built? That will mean work going to Govan shipyard, as well as to Yarrow. May I ask him, however, about the engines of the ships? Will the Rolls-Royce WR21 engine be selected in due course? As he is probably aware, a number of export orders depend on whether that engine gains credibility by powering the vessel. Finally, although modesty precludes my suggesting any name for the D class, should my own be suggested, I would not resist its use.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, although he will forgive me for saying that I have not been used—lately, at any rate—to enjoying such enthusiasm on the part of my hon. Friends north of the border. No decisions have yet been taken about the engines. A fiercely competitive commercial contract is on offer for them. Rolls-Royce is certainly one of the bidders, and I am sure that it will submit an extremely competitive and effective tender. As for my hon. Friend's final observation, I shall have to investigate with my naval historians whether there has ever been an HMS Davidson—although there is a first time for everything.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has made the announcement today, and I am sure that everyone in Portsmouth is delighted at the prospect of a return to shipbuilding at its naval base. That will happen only if Fleet Support Ltd. co-operates—and, more importantly, if the Ministry of Defence makes facilities available to Vosper in the naval base and dockyard area. I hope that there will be no impediment in the way of that. I am also grateful for the Secretary of State's comment about module development. I hope that if it is not possible to build the ships in Portsmouth dockyard, the MOD will try to secure Vosper's support at least for the building of some of the modules there.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's constructive approach. I made it clear that ultimately, Vosper Thornycroft must decide on the opportunity. Its facilities in Southampton will certainly be made available for the modular construction process that we anticipate, providing benefits across the country. Instead of the benefits of such a contract being located in a particular

709
yard or two, as has historically been the case, there is an opportunity for the whole of the UK's shipbuilding industry to benefit.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: May I express my delight at the announcement that the second of class will be built on the south coast by Vosper Thornycroft—a shipyard with a proud record of building first-class vessels for the British Navy over many years? Naturally, my personal inclination would be towards ensuring that it was built at Woolston. Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend has said about the possibility of the work going to Portsmouth, will he assure me that any decisions will be reached purely on commercial considerations, and that the requirement, were production to be transferred, for Vosper to use a Royal Navy dockyard, will not receive any additional consideration other than that of commercial best practice?
Mr. Hoon: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's concern. I have always emphasised the importance of the commercial considerations that will effect any decision taken by Vosper Thornycroft. Whatever decision it takes on the precise location, I am confident that it will continue to require the very considerable skills of the work force in and around Southampton, which have been built up over many years and will still be required to complete such a contract—as well as future warship orders that the Government will be making in due course.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: As an ex-shipwright—the only one in the House, I think—I am always delighted to hear news of vessels being built in our yards. I only hope that Cammell Laird and other yards will secure orders in the future. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive my greed, but I want to see the four ro-ro vessels built on the upper Clyde, by my constituents. I think that I am right in saying that I have more constituents in those yards than any of my hon. Friends. It may not be within my right hon. Friend's gift, but I would be grateful if he would ask BAE to ensure that when workers are recruited to Scotstoun and Govan, they are given decent terms of engagement, not short-term contracts. If the work is there, craftsmen and others should be given security of tenure.
Mr. Hoon: It was only on 6 July that we received the revised bids relating to the ro-ro ferry order. A great deal of detailed work has already gone into an assessment of those bids, and a lot of work was done over the weekend to give us an idea of how they were shaping. More work will still have to be done, but I will certainly try to ensure that the House is given as early a warning as possible of the likely outcome of the bids.
Mr. David Davis: There is much to welcome in the Secretary of State's announcement today, but may I ask him how he will deal with one potential problem? Recurrent in naval systems is the problem of matching—interface. That has led to cost and performance problems over many years, and it is clearly a potential issue with the type 45 and the PAAMS. How will the Secretary of State deal with that, given that there are two separate contracts, one under English law and one under French law?
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. We have been concerned about it, because of
710
previous problems that have arisen with closed IT architecture systems. Specifically, for all the reasons that I hope I have set out to the House already, the IT systems need to be capable of being enhanced and developed, and must also able to respond to brand-new systems that may still be in the process of being thought up, never mind designed. Central to our approach is the idea that the IT systems on board the ships will involve an open architecture, and will be capable of being enhanced and of interfacing with new systems dependent, using a completely different approach. Built into the heart of the radar systems is the ability to interface with new, and, I hope, developing technology.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State today, on behalf of the Royal Navy and the British shipbuilding industry. I recently welcomed to my constituency HMS Somerset and HMS Quorn, and I hope that I am still around when the first type 45 can be invited to call in to the port of Larne. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the radical modular construction technique will extend competition so far as to enable Harland and Wolff to compete, and perhaps even provide an opportunity for Short Brothers?
Mr. Hoon: As I made clear in my statement, and in answer to a number of members of the shipbuilding trade union in the House, it is important that the approach is seen as an opportunity not just for a single successful shipyard, or two successful shipyards, but for all those engaged in shipbuilding, and certainly those in Northern Ireland, to participate in a highly competitive process. The challenge is there for British shipbuilding. If there are British shipbuilders that are competitive and capable of offering bids that win the day, there is work available, and we will be delighted to receive the orders from Northern Ireland, just as much as from any other part of the United Kingdom.
Dr. David Clark: I very much welcome this afternoon's announcement, which is the first of the largest warship orders for many decades. It is good news for Scotland and the south coast of England. My right hon. Friend placed great emphasis on the need to maintain a strong shipbuilding capability. Does he know that only three years ago, 14,000 people worked in river-related jobs on the River Tyne, but that fewer than 1,000 people now work in such jobs? In view of my right hon. Friend's emphasis on commercialisation, will he explain the way in which a shipbuilding company such as Swan Hunter can participate in the order when it is up against its prime competitors, BAE and Vosper Thornycroft?
Mr. Hoon: The way in which the competition is organised is specifically designed to allow not only for competition between the two companies that I have mentioned, but to ensure that those companies make sure that others have the opportunity of participating, especially in the construction of the modules. Many hon. Members know far more about the history of British shipbuilding than I. However, specific shipyards have depended too often on particular orders for their survival. Indicating that the first three ships are part of a planned class of 12 provides an opportunity for some yards to plan

711
for the future. The benefit of such planning for the taxpayer and the Government is that we anticipate that it will reduce the yards' costs, and thus the cost to the British taxpayer. It will also allow the yards to plan ahead, and not be dependent on the single order approach that has done so much damage to British shipbuilding in the past.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome the announcement, and pass over the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway)—which owed more to the state of mind of the Scottish Labour party than to the order.
The first and third warships will be assembled by BAE Systems. The Secretary of State said that the first warship would be launched at Yarrow. Where will the third vessel be launched? On modular construction, will the Secretary of State outline a typical percentage that may be contracted out from the launching yard under the arrangement?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) had a point when he contrasted the policy, which I assume that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) supports, of taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom, with applauding an order placed on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The hon. Gentleman is being a little uncharitable to my hon. Friend, who used his powerful and logical mind to expose the dishonesty that the hon. Gentleman appears to want to avoid mentioning. However, in view of the hon. Gentleman's generosity, I shall not make too much of that.
If the third ship is to be assembled on the Clyde, it follows that it will be launched from there.
Mr. Tony Worthington: The news that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
712
has announced today is welcome to my constituents who work in Govan and Yarrow. He will know BAE Systems' view that, were it to obtain the order for ro-ro ferries, the preparatory work would reduce the price of the ships that we are discussing. Would that not be smart procurement?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is tempting me to put together two different orders for which there are different sets of criteria. The previous Government approached the matter in a similar way. Ro-ro ferries have a commercial requirement, which contrasts with the military requirement for the warships. I have made the Government's position on ro-ro ferries clear. I shall try to make an early announcement.
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Quentin Davies. [Interruption.] Mr. Davies?
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Secretary of State finally come clean on the question that he has studiously avoided until now—the Merlin? It is not a future weapons system; it is coming into service now. Contrary to expectation, the platform on the type 45s does not specify taking the Merlin. Why not?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) had to be disturbed.
I have already said that the platform will be capable of taking the Merlin. Judgments will be made nearer the in-service date about the equipment that will be required on the platform to take the Merlin. It is sensible to approach such matters in that way, rather than to design a ship today, knowing that the in-service date is 2007 and that the technology is likely to change. We are preserving flexibility in the design and the equipment that will be available—precisely to avoid the problems that we and the previous Government faced because ships were designed knowing that the technology would be significantly different when they came into service.

Points of Order
4.11 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can clarify a point that has arisen as a result of a reply to an answer given at 3.30 this afternoon on the publication of the Treasury report, "Review of Ill Health Retirement in the Public Sector". The reply states that the present levels of retirement on the grounds of ill health in the public sector are higher than necessary, at 22,000. However, a letter from the Secretary of State pursuant to an answer given in the House on 4 July in relation to consultants states:
The Department of Health does not collect data on the number of early retirements.
The Treasury is either using old NHS data or excluding NHS employees from its figures, making nonsense of the report. Or perhaps figures exist of which the Secretary of State for Health either is or is not aware. In either case, the Government will have a lot of explaining to do. Have you, Madam Speaker, had any request from the Treasury or the Department of Health to make a statement to establish which version of the truth we are supposed to accept?
Madam Speaker: I have not heard that any Department is seeking to make such a statement. There is no basis for the hon. Gentleman's point of order; it is a matter of disagreement, and as such, he should pursue it with the relevant Minister by means of the Order Paper.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been lucky enough to be given sight of a letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) received from the Secretary of State for Defence. It was placed on the letter board before the statement at 3.30. I notice that one or two other hon. Members have also had the privilege of receiving that letter—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) is holding a copy. Is it in order for the Ministry of Defence to place letters containing the details of a statement on the board for Members before the statement is made, or for that to be done at the time of the statement?
Madam Speaker: It is a matter for the Minister concerned if he wishes to communicate with colleagues, wherever they may be. I have been a Member for a very long time under several Governments, and Ministers have always corresponded with colleagues about statements, so there has been no departure. If the hon. Gentleman has more information, perhaps he will give it to me.

European Single Currency (Referendum)
4.13 pm
Mr. John Maples: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a referendum on 28th September 2000 to decide whether the United Kingdom should join the European Single Currency.
It has become commonplace to say that this is the most important political issue that our generation will have to decide, but it is. I have been a firm opponent of Britain joining the European single currency for a long time, but I raise the issue today because I believe that there is significant confusion at the top of the Government which makes an early decision on the issue vital if Britain's interests are to be pursued. I also believe that in this debate the argument should be conducted honestly and openly, not by the chicanery, scaremongering and leaks that we have seen in the past few weeks.
The events of the past few weeks have added confusion to uncertainly. It looks as if there is a conspiracy, involving at least four senior Ministers, to speed Britain's entry into the European single currency. Three Cabinet Ministers and another senior Minister have been sounding the drum for early entry. They have been spreading scare stories in the press and leaking internal documents from their Departments. They arrogantly lecture the rest of us on what is good for business, but would any of us take business advice from them? Apart from the fact that one of them spent a few years working for the late Robert Maxwell—one of the great crooks of the 20th century—they have never between them made a single investment, created a single job or run a single business.
A few weeks ago in the debate on European affairs, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor humiliated the Foreign Secretary by forcing him not to deliver some of the warm remarks about the euro that were contained in the written text of his speech, which, unfortunately for him, had already been released to the press. Afterwards, the Chancellor made sure that those transactions were leaked, to the further embarrassment of the Foreign Secretary. Last Friday, the Foreign Secretary said that joining the euro was inevitable. Within hours, he had been disowned by the Prime Minister's spokesman—again apparently at the Chancellor's request.
Now we come to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—there is a name that the business community conjures with. He is a real expert on European business and a man who understands the intricacies of the minds of German industrialists. A brief phone call to BMW and he has all the facts at his fingertips. What about the Chancellor? He has defended his turf aggressively and his position seems to be, "How dare anybody else have something to say about this issue?" His legendary bad temper seems to have got the better of him and it seems that Leo is not the only baby in Downing street to throw his toys out of his pram. His reward is to be rubbished in the press.
Some weeks ago, a colleague of the Chancellor told us anonymously that he is psychologically flawed. Now, according to other Ministers and again anonymously, we are told that he is either bonkers or power crazed, although I suppose that it is possible to be both. This must be a unique example of a campaign to undermine the authority of a Chancellor of the Exchequer that is apparently sanctioned by the Prime Minister. Where, one

715
asks oneself, has the Prime Minister been in all this? Giving a lead? Not this Prime Minister. He wants to climb, but is frightened to fall. He wants to join, but is terrified of public opinion. He will not bow to public opinion nor lead it, so he seeks to manipulate it.
On the most important issue facing this country, the Prime Minister is paralysed by weakness. That would be funny if we were discussing dragging hooligans off to cashpoints, but the Government's indecision is seriously damaging Britain's position in the European Union. If we eventually decide not to join the euro, we will not be at the heart of Europe. However, I believe that we can construct a more flexible relationship in which Britain can flourish and all the recent talk about manufacturing meltdown and the drying up of foreign investment will be seen for the nonsense that it is. If we decide to join the euro, perhaps we can be at the heart of the EU and perhaps we can influence its policy and future direction in Britain's interest. At the moment, we can do neither.
In a speech on this subject nearly three years ago, the Chancellor set out five tests. Four are so unspecific that they could be answered either way at any time. No doubt that is what he intended. I suggest that over the next two years or so we are unlikely to learn anything more or any further facts that will help us to evaluate whether those tests have been met. Four—on flexibility, investment, employment and the City—can be answered only by joining the euro and seeing what happens. However, we know that being out of the euro for the past 18 months has done us no harm in any of those areas. In fact, in all four we have by far the best record in the EU.
The Chancellor's first—and, I think, main—criterion was that he wanted to see convergence. That is sensible, but he will not find out about convergence in 18 months or two years. I could have understood him saying that he wanted to wait for a whole economic cycle as wanting to see how the single currency works in bad times as well as in good represents a sensible position. What would happen in a recession? After all, a recession destroyed the exchange rate mechanism. We have seen some convergence on inflation and interest rates and even on growth, but there is little or none on economic cycles, or even evidence of it.
There are not five tests, four, three or even two. Like many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I believe that the Prime Minister has only one test: when can he get away with conning the British public into agreeing to join a single currency? That argument has been going on for well over a decade, one way and another. Members of
716
Parliament, newspaper editors, economists and other commentators all made up their minds long ago, did they not? I believe that we all did and that nothing that happens in the next two years will make any of us change our views.
Under this Government, and with the present confusion and uncertainty, the decision can be made only in a referendum. My Bill calls for that referendum to take place on 28 September—the date on which the Danish Government have invited Danish voters to decide whether they want to join. If that is good enough for them, it is good enough for us. However, I acknowledge what one or two of my hon. Friends have said: it would take time to put proper campaigns together, so in due course I should be happy to accept an amendment to allow a referendum to take place a few weeks later. However, it ought to be held before the end of the year.
I have for a long time believed that the euro is bad economics and bad politics. It is like the exchange rate mechanism without an exit door. In any referendum I will campaign vigorously for a no vote. I believe that the time for a referendum has now come. What the business community wants is not a commitment to join, but a decision one way or the other. It needs to know so that it can plan. The Government's position makes that impossible.
Let both sides take their case to the voters. Let us have a proper, full and open argument with the advantages and disadvantages honestly debated. I hope passionately that the answer will be no, and that we can build with the European Union a constructive and flexible relationship of benefit to Britain. If the answer is yes, we will all have to work to ensure that the resulting relationship works to Britain's advantage. A continuation of the current confusion and uncertainty cannot be justified. That confusion bedevils our relationship with the European Union, makes it impossible for business men to plan, and makes the Government look pathetic.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Maples, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Nicholas Soames, Sir Michael Spicer and Sir Peter Tapsell.

European Single Currency (Referendum)
  EUROPEAN SINGLE CURRENCY (REFERENDUM)
  Mr. John Maples accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a referendum on 28th September 2000 to decide whether the United Kingdom should join the European Single Currency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 156].
Orders of the Day

  Hundredth Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
  4.22 pm
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the hundredth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, humbly conveying to Her Majesty, on such a unique and memorable occasion, the loyal affection of the House and the nation for Her Majesty The Queen Mother;
  That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty's Household;
  That a Message be sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother rejoicing with Her on the attainment of Her hundredth birthday; expressing to Her Majesty the people's gratitude for Her lifelong example of trust in the Lord, and courage and service in war and in peace; and praying for Her health and happiness in days to come;
  That Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, Margaret Beckett, Mr. William Hague and Mr. Charles Kennedy do wait upon Her Majesty with the said Message.
  I have moved the motion to assure Her Majesty of the great pleasure that this House shares with the nation on the occasion of the forthcoming 100th birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
  Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother holds a unique place in the heart of the nation and of many people across the world. As we think back over the multitude of events in her long life, many will recall first the remarkable part played by the Queen Mother as Queen and Consort to her much loved husband, the late King George VI. Countless people have etched on their minds the wartime pictures of the Queen and her husband engaging with the hazards of the capital during the blitz. Sustaining the nation's morale and strengthening its resolve in the epic battle for freedom, she was a source of inspiration which sealed her in our nation's heart, just as, during the first world war, the young Lady Elizabeth had provided care and welfare in the hospital at Glamis castle helping others in her direct, straightforward and positive way.
  Her Majesty gives her support to some 350 organisations as patron or president—charities, voluntary bodies and other organisations: a vast tapestry of public service. She is Commandant-in-Chief for women in the Royal Navy and of women in the Royal Air Force, as well as Colonel-in-Chief of seven Army regiments and one Army corps. For many years, she was President of the British Red Cross and remains Commandant-in-Chief of the nursing division of St. John Ambulance. She has enthused countless people, for countless good causes, with her familiar smile, her sparkle and, of course, her wonderful hats.
  Representatives from many of those organisations will come together in a unique tribute on Horseguards parade next week. Young and old, soldiers and civilians, will appear with race horses, corgis and, I am told, even camels to capture Her Majesty's huge range of interests.
  718
  We remember, too, the Queen Mother opening the Victory in Europe 50th anniversary commemorations in Hyde park and taking her place on the balcony at Buckingham palace. We have seen her there on state and royal occasions. We have seen her present at Cenotaph ceremonies on Remembrance Sunday, and she has represented this country on numerous occasions in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. Whether an occasion is sad or celebratory, formal or intimate, it is always enhanced by her presence.
  Today, Her Majesty remains at the centre of the royal family's life and work, important to every generation and—as a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother—bringing stability and continuity to our monarchy.
  Often when people reach 100, others ask them for their recipe for a long and happy life. I do not know what the Queen Mother's reply would be. I might guess that her secret lies in her genuine and unaffected interest in people, and in her zest for life. She has indeed lived out the Strathmore motto—"In you, Lord, have I put my trust"—and has combined a strong faith and a compassion for others with a great sense of fun. She has moved with the times, but has consistently displayed the age-old values of loyalty, duty and constancy.
  The Queen Mother has been witness to, and has played a prominent role in, 100 years of change. Amid that change—faster in our world today than at any time in our history—she, and the monarchy, have acted as a rock of stability and strength to our nation. We wish her health and happiness, and we offer from the House our heartfelt greetings and gratitude at this very special time.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. William Hague: It is a privilege for me to associate myself fully, on behalf of the Opposition, with the tribute that the Prime Minister has just paid to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and to support the motion that a message should be sent from the House conveying our warmest congratulations to Her Majesty on the occasion of her forthcoming 100th birthday. I believe that, in doing so, we are reflecting the sentiments of millions of people throughout the United Kingdom who hold this truly remarkable lady in the highest possible affection. The Queen Mother's 100th birthday is an occasion to unite the entire nation—and, indeed, people throughout the Commonwealth that has always meant so much to her.
  Everywhere she goes, the Queen Mother radiates warmth, charm and dignity, combined with a sense of fun that captivates everyone who meets her. Born in the final year of the reign of Queen Victoria, she has come to represent the continuity and strength of the monarchy, and its central role in the affairs of our nation. She has helped to bring home to people the stability that constitutional monarchy brings to our country—and, in the opinion of many, how much better we are served by it than by any of the alternatives that are sometimes suggested.
  In both her public and her private life, the Queen Mother has been an immense source of strength. That was most apparent in the way in which she supported the monarchy and the country, and supported King George VI after he acceded to the throne. Together, they sought successfully to restore public confidence in the monarchy. For most people, it was the leadership and inspiration that the King and Queen showed during the war that ensured

  719
  their lasting place in the hearts of the nation. Their refusal to leave London at the height of the blitz—especially after Buckingham palace itself was bombed—and their sense of duty and determination established them as the focal point for national unity, at the time of Britain's gravest as well as finest hour.
  Everyone remembers the Queen Mother's remark about being able to look the east end in the face, but to me the comment that best encapsulates her attitude is her response to the suggestion that her daughters be evacuated: "They will not leave without me, I will not leave without the King, and the King will never leave."
  Few of us here today who were privileged to see it will ever forget the emotion of the Queen Mother's appearance on the balcony at Buckingham palace in 1995 to recreate, with her two daughters, the scene on VE day 50 years before. It reminded us why the Queen Mother, devoted to her family and her country, has come to symbolise the sacrifices that our parents and grandparents made to preserve the freedoms that we all enjoy in Britain today. Since the war, and the death of the King in 1952, she has devoted herself tirelessly and selflessly to public duty, carrying out more than 40 official visits abroad, and serving as patron and president of more than 350 organisations. She is still carrying out public duties in her 100th year.
  Two years ago, the Prince of Wales described his grandmother as indestructible. Nothing better sums up the strength and spirit of a lady who, as she approaches her 100th birthday, continues to enrich the life of our nation. Her birthday is a matter of rejoicing for us all; and, as we celebrate it, we do so in the hope that this "indestructible" and gracious lady will enjoy still more in the years to come.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party may I equally entirely associate myself with the sentiments that were expressed by the Prime Minister on this unique occasion? I think that all the party leaders who were present earlier today at that magnificent ceremony in St. Paul's will be in no doubt as to the breadth as well as the depth of respect and affection in which Her Majesty is properly held.
  If one looks at this unique and remarkable life, it is in so many ways the story of the 20th century itself. It has spanned the 20th century and seen everything from the discovery of penicillin to two world wars, the emergence and then disappearance of the Soviet Union, as well as all the vast social changes in our country, the continent of Europe and the Commonwealth as a whole. She is an inspiration and a beacon. We all share in her pleasure and happiness today. She has enriched many people's lives and our lives have been enriched accordingly.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: It is with considerable pleasure that I join in supporting the motion that has been moved by the Prime Minister. Of course, in doing so, I speak for the Ulster Unionist party, but I believe that I speak for more in Northern Ireland than just that party, and that the proposal that has been made—that
  720
  a humble address be presented to Her Majesty with regard to the approaching centenary of the Queen Mother—would be warmly supported throughout society in Northern Ireland. There may be a few curmudgeonly people who pretend to hold to anti-monarchical principles, but the truth is that most reasonable people recognise the tremendous contribution not only that the monarchy in general has made, but that the Queen Mother personally has made throughout the century.
  Other right hon. Members have referred to the tremendous contribution that the Queen Mother made at the time of the abdication crisis and, of course, throughout the war. We in Northern Ireland will remember particularly the many visits that she has made to Northern Ireland—more than 11, I think—since the second world war, the most recent being in 1990 as part of her 90th birthday celebrations. Of course, we do not expect similar tours on the occasion of the centenary, it being an achievement even to reach that.
  The humble address refers to the great pleasure that the House shares with the nation. Often, the terms in motions that are proposed in the House have a formal character, but, on this occasion, there is no doubt about the reality of the great pleasure that everyone in the nation will take on this centenary. Great pleasure is there not just because of her longevity and war-time service, but because of the character of the Queen Mother. That great pleasure undoubtedly is shared throughout the House. We should add that not just in our own nation, but, I am sure, throughout the Commonwealth, many will be eternally grateful to the Queen Mother for all her characteristics, but particularly for the sense of duty that has characterised her entire life of service.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: May I make a brief comment and associate the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru with the terms of the motion and with the message that it is proposed be conveyed to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother? I have the privilege to represent the village of Glamis, the childhood home of Her Majesty in the county of Angus; the family home of the Bowes-Lyon family is located there. She spent much of her youth there before her marriage to the then Duke of York.
  Much has already been said about the courage of Her Majesty during the second world war in remaining in London. I was pleased that the Prime Minister mentioned the fact that, during the first world war, when Glamis castle was turned into a hospital, the Queen Mother spent most of her time there caring for patients who had been injured in the first world war and who were recuperating in the splendour of the county of Angus.
  Her Majesty has maintained a very close interest in the life of the village of Glamis. Her interest has been long-standing, including a visit to the village only two years ago for a ceremony with the Black Watch regiment, of which she is Colonel-in-Chief. We wish Her Majesty health and happiness at this proud moment in her long life.
  4.35 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to associate the Ulster Democratic Unionist party with the motion.

  721
  I have been informed by the Library that this is the first time that the House of Commons has been asked to debate a motion commending a King or Queen on attaining his or her century year. The Queen Mother, however, is a first in her own right. During her years as the Queen and Consort of King George VI, she became a legend: because of her steadfastness, her courage, her dignity, her resourcefulness and her majesty as she stood with her husband and her kingdom in the darkest days of the second world war.
  Early on in her life, as a teenager, the Queen Mother had learned something of the trials of war, with its bereavements, deaths, heartbreaks and sorrows. She is indeed a first in the lives of the subjects of her Kingdom: because of her genuine interest in and concern for the public of this country over a long life of dedicated and majestic service.
  On a visit to my constituency of North Antrim, she said to me, "I am not in a hurry; I have time. Time is not my dictator; I dictate to time. I want to meet people." She also reminded me about, and inquired about, people whom she had met many years before, when she and her husband had opened the town hall in Ballymena. She has a marvellous memory for people, places and facts. I believe that that comes from her deep commitment to the task that she was appointed to do.
  One day, one of the Queen Mother's pilots said to me, "Often, when we take off on a journey, the Queen Mother says to me, 'We are not in any hurry to get away. Let's stay a little longer.'" It is indeed a great joy to us all that she has achieved her century year. Although I do not often agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I agree with his comments today on the Queen Mother—I can even say an amen to them.
  We know that the Queen Mother lives in the hearts and minds of her people. Although Kings and Queens were once addressed with the words, "O live for ever", that royal person lives in the hearts of all her subjects. I believe that she will live there for ever, and I sincerely wish her many happy returns.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I had the great privilege and pleasure of accompanying Her Majesty the Queen Mother at celebrations hosted by the Ministry of Defence, 10 years ago, on the occasion of her 90th birthday. On that very remarkable occasion, it was the dearest wish of everyone that we should indeed be able to see her celebrate her centenary.
  The Queen Mother greatly enjoyed and showed great enthusiasm for all the events of that day. After the parade, which lasted one and a half hours, she spent another one and a half hours going round and talking to people, thanking every single person who had participated in the parade or helped to organise it, at a party in the Banqueting house. That was simply symptomatic of the way in which, throughout her life, she has shown an interest in and concern for people.
  It is a matter of the greatest pleasure and warmth that, having had the pleasure of welcoming the Queen Mother to her 90th birthday, we see her now celebrating her centenary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the hundredth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, humbly conveying to Her Majesty, on such a unique and memorable occasion, the loyal affection of the House and the nation for Her Majesty The Queen Mother;
  That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty's Household;
  That a Message be sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother rejoicing with Her on the attainment of Her hundredth birthday; expressing to Her Majesty the people's gratitude for Her lifelong example of trust in the Lord, and courage and service in war and in peace; and praying for Her health and happiness in days to come;
  That Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, Margaret Beckett, Mr. William Hague and Mr. Charles Kennedy do wait upon Her Majesty with the said Message.

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill (Allocation of Time)
  4.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill—

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

    Timetable
    1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
    (2) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

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

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

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

    Miscellaneous
    3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.
    4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
    6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.

    Supplemental Orders
    8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
    9. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
    I shall set out why the Government regard the motion as necessary. The Government are committed to the implementation of the Belfast agreement in all its elements, and the reform of policing in Northern Ireland,
    724
    which the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill will achieve, is an integral and extremely important part of the agreement. We want to see a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, and the Bill lays the foundation for that fresh start and that new beginning.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on Second Reading on 6 June:
    The Bill paves the way for the most complex changes in policing practice and culture ever attempted—changes that, if successful, will provide as good a model for policing as can be found anywhere in the world. The philosophy, size, structure, composition, training, accountability, human rights ethos, planning and information systems and community base of Northern Ireland's police will all change if the Bill is enacted.—[Official Report, 6 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 177.]
    The whole House should know that we made good and constructive progress in our 11 sittings and more than 40 hours of debate on the Bill in Standing Committee B. This progress was assisted, even focused, by the structured way in which members of the Committee dealt with the issues. We were able to have useful debates that concentrated on the key issues of concern to the various parties represented on the Committee. I hope that those hon. Members who were on the Committee will acknowledge that the Government were willing to consider, and make, constructive changes to the Bill. We have also brought forward further changes to consider later today.
    The Government want to maintain that good momentum. We have had a full debate on the Bill in Committee and we want to ensure that we make good progress tonight. My understanding is that it was not possible through the usual channels to reach broad agreement on an informal timetable for this evening's debate. This timetable motion will help the Government to stick to their timetable for the Bill. It will help focus debate. It is a precautionary approach.
    All the provisions in the Bill were dealt with in detail in Committee. The Committee did its job properly. Discussion was full and reasonable. We covered the issues thoroughly. However, it is important to note that there are no issues raised by the amendments in front of us today that were not aired in Committee. The Government's judgment is that six hours ought to be sufficient for the House to deal with the Report Stage. It is up to hon. Members to use the time available responsibly and to best effect.
    We are willing to work with those who want to play a constructive role in helping us to fashion and improve the Bill. That will require the House to focus on the issues in a structured way. For that reason, we believe that a timetable is helpful. We have not sought to stifle debate on the Bill. There can be no criticism of how the Government dealt with the Bill in Committee, nor of the other parties represented in Committee.
    The House should not baulk at the amount of work that needs to be got through on Report. Right hon. and hon. Members should know that the vast majority of amendments for consideration are technical changes on the name. Many of the others are in response to issues on which there was general agreement in Committee. Only a few of the amendments could be classed as being of a contentious nature.
    The Government have demonstrated that we are open to debate and that we are prepared to take on board constructive and helpful proposals to improve the Bill.

    725
    We are still prepared to listen to constructive suggestions for change. The good work that has been done needs to continue and I look forward to debating the issues further. That is the best way forward and the best way to serve the needs of all the people of Northern Ireland.
    There is fundamental change ahead for the police service. The Government, in discussion with the police and others, have sought to identify an ordered and logical way to take that forward. Our approach, and the timetable that we have set, is outlined in the implementation plan, which the Secretary of State published on 6 June and which is available in the House.
    The implementation plan recognises that such a wide range and depth of change cannot happen overnight and, as Patten recognised, will take time to implement. However, we need to get the building blocks in place to take the change forward. The Bill is one of those building blocks. Those who oppose the Bill and the Government's approach serve no one but their own factional interests. That has to be recognised, as have the reasons for it, but it does not move the process forward. This Bill is about putting in place building blocks for the future, and that must be the best way to make progress.
    I have been brief in my explanation of the timetable motion. That was my deliberate intention, as it is important that the House should move on to consider the Bill and the important issues raised by the selected amendments. I trust that we will not be treated to an extended debate on the motion, which could be interpreted as calculated to eat up the whole of the three hours that have been timetabled for discussion and to lay the ground for accusations in another place that insufficient time was allowed here for discussion of the issues. For that reason, I have set out fully, and I believe succinctly, my reasons for commending the motion to the House.
    4.46 pm
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: This is a sad day for the House and for Northern Ireland. This is not a timetable motion, but a straightforward guillotine. It is not up to the Minister to decide how long the House should take to debate the motion; it is up to hon. Members to decide whether they want to speak. It was unhelpful, and typical of the arrogance of this Government, that we were lectured on how long we should debate the motion.
    The motion is deeply insensitive on a day when the Royal Ulster Constabulary is yet again bravely and professionally acting as the thin green line between the rule of law and the Province descending into anarchy. What a way to treat those officers, who have a natural vested interest in this legislation being right, at a time when they are risking life and limb and when so-called loyalist thugs only last night shot at them and petrol-bombed them when they were only fulfilling their professional duty and protecting the right of the ordinary decent majority of people in both communities freely to travel around the Province and to go to and from work. The very least that the House owes the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a proper and full debate on the Bill.
    As an Opposition, we regularly acknowledge that the Government have a right to get their business. This Bill was in the Queen's speech and, after proper debate, deliberation and amendment, it is right that the Government should get it on to the statute book. We did not oppose the Second Reading and we will not oppose Third Reading, but we believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.
    726
    A large number of amendments have to be considered—amendments tabled by individual Members on both sides of the House. I should like to think that my hon. Friends and I have tabled some significant amendments on the name and who sits on the bodies and partnerships. Significant amendments have also been tabled by the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists and important amendments by the Social Democratic and Labour party and by certain Labour Back Benchers, at least one of whom I can see in his place. We also have to consider a number of Government amendments—some on the name of the police that are very contentious, and others that are a response to concerns expressed by hon. Members in Committee.
    All the amendments need to be considered properly on Report. To allow a mere six hours, which must include the debate on this motion, is hopelessly insufficient. It is an insult to the brave men and women of the RUC—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to think that is not the case, so I repeat: I sincerely believe that the motion is an insult to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that it shows the arrogance of the Government, because they do not allow proper debate.
    Let us consider the progress of the Bill. A full debate was held on Second Reading, when the Bill was not opposed by the official Opposition. When the measure was considered in Committee, the Minister rightly acknowledged that there was proper debate and that no member of the Committee had engaged in filibustering. After a mere 11 sittings, this detailed Bill left Committee with co-operation from both sides. In those circumstances, why on earth is a guillotine motion needed?
    I have been a party to guillotine motions. Throughout the previous Parliament, I was a Whip, becoming Deputy Chief Whip. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I had a record of supporting guillotine motions at certain times. However, only after filibustering and a long delay in Committee should there be a guillotine on both Committee and Report. On no occasion was a guillotine imposed when a Minister admitted that no undue delay had taken place, and that a measure had received proper professional consideration in Committee. There is no good reason for the motion.
    Why has the guillotine motion been introduced? I suggest that it is because the Government—legitimately—want to send the Bill to the Lords so that it can receive its Second Reading there before the summer recess. Why are we in such a difficulty? Let us examine the chronology. The House will recall that Patten reported on 9 September 1999. On 17 November, the Prime Minister made it clear in the Gracious Speech that there would be legislation to reform the police service in Northern Ireland. The consultation period on Patten ended on 1 December. On 19 January, the Secretary of State made a statement to the House giving the conclusions.
    What happened to that legislation announced in the Queen's Speech? From the moment that the Belfast agreement was signed, everybody knew that the legislation would be introduced. There was no sign of it in January, February, March or April. Finally, on 16 May, the Government staggered forward and published the Bill. On 6 June, the measure received its Second Reading and on 6 July its Committee stage was concluded after 11 sittings.

    727
    If there is any problem in getting the Bill to the Lords in good time and then on to the statute book, it has been caused exclusively by the Government. They introduced the Bill so late that there was insufficient time to debate it. If it is so vital that a Bill introduced so late should go to the Lords for a Second Reading debate, which will probably be held in the last week before we rise for the recess, then we should consider it over more than one day. We should scrap some of the unnecessary legislation that the Government are introducing.
    The Government are in a mess, although I feel slightly sorry for the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. It is not entirely their fault that Parliament has been overburdened with a huge number of Bills—more than have ever been introduced in one sitting. Bills are being presented desperately late in the sitting—for example, the measure on football hooliganism. That Bill should have been introduced several months ago, when the problem was identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Instead, apparently it is to be rushed through in just a couple of days.
    This is a Government whose legislative programme is totally out of control. It is a shambles. They are not just an incompetent Government; they are also an arrogant Government, and we, as an Opposition, will not encourage them either in their incompetence or in their arrogance by supporting the guillotine motion this afternoon.
    4.55 pm
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that the motion was not a timetable motion but a guillotine, because it had not been agreed beforehand by other parties.
    I do not feel that this guillotine is disrespectful to the RUC or to its record of courageous achievement in Northern Ireland. I say that because anyone who spent in the Committee the 40 hours that the Minister described will have seen that Members from all parties were obviously committed to making a better police service while being respectful to the RUC and the contribution that it has made. Therefore, I feel that some of the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Bracknell were slightly out of kilter with the debate that took place in Committee. I am not criticising him; I just have a different view.
    Mr. MacKay: At no point did I suggest that there had not been proper scrutiny in Committee. In fact, the only thing on which I agreed with the Minister of State was that there had been proper scrutiny and no filibustering in Committee. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that the RUC and the whole country deserve proper scrutiny of the Bill not only in Committee but on the Floor of the House. A large number of Members are present on both sides of the House who did not serve on the Committee, and they have a right to debate, consider and discuss the amendments. That is the reason for our objection. We are simply saying that there should not be a guillotine on Report, and that there should be the opportunity to discuss properly all those important matters of reform.
    Mr. Öpik: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, which he makes quite clearly, but I am
    728
    sure that he would agree that this is not a matter of principle but a matter of judgment about what the Government were trying to do with what I would imagine that they intended basically as a timetable motion, regardless of whether they agreed it with the other parties beforehand.
    On that subject, I must simply agree to differ with the right hon. Member for Bracknell, for two reasons. First, the 40 hours of debate in Committee were comprehensive, and the Committee was one of the most effective Standing Committees that I have ever worked on—not least because the Government showed some willingness to modify their position as debate progressed, although obviously not in all regards. We shall come to those issues as today's debate progresses. In fact, we could have taken more time in Committee, but there were occasions when, the debate's having concluded early, people were satisfied that it had been as extensive as was required at the time.
    The second reason why I am of the judgment that the time that has been allocated is probably sufficient is that many of the Government's amendments were tabled specifically in response to points made by non-Government Members during the Bill's earlier stages. Various proposals that the Liberal Democrats made, and proposals that the official Opposition made, are now being carried out.
    However, there are issues to which I know that we shall have to return. It is no surprise to the House that I continue to be extremely unhappy with the use of quotas, and I hope that, in the time available, we shall be able to raise that and other issues of substantial importance to myself to other hon. Members and to other parties.
    On balance, therefore, I draw the conclusion that, as long as we do not spend the next three hours debating the programming motion, we shall have enough time to get on with it, and to have the debate in the fullness that it needs.
    It is worth remembering that, by the end of the Committee's deliberations, those Members who served on it were apprised of the importance of getting the Bill passed; and if, by twenty minutes to 12 tonight, we have not debated all the important outstanding issues sufficiently deeply before the Bill passes on to the other place—whether or not the Government accept the wise words that will be presented to them from other parts of the House—I shall be extremely surprised. For that reason, as a matter of judgment rather than a matter of principle, we consider that the Government's attempt to timetable the debate is basically common sense.
    4.59 pm
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Bill derives from the Patten commission report, which was presented several months ago and which, in itself, was flawed in that it stepped far outside Patten's terms of reference, which were based on the Belfast agreement. Patten chose to ignore that and published a report that was described in this House and elsewhere—I believe by Home Office officials—as an interesting report, but certainly one that had nothing to do with policing. That, of course, has had a knock-on effect in that we have before us a Bill that no doubt has to do with political accommodation, but has nothing to do with policing or law and order.
    The reality is that, after 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland, a different ethos pervades our society than that which some of us grew up with. It is an ethos

    729
    that adjusts easily to criminality, to the extent that we have in Northern Ireland a powerful mafia sub-culture. That is an issue that should be debated at length as we go through the Bill. While it is all very well to say that we dealt with each of the issues in Committee, it is important that any of us who are elected to the House recognise our responsibility to our electorate and realise that we cannot dismiss the input of the House just because a Bill has gone through a Committee to be fine-tuned.
    If my calculations are right, the Government have tabled 222 amendments to the Bill, and they expect us to deal with them and the other amendments in six hours. One realises why the Minister was so apologetic about the Government's intention to guillotine the Bill.
    I hope that the House will be able, on Report and Third Reading, to move the Bill into a form in which it primarily deals with the interests of the police and society in Northern Ireland as they grapple with a growing drugs problem and a huge tax evasion problem—something that should interest the Government. We hear that petrol prices have to be kept high in order that we can pay for our health and education programmes, yet the Government are ruling over a Province in which up to £1 billion in petrol duty is probably being evaded by means of smuggling from the Irish Republic. [Interruption.] The Minister of State corrects me from a sedentary position and suggests that the figure is £100 million. He knows as well as I do that he is wrong. Even Customs and Excise, who used to throw out that figure with abandon, now admit to a figure that is approaching—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I need to remind him that we are debating an allocation of time motion. He is now straying a little too far from it.
    Mr. Maginnis: If I appeared to stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I was trying to illustrate how the Government are presenting the House with a Bill, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, that has nothing to do with policing and that the House must therefore put right if it is to have any significance whatsoever for society in Northern Ireland in general and for the police in particular.
    The Minister knows that the level at which our mafia sub-culture is becoming organised in Northern Ireland will not be hindered one iota by anything in the Bill. Instead of dealing with that matter, instead of giving the House time to consider the implications of what is before us, the Government are guillotining the debate.
    The Minister should give us the facts as to whether the Bill contains anything to enhance policing in terms of the job that the police have to do in order to protect society—protect it from violence, corruption and abuse of the tax system. He may be able to give us an indication of when there has been a major measure to deal with the problem that I have described, whether the extent of that problem is £100 million or nearer to £1 billion. The Minister must tell us what there is in the Bill to reverse the trend in that respect and in respect of drug peddling and drug misuse. Nothing in the Bill will make the ordinary, law-abiding, virtually non-political Mr. Average Citizen in Northern Ireland feel safer and more secure.
    That is why it is wrong that the Government should bring forward 222 amendments, on top of those that other parties have tabled, and expect us to rush them through
    730
    without due consideration, when, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, we could have had the Bill four or five months ago. I do not believe that it was by accident that we had the Bill at the last minute and that the Government asked those of us who are in opposition to co-operate in getting it through the Committee stage. They received that co-operation, so that nothing was left untouched, but we made it clear at the outset that we would not consider a guillotine on Report appropriate. We made it clear that if we were to co-operate with the Government in Committee, the Government would have to co-operate with Members of the Opposition parties—and not just my own party—on Report so that the serious deficiencies of the Bill were not swept under the carpet.
    From the outset, the Minister has been aware of our concerns. Therefore, he must answer the points that I have made.
    5.10 pm
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been amazed at some of the statements that have been made in the debate already. They do not have much relevance to the amount of time that we have to consider the Bill.
    In last week's Northern Ireland Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred to the persecution of the Baha'i faith in Ulster as though that were a matter of importance. I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) put him right on that issue.
    Mr. Öpik rose—
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not giving way, because we need time to deal with the Bill, which has nothing to do with the Baha'i faith. I have a good relationship with members of that faith and not once have they said that they have been persecuted in Northern Ireland. I would nail any suggestion that they have been as an atrocious lie.
    I was also amazed by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who rightly condemned the attacks on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I condemn them, too, and I have already done that on the record in the Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman is laughing with his friends on the Opposition Front Bench, but he forgets the two atrocious attacks that were carried out by republicans. In his opening remarks, he did not even mention the 250-lb republican bomb in Stewartstown or what happened in Aghalee last night when republicans attacked an Orange hall and gutted it. They attacked another hall, too. The attacks that are taking place in Northern Ireland are coming from both sides of the divide and we need to keep that point in mind.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire thinks that we have had plenty of time to debate the Bill, but no time has been given to my party. In the House, there are three Members from the Social Democratic and Labour party and two of them were on the Bill's Committee. There are two Members of the Democratic Unionist party in the House, and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is also a Unionist. Not one of those three voices was allowed on the Committee. We can refer to the hours that were spent on the debates in Committee, but one point of view—the majority Unionist view, as was seen from the vote in the Assembly last Tuesday—was

    731
    locked out of the Committee. Members who represent that view were locked out simply because they would not have helped the Bill to go forward; they would have sought to curb its provisions. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that the Bill does not deal with issues such as drugs and the mafia. Its main thrust is to demoralise and destroy the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Although he does not attend this place, Mr. McGuinness is a Member of the House and he is a Minister in Northern Ireland. On a radio programme about the Stewartstown bombing, he was asked whether he would tell anyone who knew anything about the bombing to go to the police. He said, "Certainly not." When a Minister in Northern Ireland tells the people who know about the laying of a 250-lb bomb at a police station that could have killed many people—it could have been another Omagh—not to go to the police, how can anyone have any faith in what is happening in Northern Ireland at this time? Those are the issues that we should keep in mind.
    We have not had time to debate the Bill. We were told that we would have time on Second Reading, but the time for speeches of the representatives of Northern Ireland was limited to 10 minutes.
    We should have had more time on Second Reading, but it was not given. The Government kept one section of the community of Northern Ireland out of the Committee, but today they say that we have plenty of time. We do not have plenty of time. The Government say that debate will be guillotined after seven hours, which includes the time spent on this motion. Guillotines did not used to affect the time for discussing the guillotine. Now, however, discussion of the guillotine takes away from the time given to the debate. Why has that departure taken place? Why do we not have the old rules if we are going to have guillotines? We are not having a guillotined discussion now, so there is an encroachment on the time that we should have for debate. That is a fact.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the position is even worse than he has described. Any votes will come out of time for discussion.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: When the time for votes is taken away, how much time do we have? I urge hon. Members to look at the fact that more than 200 amendments have been tabled. We do not have adequate time to deal with a matter that has seriously divided the people of Northern Ireland and will continue to divide them.
    5.16 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I oppose the motion on more general grounds which, if I may be forgiven, are not especially related to this particular Bill. I want to protest at the frequency with which the Government are introducing these motions. I believe that this motion is the 36th to be introduced. Indeed, this time last week, we addressed a timetable motion for the Local Government Bill. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Crewe and
    732
    Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) launched an extremely formidable attack on her own Front Benchers' use of this type of motion.
    I find motions of this kind objectionable, both in general and in particular. The present motion is objectionable because the Report stage of a Bill is the only occasion on which the House as a whole has the opportunity to debate the detail of the measure. The hon. Member for North Antrim made a fair point when he said that his party was not represented in Committee. It does not matter whether or not I agree with him, as he should be able to express his distinctive view on the Bill. The Bill's Report stage is the only time when he is able to do that, which also holds true for other hon. Members on the Ulster Benches. Of course, it also true of Conservative Members because, inevitably, we are only lightly represented in Committee.
    Mr. Ingram: At the moment.
    Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course, at the moment. Our views often coincide with the views expressed by our Front-Bench spokesman, but they do not always do so. It is important that the House should give Back Benchers a proper opportunity to discuss fully the detail of a Bill and amendments to it.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have listened with interest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he aware that many Government Members who wanted to strengthen the Bill were kept off the Committee? The grievance is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's alone, but we must accept what has happened.
    Mr. Hogg: I am not being critical of the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, his point reinforces what I want to say. I am sure that there are Government Members who feel that the Bill is defective in one way or another, and they should have a full and proper opportunity to voice their opinions, as that is what democracy is about.
    We are confronted with 10 groups of amendments. In all, there are some 335 amendments, of which 224 are Government amendments, as I think the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) told me. That means that many of the amendments will not be debated at all, and the effect of that is surely to undermine the democratic legitimacy of decisions made in the House. If amendments and new clauses become law without having been discussed at all, how can we say that they have been passed with the democratic authority of this place?
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is simply another manifestation of the increasing power of the Executive over the liberties of the House and an attempt to circumscribe what is properly the function of elected Members of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Hogg: I do indeed. That point was made forcefully by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich when she was speaking on a timetable motion last Tuesday.
    I speak now on behalf of Back Benchers. From time to time, Front-Bench Members agree timetables between them. This is not a case in point, because I am well aware

    733
    that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has not agreed to this timetable, and he was right not to do so. Back Benchers need to be cautious about supporting any agreed timetable, because Front-Bench Members will agree on matters that are of great importance to them, but they do not necessarily address what is of great importance to Back Benchers, which may well be different. The reason for that is as follows—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to spare the House that particular reason; we are debating a specific allocation of time motion. If he wants to pursue procedural matters as a whole, he must find another opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Hogg: I am now coming from that general point to a particular one. If we consider the amendments that have been tabled by Members other than Front Benchers, we find that a number of them express the particular concerns of Back Benchers, often those from the Ulster parties. The effect of any timetable motion—and this is, in fact, a guillotine rather than a timetable motion, in so far as there is a difference—is that those Members will be shut out and they will unable to articulate the grievances that are felt very powerfully by their constituents. That cannot be right.
    We have been told by Ministers that this is a precautionary measure, which is basically in the interests of good order and military discipline, but why is that necessary? I understand that there was no filibustering or unparliamentary conduct in Committee. I saw the Minister of State nodding when the hon. Members for North Antrim and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said that there was a co-operative approach to the Bill.
    Mr. Ingram: I, too, said that.
    Mr. Hogg: As the Minister says, he also made that point. What, then, are the Government guarding against? Why are we truncating debate? I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would stop any filibustering, but if the proceedings were filibustered, the proper course of action would be to move for closure and then to consider having a timetabled debate.
    Those of us who prize the rights of Back Benchers should protest at a process of pre-empting discussion, and it is no good the Government saying that they do not want to discuss this in the small hours of the morning, which may be implicit in the position that they have adopted. I agree that we do not want to discuss the matter then, but the proper solution is not a timetable on one Bill: it is less legislation. There are many Bills with which I have been concerned in the past three or four weeks and many Bills in this Session which we could very well do without. The Government are not conducting business better through the volume of legislation that they carry through; they carry through legislation simply because they think that Departments have a momentum of their own. That is a scandal, because it undermines proper democratic scrutiny.
    As I said, the Bill will go to the other place with scores, or perhaps hundreds, of amendments that will not even have been mentioned in this place. That detracts from the democratic authority of the House and it is a scandal. I deplore what is happening.
    5.25 pm
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: As a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, I echo the comments that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members and reiterate what was said by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). This is a sad day, given all that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done, standing in defence of democracy and of the liberties of people living in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. It is shameful that its future should be dealt with in such a shoddy way.
    Many police officers and their families live in my constituency, and I represent them in this place. What am I to say to them when I come to tell them that the best opportunity that the House could offer me to represent their views and those of their families, neighbours and friends was a guillotined debate? I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill in detail, so I wanted the opportunity fully to debate all the issues that are important and relevant to the Bill. Why is that opportunity to be denied to me and my colleagues?
    I am far from convinced by what the Minister said about the need for haste in having the Bill enacted. There is a feeling in Northern Ireland that the agenda has more to do with the need to satisfy the more extreme elements in society, especially on the republican side, and to deliver certain undertakings that were given to them than it has to do with the need for proper legislation and proper debate on it, leading to a proper policing service that can address the real issues that are of importance to people in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said.
    I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Bracknell and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The police have a difficult job in Northern Ireland and they are under attack. We deplore the attacks that have taken place recently—shootings, for example—against the RUC. There was the bomb at Stewartstown and there have been other such incidents. As I represent Aghalee, I mention especially the attack that took place last night on the Orange hall, when people were meeting in it. There was a petrol bomb attack and, but for the grace of God, people might have lost their lives as a result of the actions of republican extremists, who sought to inflame an already unstable situation. We condemn that attack and all the others.
    Mr. William Ross: The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is usually able to tell us who is responsible for these attacks—such as the one earlier this week, when he said at about 7 am, the attack having taken place the previous evening, that the bomb was the responsibility of dissidents. Has he been able to say whether it was dissidents or the Provisional IRA who were responsible for that attack?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not helpful to the debate. I suggest to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) that he stick closely to the terms of the motion.
    Mr. Donaldson: We are dealing with an issue that is vital to people in Northern Ireland. No one in the House would challenge that assertion. It is an extremely emotive issue for those on both sides of the debate. When Chris

    735
    Patten was conducting his inquiries prior to compiling his report, he went round Northern Ireland and spoke to many people and listened to their concerns. I attended some of those meetings. I listened to what people said. When they expressed concern that their views would not be taken into account, I and others argued that there would be proper parliamentary scrutiny, that we would raise their concerns in Parliament and that we would seek to have changes made to the proposals that came from Chris Patten.
    What am I to say to those people today? Will we have a proper opportunity? Of course not—there are more than 300 amendments and there is no way we can properly and adequately consider them, let alone put forward the arguments that we want to present in support of the amendments that we want to make.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman is talking to his constituents he will not inadvertently mislead them, as a great many of the amendments are tiny, technical and of no great significance. I hope that he will put that across to them.
    Mr. Donaldson: The amendments may not be of much significance to the hon. Lady's constituents, but many of them are crucial to my constituents—to those who live in Aghalee and who were on the receiving end of last night's attack; to those who live in Dunmurry and who are on the receiving end of attacks by republican extremists; and, indeed, to those in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who stand in the line against attacks from extremists on both sides of the community. The amendments are important and they ought to be afforded proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is absolutely crucial.
    Whether some of the amendments are technical misses the point. Those of significance—there are quite a few of them—deserve proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is very difficult for my right hon. and hon. Friends and me to reassure people in Northern Ireland that the matter has been properly scrutinised by the House of Commons. Clearly, given the guillotine motion, that will not be so.
    Mr. Ingram: In explaining things to his constituents, the hon. Gentleman could say that his hon. Friends the Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) represented their interests and made very robust arguments in all the areas considered in Committee. I therefore suggest that reading what was said by his hon. Friends will help him to explain to his constituents the case that was put.
    Mr. Donaldson: Of course my hon. Friends worked very hard to put forward points of view in Committee, but how many of their amendments were accepted by the Government—no matter how good their arguments? We therefore want an opportunity to voice our concerns on the many amendments that the Government refused to accept in Committee.
    One very significant amendment, on the import and effect of the clause dealing with the name of the new police service, has been tabled at the 11th hour. That has caused much concern. I do not know whether the Minister heard the interview given yesterday by my right hon.
    736
    Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), in which he expressed very deep concern about the amendments that the Government have tabled latterly. Those issues are important to people in Northern Ireland.
    It is a sad day for democracy and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, its reputation, and all that it has done to defend democracy and to battle terrorism in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, when this House of Commons is not afforded a full and proper opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. The Government can make all the arguments that they want, but they cannot deny that that is how the motion will be perceived in Northern Ireland. That is most unfortunate.
    Of course, this is not the first time that the Government have treated Northern Ireland legislation in such a way—and, no doubt, it will not be the last. As I said, there are unfortunately pressures on the Government which do not come from within the House of Commons or, indeed, from Parliament, that determine the time scale within which we must deal with the Bill. We ought to have been given proper and adequate time. There ought to be an opportunity for the concerns of people whom I represent and who are represented by right hon. and hon. Members of all political viewpoints in Northern Ireland to be aired properly and fully. The Government's guillotine motion will not allow them the opportunity that we might have expected.
    When we go back home to Northern Ireland tomorrow and try to explain to people what happened in the House of Commons, I fear that many will say once again that they have been let down—let down by a parliamentary process that is supposed to defend their rights and enable them, through their elected representatives, to address issues of vital importance. Sadly, in relation to the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the issue of policing in Northern Ireland, the guillotine motion will deny them that right.
    5.35 pm
    Mr. Tony McWalter: There are, of course, matters in the Bill that will prove divisive, but the play that has been made of numbers should be put in context.
    There are 237 amendments in the name of the Secretary of State, 190 of which refer solely to the change in nomenclature from "police force" to "police service". I expect that the House will want to debate that change in the philosophy of policing, but it is one issue, not 190. We need one debate; we do not need 190. There are more than 20 other amendments that are simply changes consequential on changes of nomenclature.
    I should like to get on with the debate on the substantive issues, and I hope that the House will do so in the very near future.
    5.36 pm
    Mr. Robert McCartney: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) properly raised the fundamental constitutional issue relating to the guillotine motion—that is, the relationship between the Executive and the House.
    The suggestion that an independent body should deal with the selection of members of Select Committees and Standing Committees has already been mentioned, and is

    737
    a matter of public debate. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the composition of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. It included two out of the three Members representing the SDLP, who had a clear and committed perspective on what they considered appropriate amendments. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was pro-agreement, and had endorsed an agreement that provided Patten with his remit, upon which he has delivered. The hon. Gentleman's views would be very different from those shared by the hon. Member for North Antrim, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and me, yet all three of us were entirely excluded from the Committee.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. ÖOpik) claimed that plenty of time was spent considering the Bill in Committee, but no time at all was spent by the Committee listening to the views or discussing the amendments proposed by the hon. Members who now represent the majority of pro-Union people in Northern Ireland.
    The Bill is important because it goes right to the heart of the concerns of the pro-Union community not only about the future protection of their lives, liberty and property, but about a police force that will be able to deal with the mafia atmosphere that is spreading throughout Northern Ireland.
    Mr. David Trimble: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that he and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have expressed with regard to the membership of the Committee and their consequent inability to pursue amendments in Committee. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has the opportunity to table amendments and have them considered on Report. Can he tell me how many amendments he and his colleagues have tabled?
    Mr. McCartney: I have consulted the hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I am sure that the House knows that I do not have the same amount of back-up and number of advisers as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). However, I have made detailed, comprehensive and lengthy submissions to Patten, both in writing and orally. After all, the Patten report is the basis for the Bill. The Secretary of State and the Minister said more than once that they intended to implement Patten in full.
    We now face dealing with a multiplicity of amendments in a short time. As I have already said, those amendments are central to policing Northern Ireland. It is therefore wrong that Back Benchers are denied an opportunity to explore and debate fully, perhaps not all the technical amendments, but the smaller number of important amendments that go to the heart of the Bill.
    I conclude by making some remarks about chronology, which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) mentioned at the outset. He said that the Government's delay in presenting the Bill at its various stages had occasioned the urgency that requires a guillotine motion. The reason for that was evident from a political point of view: the Government wished to lure the Ulster Unionists into a position whereby they voted in the Ulster Unionist Council to re-enter the Assembly. They did that by
    738
    disguising their intentions for the Bill. The Bill is encrusted with a host of amendments, many of which represent a withdrawal from the apparent assurances that the Government had given the Ulster Unionists on the Bill's final form, to encourage them to move in a specific direction. To some extent, that explains the delays in presenting the Bill.
    The House must look to its prerogatives and rights, because we are increasingly confronted with the extension of an over-mighty Executive.
    5.43 pm
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: No hon. Member does not believe that legislation that affects Northern Ireland is supremely important. It is important to everyone who represents a British constituency on the mainland; it is supremely important to the citizens of Northern Ireland; it is also important to those in the Republic of Ireland. The peaceful settlement of Ulster is unquestionably a prize that we all seek. However, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) expressed a truth. What is the point of electing Members of Parliament if they cannot speak on the issues that come before the House? What is the point of electing Members of Parliament if they cannot touch on matters of the greatest importance to their fellow citizens? That is the matter of principle that fights against the guillotine.
    It is true that not all hon. Members can serve on a Committee, and the only opportunity for those who do not do so to express the voice of their community is on Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House. I was interested to note that the Minister said, fairly, that the Government had granted up to six hours for considering those matters. Perhaps the vast majority of the more than 220 Government amendments are technical, but none of us doubts that substantial matters of principle are involved.
    The simple purpose of a timetable motion—whether agreed between Front Benchers or imposed by the Government—is to curtail debate. The Government have done what they now do in all guillotine motions; they have made the debate on the free-standing guillotine motion part of the consideration of the Bill. That must be wrong. I have full sympathy for hon. Members who feel that their opportunity to discuss matters of importance to their constituencies is being reduced.
    Such matters are also important to my constituency. The bombing campaigns that have cursed the nation for 30 years must animate the House to consider the very importance of the Ulster business that is before us, because it is not just their business; it ours, and a settlement is required not just for this island, but for another island as well.
    The Minister of State at least put all the arguments for a guillotine, but he did not address the fundamental principle. I shall not take up the time of the House, but the motion involves a matter of principle. The Government have introduced 36 guillotines; some have had the agreement of Opposition Front Benchers, but the purpose has not been to seek consent, which is what the House wants. We want a settlement, but the traditions of the House allow those who oppose or seek to improve Government legislation the opportunity to express themselves to that end. The Government have set aside those traditions 36 times.

    739
    The Government are now reducing the opportunities to debate the matters that are most important to us. The guillotine motion, for which all the Government's supporters will vote, will reduce the debate to less than three hours. That is wrong, and every hon. Member knows that perfectly well. The Bill deserves more than a three-hour debate, yet there could be less time than that if there is a Division.
    I have set the main objections in the context of the motion, but a wider principle is involved: 36 guillotine motions have denied the House its very purpose and reason to exist. This is Parliament; we do not constitute the Executive, other than by giving our consent to legislation. Such motions deny us the opportunity properly and appropriately to express that consent or to deny it.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. David Trimble: This is not the first time that I have had the honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I entirely agree with him. We have always taken the view that guillotine motions are wrong in principle. The position of the House is an important matter, which should be vindicated. I do not intend to take much time, but I want to make a couple of points.
    First, I want to amplify the point that I made in intervening on the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I agree with the complaint that he and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made about the Standing Committee. This is an important Northern Ireland Bill, so it is appropriate that the Committee that considered it should have been representative of all the main sections of opinion in Northern Ireland that are represented in the House. I expressed that view to the Minister earlier in the proceedings on the Bill. I told him that there should be broader representation, because it is important that hon. Members have an opportunity to debate the Bill in detail.
    The hon. Member for North Antrim referred to the attacks taking place in Northern Ireland, all of which we deplore. He said that the attacks came from both sides. That is true, but many of them have come from people who would identify themselves as supporters of the hon. Member for North Antrim.
    That fact casts a particular responsibility on the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to condemn the violence by people who describe themselves as his supporters. That is not to minimise the seriousness of the Stewartstown bomb and the Aghalee petrol bomb, which represent an extremely serious and worrying portent. As I said yesterday, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic also has a particular responsibility. Terrorist elements are trying to attack the agreement for which 95 per cent. of his electorate voted, and he needs to redeem the promises that he has made over the past year.
    On the issue before us, I want to draw out one point. This is an important Bill, as the Minister has said, and Members of the House have different views on it. As the shadow Secretary of State said, Her Majesty's Opposition abstained on Second Reading. We voted against, and the Social Democratic and Labour party voted for. That voting pattern may be reproduced on Third Reading—but
    740
    looking beyond the positions that, for a variety of reasons, people adopt to the detail of the Bill on Second and Third Reading, there is a similarity between the three parties. They support some parts of the Bill, but are uncomfortable with others and want them to be changed.
    The desire of all three parties to engage in a serious debate to improve the Bill characterised the 40 constructive hours spent in Committee—and, as the Minister acknowledged, the Opposition parties made no attempt to delay proceedings or to obfuscate the matter. All desired a serious debate, and that same desire will be apparent on Report, when we want all the serious issues to be reconsidered and all those who were unable to be members of the Committee to contribute. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said, were there no guillotine the debate would still be unlikely to run for more than six hours, although it would probably run to a second day.
    What on earth is wrong with giving this important Bill a second day? Why does it have to be rushed through the House now? It is not being rushed through today to allow those of my colleagues who wish to attend the 12 July celebrations to do so, although one could put that construction on the motion. I have reason to believe that the Government's initial wish was for the Bill to go on Report on the twelfth in the hope that none of us would be present—but that is by the way.
    There is no reason why the debate could not have run to a second day, as would have been appropriate for a Bill of this size and importance. We could have had a serious debate without being rushed. As it is, we shall be rushed tonight and we may not consider the whole Bill, which is a sad way to complete a process that in Committee consisted of serious consideration of the issue by a wide range of parties. In these circumstances, it is sad that the Government have tabled a guillotine motion.
    5.53 pm
    Mr. William Ross: All visitors to the House pass through St. Stephen's Hall, in which there is a depiction of the barons confronting King John. That was the first formidable effort to restrict the power of the Executive in those days, and the House is directly descended from that incident.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Magna Carta.
    Mr. Ross: Magna Carta, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says.
    Therefore, Members of the House have a duty not only to represent the views of their constituents, but to curb the excesses of the Executive and to call them to account. Guillotined Bills and timetable motions are an attempt to limit the capacity of all Members of the House to fulfil that duty, and no Member should lose sight of that important fact. As we all know, this is a Bill of great importance, for it will create a new police force for Northern Ireland at the behest not of the law abiding or those who want to remain in the United Kingdom, but of those who want to live under a rule different from the constitutional monarchy that we enjoy.
    In the early stages of the Patten inquiry, I said that there was no complaint from members of the public that I could find when the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigated ordinary crime of whatever type and from whatever

    741
    source. In fact, everyone was glad to see the coppers arrive. Therefore, all the complaints that arose did not stem from the behaviour of the police in investigating ordinary crime, but related to their investigations of and opposition to terrorist crime. That is the real basis of the Bill. Those who were engaged in terrorism deeply resented the actions of the police service and the military in Northern Ireland and the force that had to be used to control that evil activity.
    When the Bill is passed, as we all know it will be, the question will be whether it satisfies Irish nationalists of whatever stripe or description, never mind the IRA. That remains to be seen, but I suspect that they will find good excuses for not being satisfied. The Government set out their considered view of the Patten report when they published the Bill, and they have also set out their considered view on the need for the motion, but if they carefully considered what parts of Patten to implement and published a Bill on that basis, why did they accept amendments and give commitments to accept amendments? I believe that that agreement results from the torrent of complaint from the IRA, Sinn Fein, the Social Democratic and Labour party and fellow travellers in the Irish nationalist community. Indeed, IRA representatives are presently touring the United States to complain about the Bill.
    In passing, I must say that I am not clear in my own mind about what any British police force has to learn about the use of minimal force from a nation—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some leeway for his preamble, but I remind him that we are discussing the allocation of time motion. His remarks seem to be more suited to a debate on Second or Third Reading.
    Mr. Ross: As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the opportunity to make such remarks on Second Reading has passed and, as a consequence of the motion, time will be so severely restricted that it will be impossible to make them on Third Reading. If I am not to have an opportunity to make such remarks, does not that show that the Government's timetable motion is creating serious defects and that Members of the House have difficulties in calling Ministers to account over how they deal with policing matters in Northern Ireland, which are matters of life and death to many of our constituents? Those matters should receive detailed consideration, which clearly will not be possible as a result of the severe restriction of the time available.
    The Government also need time. We are prepared to make the most constructive suggestions and we want to be helpful. We want to explain where they have got it wrong and to give them an opportunity to correct their mistakes. We want them to respond in the fullest and most detailed terms, but, unfortunately, their own motion will prohibit that. It is only right that we should bring those matters to the attention of the House and, in particular, of the Government in the hope that they might go away and think again.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who are on the Front Bench, have been in Northern Ireland for some time. They know that the Bill represents a serious issue in the Province and a problem that will not go away.
    742
    We are to have a new police service in Northern Ireland—for reasons that I hope to cover later, I disagree with the new term—and we are told in the press that the Government have made some 60 moves in the direction of the SDLP. The Secretary of State says that it should be well satisfied, but it is not satisfied. It has tabled a raft of amendments that we are supposed to consider in the restricted period of a few hours this afternoon and evening.
    At this stage in the proceeding, the Government have put before the House 46 pages of amendments. Surely we require more time to consider them than is being given to us, especially as the Bill is only 65 pages long. The Government say that not all the amendments are in their name, but the size of the Bill in relation to the number of amendments tabled shows the Government's willingness to say to Sinn Fein-IRA and the SDLP, "Tell us which way you want us to jump and we'll see what we can do for you." I cannot come to any other conclusion about why there are so many amendments.
    I read somewhere that there were 258 Government amendments, and today I heard that there were 220. The figure of 254 has also been mentioned. There is such a multitude of amendments that I have not had time to count them. I may get an hour this afternoon to do so, and discover how many there are. I was not a member of the Committee, and may have a different point of view from that of my hon. Friends who were on it. It is well known that I believe that most of the RUC's problems with policing parades and other matters should have been resolved during the discussions on the agreement rather than at this late stage. The Minister tells us that these are mainly technical amendments. If they are technical amendments, the drafting must have been very sloppy in the first place. We should not have to consider technical amendments.
    The Minister told us that the amendments were related to the change from "force" to "service". I have never thought that the police's job was to service the law. I thought that their job was to enforce the law, and to use the minimum force necessary to ensure that the law was kept. Now they will have to service the law, but I am not clear what that term is supposed to mean. No doubt the Minister, in his long-winded approach to the subject, will tell us what it means—at least I hope so, but I am living in hope rather than in expectation.
    Given their majority, the Government will steamroller the Bill through the House this evening no matter what is said. It will go to the other place and may return to this House amended—or perhaps not much amended—presumably in the autumn. One thing is certain, when today's debate is over, the people of Northern Ireland will not be satisfied. They will not be happy about what the Government say about the Bill or with the Bill at all, because they understand that the Bill was created as a consequence of terrorist violence and nothing else. That was the only reason. If there were reasons to make minor changes to the police, that could have been done in the natural course of events. The Bill was unnecessary, and the Government know that. They are trying to conceal the failure at an earlier stage fully to appreciate the reasons for the Bill by steamrollering it through and driving it on regardless of the opposition of those of us who live in Northern Ireland. We have to live with the consequences of the Bill, and we are well aware of the problems that it will create downstream.

    743
    As is apparent to every hon. Member, the Government treat the House and the legislative process more and more as if they were running a commercial business, in which the directors and the management decide on a course of action and then go ahead with it. If business men are wrong, only the business suffers. Legislation is not like that: it deals with very different circumstances. Sometimes a measure that at first seems simple and straightforward turns out not to be so. Everyone in the House remembers the poll tax and what a wonderful idea that was. The basic contention was to connect the payment of taxes—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too far away from the terms of the motion. I must direct him to come back to the point.
    Mr. Ross: I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am content to comply with it. I was trying to draw an analogy with what happened with the poll tax legislation, which seemed simple and straightforward at first, but which led to riots and all sorts of problems. That was also driven through the House with a large Government majority and had unforeseen consequences, although some foresaw them. Those who were in a minority in the House were eventually proved correct, as I believe they will be on this occasion. I simply wanted to draw the House's attention to a past error of judgment, and to ask hon. Members to reflect on whether an error of judgment has been made on this legislation, as I believe it has.
    On matters relating to Northern Ireland, I am usually in a minority in this place. I have been in the House longer than most: only the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has been here longer than I. Like me, he can recall many occasions on which legislation was passed by acclamation. Those of us who objected were subsequently proved to be correct, and I am certain that the same will happen with this legislation. Any hon. Member who has been in the House for a few years realises that a debate in this Chamber is not a light matter: it serves a useful and fundamental purpose. When a Government introduce a Bill, they always have a natural and understandable desire to see that it is passed as soon as possible, no matter how long it is. Time and again, I have seen that the longer the debate goes on, the more likely it is that flaws in the legislation are exposed, and slowly but surely changes take place. When a Bill disappears from this place and then comes back, frequently changes have been made that improve it. Everyone applauds that, but that is not happening with this Bill.
    Timetable motions, especially on Northern Ireland matters, should be opposed. Many hon. Members have never set foot in the Province, and know nothing about it. Their perception has been gained from media reports, newspapers, snapshots on the television, which is a poor way to build a policy or an opinion of a place, and above all from journalistic opinion. Journalists rarely sit in the middle of the road trying to give a clear and accurate picture of what is happening. They are always
    744
    biased. The Times used to say that opinion is free but the truth is sacrosanct, but that no longer seems to apply to the media at large.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I once again say to the hon. Gentleman that he must come back to the particular and get away from the general. I do not want to have to remind him again.
    Mr. Ross: Sometimes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is necessary to draw analogies.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already opined to the hon. Gentleman what I think is necessary in the circumstances of this debate. I hope that he will accord with that.
    Mr. Ross: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the help that you give me in reaching conclusions.
    I believe that the Chamber is a counterweight to outside influences. It is the place where these matters must be discussed in detail, and that takes time. I remember when a Member of the House changed his mind after long discussions in Committee. If the debate is long and detailed enough, perceptions and opinions can change. Given the nature of the Bill, it is completely wrong to impose a timetable motion. We should have considered the Bill earlier in the week, and we should continue for much longer than will be possible. If we had more time, we could discuss the Bill in greater detail, change people's minds and end up with a more effective law enforcement agency in Northern Ireland.
    It is no secret that I believe that the Bill is wrong. It will diminish the effectiveness of the RUC, and a debate would have exposed that. The time we are being allowed for debate is far too short. It is only when a Bill is considered calmly, logically and at length that people come to understand it and change their opinions, and support the necessary changes. The Bill will not fulfil its stated objectives. Whether the Government have unstated objectives, I do not know, but I am certain that time will reveal them.
    6.10 pm
    Mr. Peter Robinson: I oppose the motion.
    The Bill derives from the Belfast agreement; it is not simply the product of Patten. On Second Reading, I made it clear that I considered the Patten commission's report to be a faithful representation of the remit given to Patten by certain politicians in the Belfast agreement, although many of them want to wash their hands of it now. However, given that the agreement had its passage, as it were, during 1998, I think few hon. Members would not readily admit that this is the most controversial element of it, and has been paid considerable attention by the Northern Ireland community. The issue with which we shall deal this evening is therefore of great significance to the people of Northern Ireland. It cannot be dealt with lightly, and it cannot and should not be dealt with quickly.
    It demeans the Government if they are seen not to be confident enough of their arguments to allow them to be fully debated here. For it is clear that the issues in the Bill will not be properly debated this evening: they are too many, and too great, to be considered adequately in the time allowed.

    745
    The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has left the Chamber, has said outside it that he is delighted with the Bill. I am therefore surprised—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) like to repeat that, so that the Chair can hear it? I think not—but, like everything else that the hon. Gentleman says, it was substantially lacking in factual relevance.
    The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said publicly that he was delighted with the outcome of the Standing Committee's work. So he should be: it was he and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who recommended to the people of Northern Ireland that they should support the Belfast agreement, within which the Patten commission's remit was given and of which the Bill is the outcome.
    Intervening on my friend, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), the right hon. Gentleman asked what amendments he had tabled. Any sensible Northern Ireland Member would recognise that there is enough to oppose in the Bill, by way of clause stand part, for the proper result to emerge. It is not necessary to amend a Bill that is so inherently disastrous for the police service in Northern Ireland: it is to be opposed, rather than amended.
    The right hon. Gentleman then turned on my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), saying that those who were disrupting and perpetrating violence against the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland were supporters of his. If the right hon. Gentleman were a wee bit closer to the ground, he would recognise that the violence in Northern Ireland is being orchestrated by pro-agreement paramilitary organisations—the very same organisations with which the right hon. Gentleman walked into the talks shoulder to shoulder, and which supported him throughout the process.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the motion. I ask him to return to its confines.
    Mr. Robinson: I am happy to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I have indeed strayed I have been referring to remarks made in the House, without challenge, by others during the debate.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: It is well known in Northern Ireland that two members of the Stormont Assembly, on the so-called loyalist side, represent terrorist organisations. It is they, with others, who are seen on the streets, and who are carrying out attacks on the police.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the motion.
    Mr. Robinson: I think that the issue has been dealt with properly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I feel that, as it was raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann without challenge, it was right for us to have an answer on the record.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) had the audacity to tell the House that there was sufficient time. Having been a member of the Standing Committee, he had every opportunity to say whatever he wanted to say during, I believe, 11 sittings. He now tells those of us
    746
    who were not allowed to be members of the Committee, and who have therefore not had the same opportunities, that there is enough time—time of which he will no doubt take part in order to have a further say.
    Mr. Ingram: It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman reminded us that the last time he was a member of a Standing Committee—the Committee considering the last Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which became the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998—he attended only two sittings. I think I am correct in saying that.
    Mr. Robinson: I have not the slightest idea what the Minister is talking about. [Interruption.] The debate will continue for some time, and we shall be able to return to the issue with the Minister.
    Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman described my views on the guillotine as audacious. I thank him for the compliment, but surely he accepts that there was simply a difference of opinion. Members are perfectly entitled to have differing views. He himself has made important points, and I hope he recognises that I was not criticising him or his party for having a view different from mine.
    Mr. Robinson: I did not suggest that the hon. Gentleman had attacked our view. What he said was that there was sufficient time for the issues to be debated. My party, however, sought representation on the Committee, and was deliberately refused that representation. Our only opportunity to deal with the issues with which the hon. Gentleman had so much time to deal in Committee is tonight's debate, and we are being deliberately denied that opportunity by a Government who are afraid to allow them to be debated properly here.
    The Government may well suggest that there is very little time for the issues to be discussed further before the end of the Session. Of course, they left the debate until near the end of the Session because they did not want the details of the Bill to be revealed earlier, in case members of the Ulster Unionist Council saw what they were up to, and therefore formed a different opinion about the return to devolution in Northern Ireland.
    One very good reason why we should have more time is the absence of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). He has not been able to come along because he is in Cyprus or somewhere. He clearly has such strong opinions on the issue that he did not want to interrupt whatever his business may be elsewhere. It was that right hon. Gentleman, however—this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—who went to an Ulster Unionist Council meeting, and told that meeting that there was a piece of paper in his inside pocket that he would be able to produce if the Government did not stand by promises given to him. If we cut off tonight's debate, what opportunity will he have to come to the House and reveal for the first time the commitments that he was given—commitments that he said would be sufficient for the Ulster Unionist Council to allow—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make the remarks that he has made in the context of the debate, but I must ask him again to return to the terms of the motion.
    Mr. Robinson: I am dealing entirely with the issue of time. If a Member who is so central to the issue is not present, I would expect him to want time, in a resumed debate, allowing him to produce the evidence that he produced for the Ulster Unionist Council—evidence that he said would ensure the survival of—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my ruling. It is not a matter of what other Members should be doing in the debate; we want to hear what the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute.
    Mr. Robinson: I am grateful. I am sure that the House would agree.
    The Government have nothing but the contempt of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland for the way in which they have dealt with the whole issue of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They have attempted to use it as a political issue in relation to the Belfast agreement. They have one minute been attempting to suggest to the Unionist community that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was safe in their hands and that, on that basis, they should support the right hon. Member for Upper Bann in resuming the devolution of powers to Northern Ireland; and, the next minute, they have pandered to the republican tradition in Northern Ireland and, as has been seen throughout the stages of the Bill, produced amendments to satisfy that republican element.
    This debate—the charade that we are offered of just a few hours to debate a critical issue—reflects badly on the Government. I think that it will ensure that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be hung around their neck as an example of how they reward those who have stood by and made sacrifices for the community. At the same time, it will be seen in stark contrast to the rewards that they have given to terrorists in putting them into government and releasing their prisoners.
    6.21 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): We have had an interesting debate, and I shall be relatively brief compared with some of the contributions.
    The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has in these matters the merits of sincerity, which is palpable when he speaks on the subject, and of consistency. Although on this occasion he will understand that I cannot agree with him, I always respect his sincerity.
    I come to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and, in so doing, rise to the defence of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), even though he does not agree with us on this occasion. I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman reflects on what he said, he might regret it. He attacked the right hon. Gentleman for not having mentioned the republican bomb in Stewartstown.
    I have to say—I think that the hon. Member for North Antrim knows it—that, just as the Government, he and other hon. Members condemn every terrorist activity, from wherever it comes, so does the right hon. Member for Bracknell. The right hon. Gentleman may have
    748
    omitted to mention that particular incident, but if the hon. Member for North Antrim consistently followed what the right hon. Gentleman has said on those matters, he would find that, like us, the right hon. Gentleman condemns all terrorist incidents, whether they happen in Aghalee or Stewartstown. I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman has a cooler head, he will appreciate that that is the case.
    The hon. Gentleman argued—it was repeated with greater force by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—that the Government deprived them of a place on the Standing Committee. The Government do not allocate the places of the smaller parties on Standing Committees. It is not a question of the Government letting him down. Whatever representations he may have made—he referred to representations that had been made—would have been made within the arrangements for smaller parties. I understand that no representations were made through my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who speaks on these matters for the Patronage Secretary.
    Therefore, the idea that, cynically, out of fear, trepidation or whatever, we excluded the hon. Gentleman's party or, for that matter, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) from membership of the Committee does not stand up to scrutiny. If the hon. Gentleman goes back over the record of what representations may have been made, he will find that they certainly were not made to the Government, so that simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Howarth: Before I do, let me make it clear that, because hon. Members are anxious to talk about the substance of the Bill, I do not intend to give way a great deal.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister explain what was mentioned by the leader of the official Unionists, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—that he had made representation? He said that he had brought to a Minister's attention the representation from the Democratic Unionist party and the representation from the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), and the reply was, "No, we are not having them on the Committee." To whom did he make his representations?
    Mr. Howarth: It is my experience of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that, generally speaking, when asked to, he defends himself and his position very well. No doubt, when the occasion arises, the hon. Gentleman will tackle him on that very issue. I do not know of any representations that the right hon. Gentleman made, but I am sure that, if he said that he made them, he did. Where he made them, I have no idea.
    The hon. and learned Member for North Down and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) both referred to the number of amendments that has been tabled. If they scrutinise the amendments, as I am sure that they will have the opportunity to do, and take time to listen to the debate that they have spoken in, they will realise that something approaching 200 of those

    749
    amendments are consequential on the change of the words "police force" to "police service". Once we make such a change, it is necessary to go through the whole Bill and to make the necessary consequential changes.
    I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for North Down would want to debate every occasion that those words are used in the Bill. I think that, even though he can be loquacious on occasions, it is highly unlikely. I am willing to accept that the hon. Member for East Londonderry probably would want to debate the same point over and again as many times as it is mentioned, but that is a matter between him and the occupant of the Chair, and you made your position clear on that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    If there were ever a demonstration of why the motion is necessary, it was the speeches of the hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Belfast, East. When anyone who is concerned about the matter consults the record of the debate and the number of times that they had to be brought to order by the occupant of the Chair, it will be clear that the Government were right to put the motion on the Order Paper as a precautionary measure. If it were ever necessary to demonstrate that the motion was justified, the two hon. Members to whom I have just referred demonstrated that amply. I commend the motion to the House.
    Question put:-
    The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 143.

    Division No. 254]

    [6.28 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Breed, Colin

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Ainger, Nick

    Browne, Desmond

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Alexander, Douglas

    Burden, Richard

    Allan, Richard

    Burstow, Paul

    Allen, Graham

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cann, Jamie

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Casale, Roger

    Austin, John

    Caton, Martin

    Ballard, Jackie

    Cawsey, Ian

    Barnes, Harry

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Barron, Kevin

    Chaytor, David

    Battle, John

    Chidgey, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Beard, Nigel

    Clapham, Michael

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clelland, David

    Berry, Roger

    Clwyd, Ann

    Best, Harold

    Coaker, Vernon

    Betts, Clive

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blackman, Liz

    Cohen, Harry

    Blizzard, Bob

    Coleman, Iain

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Colman, Tony

    Borrow, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Brake, Tom

    Corston, Jean

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Cotter, Brian

    750

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cox, Tom

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Crausby, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hurst, Alan

    Cummings, John

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jamieson, David

    Darvill, Keith

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davidson, Ian

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

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

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Drew, David

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Edwards, Huw

    Kemp, Fraser

    Efford, Clive

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

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Etherington, Bill

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Khabra, Piara S

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Kidney, David

    Fisher, Mark

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Follett, Barbara

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lammy, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Fyfe, Maria

    Laxton, Bob

    Galloway, George

    Lepper, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Leslie, Christopher

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Levitt, Tom

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Linton, Martin

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Livsey, Richard

    Godsiff, Roger

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Goggins, Paul

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Lock, David

    Gorrie, Donald

    Love, Andrew

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McCabe, Steve

    Grocott, Bruce

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Grogan, John

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gunnell, John

    Macdonald, Calum

    Hain, Peter

    McDonnell, John

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McFall, John

    Hancock, Mike

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hanson, David

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Harvey, Nick

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    McNamara, Kevin

    Healey, John

    McNulty, Tony

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    MacShane, Denis

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McWalter, Tony

    Heppell, John

    McWilliam, John

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hill, Keith

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hood, Jimmy

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hope, Phil

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    751

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Meale, Alan

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Snape, Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    Moffatt, Laura

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Moore, Michael

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Stevenson, George

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

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

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Mountford, Kali

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Mudie, George

    Stringer, Graham

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Swinney, John

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Norris, Dan

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Olner, Bill

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Pearson, Ian

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Pendry, Tom

    Timms, Stephen

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pickthall, Colin

    Todd, Mark

    Pike, Peter L

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Plaskitt, James

    Touhig, Don

    Pond, Chris

    Trickett, Jon

    Pope, Greg

    Truswell, Paul

    Pound, Stephen

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Purchase, Ken

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Tyler, Paul

    Rammell, Bill

    Tynan, Bill

    Rapson, Syd

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Rendel, David

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rogers, Allan

    Watts, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Webb, Steve

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Rowlands, Ted

    White, Brian

    Roy, Frank

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Ruane, Chris

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Winnick, David

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Wood, Mike

    Salter, Martin

    Woolas, Phil

    Sanders, Adrian

    Worthington, Tony

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wray, James

    Sawford, Phil

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wyatt, Derek

    Sheerman, Barry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mrs. Anne McGuire and

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mr. Mike Hall

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Baldry, Tony

    Amess, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Bercow, John

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Blunt, Crispin

    752

    Body, Sir Richard

    Loughton, Tim

    Boswell, Tim

    Luff, Peter

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    McCartney, Robert (N Down)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Brady, Graham

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Brazier, Julian

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Maginnis, Ken

    Burns, Simon

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Butterfill, John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Cash, William

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Moss, Malcolm

    Chope, Christopher

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Clappison, James

    Norman, Archie

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Paice, James

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Collins, Tim

    Pickles, Eric

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Cran, James

    Prior, David

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Randall, John

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Robertson, Laurence

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Evans, Nigel

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Faber, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ruffley, David

    Fallon, Michael

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Flight, Howard

    Shepherd, Richard

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fraser, Christopher

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gale, Roger

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Spring, Richard

    Gibb, Nick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Steen, Anthony

    Gray, James

    Streeter, Gary

    Green, Damian

    Swayne, Desmond

    Greenway, John

    Syms, Robert

    Grieve, Dominic

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hammond, Philip

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hawkins, Nick

    Thompson, William

    Hayes, John

    Townend, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Tredinnick, David

    Horam, John

    Trend, Michael

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Walter, Robert

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Wells, Bowen

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Whittingdale, John

    Key, Robert

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Wilkinson, John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Wilshire, David

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Leigh, Edward

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Letwin, Oliver

    Lidington, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Mr. Stephen Day and

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved
    That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill—

    Timetable
    1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
    (2) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

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

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

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

    Miscellaneous
    3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.
    4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
    6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.

    Supplemental Orders
    8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
    9. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
    New Clause 3

      DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP SUB-GROUPS FOR BELFAST
      —(1) The district council for Belfast shall establish a sub-group of its district policing partnership for each police district established under section 20(2).
      (2) The function of each sub-group shall be to provide views to the district commander of the sub-group's police district and to the Board on any matter concerning policing of that district.
      (3) Each sub-group shall consist of at least six members of the partnership.
      (4) The members of a sub-group shall be appointed by the partnership.
      (5) The members of a sub-group shall appoint a member to act as chairman of the sub-group.
      (6) If they are unable to agree on whom to appoint as chairman, the partnership shall appoint the chairman.
      (7) The code issued under section 19 may contain guidance as to the exercise by sub-groups of their functions.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.45 pm
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 14, in clause 14, page 7 line 32, after "establish", insert—
      'within 6 months from the commencement date of this Act'.
      Amendment No. 56, in clause 15, page 8, line 3, leave out "section 14(1)" and insert—
      'any part of Part III of this Act'.
      Amendment No. 59, in clause 16, page 8, line 44, leave out "have regard to" and insert "comply with".
      Amendment No. 60, in clause 19, page 9, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
      Amendment No. 61, in page 9, line 25, after "and", insert "may".
      Amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert—
      '(b) a duty to hold all meetings of the district policing partnership in public;'.
      Amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 40, leave out from "police" to "for" in line 41 and insert—
      'service of their functions and operations in the district to be put by members of the district policing partnership and by members of the public'.
      Amendment No. 62, in page 10, line 8, at end add—
      '(3A) Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which compromises effective policing.'.
      Amendment No. 63, in clause 54, page 27, line 37, at end add—
      '(j) the effectiveness of district policing partnerships in the carrying out of their functions;
      (k) the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnerships.'.

      755
      Government amendment No. 213.
      Amendment No. 6, in schedule 1, page 37, line 30, leave out—
      'as far as is practicable'.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 37, line 33, after "consult", insert—
      'for a period not longer than three months'.
      Amendment No. 7, in page 37, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
      Amendment No. 9, in page 38, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (9) and insert—
      '(9) The members of the board shall, at their first meeting, elect a chair and a vice-chair; the appointments will not be confirmed unless the First and Deputy First Ministers agree to them; the Board shall ensure that—

      (a) the offices of chair and vice-chair are at all times held by members of different political parties;

      (b) a person is appointed to the office of chair and vice-chair for a term of 12 months at a time or, where that period is shorter than 12 months, for a period ending with the date of the next Assembly elections, and

      (c) the office of chair is held by each of the four largest parties represented in the Assembly after the last assembly election.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216.
      Amendment No. 10, in page 38, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
      Amendment No. 11, in page 40, line 45, after—
      'consult', insert for a period not longer than three months'.
      Amendment No. 303, in page 41, line 25, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Secretary of State shall remove a person from office as an independent or political member of the Board if satisfied that—'.
      Amendment No. 12, in page 41, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
      Amendment No. 304, in page 41, line 29, at end insert—
      '( ) any organisation to which he is linked has failed to satisfy any of the four factors set out in Section 3(9)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998;
      ( ) any organisation to which he is linked has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in Section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.'.
      Amendment No. 13, in page 41, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
      Amendment No. 305, in page 41, line 45, at end add—
      '(d) he has at any time been convicted of a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 or Part VII of the Terrorism Act;
      (e) he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not);
      756
      (f) the political party of which he is a member is linked to any organisation to which he is linked has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.'.
      Government amendment No. 218.
      Amendment No. 19, in schedule 3, page 48, line 29, after "power", insert—
      'within 6 months of the commencement of this Act'.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 49, line 3, after "council", insert—
      'within one month of receipt of the nominations'.
      Amendment No. 21, in page 49, line 18, at end add
      '; before making such appointments the Council shall satisfy itself that it has taken all reasonable steps to make the district community aware that nominations are due to be made, that it has invited applications from that community and that, following thorough consideration of all applications, that the persons nominated, so far as is practicable, reflect that community.'.
      Amendment No. 306, in page 50, line 10, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Board or the council, with the approval of the Board, shall remove a person from office as a political or independent member of a DPP if satisfied that—

      (a) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means;

      (b) the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997;'.

      Amendment No. 307, in page 50, line 24, leave out "an independent" and insert "a".
      Amendment No. 22, in page 52, line 2, after first "may", insert—
      'with the agreement of the Board'.
      Mr. Ingram: I said at the fourth sitting of the Committee on 20 June that the Government were considering Patten's recommendation No. 28 that there should be four sub-groups of the district policing partnership in Belfast. I said that, if the Government decided to amend the Bill—we indicated that we were considering doing so—we would do so on Report. New clause 3 will make that amendment.
      The Government concluded that, with an area the size of Belfast, it made sense to establish not four separate DPPs, as some have called for, but four sub-groups of the Belfast DPP, to be established by the council. Each sub-group is to consist of at least six members of the partnership, appointed by the partnership.
      The Policing Board's code of practice under clause 19 will cover the operation of those sub-groups. Their function will be to provide views to the police and to the partnership. As the new clause stands, it refers in line 4 to "the Board". That should, of course, be "the partnership". That will be corrected in the other place.
      By tabling the new clause, we have implemented Patten's recommendation in paragraph 6.27 of the commission's report, but we have done so in a way that recognises the concerns that have been expressed about

      757
      the make-up of those sub-groups and how their role will tie in with that of the Belfast DPP. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the new clause.
      Mr. David Trimble: The Minister mentioned the relationship between the sub-groups and the Belfast DPP as a whole. To what extent will the sub-groups work with the partnership and to what extent will they take over functions from the partnership? Those questions raise a series of issues on which the new clause gives no information, but which are matters of great concern to us. The Minister should deal with those issues in some detail.
      Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because it is important for hon. Members to understand the way in which the DPPs will operate, which is in terms of the codes of practice that will be laid down by the Policing Board and conditioned by the Secretary of State's consideration of how they are actually operating. For instance, if a district is not delivering as it should, the Secretary of State will involve himself in that area.
      Let me deal with the specific point raised by the right hon. Gentleman; the four sub-groups will report to the Belfast DPP and their work will be conditioned by the other clauses under which the DPPs come under the scrutiny of both the Policing Board and the Secretary of State. They will not be four entities in their own right, but four sub-groups that report to the central DPP.
      Mr. Trimble: I apologise if I have not got the details right, but the new clause states:
      The function of each sub-group shall be to provide views to the district commander of the sub-group's police district.
      When one compares that to clause 16, which covers the general functions of DPPs, it is in line with clause 16(1)(a). Is it intended that the sub-groups simply take over from the Belfast DPP in that function only, and consequently will have no function in regard to clause 16(1)(a)-(e)? If that is the case, it would be well for the House to know that, However, the language that the Minister used implied that the sub-groups will take over all the functions of the DPPs and simply report to the Belfast partnership.
      Mr. Ingram: No. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that that would not be the case. They would be not separate entities in their own right, but four sub-groups reporting to the DPP, conditioned obviously by the way in which the board interfaces with that and the way in which the Secretary of State can, in consultation with the board and under his own powers, deal with it.
      The sub-groups will be an integral part of the Belfast DPP and will report to that district partnership. It is important to understand that they will have purely consultative functions. All the functions of the Belfast DPP remain as for the other DPPs. There is no difference between Belfast DPP and the other equivalent DPPs that will be set up under the structures envisaged. The sub-groups have no role in the local policing plan for Belfast. That remains the responsibility of the Belfast DPP. In that sense, the groups are consultative.
      The right hon. Gentleman has concerns about the way in which the groups could have developed. Clearly, there was an argument that there should have been four separate
      758
      entities in that area. That is the way that some people interpreted Patten; that is not what Patten said, and we have been faithful to what he said. I hope that I have given the right hon. Gentleman assurances about the way in which the sub-groups of the DPP will function.
      Government amendment No. 213 is a consequential amendment arising from one that was accepted in Committee on the membership of the direct rule Policing Board. Columns 38 to 45 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B contain references to that matter. The Committee accepted that, during direct rule, there should be between 14 and 19 members on the Policing Board. The amendment alters schedule 1(3)(2) to reflect the fact that, instead of one number, there is now a set of numbers. We want a sliding-scale approach. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the amendment.
      Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216 honour a commitment that I made to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) in Committee—I said in column 94 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B that I would table amendments on Report. These amendments affect paragraph (4)(5) of schedule 1, which sets out the provisions for removal from the board during direct rule. Amendment No. 215 provides that removal for a criminal conviction applies to convictions after the date of appointment.
      Amendment No. 216 adds to that provision by enabling the Secretary of State to remove a person from the board for non-disclosure of a criminal conviction at the time of appointment. We will want to table similar amendments in the other place for a board set up under the devolved structure. Here, we are dealing only with that set up under the direct rule structure. Similar amendments were made and accepted by the Committee on exactly this issue in relation to the DPPs, as can be seen from column 212 of the Official Report. I ask the House to accept Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216. They honour commitments made in Committee.
      On Government amendment No. 218, in Committee on Tuesday 27 June—Official Report columns 114 to 118—I said that the Government would produce amendments to clarify the position on quorums both for appointments of the second and subsequent chairperson and vice-chairperson posts, which are dealt with in schedule 1(17)(2), and the numbers required to determine an inquiry under paragraph (17)(4), which of course relates to a board set up under a devolved Government. Government amendment No. 218 meets that commitment and I ask the House to accept it.
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: I shall speak to the amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench—amendments Nos. 303 to 307. In the limited time available to the House due to the guillotine motion, I shall restrict my remarks to those amendments, which centre on who should sit on the Policing Board and on the district policing partnerships.
      It should be common ground on both sides of the House and in all parts of the House that it cannot be right and proper for people who have committed violent criminal and terrorist offences, or who are associated with terrorist groups that have not entered a ceasefire, to sit on the board or the partnerships.
      I hope that it is not necessary to dwell at any length on how security sensitive sitting on the board or the partnerships will be. Royal Ulster Constabulary officers,

      759
      and for that matter other members of the security forces and Ministers, would be put in an impossible position if people were sitting on the partnerships and the board who were not committed to peaceful means of pursuing their political ends. If officers refused to give information to the board or partnership because they were scared of the security implications, the very working of the board and the workings of the partnerships would be put in doubt. The House should accept our amendments. It is inconceivable that such people should be involved in the board or the partnerships.
      Let me expand a little: first, we are insisting that political representatives—elected politicians—who are associated with paramilitaries can sit on the board or the partnerships only if the paramilitaries to whom they are inextricably linked have started properly and comprehensively to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. The Minister will confirm that they are legally obliged to do so under the Belfast agreement, which they signed.
      Whereas I would have no objection to the names of people who are to sit on the board and the partnerships being made public, I feel that they should not be able to take their seats until their paramilitary associates have moved considerably towards fulfilling their obligations under the agreement to decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives.
      Secondly, anyone sitting on the board or on a partnership must, both in practice and in word, have renounced violence in all its forms for good. I note that that applies to members of the board and of the partnerships who are not elected representatives; obviously, it must also apply to those who are elected.
      7 pm
      Probably the most important aspect of our amendments is that which relates to people who—in simple layman's language—are committed terrorists. It seems wrong that anyone who has been found guilty of committing a terrorist offence should sit on the board or a partnership. When the Bill was published, it was made clear that, although elected representatives who had committed scheduled offences could sit on those bodies, lay members who had committed such offences could not do so. That was changed in Committee, as the Minister will confirm.
      That is regrettable. It is wrong that someone who was a committed terrorist can sit on a police board or body. I hope that, when the Minister reflects on that point, he will agree and that our amendments will be accepted. I offer the Minister and the Secretary of State a gentle warning that, if the amendments are not passed, there will be no confidence in the new policing system—neither in the boards nor the partnerships. The partnerships will not work properly and security will be put at risk in the Province and on the mainland; the Minister is responsible for security in the Province and I know that is the last thing that he wants. I hope that he will realise that our amendments are moderate, sensible and realistic; they should be incorporated in the Bill.
      Mr. John McDonnell: I shall be brief, so that we can move on to other matters.
      760
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said that many of the amendments are technical, and indeed they are. The amendments that I have tabled are straightforward. They would provide further reassurance to those people—in the House and elsewhere—who are concerned because the Bill does not fully reflect the recommendations of the Patten report, either in regard to openness and transparency or in ensuring the implementation of several issues relating to the establishment of district policing partnerships and the Policing Board.
      The amendments would set a timetable for the DPPs—for the commencement of their powers, for their nominations and appointments and for the consultations held by the Secretary of State on those appointments. The second thrust of the amendments is to ensure that there is openness and transparency in the operation of the DPPs. They provide that the partnerships meet in public, that members of the public can put questions to the district police commander, and that there is full and open consultation on policies that have regard to the overall community.
      The amendments would ensure that the composition of the DPPs is balanced and that the appointments of the chair and vice-chair of the board are made with the maximum involvement and consultation and have the support of all parties in the Assembly—and, especially, of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The amendments would strengthen the powers of the board in the establishment of DPPs.
      The amendments are technical and relatively uncontentious. I welcome this opportunity for the Government to consider those matters before the Bill makes its way to the other place. The amendments strengthen the commitment to openness and transparency, while securing a timetable for the implementation of the Bill's provisions on DPPs.
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 56 and 59 to 63. They have been tabled to tidy up the fairly flawed provisions on district policing partnerships. It will come as no secret to Ministers that I oppose the whole concept of such partnerships as detailed in the Bill.
      We all know that the lowest tier of government is the most difficult place in which to control political ambition. The DPPs will be devised so that they reflect the electoral strengths of district councils, but individuals from those areas will be added to them. Such is the spread—or lack of spread—of population across the political divide in some parts of Northern Ireland, that the lowest common denominator will rule the day if we run with these DPPs. Such is the progress of the Bill that that is inevitable.
      We want to put some constraints and controls on the DPPs. Clause 15 provides that if the Secretary of State
      is satisfied that a district council has failed to comply with…section 14(1)
      he can take certain steps to remedy the matter. That power is not broad enough, although I am not usually someone who argues for more powers for the Secretary of State. Although it appears that the provision places that condition only on district councils, I do not believe that is what would happen.
      The political members of DPPs will come from the district councils; they will be nominated and selected under the d'Hondt system. If there is constant disruption

      761
      and the DPPs do not fulfil a positive and constructive function, there should be some redress. It may not be possible to seek such redress from the DPPs, but it should be possible to ensure that district councils are subject to responsibilities and constraints for those whom they nominate to represent them on DPPs.
      We suggest that the narrow provision that applies only to section 14(1) should be deleted and that the conditions that should apply should extend to the whole of part III. That would ensure that community activists such as those in the Omagh district—to whom I referred in Committee—who work voluntarily with the police, trying to represent society so that policing can function, are not bullied and browbeaten—if not physically beaten—by members of Sinn Fein, led by a Sinn Fein councillor. I gave full details of that incident in Committee, so I shall not repeat them.
      Amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61 are technical. I hope that the Government will accept them because they tidy up the Bill. Amendment No. 59 would amend clause 16, which says that the district policing partnerships
      shall have regard to a code of practice.
      We want them to "comply with" a code of practice. I think that in fact they must be bound to comply with a code of practice—otherwise, why would we have a code of practice?
      Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would amend clause 19, which says:
      The Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, issue and from time to time revise a code of practice…
      I do not believe that it was intended for the board to have an option whether or not to provide and issue a code of practice. I believe that the wording that was intended—our amendment would achieve this—was:
      "The Board shall, with the consent of the Secretary of State, issue and from time to time revise a code of practice"
      and so on.
      Most of our amendments are technical, and I hope that the Government will take them into consideration as a means of tightening up the legislation. I also hope that the Minister will consider the too, too narrow basis on which the Secretary of State is to make a judgment as to how district councils fulfil their function. It is not just that they have a responsibility to appoint political members to the DPPs, but that they have a responsibility to ensure that those members whom they do appoint fulfil the functions and the conditions that are contained in the rest of part III.
      I shall turn briefly to the amendments that originated from the Conservative Front Bench, and simply and without further elaboration say that they appeal to us. We believe that they reflect some of those things that are necessary if DPPs are not to become the focus for dissension and disruption and, indeed, for the impeding of police in the execution of their duties to the whole of society in the areas concerned.
      The Government will not be surprised, therefore, to hear me say that I am totally opposed to what is contained in new clause 3. I do not want to suggest that this is a sleight of hand, but if it is not, it is the next best thing to that. It is very clearly stated in clause 14:
      Each district council shall establish for its district a body to be known as the district policing partnership.
      It makes no sense whatever that Belfast, any more than Craigavon, Derry City or any other larger urban area, should be subdivided in terms of its district policing partnership differently from what happens within the city council itself.
      762
      7.15 pm
      The Government may argue that because Belfast has in excess of 500,000 people, and as four local areas of command meet within the city, there should be four sub-committees of the district policing partnership. I hope that the Government will explain why they think that it would be a good thing, in a city that is divided and ghettoised as a result of 30 years of violence, to have one area of the city with a sub-committee that will deal with an almost exclusively republican population and another area with a sub-committee that will deal with an almost exclusively Unionist population.
      Is it not the desire of the Government that we move forward—that people stop thinking rigidly, antagonistically and confrontationally in terms of their own tradition? Is it not a fact that people should be reflecting on how the city council area of Belfast can be policed in a way that ensures uniformity, consistency and fair play for each and every citizen? If the Government—I doubt that they will dissent from what I have just suggested—believe that that is the case, why on earth would they want to subdivide a district policing partnership in which huge differences of opinion will have to be accommodated, and can be accommodated only if the individual members are willing to work constructively together?
      If there are to be sub-committees, something needs to be said about whether they represent exclusively the tradition that dominates the area that a sub-committee represents, or whether the sub-committees would themselves have some sort of d'Hondt formulation, whereby each would reflect the main DPP overall—but the Bill quite simply does not do that. Instead, it panders, and panders dangerously, to sectarian and partisan points of view. That is a danger. We were given the impression on Second Reading and in Committee—indeed, until we saw new clause 3—that that would not happen. That is one reason why we should have more time to discuss the Bill, because this sort of surprise is more than a surprise—it is an inherent danger for the whole of society in Northern Ireland if, merely to satisfy a sectarian or political demand, we divide our population in this way.
      If the Minister wants to find justification in Patten, I should draw attention to the fact that one thing that Patten made very clear was that the RUC was to be a unitary police service. It will not be a unitary police service if it is to be divided into 26—plus now another three in Belfast—virtually autonomous areas, none of which, under the proposals in the Bill, has any conjunction with surrounding local areas of command. If the divisional police stratum of command had remained, the local areas of command would have been conjoined to a degree. We have to remember that it was the present Chief Constable who proposed that divisional areas should be done away with. If we are to do away with divisional areas, the Chief Constable, to put it bluntly, has no right to do away with regional areas. A larger number of local areas of command could be coalesced under a regional command structure.
      I hope that I have demonstrated not only the folly and the inept drafting but the inherent danger that derives from the new clause. I do not believe that an area of half a million people is too large to be dealt with under one body, just as every other council area is. If the Minister believes that there is some justification for what he

      763
      proposes, he has to tell us how he will ensure that in an area such as republican west Belfast, predominantly Sinn Fein influence is not exerted on the police. Similarly for other parts of Belfast, where there is a different influence, the Minister has to explain to us what precautions he will put in place.
      The new clause is dangerous, especially for an urban area such as Belfast where crime does not observe any boundary. The drug trafficking that the Minister will hear me speak about again and again and all the other social abuses, such as protection rackets and everything else, are not sicknesses that observe boundaries. The germ of criminality spreads far and wide across the boundaries.
      I ask the Minister to consider not pressing this particular new clause to a vote this evening. It has been sprung on us, so we have not had time to consider it. It is full of danger, and the Minister would do well to look again at whether what is being created could be the catalyst for dissension within the city of Belfast.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: I have been fairly sympathetic to the idea of DPPs, and I find new clause 3 logical, in the sense that it fulfils some of the promises made in Committee. However, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) rightly highlights the danger of a compartmentalisation of police operations along the sectarian lines that he described. That would not be good for the effectiveness of the police. So I hope that the Minister can reassure us by explaining how the mechanisms in the Bill will ensure that compartmentalisation does not occur.
      The other important point that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made related to amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61. We had an extensive debate in Committee on the subject of amendment No. 59, and we did not receive a satisfactory reply. Why do the DPPs need only to have regard to the code rather than to comply with it? As the hon. Gentleman said, either it is a code of practice or it is not. I do not see it as guidelines. The Minister would be well advised to consider accepting amendment No. 59 and recognising that the most effective code of practice is one that does not have to be bent to different circumstances: one that fits all circumstances. It may be more difficult to introduce such a code, but I assure the Minister that it will be an awful lot more messy if various DPPs justify exempting themselves from the details of the code on the grounds of the words "have regard to". They might simply say, "We were not forced to comply with the code; it was simply a guideline and we have handled it accordingly." The Minister should respond to that and to the sensible clarifications in amendments Nos. 60 and 61.
      I have been slightly critical of the Government, but I thank the Minister for having listened and introduced amendments Nos. 215 and 216, as he promised he would in Committee. The amendments make it clear that some categories of individual do not have a place in the process of policing in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 215 will exclude those who have failed to disclose a criminal offence, and amendment No. 216 will exclude those who commit an offence after being appointed. It is right that they should be excluded, and I am glad that the changes that we requested have been made.
      764
      The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) raised an issue in the group of amendments tabled by the official Opposition. If one area was not sufficiently philosophically clarified in Committee with regard to where the Government stand, it is this. Although I have a view different from that expressed by the right hon. Member for Bracknell, it would be helpful to hear clearly why the Government are comfortable with the opportunity that various people who have clearly been involved in illegal actions will have to serve on the new bodies. For me, it is about forgiveness, trust and acting in good faith. If those things are not present, the whole process will not work anyway, and I have no problem with expressing that again. The right hon. Member for Bracknell has been clear about his reservations, as has the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
      I am comfortable with moving forward on the basis that I have just described. It would help if the Minister stated unequivocally that the Government share my view, or that they have some other rationale. It would be helpful to have that on the record, not least because many people have exactly the same reservations as the right hon. Member for Bracknell expressed.
      Mr. Trimble: I rise to support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) on new clause 3. It really ought to be considered again. We have grave concerns about it. Earlier, I asked the Minister just what the relationship between the sub-groups and the partnership would be. I did not appear to get a clear answer from him, despite the notes that were passed to him. Perhaps, now that he has had time to collect his thoughts more fully on the issue, he will go into the relationship between one and the other in greater detail. That ought to be teased out at length rather than rushed into the Bill at this last minute.
      The Minister must recognise that there is real concern on our Benches that the new clause is a means of returning to the original proposal, to which we took strong exception, that Belfast should be split into four DPPs. We thought that that was a very serious mistake that would have serious consequences for the effectiveness of policing in the area. It would sectarianise policing in Belfast, and that would be a retrograde step.
      7.30 pm
      New clause 3 brings the danger that the Government, having realised that the original proposal was mistaken and having moved to a more sensible position, are now heading back by a roundabout route to their original mistake. That is why we need to know much more. This bears particularly on two of the amendments that we have mentioned.
      In reply to my intervention, the Minister referred to the code of practice. We would love to see the code of practice being an effective safeguard in this matter, but the Bill does not make it so. The code of practice is something that the board may make; it is under no duty, as the Bill is drafted, to do so. If the board does make a code of practice, the DPPs are simply to "have regard to" it. "Have regard to" is a fairly weak link on this matter.
      Our amendments would put the board under a duty to make a code of practice and require the DPPs to comply with it. They would bring about precisely the situation that the Minister hinted at in reply to my intervention, by

      765
      saying that the code of practice could make provisions which would regulate these matters. It cannot regulate them unless there is a duty to make the code of practice and a duty to comply with it. From the point of view of achieving what the Minister himself set out, he should accept our amendments.
      I wish to make some general points, touching on the existence of DPPs and on district council areas as the relevant local area of command in policing terms. One wonders about the coherence of that idea. In Northern Ireland we have 26 district councils, some of them very small. At the other end of the spectrum, we have larger ones, such as Belfast. I hesitate, lest I incur the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, to point out that Belfast has a population of 300,000, not 500,000, unless my hon. Friend knows something about changes to Belfast's boundaries that I do not know.
      The borough that I represent, Craigavon, has a population of 100,000. Lisburn has a population of over 100,000. Derry city has a population of over 100,000. Is there so much difference between 100,000 and 300,000? Why, then, break up Belfast? The borough of Craigavon has two local areas of command, the sub-divisional area of Portadown and the sub-divisional area for Lurgan. From what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said, I have the impression that there may be similar arrangements within Derry city council as well. There is a question here about consistency.
      Then there is the question of what happens if, for example, there is a change in district council boundaries. This legislation relates to the number of district councils. Although no change in their number has been proposed, I have seen speculation in the press. For example, there was an interesting proposal in the editorial column of The Irish News several months ago suggesting that, instead of 26 councils, there should be only 14 or 15 in Northern Ireland. I do not know who inspired the editor of The Irish News to write that; it was certainly not me. Let us say for the sake of argument that that happened. The legislation would then automatically roll through and reduce Northern Ireland to 15 or 16 local areas of command and 15 or 16 DPPs.
      I notice that heads are nodding on the Government Front Bench. I hesitate to say anything about how they are nodding! I take it that they are nodding in agreement and that the situation I have described is a consequence that the Government are entirely comfortable with.
      That leads one to wonder why we have this arrangement. The Minister knows that one of our concerns about the district council areas being the local areas of command for policing is that there is then no tier within the police service between the local areas of command and headquarters in Belfast, or wherever it happens to be. We are concerned, as are others, about the effectiveness of policing; and this situation exposes a serious danger of a weakness in the command structure within the police service, a greater tendency for the local areas to act independently, and consequently a greater danger that the police officer in charge of each local area will be under undue pressure from a politically motivated DPP. That danger would be minimised if we had an effective structure within the police service.
      766
      I know that over the years there has been an argument about the divisional command. Stripping out the divisional command has been suggested; from time to time even her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has referred to that. Why not, then, provide a regional structure with, say, the equivalent of two or three assistant chief constables grouping the local areas of command so as to provide an effective structure? It is important that, as Patten recommended, we retain a unitary structure within the police service. That is endangered by the proposals before us. I should like to hear the Minister directly address that point.
      Another matter of concern at the other end of the spectrum is local areas. We have an extensive structure of local police and community liaison groups. Obviously, with that structure, the community police liaison committees are somewhat uneven, but they bring local communities together, particularly communities that have significant problems. I do not wish to identify the area in question, but in my constituency I know of two housing estates with serious problems. They have formed their own CPLC, which brings together a number of community groups that interact with the local police officers very effectively.
      Such CPLCs will disappear. Clause 16(1)(c) says that the DPPs
      shall make arrangements for obtaining—
      the views of the public about matters concerning the policing of the district.
      It is possible within those terms to make arrangements to hear the views of people in particular localities. That should be encouraged. Perhaps it could be covered in a code of practice, but if the code of practice does not have to be made and is not binding, there is not much point in making that provision.
      I worry about all the good people in a number of localities who are engaged in handling serious problems in their neighbourhoods. In dealing with criminality and anti-social activity, which are serious problems in some areas, they will now find that the structure they have depended on to try to improve policing in their area will disappear and be replaced by an excessively politicised structure at district council level that does not effectively reach down into local communities.
      It is not good enough to say that community groups can go to see the DPP. That does not meet the need. I am reluctant to go into greater detail, because we are so short of time, but there is a serious gap in the legislation, unless it is properly covered by codes of practice. I have heard nothing about that, however, and my colleagues who were on the Committee recall no discussion there dealing specifically with the matter. As I said at the beginning, unless those codes of practice are binding on DPPs and it is mandatory for the board to make them, they will not be effective; they will not be a tool to ensure that this local layer is in place and that the Minister's assurances on the sub-groups in Belfast are implemented.
      Mr. William Thompson: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 62 and 63, tabled by the Ulster Unionist party.
      Amendment No. 62 deals with the great danger that we see in the district policing partnership, which we believe will put the district police commander under great pressure, take up a great deal of his time and, indeed,

      767
      make policing more difficult than it is now. Hence amendment No. 62 would insert a new subsection, which states:
      Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which compromises effective policing.
      Although community relations and seeking the views of the community are useful, they should not in any way compromise the effectiveness of the police in the area. That is why we tabled the amendment.
      Amendment No. 63 is designed to ensure that the Policing Board would produce a yearly report on the effectiveness of policing. That report should also include comments on the effectiveness of the district police partnerships, how they operate, how they are received and how they affect good policing in a particular area. The amendment would make it part of the board's remit to report on
      the effectiveness of district policing partnerships,
      and on
      the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnerships.
      That is essential. There should be continual supervision of the district policing partnerships so that they do not compromise proper and effective policing.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: The reasoned amendment on Second Reading tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) expressed the Conservative party's deep anxieties about the prospect of the political representatives of paramilitary organisations sitting on the policing board and the district policing partnerships without the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives having started. We also expressed our anxieties about inadequate safeguards against people convicted of terrorist offences serving on the Policing Board or the DPPs. We did not vary our stance on Second Reading or in Committee and we have not done so on Report.
      Earlier, my right hon. Friend made perfectly clear who should not serve on the bodies and why they should not serve on them. He spoke in support of amendments No. 303 to 307, and we were subsequently pleased to receive the support of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the Ulster Unionist party for those five amendments. At no stage this evening—perhaps we will not hear it at any stage—have we heard any convincing rebuttal of the arguments behind the amendments.
      I hope that it is not too much to ask the Minister to recognise the force of my right hon. Friend's arguments, which have been consistently maintained since Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will give us a pleasant surprise by accepting the amendments.
      Mr. Ingram: We have a cluster of amendments before us, and it will be difficult to deal with all aspects of them. However, I shall try to work through them in a logical and structured fashion.
      Before I come to the amendments, it is important to consider the debate that we have had on Government new clause 3. I gave an indication in Committee of how the
      768
      Government were thinking, so the new clause should not have come as a surprise. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) suggested that it was a new concept, but I gave notice in Committee that we were thinking along those lines. We have reflected that thinking, and given the points that we made in Committee, reference should have been made to the Patten report.
      I also tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not limiting the time for this debate; I am quite prepared to continue it. That may mean that we cannot debate other issues, but I am happy to debate this issue to a conclusion, because I recognise that it is important.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: I remind the Minister that my surprise was not of my own making. It derived from the fact that when the Secretary of State referred to Belfast in the debate on the Patten report, he said:
      I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast, where I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships.—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 847.]
      What the Secretary of State has given us is an apology for four separate partnerships—and he knows it.
      Mr. Ingram: I do not accept that assertion at all. I said that the matter was alluded to in Committee. Members of the Democratic Unionist party and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) have made a great song and dance about the need to debate this measure, but they are not here. For whatever reason, they have absented themselves from the Chamber. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all parties—perhaps with the exception of those that are not here now—have made representations, and in the discussions, we have sought to find points of common ground. That fact was reflected in the changes made in Committee. All parties in Committee moved amendments, and we have amended the Bill based on reasoned consideration of the arguments put forward.
      I cannot enter into a debate about the future of the district council structure, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The councils are no longer a matter for the United Kingdom Government. It is for the Assembly on which he serves to determine what the structure should be. If the structure evolves and develops in a particular way, that is an issue for the Assembly.
      As the Bill stands, there is provision for 26 councils. However, we anticipate that two or three small councils may wish to come together. That is allowed for if they wish it and if everyone is satisfied that that is the way forward. Rearrangement of the existing structure can take place if there is agreement.
      I do not accept the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that new clause 3 was not explained, but I shall explain it further, to help him to appreciate what we are doing. The Belfast district policing partnership, out of which will come the four sub-groups, will continue to have the powers set out in clause 16. Those are the same as for all other DPPs; there is no difference between Belfast and anywhere else. Those powers will not be delegated to the four sub-groups; there is no delegation of powers on that basis. The sub-groups will remain subordinate to the main Belfast DPP and they will have

      769
      the function of providing views and holding discussions with the local police commander. They will also offer to the main Belfast DPP views on policing in their areas.
      As I said earlier, the sub-groups will have no role in the main planning process for Belfast except in offering views to the Belfast DPP, of which they are an integral part. The local police planning function is for the Belfast DPP as a whole. There is no question of transferring power down to the sub-groups in that way. They have certain limited functions.
      Mr. Thompson: Am I right in thinking that a DPP can delegate its responsibilities to a committee and give it the powers of the partnership? Can that happen in this case? Furthermore, the Minister has referred to six nominees to a partnership, so why does he not insist that three are elected and three are independent members?
      Mr. Ingram: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes, that is how the Bill can apply. Of course, there must be sensible arrangements to ensure the best and maximum point of contact and the best communications at local level between the local community and the police and vice versa. That is the underlying principle of the Bill, and it seeks to achieve that. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with the principle that the local community should engage with the local police. The problem in too many areas of Northern Ireland is that the local community does not engage with the police—[Interruption.] Well, to find ways to encourage that to happen was obviously one of the underlying motives and drivers of the Patten report and of what we are seeking to deliver.
      As for the four sub-divisions of Belfast, there are already four police districts in Belfast. Clause 20 makes provision for police districts and the way in which they will be established. Each district commander should deal with a specific sub-group of the Belfast district policing partnership. That goes back to the point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman about the need for a close relationship with the local district commander, which concerns effective community policing as well as effective accountability for policing. The further that is from the reality on the street, the less effective it is.
      As set out in new clause 3, each sub-group will have six members, so individual members of the DPP will be represented on more than one sub-group. The partnership itself will appoint members of the sub-group. As the Government do not intend to intervene in any way whatever, that is in effect a devolution of responsibility. If the Government intervened and were heavy-handed, that would work against the very principle which, I would have thought, we all seek to achieve. I repeat that the provision is about consultation on policing, not sectarian head counts, as has been suggested, or the cantonisation of policing.
      Mr. Trimble: May I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), as there is an inconsistency in the Government's approach to the Policing Board for Northern Ireland and to individual district policing partnerships. The Bill contains elaborate provisions to ensure balance, and make sure that the board is representative of the Assembly, the partnerships of the district councils, and so on. The Government are not
      770
      reluctant to impose on the Assembly and the local councils provisions that ensure balance. Why, then, is there no provision to ensure balance in the sub-groups? Why does the Minister forswear the desire to have balance there? It is important that that issue is addressed, as it would help to restore confidence if we were sure that the sub-groups were reflective of the partnership as a whole, and that the door was not being opened to the creation of sub-groups that were not representative of the partnership as a whole, which would lead to sectarianisation or cantonisation of the sub-groups.
      Mr. Ingram: They will certainly not be cantonised in the terms suggested.
      The provision is not about the cantonisation of the sub-groups, any more than it is about the cantonisation of policing. There are two ways of approaching the matter. One could take a heavy-handed, interfering approach—[Interruption.] I am trying to deal with this debate, but the right hon. Member for Upper Bann keeps shouting at me from a sedentary position. I cannot hear what he is saying, but it is a bit off-putting. I am trying to work through his last question, but he is not letting me get 10 words out before he starts disagreeing with my explanation.
      We are seeking to establish, in the hands either of the board or of the Secretary of State, powers proportionate to the body to which those powers relate. Those bodies are low-level, and I have tried to set out the fact that they are concerned with local consultation. They do not have the powers of the DPPs. If the Government were to ride in and say that we wanted a certain type of representation, that would be very heavy-handed and would work against the principle of devolution itself. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann may believe that we should interfere, and wish that we would, in every aspect of Northern Ireland society. However, that is not my view, as it runs counter to the principle of devolution and to all the representations concerning the relative powers of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable that we received when the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 was being considered.
      The same tripartite structure applies here. Representations were made about the Secretary of State having too much power, and we are trying to ensure that the powers provided for are proportionate to the level of responsibility. I am now being asked to apply a heavy-handed approach, which is inconsistent.
      Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ingram: I shall, but we have a lot of progress to make.
      Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to intervene on the Minister again, but he has not answered the question. All I said was that he was being inconsistent. He stands at the Dispatch Box saying that he does not want to be heavy-handed, but he is being heavy-handed on the composition of the board, as he has been on the composition of the partnerships. Why does the principle of representative character not flow through to the sub-groups?
      Mr. Ingram: We must look at the size of the sub-groups. The way in which these bodies are set up

      771
      means that the DPP itself must take that sort of view into account. However, if we are over-prescriptive, that militates against the principle that the provision is about people's local communities.
      DPPs and the sub-groups will not be successful if they become bodies set up on the basis of sectarian head-counts, as there will be no co-operation across the community divide. I do not believe that there is an inconsistency, as we must seek to ensure that the level of decision making is proportionate to the body being set up. In a sense, we are dealing with a low-level body which has certain points of interface with the police. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is shaking his head. However, many people in Northern Ireland will not co-operate with the current policing structure. If we say that we have to be prescriptive and insist on a certain structure, the result will be abstentionism. If we decided not to have either the DPP or the sub-groups, what would be lost? We must ensure that the police have that point of contact in their community.
      Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone raised the issue of regional commands. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but in one sense, I have more respect for the Chief Constable, for the way in which his views could impact on my thought process about the proper structures for policing in Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable is highly respected and extremely professional, and has accepted the concept of district commands and the eventual removal of the regional tier. The provision is therefore consistent with what he believes to be effective and efficient policing.
      Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister's justification for accepting the Chief Constable's advice over that of my hon. Friends and myself not conflict with his huge desire to take advice on policing from ex-terrorists who will be members of the district policing partnership? Does the Minister regard my hon. Friends and myself less highly because we do not have that qualification?
      8 pm
      Mr. Ingram: I am not conscious of having taken advice of that nature. The hon. Gentleman claims that I have taken such advice, but it may surprise those whom he calls ex-terrorists to hear that they have ready access to me and can influence my thought processes. I see no evidence of that. We have taken account of the views expressed by all the political parties that have sought to make representations on the matter.
      I could spend longer on new clause 3 if required, but we have probably exhausted our examination of it. I have set out what I believe to be a reasoned response to the issues that have been raised. There will be one Belfast DPP and four sub-groups, which will respond to the main DPP. I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members.
      Mr. Trimble: What about the community police liaison committees?
      Mr. Ingram: For CPLCs, the DPPs will have a responsibility to seek to set up local arrangements and to look for ways in which they can penetrate the wider community and be truly representative, and we will
      772
      encourage that. The DPPs will not be omnipotent bodies, and they should not sit in their ivory towers and claim that they are the only people who understand policing. Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the need to ensure that the point of contact is as close as possible to the direct interface. We cannot be prescriptive about that and say that the focus should be on a cluster of, say, four streets.
      To return to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, we cannot even say that the CPLCs should be representative. In Northern Ireland, the sub-divisions in a particular area such as a cluster of streets are such that it may be very hard to achieve cross-community representation. That in itself does not damage the point of contact between a particular community and the police; its success will depend on the way in which the community deals with its interface with the police, which will be conditioned by the thought processes of the DPPs as they take account of views that are expressed. Those views may be one-sided, but in their consideration of them the DPPs should ask themselves whether or not there is a balance.
      Amendment No. 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), would place a time limit on district councils, giving them six months to establish a DPP. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, also in my hon. Friend's name, would impose further time limits requiring the council to appoint political members within six months, and the board to appoint independents within one month of receipt of nominations. I am not convinced that those would be wise or necessary moves.
      The Patten report made it clear that arrangements should be put in place to facilitate constant dialogue at local levels between the police and the community. We support that vision of the future of policing, and part III will enable it to happen. However, we do not think it necessary to establish time limits now, as we cannot be certain how long the arrangements will reasonably take. For example, the board needs to be appointed before it can consider and approve its code for DPPs. It is also to be consulted, among others, about the Secretary of State's code on appointments. There will then be an appointments process, which our experience of public appointments leads us to think may take from three to six months, depending on when it is run.
      We are embarking on a new process, and wrinkles will need to be identified before they can be ironed out. Furthermore, the council will need time to make its decisions on nominations. That all points to a commitment that appointments, independent and political, will be made as soon as possible, but also to a recognition that that could take longer than the amendments anticipate, depending on the starting point. There is a safeguard in clause 15 that gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene; for example, if a district council fails to establish a DPP for its district, he can direct it to comply. If those arrangements are to work, all council areas must play their part and each council area must have a means of promoting and facilitating community-police consultation.
      Although I would be sympathetic to the desire to introduce a time scale in other contexts, I do not believe, for the reasons that I have set out, that it would be practical in this case. I hope that amendments Nos. 14, 19 and 20 will not be pressed to a vote.

      773
      Amendment No. 56, to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke, would extend the power given to the Secretary of State in clause 15 which enables him to intervene where a district council fails to establish a DPP. The amendment would require him to take action where a council failed to comply with any of the part III arrangements.
      In Committee there were many criticisms about the heavy-handed involvement of the Secretary of State in the Bill's provisions. The Government do not accept those criticisms, but we have taken account of the arguments about the relationships between the Secretary of State, the Policing Board and the Chief Constable. We have sought to take a balanced approach, and we have given the Secretary of State powers and provided safeguards where we believe that they are necessary and justified.
      We felt that it was imperative to ensure that a default power was provided in case councils failed to establish DPPs. However, on the general functions of DPPs and their obligations to report to councils and the board, with which the amendment deals, we are not convinced that the Secretary of State needs, or should have, further powers to intervene. Again, we seek to create proportionate powers. We believe that those are more appropriately matters for the board and the council to tackle.
      That is why we have provided for the board to set the functions and powers in a code, and why its powers dovetail with those of the DPPs. It is also why it can override DPPs under clause 15, and in setting up local consultative arrangements under clause 22. That relates to the argument about CPLCs advanced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. We are also considering suggestions made in Committee by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to add more comment on and assessment of DPPs to the matters that the board is to cover in its annual report.
      I remind hon. Members that the functions of DPPs are purely consultative. The powers affecting them should therefore be proportionate, and the amendment does not achieve that objective, so I hope that hon. Members will not press it to a vote.
      I turn now to amendments Nos. 59 to 61, to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also spoke. I know from his comments in Committee that he has deep concerns about the operation of DPPs, and he has expressed those concerns again tonight. Through amendment No. 59 he seeks to require DPPs to comply with the code of practice on the exercise of their powers and functions rather than to have regard to it. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would require the board to issue that code of practice and permit it to be revised from time to time.
      I shall deal with the latter issue first. The hon. Gentleman showed in Committee that he favours what I would define as prescriptive, rather than discretionary, powers and would therefore like to bind the DPPs, the board and the Secretary of State at every turn.
      Mr. Maginnis:indicated assent.
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman nods his agreement that he would like the process to develop in that way.
      The important point is that the functions of the boards are clearly set out. The code will be a translation into guidance of those functions. Clause 16 clearly sets out the
      774
      functions. We have also stated that the DPPs shall report to the district council and that they shall report to the board.
      Notwithstanding that, I have no doubt that the board will issue a code of practice covering the exercise by DPPs of their powers and functions, and indeed we plan to give the board a draft code from which to work. We envisage that the DPPs will, in the early days of their operation, need that code and find it most useful. As they begin to develop their own knowledge and become more experienced, they will require less guidance from the Secretary of State. We genuinely believe that that is the way in which the Bill should be constructed. We are not convinced that a requirement for a code is justified. I ask the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone not to press for a vote on amendments Nos. 59 to 61.
      As I have mentioned, the functions are clear in clause 16. The code of practice gives guidance on the exercise of them. We need to understand that adherence to the guidance cannot be too prescriptive. Flexibility will be needed so that each council area is able to adapt the best practice set out in the code in a way which suits its own needs. Tight compliance is not, therefore, sensible. As we stated in Committee, what could be best practice in Moyle district, for example, may not necessarily be best practice in another district. Flexibility is a desirable approach. A too prescriptive approach would tie down the ways in which these bodies could operate.
      The code cannot override the statutory functions in clause 16. It cannot take away that which is set out in the Bill. If it had to be complied with, the board could stray beyond the clause and the DPPs would be asked and expected to extend beyond their powers. There is nothing underhand about the way in which we are approaching these issues. It is about saying where respective powers should rest. That is a further argument against amendment No. 59, which I hope will convince the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone not to press it to a Division.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke to amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Amendment No. 16 places a duty upon DPPs to hold all meetings in public. As we discussed in Committee, the amendment goes well beyond the Patten report, which recommended in paragraph 6.37 a meeting in public once a month. We have provided for the Patten recommendation to be implemented by the Policing Board issuing a code to the partnerships, on the exercise of their functions, under clause 19. The clause lists the areas to be covered by the code, including procedures for meetings and public meetings. While partnerships should operate in an open manner, the chairperson should have discretion to hold parts of the meeting in private or to remove the public.
      I shall give the House an example. A district commander may be talking about the building of a new police station. That may have implications for land price. He may want to give some advice or knowledge to the DPP. If the meeting were held in public, that might lead to speculation. We do not believe that the standard approach should be meetings in camera, but there may be occasions when that happens. The requirement suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that all meetings should be in public would militate against that. I ask him not to press amendment No. 16 to a Division.
      Amendment No. 17 seeks to provide that the code of practice will cover the arrangements for enabling DPP members and the public to ask the police questions about

      775
      the discharge of their functions and police operations in the district. In paragraph 6.30 the Patten report recommended meetings between the DPP and the district commander at which the police would present reports and answer questions, and the partnership would reflect community concerns and priorities to the police. The report recommends also that questions by the public should go through the chair.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is seeking to insert in the Bill a considerable amount of detail which we believe is more appropriately dealt with in the code of practice. Clause 19(3) specifically provides for the issues mentioned in the amendment to be dealt with in the code. We believe that the code is a much more sensible approach to what was envisaged and set out in the Patten report. I ask my hon. Friend not to proceed to Divisions on his amendments.
      A complicated range of issues are raised by the amendments and I apologise for the time that I have taken. However, important issues are contained within each of the elements that has been raised.
      Amendment No. 62, which was moved by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, seeks to ensure that nothing in the code of practice will require a district commander to disclose any information which would compromise effective policing. If I interpret the purpose behind the amendment correctly, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to preserve the operational independence of the police. I can assure him that that is already entirely the case.
      8.15 pm
      The Patten report specifically states in paragraph 6.21 that it is the Chief Constable's right and duty to take operational decisions and that no one should direct him how to conduct an operation. The paragraph also points out that police officers, while accountable, must
      be free to exercise their responsibilities.
      The Patten report adopted a sensible and powerful view.
      I have explained that DPPs are consultative bodies. The police may operate as they wish but they are accountable to the community, in this instance through the DPPs. The police have said that they want to work in partnership with the DPPs, which will allow for greater consultation between local communities and the police in identifying concerns and priorities at local level. The code of practice on the functions of DPPs will detail what is expected of the police. However, it is clear that police commanders will not, and should not, be expected to disclose details of on-going operations or criminal investigations. To do so would be entirely wrong. I think that that is what amendment No. 62 is seeking to establish. If so, it is not necessary. We believe that the matter is already covered within the Bill.
      Amendment No. 63 was tabled by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), and I do not disagree with its general thrust. Indeed, I gave an assurance in Committee that I would consider an amendment that would require a public satisfaction assessment for DPPs. I regret that I have not yet been able to do so. I am taking a legal view on how we can best achieve such assessment. When that has been clarified and the parliamentary
      776
      draftsmen have advised us on how the provision can be put in place in legal terms, we shall return to the matter in another place. In a sense, I am accepting the amendment in principle once the matter has been clarified.
      Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, relate to part II of schedule 1, which relates to the constitution of the Policing Board during direct rule immediately after the devolved Government have been suspended. None of us wants to see that eventuality happening. Amendment No. 11 relates to part III, dealing with a board established immediately following devolution.
      Amendment No. 6 seeks to remove the element of flexibility which has been given to the Secretary of State in terms of the representativeness of appointments to the board. Our intention in including such flexibility was not to permit the Secretary of State to appoint at random with no regard to representativeness. It was to acknowledge that there may be occasions when a representative selection of people does not come forward. I have said that there is a sizeable body of opinion in Northern Ireland which does not co-operate with the existing police authority. If there are abstentions and a boycott, how can we deliver on representativeness? Problems would be created. It is important that we have structures and that those who decide not to co-operate should not have the veto in those circumstances.
      Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, when taken together, would require the Secretary of State to consult on first and subsequent appointments to the board, and seek to limit the time for that to three months. Given the way in which the matter has been addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, there may be some confusion. The first thing to understand is that the provisions that he is tackling will apply only in very specific circumstances, and that is where devolution is suspended. In this circumstance, sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3 applies to enable a board to be established quickly by the Secretary of State, as otherwise there will be a vacuum, with no board at all. We wish to avoid that.
      There will have been consultation on the appointment of the nine independent members of the devolved board, and the likelihood is that others will be shortlisted at that time. The Secretary of State would undoubtedly seek to appoint the nine who are already serving and up to nine others. A direct rule board can have between 14 and 19 members. There could be up to nine others in those circumstances. That would be done as far as practicable to create a representative board.
      Who knows who might wish to co-operate and participate as we moved from devolution to direct rule? There would undoubtedly be difficulties, but our assumption would be that the nine independents appointed under devolution would wish to serve on an on-going basis and would therefore automatically be appointed, bringing the strength of the board to between 14 and 19 members. It is important that we could move very quickly in a very unfortunate set of circumstances. It would be wrong to create a vacuum. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendments to a vote.
      Amendment No. 11 places a nominal three-month limit on consultation on appointments of independents to a devolved board and, in effect, would tie the consultation process down. The Government will make appointments

      777
      to the board as quickly as we can, and we have already established a timetable, with shadow appointments in January. The process will not be helped by absolute time limits that bear no relation to the practicalities of making such appointments. This is not an easy road to tread, as we have experienced when previously encouraging people to serve. To impose strict time limits could prove unhelpful.
      Amendment No. 9, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also spoke, is simply not in keeping with Patten. The amendment would replace appointment of the first chairperson and vice-chairperson of the direct rule board by the Secretary of State, under schedule 1(3)(9), with a provision placing responsibility in the hands of the board and allowing for rotation.
      Patten said in paragraph 6.14:
      that the chairperson be appointed by the Secretary of State.
      That is a very clear direction. Knowing that my hon. Friend supports the general thrust of the Patten commission's report, I suggest that his amendment does not comply with it and that therefore he should not press it to a vote.
      Amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 13, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also spoke, would enable persons who were not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means to retain their seats on the board, whether during direct rule or devolved government. Absurdly, they would also enable a person who has been excluded from holding the office of Minister in the Assembly not to be disqualified from appointment to the board. That would not be a sensible provision. The Government are not prepared to remove what we believe to be important safeguards in the appointments process. Parliament has already seen fit to enact such safeguards under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I do not for a moment believe that it would be the wish of the House to move back from that position. I would not seek support for the amendments.
      I turn to amendments Nos. 303 to 307, to which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) spoke. We dealt with the matter that they concern on Second Reading and in Committee, and I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to clear up some confusion, which is perhaps only in my mind. He is not prepared for particular people, who have been elected, to serve on the Policing Board, yet he is prepared to allow them to continue to serve as Ministers in a devolved Administration.
      The right hon. Gentleman thinks that, under the new political settlement, responsible Members of the devolved Assembly should not be allowed to serve on the Policing Board. I take account of his comments on security matters, and so on, but I am sure that the Chief Constable and others will be wholly cognisant of what they should be reporting to the board. They will be reporting not on national security issues but on policing issues relating to the functions of the Policing Board.
      Mr. MacKay: I am glad that, at last, it has dawned on the Minister that he might be the only person who is confused. For that I am grateful. Let me again from this Dispatch Box say clearly that we see a distinction between being a Minister in the Executive, responsible for, for instance, education or health, and serving on a police board or in a police partnership. We envisage severe security implications.
      778
      We need an answer to the following question: is he not concerned that it would be dangerous and wrong for ex-convicted terrorists to have security-sensitive information? I think that he probably is concerned, because he has just admitted that the Chief Constable would be aware that he could give only certain information to the board and partnerships. That seems a great pity; I thought that we wanted the fullest possible information to be given.
      Mr. Ingram: I have not cleared up the confusion in my mind. In the memorable phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in Committee, the Conservative party seems to hide behind the bush and shake it at the same time. That became a touchstone for those of us who were trying to understand the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman's party.
      The Conservatives are prepared to accept the political settlement and to have—the right hon. Gentleman should be direct about this—Sinn Fein Members in the Government of Northern Ireland, who could interface with me as the security Minister on matters relating to, let us say, drugs or juvenile justice. There is a substantial interface. Is he saying that I should not talk to such Members about those policing matters? The more that we can encourage representative parties that hitherto have not done so to talk about policing or to talk to representatives of those who express views on policing or police officers, the more that we demonstrate considerable progress.
      Mr. MacKay: Does not the Minister realise that there is a difference between what he refers to as the interface between him and any Minister in the Executive on one hand, and people sitting on the board or police partnerships, who will be more than "interfacing"? They will have considerable responsibilities. A proper relationship between the police and the board, which the Minister and I want, and proper relationships between the police and the partnerships can be created only by trust. There is no way that the police can trust ex-terrorist criminals. The Minister must know that. I know it and it is why our amendments should be accepted.
      Mr. Ingram: We are talking about an interface between the police and the Policing Board or, indeed, between the police and DPPs, just as we are talking about an interface between representatives of, perhaps, more than one party about which the right hon. Gentleman has concerns and myself, given my responsibility for policing in prisons and criminal justice matters.
      I can limit my discussions and the basis on which I seek to communicate information on our objectives. The wide parameters within which the Policing Board and the DPPs will have responsibility will not include responsibility for national security issues. Such issues are, of course, completely precluded not just under the Northern Ireland Act but under other Acts on the devolved Administrations that this Government have set up. [Interruption.] I cannot deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point if he is speaking to me from a sedentary position. If he wants to make another point, I will give way to him. He does not.
      The right hon. Gentleman's fear simply does not hold water because such circumstances will not arise. The amendments fail to acknowledge the already extensive disqualification and removal criteria for board members.

      779
      The Government have provided safeguards that we believe are necessary, strictly proportionate and measured given the political settlement with which we are dealing.
      Unlike the existing Police Authority for Northern Ireland, members of the board will be required to pass a test of upholding the principles of non-violence and of commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means. If they do not, the Secretary of State will be able to remove them. I explained in Committee that there are many other safeguards—we do not need to go into all the details—such as character checks, which are based on the very highest standards of probity and integrity. There is a fundamental difference between the right hon. Gentleman's argument and the Government's view. I am not so sure that we will be able to clear it up; we tried to do so in Committee and on Second Reading.
      We, from the Government's point of view, are prepared to look at the new political settlement, to move it forward progressively and to implement mechanisms, but let us remember, they will not be delivered as of this evening but at some future point, when, hopefully, the settlement will be further embedded and there will be an even more peaceful environment in Northern Ireland.
      8.30 pm
      We must also put the matter in a particular time scale. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is inconsistent with what the Patten commission sought to achieve—inclusivity, without risking respect for non-violence and the principles of democracy. Those safeguards will be applied rigorously. I therefore do not believe that more safeguards are needed.
      This evening and on previous occasions, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the relationship with decommissioning. We share some objectives, but decommissioning is a separate test. The Government believe that substantial progress has been made. The right hon. Gentleman's party may not be wholly convinced of that, but we are satisfied that progress has been made, and we want to build on it.
      Finally, I shall deal with the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Amendment No. 21 requires the council to satisfy itself on a number of fronts before putting nominations to the board. It requires the council to ensure that the district is aware that appointments are to be made, that applications have been invited from the district, that the applications have been carefully considered, and that the final nominations reflect that community.
      Those are all objectives that the Government share and are exactly the type of issues that the code on appointments will cover. The code will provide guidance to councils on the advertising of independent posts and on interviewing and selection procedures. I said in Committee, and it is worth repeating, that there will be an independent element at both selection and appointment stages.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I appreciate the way in which he is responding to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and
      780
      Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and me. If those are the Government's objectives, as I am sure they are, what is wrong with writing them into the Bill?
      Mr. Ingram: Those matters will be covered by the code on appointments. We do not want to clutter the Bill with the minutiae of the management of the system. We leave that for the code, which is flexible and amendable. That is the reason for our approach. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my assurances that the code will cover the situation adequately and the amendment is not required.
      Amendment No. 21 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of the board before providing that two or more councils may establish a single DPP for their district. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the remainder of clause 16, to which the amendment relates, provides that the councils must agree to such an amalgamation. It cannot be imposed. We do not envisage the Secretary of State riding in to bring the councils together. If they want to amalgamate for more convenient management of the area through their interface as a DPP, we have provided for that, and the amendment is not necessary.
      As I said at the outset, this is a comprehensive group of amendments. I am aware of the time that I have taken, but there are important issues under consideration. I hope that I have answered all the points raised during the debate. I ask the House to support Government new clause 3, and Government amendments Nos. 213, 215, 216 and 218, and to resist all other amendments.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 7.

      Division No. 255]

      [8.34 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Burden, Richard

      Ainger, Nick

      Burnett, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burstow, Paul

      Allan, Richard

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ashton, Joe

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbel-Savours, Dale

      Ballard, Jackie

      Casale, Roger

      Barnes, Harry

      Caton, Martin

      Barron, Kevin

      Cawsey, Ian

      Battle, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Chidgey, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clapham, Michael

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clelland, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clwyd, Ann

      Borrow, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Colman, Tony

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Browne, Desmond

      Corbett, Robin

      781

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cotter, Brian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hume, John

      Cummings, John

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Hutton, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jenkins, Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

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

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Drew, David

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

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fisher, Mark

      Lammy, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Laxton, Bob

      Follett, Barbara

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Galloway, George

      Linton, Martin

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Livsey, Richard

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lock, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Love, Andrew

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      Macdonald, Calum

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McDonnell, John

      Gorrie, Donald

      McFall, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Grocott, Bruce

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gunnell, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hancock, Mike

      McNulty, Tony

      Hanson, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Harvey, Nick

      McWalter, Tony

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McWilliam, John

      Healey, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heppell, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hill, Keith

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Meale, Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Merron, Gillian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      782

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moore, Michael

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

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

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

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mountford, Kali

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mudie, George

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Norris, Dan

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Olner, Bill

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Neill, Martin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Öpik, Lembit

      Swinney, John

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pike, Peter L

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pond, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Todd, Mark

      Pound, Stephen

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rammell, Bill

      Tyler, Paul

      Rapson, Syd

      Tynan, Bill

      Raynsford, Nick

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rendel, David

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rooney, Terry

      Watts, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Webb, Steve

      Rowlands, Ted

      Welsh, Andrew

      Roy, Frank

      White, Brian

      Ruane, Chris

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Salter, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wood, Mike

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Woolas, Phil

      Sawford, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wray, James

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mr. Don Touhig and

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      NOES

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Thompson, William

      Maginnis, Ken

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Mr. Roy Beggs and

      Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson.

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

    New Clause 4

      THE COMMISSIONER
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint a Commissioner to discharge the general function mentioned in subsection (3).
      (2) A person for the time being holding the office of Commissioner under subsection (1) is referred to in this Act as "the Commissioner".
      (3) The Commissioner's general function is to oversee the implementation of changes in the policing of Northern Ireland described in his terms of reference.
      (4) Schedule (The Commissioner), which makes further provision about the Commissioner, shall have effect.
      (5) The office of Commissioner shall cease to exist on 31st May 2003, unless before that date an order is made under subsection (6).
      (6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the office of Commissioner (whether or not it then exists as a result of a previous order under this subsection) shall continue to exist for a period not exceeding three years from the date on which the order comes into operation.'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (3), leave out from second "the" to end and insert—
      'process of police reform in Northern Ireland'.
      Government new clause 5—Reports by the Commissioner.
      Amendment No. 23, in clause 27, page 12, line 29, at end insert—
      '(1A) Before making an order the Secretary of State must consult the Oversight Commissioner.'.
      Government new schedule 1—'The Commissioner—

      THE COMMISSIONER

        Appointment etc. of the Commissioner
        1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as the Commissioner in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
        (2) An appointment as Commissioner may be full-time or part-time.
        (3) The first appointment as Commissioner shall come to an end on 31 May 2003.
        (4) Any other appointment as Commissioner shall be for a period not exceeding 3 years.
        (5) A person may at any time resign his office as Commissioner by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.
        (6) The Secretary of State may call upon the Commissioner to retire if satisfied that the Commissioner has—

        (a) been convicted of a criminal offence; or

        (b) become bankrupt or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors.

        (7) Before calling upon the Commissioner to retire, the Secretary of State shall give the Commissioner an opportunity to make, either personally or otherwise, representations to him and shall consider any representations that he makes.
        (8) A Commissioner who is called upon to retire under sub-paragraph (6) shall retire on such date as the Secretary of State may specify or on such earlier date as may be agreed between him and the Secretary of State.

        Terms of reference
        2.—(1) On appointing the Commissioner, the Secretary of State shall give him written terms of reference.
        (2) The terms of reference shall, in particular, describe the changes in policing in Northern Ireland the implementation of which it is the general function of the Commissioner to oversee.

        Remuneration, pensions, allowances, etc.
        3.—(1) The Secretary of State may pay, or make such payments towards the provision of, such remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of a person appointed to the office of Commissioner as he may determine.
        (2) Where a person ceases to hold office as Commissioner otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.

        Staff
        4.—(1) The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service, employ such persons as he thinks fit to enable him to carry out his functions.
        (2) The Commissioner may make arrangements for administrative, secretarial or other assistance to be provided for him by persons employed in the civil service.
        (3) Employment by the Commissioner shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act, at the appropriate place in the list of "Other Bodies" there shall be inserted—
        "Employment by the Police Reform Commissioner for Northern Ireland.".
        5. The Employers' Liability (Defective Equipment and Compulsory Insurance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 does not require insurance to be effected by the Commissioner.

        Exercise of functions
        6.—(1) Any functions of the Commissioner under this Act may be performed by any officer of the Commissioner authorised for the purpose by the Commissioner.
        (2) "Officer of the Commissioner" means—

        (a) a person employed by the Commissioner under paragraph 4(1);

        (b) a person providing assistance to the Commissioner in pursuance of arrangements made under paragraph 4(2)

        Evidence
        7. A document purporting to be duly signed by, or on behalf of, the Commissioner shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be taken to be so signed.

        Finance
        8. The Secretary of State shall pay to the Commissioner such sums as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for defraying the expenses of the Commissioner under this Act.
        9.—(1) The Commissioner shall—

        (a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts;

        (b) prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may direct; and

        (c) send copies of the statement to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the month of August next following the financial year to which the statement relates.

        (2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement received by him under this paragraph and shall lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.'.
        Amendment (a) thereto: leave out paragraph 2.
        Government amendments Nos. 264 to 266.
        Mr. Howarth: New clauses 4 and 5 and new schedule 1, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, honour the commitment, which the Government gave to the Committee during its 11th sitting on 7 July, to put the office of oversight commissioner on a statutory footing. We have done so in a manner that is consistent with, and faithful to, the Patten report.
        Patten recommended at chapter 19 of the report that there should be a commissioner to oversee change and to provide assurance to the community about progress. It is worth reminding the House exactly what Patten said. I know that, as ever, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is mindful of the Patten recommendations and how the Bill conforms to them. Paragraphs 19.4 states:
        an eminent person, from a country other than the United Kingdom or Ireland, should be appointed as soon as possible as an oversight commissioner with responsibility for supervising the implementation of our recommendations.
        Paragraph 19.5 states that the Government, police service, Policing Board and direct policing partnerships should provide the oversight commissioner with objectives and timetables covering their responsibilities and should report on their progress in achieving them. It also states that the commissioner should report publicly after each review, giving his observations on the extent to which objectives have been met. Paragraph 19.6 states that the commissioner should be appointed for five years.
        Government new clause 4, together with Government new schedule 1, will place the post on a proper statutory footing. As we said in Committee, we have introduced those provisions in part to show our commitment to the office and because they will add to the commissioner's status. The commissioner will oversee the implementation of changes to the policing of Northern Ireland as described in his terms of reference.
        The terms of reference for the commissioner, who was obviously appointed before any statutory provision was introduced, have been published and are available in the Library. Subject to a renewable appointment for three years, rather than Patten's recommendation of five years, they show that we have been entirely faithful to Patten. Patten suggested that the commissioner should review progress three or four times a year. Government new clause 5 provides for the commissioner to make periodic reports at least three times a year.
        Dr. Norman A. Godman: If the commissioner thinks that certain elements of the legislation do not work or impede progress towards the Government's laudable objectives, will he have the right to make that known in one of his periodic reports? For example, if he thought that the colour of the uniform should be changed to blue to make it more compatible with those of neighbouring police forces, could he make such a recommendation?
        Mr. Howarth: We are anxious to remain as faithful as possible to Patten, who, as my hon. Friend knows, was clear on the colour of the uniform. Such matters would probably be outwith the commissioner's terms of reference. I do not want to be drawn on my hon. Friend's specific example because, although he might disagree with Patten, we are anxious to implement the broad thrust of his recommendations. In fact, we shall do so as closely as possible. I intend to deal with the general point that my hon. Friend makes later in my opening remarks.
        The Government have made provision for the commissioner to report at least three times a year. As hon. Members will see from the terms of reference, the Government, the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and DPPs will provide objectives, with timetables, and report on progress, so he will regularly updated. The commissioner will then report publicly and would be expected to outline progress achieved, identify any obstacle to progress and seek explanations about delays. Again, we have fully met Patten's recommendations in that regard. I would ask the House to accept Government new clauses 4 and 5 and Government new schedule 1.
        I want make something clear for the benefit of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who are anxious to receive an answer to a question that informs the amendments that they have tabled. They want to know whether the oversight commissioner can go public if he has any serious concerns about how implementation is proceeding and whether he will be at liberty to say whatever he thinks appropriate about any lack of progress. The answer is yes, and any such reports that he may think appropriate will be published. I believe that my hon. Friends' concerns will be addressed because those powers exist.
        Government amendments Nos. 264 to 266 are standard provisions, by which the oversight commissioner will be added to the list of bodies under the House of Commons and Assembly Disqualification Acts. They are straightforward and should not cause the House any difficulty and I therefore ask hon. Members to accept them.
        Mr. Eddie McGrady: I should like to place on record a sincere welcome for the Minister's announcement that the new clause will introduce into statute the office, terms of reference and conditions of the oversight commissioner. That was not the case in Committee, and it represents an important advance in implementing the Patten recommendations.
        However, having looked a gift horse in the mouth, as it were, we have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 4 and amendment (a) to new schedule 1. They are designed to ensure that the oversight commissioner enjoys the full role that the Patten commission envisaged for that office. We feel that the implementation of all the Patten recommendations is one of the most important innovations to arise from the independent commission's report on policing in Northern Ireland. The oversight commissioner is the safety net—the catch-all.
        Patten said that that office should not simply involve taking stock and that the
        review process would provide an important impetus to the process of transformation

        787
        and a new beginning. I welcome the Government amendments as it is vital that the oversight commissioner engages and ensures that all Patten is implemented. However, our problem, which is covered by our amendments, is that the commissioner's terms of reference are limited to overseeing only those changes in policing that the Government decide. That is a restriction. Although we do not want to give the commissioner carte blanche in everything, he should not be unable to comment on the adequacy of the Government's decisions and recommendations.
        9 pm
        Patten himself referred to those
        decisions that will be made by Government
        but the oversight commissioner should not be the only person who cannot comment on Government policy or point out its obvious deficiencies. We have come some way from where we were in Committee, but I would like the Minister to underscore what I think that he said earlier. Can he state unambiguously that the oversight commissioner will be able to comment on Government decisions on police reform when he believes that to be appropriate? If the Minister can give such an undertaking on taking action in reasonable circumstances, I shall happily withdraw our amendments.
        Mr. Kevin McNamara: I, too, am concerned about the implications of what the Government have done. Patten said that
        an eminent person, from a country other than the United Kingdom or Ireland, should be appointed as soon as possible as an oversight commissioner with responsibility for supervising the implementation of our recommendations.
        However, the new clause says:
        The Commissioner's general function is to oversee the implementation of changes in the policing of Northern Ireland described in his terms of reference.
        The terms of reference say that the oversight commissioner will be responsible for overseeing the
        implementation of the changes in policing arrangements and structures decided in the context of the Patten report
        not those recommended in the Patten report. That important distinction will limit his role to considering only what the Government do rather than what happens in the context of the Patten report.
        Therefore, it appears that the oversight commissioner will be a messenger for the Government and the Chief Constable, not a guarantor of Patten, which is how we see his role. The Minister must clear up the apparent discrepancy between Patten and both the new clause and the terms of reference. Under Patten, the oversight commissioner was to consider not only legislation, but all other issues in Patten—for example, the drafting of the code of ethics, the establishment of an independent recruitment agency and so on. Will he have a role in the independent study of an alternative to plastic baton rounds in public order situations?
        I welcome the fact that plastic baton rounds have not been used in the recent disturbances. I hope that that practice will be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Minister, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for
        788
        South Down (Mr. McGrady) and to other members of the steering group researching the use of plastic bullets, said that the object was
        To establish whether a less than lethal alternative to baton rounds is available; and to prepare a strategy for the tactical deployment of public order equipment by the police in Northern Ireland.
        That is not what Patten said. He said:
        An immediate and substantial investment should be made in a research programme to find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round.
        Patten said that we should get rid of the plastic baton round and find something else, whereas the steering group asked whether there was something else. There is an important distinction between those two, and I should like to know whether the oversight commissioner will be able to look into matters that are not part of the structures of the police or decided on in the context of the Patten report. Will those matters be covered under these new terms of reference? This is an important issue because, judging by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, the new clause seems to be a considerable departure from Patten. I hope that, when he replies, he will put my fears, especially about plastic bullets, to rest.
        I raised the issue of an oversight commissioner on Second Reading and asked for such a position to be put in the statute. I received an undertaking that that would be done in Committee, and I express my thanks to my right hon. and hon. Friends for putting the proposal into the legislation. I hope that this very good measure will be made perfect by ending my worries on those two small points.
        Mr. Maginnis: The amendments are probably unnecessary. The oversight commissioner has been appointed, and the new clause seems like supererogation. Can I persuade the Minister not to listen to the siren voices that say that what goes on in the House does not matter, and that on Northern Ireland issues we must abide by Patten in letter and in spirit to the nth degree? If that were the case, there would be no point coming to the House, because what was happening here would be a charade.
        The reality is that the House is responsible for legislation, and the extent to which it takes the advice of Patten and his commission is a matter for the House. I suggest to the Minister that he should not contemplate extending the powers or authority of the oversight commissioner beyond what is contained in legislation—beyond what is lawful.
        Mr. McDonnell: I shall try to be a siren voice.
        Amendment No. 23 is so meek and mild that I cannot see how it could pose a threat to anyone. It relates to clause 27, under which
        The Board shall make arrangements as the Secretary of State may by order specify to secure continuous improvement in…efficiency and effectiveness.
        I have suggested—very meekly—that
        Before making an order the Secretary of State must consult the Oversight Commissioner.
        The amendment takes us back to Patten, and to the role of supervision rather than the mild form of oversight proposed by new clause 4. It would also enable us to build on the expertise that the commissioner could use in preparing for improvements in the police service overall.

        789
        Amendment No. 23 is in the spirit of Patten, and I hope that, if it is not accepted tonight, the Government will give it further consideration.
        Mr. George Howarth: Let me say for the benefit of my friend the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that we are still considering the inclusion of a standard provision relating to the removal of the commissioner, like the provision applying to the Police Authority and, for that matter, the provision in the Bill applying to the district policing partnership board. As things stand, our plan is to table an amendment in another place.
        The amendments to new clause 4 and new schedule 1 would give the oversight commissioner responsibility for the process of police reform in Northern Ireland. They would remove the Secretary of State's ability to set terms of reference for the commissioner. Putting aside for a moment any objection in principle, I am bound to point out that the commissioner is in post, and is operating under terms of reference already set by the Secretary of State. It might therefore be difficult to change retrospectively the basis on which he was appointed and, indeed, to change the terms of reference that went alongside that.
        Mr. Trimble: I merely ask for information. The Minister said that the commissioner had been appointed according to a particular set of terms of reference. I hope that he will forgive me for asking whether those terms of reference are in the public domain. Do we know what they are?
        Mr. Howarth: Yes, they are in the public domain. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted from them a few moments ago.
        Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend said that because the terms of reference had already been published, they were somehow set in stone. Can they not be altered?
        Mr. Howarth: Any terms of reference can be altered, but we are in a particular situation at this particular time. There is a potential for developments in the future; I shall say more about that shortly. As always, however, we do not wish to create too many blind alleys. Indeed, we are anxious to do the opposite.
        Let me now deal with the point of principle. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, which seems to constitute an attempt to get the commissioner to implement changes that the Government have not approved. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made clear in a brief speech, the Bill that emerges from the House of Commons will be the law. It will have been considered in another place and gone through a Committee. In that context, although we aim to stay as true to Patten as is practical and possible, it would be inappropriate to move away from the principle that what comes out of the House will be important in terms of what the oversight commissioner decides should be overseen in implementing the recommendations.
        9.15 pm
        I make it absolutely clear that the commissioner's role is to oversee the implementation of changes in policing
        790
        arrangements and the structures decided on by the House and by the Government in the context of the Patten report. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North is right to say that the Government's position is not to accept every detail of the 175 recommendations in Patten. Patten himself acknowledged that that was not necessary. He said that much work had to be done on detail. I think that, as a distinguished former Member of the House, he would be the first. to recognise that it would not be possible within terms of reference to produce a report that was a draft Bill, couched in the language and style of something that could be readily transformed into a Bill. To be fair, some sections of it were such that we could do that, but other sections were not so clearly translatable into legislation.
        Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to come back to what is probably a technical point, for which there is a technical answer. The Minister refers to the oversight commissioner having been appointed, given terms of reference and all the rest of it. An appointment may have been made at a point when there was no legislative basis for doing so. We are now creating a legislative basis for the making of an appointment. I do not see in the new clauses or schedule any transitional provision to provide for the fact that the informal appointment that has already been made is to be the appointment for the purposes of the Act. Without such a transitional provision, there will be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a formal appointment and to provide terms of reference in accordance with the Act.
        Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman, eagle-eyed as ever, raises a useful point. I am sure that the answer that he gave to his own question is the answer that he is seeking. Therefore, I am happy to endorse what he said.
        Mr. Trimble: In that case, there will be a fresh appointment and fresh terms of reference.
        Mr. Howarth: "Fresh" implies a change of personnel and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not think that that is the intention.
        The other point that we have made—it is a serious answer to the right hon. Gentleman—is that the powers involved will now be put on a statutory footing. That makes a difference. It certainly adds to the standing of the commissioner because he will be carrying out functions that are statutory.
        The detail of the changes is contained in the Bill and in the comprehensive implementation plan, which will be updated once the Bill receives Royal Assent—so that which is overseen will be changed in accordance with the way in which the Bill finally emerges. What we are doing is entirely consistent with Patten. I hope—perhaps the phrase is more in hope than anticipation—that, on the basis of the assurances I have been able to give, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and his colleagues will not feel it necessary to push the amendments to a vote.
        Mr. McGrady: The purpose of our amendments is to clarify whether, if the Government do not materially implement a specific Patten recommendation, it would be within the oversight commissioner's power to say, "You have omitted to deal with this substantive matter and to

        791
        make this substantive change." If the oversight commissioner will have that ability, either within or without his terms of reference, I would be quite happy, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, not to press the amendments.
        Mr. Howarth: I am afraid that my hon. Friend and I will probably have to differ on this point. As we have already made clear, the commissioner is overseeing implementation of the changes arising from Patten and agreed by the Government and the House. The Government have included those changes in the Bill, and the House has approved the principle of the Bill's contents.
        I should like now to deal with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North on plastic baton charges. I should say first that the working party which Patten recommended to examine the matter has met recently, and that the research that my hon. Friend mentioned and that Patten recommended is already under way. Although my hon. Friend used that matter as an example, we have taken on board the issue that he has raised. The issue is being addressed along the lines that Patten suggested.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will know that in chapter 9 of the report, in a box on page 52, Patten dealt with some of the weapons used against the police. He specifically mentioned the use—which, sadly, we have seen in the past few days—of
        stones, bricks…bottles…knives, spears and hatchets…firearms of all kinds, including automatic assault rifles and hand grenades.
        Patten went on to outline some of the most lethal weapons being used, including:
        Blast or pipe bombs…Coffee jar bombs…Petrol bombs…Chinese mortars…Explosive darts…Catapults used to fire steel ball bearings.
        Patten interviewed police personnel in the United States and in Holland—which is known for having one of the most liberal policing and criminal justice systems—and concluded that the police cannot be left improperly protected until the research to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North referred has been concluded and a satisfactory alternative to plastic baton charges has been found.
        As I said a week or so ago in Committee, the implicit deal between society and the police is that the police act for us in many situations in which we are not capable or legally empowered to act for ourselves. Consequently—as we see far too often in Northern Ireland—the police are often placed in dangerous situations. I therefore think that Patten reached the right conclusion on the matter.
        Additionally, we should appreciate the fact that, in different parts of the world, in comparable public order situations, police use not plastic baton charges, but live ammunition. Therefore, in that sense, the restraint that has been shown by the RUC—and that, in the short term, until research provides a viable alternative we expect to continue to be shown by the new police service—is the best option available.
        Mr. McNamara: I do not find that recommendation in the summary. Recommendation 69 is that we should find
        an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round (PBR).
        Patten is therefore saying that we have to find an effective alternative. The terms of reference start by asking whether there is an alternative. That distinction is important because it begins by begging the question that Patten has raised. Patten also stated, in recommendation 70, that
        The police should be equipped with a broader range of public order equipment.
        The report continues:
        The use of PBRs should be subject to the same procedures for deployment, use and reporting as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.
        It also recommends that their use should be treated in the same way as the use of firearms and that training should be confined to a small group. Have those recommendations been carried out?
        Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend quotes at length from Patten, but I can tell him that we are trying to move forward as quickly as possible on all those areas. I do not seek to have an argument with my hon. Friend—
        Mr. McNamara: No, I am seeking information.
        Mr. Howarth: I am seeking to explain to my hon. Friend that, until such a time as a viable and effective alternative arises from research, that is what will happen. Of course, firearms training of any kind and training in all the equipment is a standard part of the way in which any police force, including the police force in Northern Ireland, operates. I know that the Chief Constable is mindful of those concerns and I also know that police officers in Northern Ireland have had much training in such areas in previous months.
        Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend the Minister may recall that I was present in Committee when we had an almost identical debate, and I have much sympathy for what he says about baton rounds. Police officers must have comprehensive protection. On the issue of research, which institute is carrying it out? Given the comprehensive nature of the research, I presume that the programme of research is extensive.
        Mr. Howarth: Yes, it is extensive. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am anxious to make some progress—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) should not keep interrupting the proceedings.
        Mr. Howarth: As for the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) seeks, I will get in touch with him on that point.
        Amendment No. 23 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). Before addressing the amendment, and in response to arguments in Committee, I want to record that the Government have accepted that there will be a shift in emphasis in the best value area of the Bill. That will be

        793
        addressed in the other place and will give the board the lead role in best value, with the Secretary of State simply having a default power.
        The provisions in clause 27 are about securing continuous improvement in the way in which the board exercises its functions. It is not Patten. It is an issue to be addressed by the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable. The commissioner's role is clear under his terms of reference and we do not believe it necessary or appropriate to include the functions provided for in that clause. I commend Government new clause 4 to the Committee.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 5

        REPORTS BY THE COMMISSIONER
        '.—(1) The Commissioner shall make periodic reports to the Secretary of State on the implementation of the changes described in his terms of reference.
        (2) There shall be at least three periodic reports in each year.
        (3) The Commissioner may at any time make a report to the Secretary of State on matters arising in the course of his performance of his general function.
        (4) The Secretary of State—

        (a) shall lay each report made to him under this section before each House of Parliament; and

        (b) arrange for the report to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

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

      New Clause 1

        TARGETS FOR RECRUITMENT
        '.—(1) The Board shall establish targets for applications and recruitment to the police of Roman Catholics, women and ethnic minorities and other persons from underrepresented sections of society.
        (2) The Board shall monitor applications and recruitment to the police to ensure equality of access.'.—[Mr. Öpik.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Affirmative action—
        '.—The Chief Constable or any person appointed under the terms of section 42(1) shall pursue an active programme of affirmative action to increase applications from, and recruitment of, persons from underrepresented sections of society to the police.'.
        Government amendments Nos. 127 and 130.
        Amendment No. 301, in clause 43, page 21, leave out lines 1 to 14.
        Amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
        Government amendment No. 133.
        Amendment No. 323, in page 21, line 11, leave out "10" and insert "2".
        794
        Amendment No. 53, in page 21, line 18, leave out clause 44.
        Amendment No. 324, in clause 44, page 21, line 39, after "(4)", insert—
        'Save where subsection (4D) applies,'.
        Government amendment No. 135.
        Amendment No. 325, in page 21, line 45, at end insert—
        '(4C) Where subsection (4D) applies, the Chief Constable shall make appointments in accordance with subsection (4) as far as it is practicable to do so.
        (4D) This subsection applies where the number of vacant posts in the police support staff which are at the same level and to be filled at or about the same time is not less than two and not more than five.
        (4E) The Chief Constable shall each year publish information concerning appointments made by the Chief Constable where subsection (4D) applies.
        (4F) Information published under subsection (4E) shall be in such form as the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland may require.'.
        Amendment No. 54, in page 22, line 37, leave out clause 45.
        Mr. Öpik: The Government took the benefit of our advice on a number of previous amendments, so we are rewarding them with more such advice.
        The recruitment process proposed in the Bill involves quotas. I feel duty bound to raise this issue again because the Bill as it stands will not resolve the problem of differential recruitment of Catholics as opposed to non-Catholics. Moreover, it might introduce an additional injustice which is entirely out of keeping with what we are trying to do in the Bill.
        First, I stress that the Liberal Democrats adamantly support the intent of ensuring that ethnically fair proportions are recruited to the police service—proportions that genuinely reflect those to be found in the Northern Ireland community. Incidently, that means that we also want a higher proportion of women in the police force, as well as of ethnic minorities such as the Chinese.
        The solution of mandatory quotas that is laid down in the Bill would not, however, achieve what the Government want, for several reasons. First, quotas at the stage envisaged in the Bill tackle the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem. Traditionally, there has not been discrimination in the police at the point of selection. In fact, the internal recruitment process seems to have been fair to Catholics who have applied for a job. There has been so little Catholic representation in the police force because Catholics have not had the confidence in the police to apply, or they have been put off by local pressures and, occasionally, even by paramilitary pressure.
        That being the case, we need to solve the problem of an under-representative police force in the application phase. Tackling the percentage recruited does nothing to tackle the percentage applying. In fact, it could lead to a serious distortion of the recruitment process.
        What happens, for example, if 100 vacancies have to be filled and 200 non-Catholics and 50 Catholics apply? The rules state that recruitment should be 50:50. In this example, that would mean that one in four of the non-Catholics would be recruited, but every Catholic applicant would have to be offered a job. Basic recruiting

        795
        practice will confirm to anyone that, in such a large group, it is unlikely that 100 per cent. of the people who apply for the job will fill the criteria. That has nothing to do with Catholics; it is to do with real-life, large-scale recruiting.
        If one does not get 100 per cent. success from 50 applicants, there will be a shortfall, leaving open various options. Option A would be to drop the standard: give all 50 the job, whether or not they meet the normal qualifications that one expects from applicants. The Minister has made it clear that the Government will not pursue that path. They will not drop the standard that they expect from anyone, be they Catholics, Protestants or whatever. Option A is therefore not a runner.
        Option B is to screen out from the 50 Catholic applicants those who make the grade, and give them the job. In my example, there would, by necessity, be a shortfall and one would not be able to fill the quota. What can one do? The Bill provides for dropping the quota. The system is inconsistent. It means that one is fitting the quota around what one can get. Surely the quota is not simply there to reflect reality; it is there to try to influence reality and to re-balance the police force. Obviously, therefore, one must increase the number of applicants to make up the shortfall. What is the point of having quotas for recruitment if, at the end of the day, the Government or the police force have to tackle applicant numbers?
        If my logic is correct, the only way to maintain the standard is to ensure that Catholics have the confidence to apply in the first place. That is the crux of the new clauses and amendments that we have tabled. Recruitment quotas will not make people apply to the police force if they do not see police work as a legitimate and worthwhile career. The details must be right so that the reforms create a police service to which Catholics and others who do not have a tradition of joining the police have the confidence to apply.
        If the measure is successful, leading figures and members of under-represented communities will endorse the police as a good career. That will encourage younger members of such communities to apply. It will be possible for the cross-community membership of the Policing Board to scrutinise the proposed targets and modify them if they are not working. More important, the barriers that stop people applying to the police can be tackled directly.
        The demographics of Northern Ireland will help us to deal with applications. Among 18 to 30-year-olds—the most likely source of new recruits—there is already a balance; 45 per cent. are Catholic and 44 per cent. are Protestant. Others account for 11 per cent. If reform works, the natural rate of recruitment would act as a balance, so quotas would not be needed at that point. If I have lost a few percentage points in my calculations, I put it down to rounding errors.
        It is more sensible to use targets than rigid quotas. They would allow the employer—the police service—to have flexibility so that we do not get hung up about injustice by trying to fill targets. Under the Bill, the quota is inflexible; it demands the recruitment from the community of 50 per cent. Catholics and 50 per cent. non-Catholics. That does not even represent the current cross-section of the Northern Ireland community; as I have pointed out, a certain proportion of people do not class themselves as belonging to either religion. The Bill
        796
        acknowledges that weakness, because it allows the Secretary of State to vary the percentage; the patch-up job has begun before we have even implemented the measure.
        Quotas could inadvertently cause more division in the police service. We do not want officers to be seen as members of one or other sectarian grouping rather than as individuals. Like people in any job, the police have to be judged as individuals. Under the current provisions for the implementation of quotas, there is a danger that that will not occur. We certainly should not introduce measures that create more division in the service.
        The operation of the distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics may not help to achieve a balance with other members of the community who have always been under-represented. In Committee, when I pressed the Minister on the fact that everyone would be shoe-horned into those two categories, he replied:
        I use the phrase "both traditions". I hope that he appreciates that that shorthand description is most accurate. It represents the vast bulk of prevailing attitudes. People settle into one tradition or the other, although they may not be vehement about their views.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 July 2000; c.391.]
        That is a dangerous path to take; it would cause other under-represented groups to be ignored. However, that would be the result of the measure.
        The legality of quotas is questionable. The Bill proposes amending fair employment legislation to make room for quotas. That would set a dangerous precedent. It underlines the fact that, in any other circumstances, the measure would not be regarded as fair legislation. I suspect that the Government would have something to say if such practice were extensive on the mainland.
        That the proposals constitute positive discrimination is not in dispute. On 15 June, in The Irish News, the Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he was implementing Patten's 50:50 recruitment scheme, despite the fact that it would mean changing the law and persuading our European partners that it was a special case for reverse discrimination. Other hon. Members may offer further examples of that point. Apart from not delivering what we want, the quota could be illegal. Furthermore, it is not morally right to remove a present injustice by introducing a future one.
        We must create a police service that will attract people from all sections of the community. New clauses 1 and 2 would allow the Policing Board to establish advisory targets for the application and recruitment of Catholics, women and others from under-represented sections of the community. They would impose a duty on the Chief Constable to pursue an active programme of affirmative action to encourage such groups to apply. I emphasise "affirmative action" because that is a world away from positive discrimination. Affirmative action means tackling the underlying reasons why people from certain communities and certain ethnic groups are not applying to the police. That is vastly different from simply setting a quota and expecting it to be filled; in our judgment, although it is harder, it will also tackle the problem at its root.
        I wish to cite one last quotation on the matter. It dates from 12 November 1997, when Ronnie Flanagan gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. A member of that committee told him:
        I think you are absolutely right that positive discrimination is totally counterproductive, based on my experience in other areas. People have to be advanced on merit.

        797
        The person who said that was the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), speaking about the Greater London council in the early 1980s. I am sure that, whatever the views of those in this place about that gentleman, he could hardly be regarded as a bastion of old ways or as someone who has opposed positive action to try to rebalance discrimination where he has found it. Taking that into account with the other concerns that I have voiced, my judgment is that—[Interruption.] I suspect that there is a subtext going on here, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I will not be drawn.
        Combining all that with the sage advice—at which I see the Minister nodding—from the hon. Member for Brent, East, my judgment is that we are proceeding down the wrong path to achieve what I am sure we all agree is a laudable aim. However, if we do see this through—if we recognise that there is an issue here—the Government can still reconsider. They can still take on board the amendments and new clauses that we have tabled, and recognise that we are trying to do the same thing in a fairer way.
        We tackle all the issues as we proceed through these debates, but this issue has real consequences for real people. It could actually cause new grievances instead of addressing the old ones. Positive discrimination also makes everyone either a Catholic or a non-Catholic when, from my own personal history, I can testify that there are individuals who do not categorise themselves in either of those groups.
        I am asking the Minister to take these concerns very seriously. I am not alone on this issue, but even if I were, this is a matter of practice and a matter of principle—a principle that the Government should take very seriously, because at the moment they are trying to cure the symptoms rather than the cause, and so often when they do that, they cure nothing at all.
        Mr. McGrady: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I should like to propose for the approval of the House amendments Nos. 323, 324 and 325, which, under the heading of recruitment to the police, deal with the support staff for the new police service.
        The present quota for civilian staff applies when 10 vacancies arise at roughly the same level at the same time. I am pleased to note that the Government, in Committee, reduced the number to 10. We believe that it should be two, and in that we are encouraged by the similar attitude of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
        The reason for amendment No. 323, as for many of our amendments, is simply to achieve a full and faithful implementation of the Patten report. Patten said in this respect that the quota system
        should apply both to officer and civilian recruitment.
        However, at the moment clause 43(5) imposes that artificial limit for the quota for police support staff. It applies only when there are 10 vacancies at any time at the same level.
        We believe that it is unlikely that 10 such vacancies will ever arise at the same time and at exactly the same level. The Government are proposing to reduce the number to six. We apply the same argument—that it is unlikely that six such vacancies will frequently arise in the same place, at the same time, at the same level. Amendment No. 323 provides instead that the quota shall apply where two similar vacancies arise at the same
        798
        time—in line with the views of the Equality Commission. However, the Government have argued that such a provision would be too inflexible. We have tried to take that on board, and we believe that we have found a way forward that meets the Government's problem, our requirements and those of Patten and the Equality Commission.
        9.45 pm
        We believe that the Chief Constable should be under a duty as far as practicable to recruit according to the 50:50 principle for between two and five appointments, but if that is not practical in the narrow sense, it should not apply, and the Chief Constable should have the discretion to balance the need to apply the quota against competing needs. However, he would have to account for that course of action, presumably in his annual report. We believe that that is a sensible and practical resolution of the difference between us and the Government, it is a better and fuller implementation of Patten, and it adheres to the views of the Equality Commission. I should like to think that the Government consider the amendment appropriate.
        Mr. Trimble: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 301, 53 and 54. Taken together, the amendments would delete from the Bill subsections (3) to (6) of clause 43 and all of clauses 44 and 45. They would in effect remove the provisions to which objection has been taken by my party and by virtually all the parties in the House. The Government should realise that on this issue they stand alone. I am pleased to see that the Liberal Democrats have signed our amendments Nos. 53 and 54. I assume that they have not signed amendment No. 301 owing purely to an oversight.
        Mr. Öpik: Administrative error.
        Mr. Trimble: We of course have been happy to support the Liberal Democrats' new clauses 1 and 2.
        We share with everyone in the House the objective of a police service that is broadly representative of the community. That should not be controversial. It was a stated objective when the RUC was created. About 900 officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary transferred to the RUC, my grandfather among them, and that group was representative of society in Northern Ireland. It was also the policy of the first Unionist Administration in Northern Ireland to achieve a police force that was representative. At one stage, they endeavoured to reserve one third of places for Roman Catholics. Unfortunately, recruitment never matched that target. We do not have the time this evening to go into the reasons why it did not, but the target was there. In that sense, we have no difficulty with the suggestion made by the Liberal Democrats of targets for recruitment and action to persuade people to come forward and join the police service. That is admirable, and I hope that, whatever arrangements are included in the legislation, they will be in those terms.
        The Government are however profoundly mistaken in deciding to discriminate in the legislation. Let us not have any nonsense about it. It is not affirmative action, and "positive discrimination" is a mealy-mouthed phrase meaning: "We are going to discriminate and treat one section of the community unfairly." That unfairness is demonstrated in the figures that the hon. Member for

        799
        Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has mentioned. In the target age group—18 to 25—the numbers of Protestants and Catholics are roughly even. The figures that he gave were 44 and 45 per cent. However, 11 per cent. do not state their religion and the legislation will add that 11 per cent. to the Protestant side. So 50 per cent. of recruits will be taken from 45 per cent. of the population and the other 50 per cent. will be taken from 55 per cent. That is clearly discrimination.
        Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this important point. I have listened carefully to what he has said. He has admitted openly that objectives and targets in the past 80 years have not achieved parity within the RUC. Is there any reason to suppose that setting targets again without the force of law will achieve anything other than the continuation of the obvious imbalance in the RUC membership?
        Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman wishes to take me down a road that we do not have time to travel. It is a question of exploring why this has not succeeded and whether there is now a new situation. I hope that there is, and in that new situation there is every reason to expect that there will be a different pattern of recruitment. That will probably happen irrespective of what is enacted here, but what is enacted here is in danger of doing a serious injustice. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind.
        My view is that this arrangement will probably collapse, for a number of reasons, if the Government proceed in the way they propose. For example, in a situation in which the communities are roughly equally balanced, if there is an equal response from both communities of people wishing to join the police service, there will be roughly 50:50 recruitment. If there is not an even response, an unbalanced group of people will move into the pool, and then if we are drawing down on a 50:50 basis from a pool that is not 50:50, a significant number of people who will have been selected as suitable and qualified to join will go into the pool and remain there, month in, month out, for who knows how long.
        That will give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance and injustice that no one will be able to defend. Any Administration with any element of conscience will have to address that situation. For that practical reason, I do not think the arrangement will survive.
        There is another reason. As the Government know, it involves the consideration of other provisions. The Patten report says that human rights are at the heart of its proposals. Here, they are not. This is a shameful aspect of the Patten report, of the Government's proposals and of the parties that are supporting them. Human rights are at the heart of the proposals? On the one concrete issue where it counts, is anybody paying any attention to human rights? No. The position of hon. Members opposite who are lending the proposal their support is utterly shameful. They should address the matter.
        Furthermore, European law will compel a new approach. Article 13 of the Amsterdam treaty, signed in 1997, provides for the introduction of provisions to combat discrimination. The equal treatment directive, coming into operation in December 2002, will have an impact.
        800
        In 1998 the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) proposed amendments to legislation going through the House that would have tried to provide a degree of what she might have called positive discrimination for women. From a report by the constitution unit of University College London, entitled "Women's representation in UK Politics: what can be done within the Law?", I wish to quote two paragraphs, because they are quite important. They show why the provisions proposed by other parties are wrong; and they know they are wrong, because they rejected these proposals in 1998. The report says:
        On 3 March 1998…a memo was leaked to The Guardian newspaper of a high-level Government meeting where this was discussed.
        That is a reference to the hon. Lady's proposals for positive discrimination and other similar proposals.
        Allegedly the Secretary of State for Scotland favoured using the Scotland Bill to introduce an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act. However, at this meeting the Lord Chancellor…advised other Cabinet colleagues that it would be unwise to accept such amendments. This was based on advice given to Government law officers by Patrick Elias QC. According to the leak, Lord Irvine reported that if the Sex Discrimination Act were amended, "the probability was that a legal challenge under the European Equal Treatment Directive would succeed…the law officers said that at each stage in the process—adoption of legislation, selection of candidates, and the election itself—the Government could and probably would be a respondent. Any Minister bringing forward or accepting an amendment would not be able to assure the House that it was ECJ-proof—
        that is, European Court of Justice-proof.
        This would put him in an impossible position and create handling difficulties." Lord Irvine concluded that the Government line should be that "amendment of the SDA would be pointless because of the substantial risk of successful challenge under the ETD."
        Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am surprised that that particular event in 1998 should be remembered tonight. At that time, I was talking about having equal numbers of men and women elected to the Scottish Parliament. We received strong advice that the equal treatment directive had nothing to do with elected Members of Parliament, but that it had everything to do with people being appointed to jobs, which is what we are debating tonight. Since that time, however, a few studies have been carried out that show that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was wrong and that we would have been within our rights to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
        I certainly agree with one point that the right hon. Gentleman has made—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made her point that the right hon. Gentleman might be wrong.
        Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which I pretty well invited by referring to her. Her proposal was about equal numbers of men and women and we are debating an analogous proposal relating to an equal number of Catholics and non-Catholics. She conceded that this issue deals with employment and that the provisions for elected Members do not apply in this case.
        I would be interested to see the other reports that suggest that the Lord Chancellor got it wrong. The report that I quoted is dated June 2000, so it has been published

        801
        within the last month. I am entitled to regard it as up to date and it does not refer to the other reports. The quotes from the Lord Chancellor are clear and authoritative and comply with the independent advice that we have received about the European directive.
        The likelihood is that, within a short time, the Government will find that their proposal is struck down by the European courts. The question we must ask the Government is why they are proceeding with a proposal that they know will probably be struck down. They cannot assure the House that it is, in the words of Lord Irvine, "ECJ proof". In any event, the Government must know, without reference to the equal treatment directive, that it is wrong to discriminate in the way that they propose.
        By all means, let us do what we can to encourage people to come forward and to ensure that we have a balanced and representative police force. The most significant action that can be taken to achieve that aim requires not legislation, but positive action by some hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the House. I am thinking of those Members who represent the Social Democratic and Labour party who by their actions—what they say and what they do—in the days and weeks to come can do more to encourage and produce a representative police service than all the legislation put together. Rather than pursue something that is morally wrong and illegal under European law, let them use their voices and get out into the community to persuade people to come forward and join the police service as provided for by this Bill.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Democratic Unionist party had a meeting with the Minister of State the legality of the provision for having a police force made up of 50 per cent. Protestants or non-Catholics and 50 per cent. Roman Catholics was one of the issues that we raised. I pointed out, from some little knowledge of Europe, that there was a problem with that provision.
        Will the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House that the provision is legal under European law? Can he say unequivocally that what he is asking for is in complete agreement with European law—or is it not? If he were to refer to a derogation, that would be a different matter. That would mean that he accepted that the provision is not legal under European law and that he must go for a derogation.
        10 pm
        The debate on this issue cannot proceed until the Secretary of State tells the House exactly what the position in European law is, and it is incumbent on him to know what that legal standing is. I hope that when he, or another Minister, responds to the debate, he will be able to state that clearly. He should not put us off by saying that the Government are looking into it or negotiating it. I will be interested to hear that reply because as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, this is an important matter, and the House needs to know how European law affects what it is deciding tonight.
        Under the terms of the legislation that we are being asked to support, it will be difficult to achieve the target of 50 per cent. of recruits being Roman Catholics and to ensure that the section of the community that is bracketed
        802
        as non-Catholic gets the justice that it, too, deserves. How are we to do that? The Government must not duck these issues; they must tell us exactly what they intend to do.
        Who will tell the House authoritatively that non-Catholics will join the police force envisaged in the Bill? I have not heard from SDLP Members that they will call on the people who support them to join as the Bill becomes law. Will it reach the standards that they have set? If the Bill is passed tonight, will they tell us that they will be able to stand up to their constituency and say, "Yes, you should join this police force"?
        We know exactly where Sinn Fein-IRA stands: it says that it will not make any call to its constituency until everything else is completed. When will the process be completed? How far away is that date? It seems a very long way away, because when something is done, something else is asked for, and when that is done, something else is asked for. When will we have recruitment to the new force? If the Roman Catholic people are not urged by their leaders to join, they will not do so. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to say that there must be a call from the leaders of that community, because people will decide to join the police not after reading the Bill, but when their leadership says that they may join.
        The House could have a long debate about why Roman Catholic people have not joined the police force. I have constituents who are members of the RUC; they cannot go to their own homes, and their parents have to visit them in England. People who face such intimidation will not join the police force, no matter what it is called. The House needs to address those issues.
        Mrs. Fyfe: When I said that the Lord Chancellor was wrong, I was referring to the question of selecting and electing Members of Parliament, not to taking on employees. The equal treatment directive is pretty straightforward and simply says that an employer is entitled to take positive action to bring into employment people who have been under-represented. I would be surprised if my colleagues on the Front Bench had not checked that out before presenting their Bill.
        Mr. Dominic Grieve: The official Opposition share all the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about the way the Bill stands. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) add to the categories that we believe fall foul of European law and of the European convention on human rights as incorporated into our law.
        We considered this issue in great detail in Committee. When we considered whether these measures were compliant, it was noteworthy that the Minister was remarkably opaque on the subject. He said:
        The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to previous explanations.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 June 2000; c. 307.]
        On checking the entirety of Hansard for that occasion, I found no explanations as to how this part of the Bill satisfies the Amsterdam treaty and the directives that are likely to arise. There is no evidence that it does. The maximum that the right hon. Gentleman was able to say was that "our European partners"—I think that that was the expression—would be sympathetic and would

        803
        therefore find a way out for the Government from their dilemma. It was odd that the European Court of Human Rights and how it might interpret such a flagrant breach of directives, and the Amsterdam treaty, were never really mentioned.
        My anxiety has always centred on the European convention on human rights. Article 9 is clear. It states:
        Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
        How do the Government's current proposals match up to that?
        The Government are proposing to create a pool. Into it will go those who are qualified to join the police service. However, they will not be allowed to join having passed on qualification. They will be obliged to wait until the Government consider that they are in the right place on the religious quota to be admitted. In this world there is discrimination both direct and indirect. There is no point in saying, "We are not interfering with the way that you exercise your religious belief", if by virtue of the way in which people exercise their beliefs they will be discriminated against in the workplace when applying to join the police service.
        All the entrants who come forward to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary—or the police service, or whatever it may be called—will each receive an assessment. It beggars belief that a lawyer will not trawl through the assessments to point out the inconsistencies of one person being favoured as against another on the ground of his religion. As I said to the Minister in Committee, I hope not entirely flippantly, what happens if somebody having been admitted to the pool decides to change his religious faith? The Minister suggested that he thought the person might drown, out of uncertainty. However, that is a question that he will have to answer, because at some stage precisely that problem is likely to arise. When it does, how will that person be treated thereafter?
        There are many other inconsistencies in the way in which the Bill is drafted. The most obvious and notable is that it divides the community into two equal camps of 50 per cent., which neither reflects society at large nor makes any allowance for any other minority group, or anyone not defined as Protestant or Catholic. It is difficult to imagine a criterion which would act as more of a red rag to a bull in a polarised community. It takes no account of other religious or ethnic minorities.
        The Minister has the Opposition's support in the desire to see the number of Catholics in the RUC greatly increased. He knows that if there were to come a day when Catholics accounted for more than 50 per cent. of its numbers, that would not bother us one iota. We would not be concerned if they took advantage of the job opportunities and performed the service to the community that those allowed. However, the Government have chosen to introduce a measure that is discriminatory. The Minister admitted in Committee that it means positive
        804
        discrimination, and rather gloried in it. As a principle on which this House should conduct its business and pass legislation, I find that extraordinary.
        Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the Fair Employment Act, it was his Government who introduced the concepts of perceived Protestant and perceived Roman Catholic?
        Mr. Grieve: Neither this Government, the previous Government nor—I believe—any Government have passed a measure involving positive discrimination. The measures proposed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, which are certainly affirmative in their help to the Catholic community, command support and are a tried and tested method that goes to the very limit of what in our view is possible and allowable under both international law and our European convention obligations. No previous Government have departed from that; I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he thinks that some previous Government have done so. I do not believe that to be so.
        Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Did not his Government, under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act, introduce the concept of individuals as perceived Protestants and perceived Roman Catholics?
        Mr. Trimble: That was in 1976.
        Mr. Grieve: I do not know who introduced that legislation; the right hon. Gentleman says that it was in 1976. None the less, no measure involving positive discrimination has been passed by the House.
        In the light of the Patten report, it is a little surprising that the Government should have so glibly passed over the seriousness of the issue, simply saying, "Oh, we think that it's perfectly all right." We do not believe that it is. The Minister wants to provide great reassurance and would like to give chapter and verse on the matter, which I must say he did not in Committee. I will listen with interest, but in our view, the principle is completely flawed and wrong.
        Mr. Corbyn: Given that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a huge imbalance between Protestants and Roman Catholics in the current police service of Northern Ireland, will he please explain what he would do to ensure some fairness in future? There has been systematic discrimination throughout many decades against Roman Catholic recruits. This legislation is designed to try to correct that imbalance. Does he have any solution to the problem?
        Mr. Grieve: I do indeed. To begin with, I recollect that on Second Reading, as has been pointed out, hon. Members representing the SDLP stood up one by one to say that if the Bill were passed and acceptable to them, they would go to the marketplace, even in west Belfast, and encourage—and succeed in encouraging—Catholics to join the police service. That is very close to the words of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon); I remember them well because they were eloquent. Such action in itself would make a major contribution to

        805
        breaking the ice, and the logjam. There is also affirmative action that could be carried out that would be proper, and would not offend against human rights legislation.
        Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman inform us who he thinks might speak best and most accurately for Catholics—a political party known as the SDLP or the Catholic Church?
        Mr. Grieve: That is a question that I do not propose to answer. I raised the hon. Gentleman's position because I regard him as a man of complete integrity, and I listened very carefully to what he said on Second Reading. I took it that if he was satisfied with the Bill and said on behalf of the Catholic community that Catholics should join the police service, many who had previously been deterred would do so. Whether it is he who takes such action, or whether it is priests of the Roman Catholic Church or other members of the community at large, seems to matter very little.
        Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for giving way. I note the points that he has made, and if I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will deal with that matter. In the interests of whatever harmony is left, may I refer the hon. Gentleman, without being specific, to an article written on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy some weeks ago in the name of Father Tim Bartlett? I ask him to study it carefully. I will answer, as will my colleagues, for our political party and our political stance. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the article before he goes much further.
        10.15 pm
        Mr. Grieve: I will read the article. If it suggests that positive discrimination is the solution, I do not mind who it comes from—I will reject it.
        We can leave aside the European Court of Justice and the European convention on human rights. It has not been a principle or practice in this country to engage in positive discrimination. That will bring in its wake every kind of resentment, which is the very thing that we want to break down. I cannot think of a worse way of starting a new police service on its course with the good wishes of the House, than to saddle it with such an incubus at the outset.
        Mr. Ingram: In Committee, I paid many tributes to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Not tonight. Many assertions have been made and points of view strongly expressed by the hon. Gentleman which seem to ignore the fact that, through the Bill, we seek to establish the principles that Patten identified and which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) tried to make the hon. Gentleman understand.
        I could ask a simple question of those who oppose what we seek to do. Which EU directive do they have in mind? None. There is no EU directive that prohibits what we seek to do through the Bill—not one.
        Mr. Grieve: The Minister is correct that, as matters stand at present, there is no EU directive, and I did not suggest that there was. The Amsterdam treaty sets the framework, and there is a directive in contemplation from which the Government will have to seek a derogation or some form of accommodation, as I understand it, in order
        806
        to allow the matter to proceed. As I pointed out to the Minister, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act—
        Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman is used to being paid by the minute, but he answered the question in the first few words of his response. There is no EU directive that the Bill contravenes. He is right to say that the matter is being examined. We said in Committee, and I repeat, that with our European partners, we will look at the ways in which we can deal with the issue.
        That seems to be a sensible way forward. The EU has been a tremendous supporter of the peace process in Northern Ireland. In our dealings with our European partners, we have found time and again that they are prepared to accept the ways in which the issue must be addressed to move the peace process forward. They live in world of reality, not bombast and rhetoric such as we have heard in the debate.
        Let us deal with reality. I have heard it said that the Bill is not ECHR-compliant. It is ECHR-compliant, otherwise that statement would not appear in the Bill. I have said before from the Dispatch Box that no Minister can knowingly act illegally. That is the case. If there were any doubt, we would not make that attestation, nor would we stand here and defend that position. In dealing with the subject of our discussion, we have heard much rhetoric and many strong views, but let us tackle reality.
        The purpose of amendments Nos. 301, 52, 53 and 54 is to remove from the Bill the provisions that allow for the so-called 50:50 recruitment arrangements. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has tabled alternative new clauses 1 and 2, which would provide for a programme of affirmative action to encourage a higher rate of Catholic application.
        We debated the issue at considerable length in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member for Beaconsfield was not happy with the result, but he cannot deny that we had a heavyweight debate in Committee. We trawled over the same ground that we are now discussing. Let me reiterate the Government's position. The parties to the Belfast agreement considered it imperative that the police service, if it is to be fully effective, should be representative of the community it polices. As matters stand, only 8 per cent. of the RUC is from the Catholic community.
        The Government recognise that victimisation and intimidation have unquestionably played a significant role in depressing the rate of Catholic application to the RUC. As Patten said, we must address that. In paragraph 15.2, the Patten report stated:
        The key to making that police service representative of those communities—indeed the key to the successful implementation of nearly everything in this report—is that the leaders of those communities now actively encourage their young people to join the police service.
        That acknowledges that not only the Governments, but all parties and all parts of the community in Northern Ireland must address the problem.
        Neither Patten nor the Government intend 50:50 recruitment to represent an alternative to affirmative action. Paragraph 15.8 states clearly that the recruitment agency, for which clause 42 provides, should
        advertise imaginatively and persistently, particularly in places likely to reach groups who are under-represented in the police. As at present the advertisements should make it clear that the police

        807
        Service wants to attract more Catholics and women. But every effort should be made to get this message across, through local newspapers, magazines, club and community centre notice boards and any other way that can be found to reach the target groups directly.
        Paragraph 15.6 of the report recommends cadet schemes; paragraph 15.11 recommends flexible working and child care schemes.
        The Police Federation, in its response to the Patten report, said that it would take 30 years to achieve a balance through affirmative action alone. I am therefore surprised, especially as the matter was debated in Committee, that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has tabled the amendment. I recounted the Government's firm determination to take forward affirmative action programmes. We also needed to move the whole process forward and introduce the 50:50 recruitment policy.
        The policy is exceptional and deals with an unusual set of circumstances. We are not discussing Dudley, Bracknell or Montgomeryshire, but Northern Ireland, where there are tremendously deep divisions. Patten realised that that needed to be addressed. The signatories to the Belfast agreement gave that an impetus. The Government are delivering the policy. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will not press their amendments.
        Mr. Thompson: Is not it hypocritical for the Government to speak in those terms when on 23 and 24 March, in a joint statement at the Lisbon European Council meeting, the United Kingdom and Irish Governments urged member states to
        make early progress on the Commission's Article 13 anti-discrimination proposals?
        Is not it hypocritical to say that a change must be made?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words represent no slur on the Minister. The Minister is not a hypocrite—no hon. Member is.
        Mr. Ingram: Thank you very much for that defence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to respond robustly, but I simply say that of course the party that I represent has a proud tradition of fighting discrimination, in and out of government. I am not so sure that many of those who have raised these issues tonight would have stood in line against many of the types of discrimination that we have had to fight against. As we are dealing with exceptional circumstances, we will deal with friendly partners who understand the exceptional need. We cannot predict the outcome, but we will be progressive and constructive—not to undermine the principles of any future directive, but to place what we seek to do in Northern Ireland in context.
        Government amendments Nos. 133 and 135 would require 50:50 recruitment to be applied in the recruitment of police support staff when six or more vacancies at a similar level had to be filled. The threshold figure was previously stipulated as 10. As the figure is to be reduced, it is reasonable to enable the Secretary of State to set aside 50:50 recruitment—after consulting the board and the Chief Constable—when it simply is not possible. We believe that to be a sensible precaution.
        808
        The hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh tabled amendments Nos. 323 to 325, which would reduce the threshold to two with a proviso that the quota mechanism be applied where it is practicable to do so when the number of vacancies is five or fewer. The Chief Constable would also be required to publish information on such appointments annually.
        The issue was debated in Committee when I said that the Government were prepared to be flexible. We have looked at it again and I am persuaded that the figure can reasonably be reduced to six. However, although we have moved from a threshold of 10, I am not persuaded to reduce the figure to two. To reduce it further would virtually set aside the merit principle. Furthermore, at such a low level, the quota mechanism would produce a minimal impact on overall composition and in practical terms could prove impossible to apply when such small numbers are involved, particularly if an odd number of posts—three, for example—had to be filled. I hope that the amended threshold figure of six will be seen as a workable solution and I ask the House to accept our amendment on that basis.
        As to the publication of religious monitoring and composition information, the police service will continue to adhere to the terms of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and guidance, as appropriate, from the Equality Commission. I do not believe that there is any need to put any of those issues into the legislation.
        Government amendments Nos. 130 and 127 rectify technical defects. Amendment No. 130 would require the Secretary of State to consult the Policing Board, the Chief Constable, the Equality Commission and the police associations in making regulations for the recruitment function. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult those bodies when making regulations in respect of the recruitment agent. It appears entirely sensible that they should also have the opportunity to comment on the detail of the recruitment function itself—for example, advertising of vacancies, testing of applicants and so on.
        Amendment No. 127 would enable the recruitment agency, under clause 42, to recruit all officers and support staff appointed by the Chief Constable rather than only trainee officers at constable level. Senior officers and civilians are not covered because, of course, they are appointed by the board.
        I ask the House to accept Government amendments Nos. 127, 130, 133 and 135 and to reject all other amendments. Given the time scale, we probably will not debate new clause 6 and I give the House notice that the Government do not intend to move amendment No. 197.
        10.30 pm
        Mr. Öpik: Taken together, new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 301 achieve the Government's objective, but they do so fairly. They give everyone in Northern Ireland a fair deal by attacking the problem of applications rather than dealing with recruitment at the end of the process, which is the wrong target. The Minister said that there are deep divisions in Northern Ireland. Our concern is that the Government proposals will make some of those divisions worse.

        809
        Look how far we have come, and how close we are to a new police service for Northern Ireland. The proposals are radical and ground-breaking, with some genuine human rights breakthroughs. We have had agreements, progress has been made and consensus has been reached between groupings that it was previously unthinkable could work together. We are offering a solution that achieves the strategy that the Government are trying to implement without introducing new discriminations in the process.
        Are the Government so determined to do it their way, even if that goes against a sense of natural justice, contravenes European legislation—as it will do from 2002—and includes an element of positive discrimination, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said? That is not the sort of fairness we are seeking.
        The Minister says that affirmative action would take 30 years, as if it is outside our control. It should be within our control, and we should take our responsibility seriously rather than making a prediction and introducing an unjust system instead.
        I have tried to be nice to the Government, and I have tried to help. I even supported the guillotine motion, because it seemed like a good idea at the time, but perhaps not any longer. This is a matter of practice and a matter of principle. The Minister has created an alliance between the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and me. It should seriously concern the Government that they have managed to bring the Democratic Unionists, the Ulster Unionists, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats together.
        The Minister said that there has been much bombast and rhetoric in the debate. He is mistaken, because what bothers many hon. Members is a matter of principle.
        Mr. Ingram: I asked hon. Members in presenting their amendments and justifying their arguments to tell me on which EU directive they based their case, and the hon. Gentleman has not done so.
        Mr. Öpik: It is on a piece of paper that will come to hand in a moment. There is no doubt that this matter is being discussed by the European Parliament. The proposals relate to a Council directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and the proposal for a Council directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. I shall write to the Minister to give him a fuller reply.
        The Government have done so well with the Bill, and they have listened, but this is the tough test. This is how the Government can prove that they are serious about working consensually towards a better Northern Ireland police service. The package on offer in the amendments and new clauses is proactive, sound and logical and takes into account discrimination not just against Catholics but against all the other minorities who are not properly represented in the Northern Ireland police force. It is not about cooking the quotas; it is about opening the doors to all those unrepresented groups in Northern Irish police life.
        810
        My challenge to the Minister is to open the doors rather than slam them in other people's faces while trying to cure an injustice. My challenge to the House is for once genuinely to understand that this principle is all-pervading.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 307.

        Division No. 256]

        [10.35 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Gale, Roger

        Allan, Richard

        Garnier, Edward

        Amess, David

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Gibb, Nick

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Gidley, Sandra

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Gill, Christopher

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Baldry, Tony

        Gorrie, Donald

        Ballard, Jackie

        Gray, James

        Beggs, Roy

        Green, Damian

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Greenway, John

        Bercow, John

        Grieve, Dominic

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Blunt, Crispin

        Hammond, Philip

        Body, Sir Richard

        Hancock, Mike

        Boswell, Tim

        Harris, Dr Evan

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Harvey, Nick

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Hawkins, Nick

        Brady, Graham

        Hayes, John

        Brake, Tom

        Heald, Oliver

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Brazier, Julian

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Breed, Colin

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Horam, John

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Burnett, John

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Burns, Simon

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Burstow, Paul

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Butterfill, John

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Key, Robert

        Cash, William

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Chidgey, David

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Chope, Christopher

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Clappison, James

        Lansley, Andrew

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        Leigh, Edward

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Letwin, Oliver

        Lidington, David

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Collins, Tim

        Livsey, Richard

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Cotter, Brian

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Cran, James

        Loughton, Tim

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Luff, Peter

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        McCartney, Robert (N Down)

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Day, Stephen

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

        Evans, Nigel

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Maginnis, Ken

        Fabricant, Michael

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Fallon, Michael

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Fearn, Ronnie

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Flight, Howard

        Moore, Michael

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Norman, Archie

        Fraser, Christopher

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        811

        Öpik, Lembit

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Paice, James

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Pickles, Eric

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Prior, David

        Thompson, William

        Randall, John

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Townend, John

        Rendel, David

        Tredinnick, David

        Robathan, Andrew

        Trend, Michael

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Trimble, Rt Hon David

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Tyler, Paul

        Ross, William (E Lond'y)

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Ruffley, David

        Viggers, Peter

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Walter, Robert

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Waterson, Nigel

        Sanders, Adrian

        Webb, Steve

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Wells, Bowen

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Welsh, Andrew

        Soames, Nicholas

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Whittingdale, John

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Spring, Richard

        Wilkinson, John

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Willetts, David

        Steen, Anthony

        Wilshire, David

        Streeter, Gary

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Yeo, Tim

        Swayne, Desmond

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Swinney, John

        Syms, Robert

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Sir Robert Smith and

        Mr. Peter Atkinson.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Clapham, Michael

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Ainger, Nick

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Barnes, Harry

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Barron, Kevin

        Clelland, David

        Battle, John

        Clwyd, Ann

        Bayley, Hugh

        Coaker, Vernon

        Beard, Nigel

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Cohen, Harry

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Coleman, Iain

        Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

        Colman, Tony

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Connarty, Michael

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Berry, Roger

        Corbett, Robin

        Best, Harold

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Betts, Clive

        Corston, Jean

        Blackman, Liz

        Cousins, Jim

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Cox, Tom

        Blizzard, Bob

        Crausby, David

        Borrow, David

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Cummings, John

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Browne, Desmond

        Darvill, Keith

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Burden, Richard

        Davidson, Ian

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

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

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Dawson, Hilton

        Cann, Jamie

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Casale, Roger

        Denham, John

        Caton, Martin

        Dobbin, Jim

        Cawsey, Ian

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Doran, Frank

        Chaytor, David

        Dowd, Jim

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Drew, David

        812

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Lammy, David

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Edwards, Huw

        Laxton, Bob

        Efford, Clive

        Lepper, David

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Leslie, Christopher

        Etherington, Bill

        Levitt, Tom

        Fisher, Mark

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Flynn, Paul

        Linton, Martin

        Follett, Barbara

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Lock, David

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Love, Andrew

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Foulkes, George

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Fyfe, Maria

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Galloway, George

        Macdonald, Calum

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        McDonnell, John

        Gerrard, Neil

        McFall, John

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        McGrady, Eddie

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        McIsaac, Shona

        Godsiff, Roger

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Goggins, Paul

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        McNamara, Kevin

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        McNulty, Tony

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        MacShane, Denis

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Hain, Peter

        McWalter, Tony

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        McWilliam, John

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Hanson, David

        Mallon, Seamus

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Healey, John

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Heppell, John

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Hesford, Stephen

        Martlew, Eric

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Hill, Keith

        Meale, Alan

        Hood, Jimmy

        Merron, Gillian

        Hope, Phil

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Miller, Andrew

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Hume, John

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Hurst, Alan

        Morley, Elliot

        Hutton, John

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

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Mountford, Kali

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Mudie, George

        Jamieson, David

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Jenkins, Brian

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Norris, Dan

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Olner, Bill

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Pearson, Ian

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Pendry, Tom

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Kemp, Fraser

        Pickthall, Colin

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Pike, Peter L

        Khabra, Piara S

        Plaskitt, James

        Kidney, David

        Pond, Chris

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Pope, Greg

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Pound, Stephen

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        813

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Stringer, Graham

        Purchase, Ken

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Radice, Rt Hon Giles

        Rammell, Bill

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Rapson, Syd

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

        Timms, Stephen

        Rooney, Terry

        Todd, Mark

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Touhig, Don

        Rowlands, Ted

        Trickett, Jon

        Roy, Frank

        Truswell, Paul

        Ruane, Chris

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Salter, Martin

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Sawford, Phil

        Tynan, Bill

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Skinner, Dennis

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Watts, David

        White, Brian

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Snape, Peter

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Soley, Clive

        Winnick, David

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Wood, Mike

        Spellar, John

        Woolas, Phil

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Worthington, Tony

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Wray, James

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Stevenson, George

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Mr. Kevin Hughes and

        Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being more than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With the leave of the House, I will put together amendment No. 44, the remaining Government amendments with the exception of Nos. 197, 212 and 299, and Government new schedule 1.
        Question put, That the amendments be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 8.

        Division No. 257]

        [10.51 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Barron, Kevin

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Battle, John

        Ainger, Nick

        Bayley, Hugh

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Beard, Nigel

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Ashton, Joe

        Berry, Roger

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Best, Harold

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Betts, Clive

        Ballard, Jackie

        Blackman, Liz

        Barnes, Harry

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        814

        Blizzard, Bob

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Borrow, David

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Foulkes, George

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Browne, Desmond

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Burden, Richard

        Gerrard, Neil

        Burnett, John

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Burstow, Paul

        Gidley, Sandra

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Goggins, Paul

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Cann, Jamie

        Gorrie, Donald

        Casale, Roger

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Caton, Martin

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Cawsey, Ian

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Hain, Peter

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Clapham, Michael

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Hancock, Mike

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Hanson, David

        Harvey, Nick

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Healey, John

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Clelland, David

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Coaker, Vernon

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Heppell, John

        Cohen, Harry

        Hesford, Stephen

        Coleman, Iain

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Colman, Tony

        Hill, Keith

        Connarty, Michael

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hope, Phil

        Corbett, Robin

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Corston, Jean

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cotter, Brian

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Cousins, Jim

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Cox, Tom

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Crausby, David

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hurst, Alan

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Hutton, John

        Cummings, John

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Dalyell, Tam

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Darvill, Keith

        Jenkins, Brian

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Davidson, Ian

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

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

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Denham, John

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Dobbin, Jim

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Doran, Frank

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Dowd, Jim

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Drew, David

        Kemp, Fraser

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Khabra, Piara S

        Edwards, Huw

        Kidney, David

        Efford, Clive

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Etherington, Bill

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Fearn, Ronnie

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Fisher, Mark

        Lammy, David

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Flynn, Paul

        Laxton, Bob

        815

        Lepper, David

        Purchase, Ken

        Leslie, Christopher

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Levitt, Tom

        Radice, Rt Hon Giles

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Rammell, Bill

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Rapson, Syd

        Linton, Martin

        Raynsford, Nick

        Livsey, Richard

        Rendel, David

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

        Lock, David

        Rooney, Terry

        Love, Andrew

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Rowlands, Ted

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Roy, Frank

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Ruane, Chris

        Macdonald, Calum

        Ruddock, Joan

        McDonnell, John

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        McFall, John

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Salter, Martin

        McIsaac, Shona

        Sanders, Adrian

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Sawford, Phil

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Shaw, Jonathan

        McNamara, Kevin

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        McNulty, Tony

        Skinner, Dennis

        MacShane, Denis

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        McWalter, Tony

        McWilliam, John

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Mallaber, Judy

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

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Snape, Peter

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Soley, Clive

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Spellar, John

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Martlew, Eric

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Stevenson, George

        Meale, Alan

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Merron, Gillian

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Miller, Andrew

        Stringer, Graham

        Moffatt, Laura

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Stunell, Andrew

        Moore, Michael

        Swinney, John

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Morley, Elliot

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

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

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Mountford, Kali

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Mudie, George

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Timms, Stephen

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Todd, Mark

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Norris, Dan

        Touhig, Don

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Trickett, Jon

        Olner, Bill

        Truswell, Paul

        O'Neill, Martin

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Öpik, Lembit

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Pearson, Ian

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Pendry, Tom

        Tyler, Paul

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Tynan, Bill

        Pickthall, Colin

        Vaz, Keith

        Pike, Peter L

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Plaskitt, James

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Pond, Chris

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Pope, Greg

        Wareing, Robert N

        Pound, Stephen

        Watts, David

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Webb, Steve

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Welsh, Andrew

        816

        White, Brian

        Worthington, Tony

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Wray, James

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Winnick, David

        Wood, Mike

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Woolas, Phil

        Mr. Mike Hall and

        Mr. David Jamieson.

        NOES

        Beggs, Roy

        Trimble, Rt Hon David

        McCartney, Robert (N Down)

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Maginnis, Ken

        Robertson, Laurence

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Rev. Ian Paisley and

        Thompson, William

        Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        11.2 pm
        The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        The Patten report speaks to a very different Northern Ireland from that which we have known in the past. The Good Friday agreement provided the basis for ending 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland and the days when the pillars of the state in Northern Ireland failed to represent the society that those pillars served. Chief among them, in nationalist eyes, was the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the police service in Northern Ireland.
        Like the Good Friday agreement that spawned it, the report of the Patten commission promised nothing less than a new beginning. It promised a modern, civic police service rooted in all parts of the community, drawing strength and legitimacy from all parts of the community. With this Bill, our task is to bring the vision of the Patten report to life—to reality—and to draw a line under recent history, but not to forget, and certainly not to disown, that history.
        Three hundred and two officers of the RUC have lost their lives. Thousands more have been injured. Families and friends suffered bereavement. I know from my meetings, contacts and encounters with those friends and families how the terrible pain of that bereavement continues in the lives of those people—mothers, wives, offspring.
        The courage of the RUC in the face of such sacrifice was immense; I think that the whole House will want to salute it. The professionalism of RUC officers was extraordinary, and we respect it. It is for that reason that, in the Bill, we will create the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation. That will mean that the name of the RUC, its proud history and record will live on in perpetuity and will be for ever honoured.
        Over the last few weeks, and particularly over the last five days or so, in Drumcree and across Northern Ireland, in the face of bottles, bomb blasts, blast bombs, and acid squirted in the faces of RUC officers, we have seen that professionalism again and again and again, night in and night out, as hoodlums—thugs—have hijacked what I regard as legitimate protest. I believe that we will all want to pay tribute to the RUC for bearing the enormous brunt of that violence over the last week.

        817
        The RUC has paid a price in more than one way. Its members have certainly paid a price with their lives but, over the past 30 years, the fact that the RUC has been the bulwark against a brutal terrorist campaign has led to its being identified more with one side of the community than with the other. That identification may not be deserved—it has certainly not been sought—but that is the perception of a substantial section of the community, and it is a perception that, in the Bill, we are addressing and seeking to correct.
        The Patten commission's starting point was that the police service must respect the values and reflect the pluralism of Northern Ireland's society as a whole, not just a majority of that society but the whole of it. The police service must enjoy widespread support from, and must be seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole. It must do that if it is to be an effective police service. That is very hard when there is a 9:1 religious imbalance in the composition of the police.
        The hard reality of policing in Northern Ireland, and the reason why policing was remitted to the Patten commission in the first place, is that, while 80 per cent. of Protestants are content with policing, less than 50 per cent. of Catholics are satisfied. That is shown in a number of opinion surveys. Eighty-eight per cent. of the police are from one section of the community, in spite of the efforts of the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to achieve a more balanced service. Those efforts have been great and they have been sustained, but they have not been successful.
        Of course, intimidation by the IRA has been a factor in preventing Catholics, and discouraging nationalists, from joining the RUC; but it is only one factor. Lack of community support and of identity with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, fear that they would lose contact with family and with friends, fear that they would have to submerge their Catholic identity or nationalist politics if they were to join the RUC, and fear of harassment in their community or within the RUC—all these have played a part.
        I did not simply take the Patten report at face value. I looked behind it. I looked into it. I talked to people right across the community, and made my own judgments about what was right and what needed to be done. I was persuaded that radical changes were needed to redress that extreme religious imbalance that has resulted in the RUC's being unrepresentative of the community as a whole, and therefore all the less effective as a police service as a consequence.
        The radical changes that needed to be made included changing the name. That is a difficult decision, and it is a painful decision for people right across the RUC family. Indeed, it was a painful decision for me, and one that I would not have taken if I did not believe that it was essential to the new beginning that Patten envisages. If I had felt that we could have gone ahead and created a new start, and created a new beginning for policing without changing the name, I most certainly would have done that.
        I am also persuaded that widespread support means not alienating the Protestant and Unionist traditions in the community. Yes, they must accept change and, in this case, radical change, but we must be sensitive to the fears and concerns of all in the community of both traditions. Change must be built on consensus wherever we can achieve it. That is an important principle to apply to the
        818
        implementation of Patten. Wherever it is possible to secure agreement and consensus, draw the traditions together and put them behind the changes that we want to see, we should strenuously seek to do so and we should not give up easily when at first we do not succeed.
        Patten was clear that the RUC was not being disbanded. That argument was made strenuously by some in Northern Ireland, and it was rejected. Patten was also clear that the link between the RUC and the new police service must be recognised. It is in his report. For that reason, because I want to ease the transition in the best way that I can, because I want to build as wide a consensus for change as possible and because I want to address the fears and concerns of both traditions and people across the community, we have accepted a description moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) which incorporates the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in effect, in the title deeds of the new service.
        The Royal Ulster Constabulary, as Patten himself recommended—he wanted that link established between the RUC and the new police service—is being carried forward. The body of constables known as the RUC will form part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it will be incorporated in the new police service. At the same time, we have introduced a new name—the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We did that, having accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The name "Police Service of Northern Ireland" will be used for all operational and working purposes, wherever and in whatever circumstances when the police interface with the public.
        It is critical that we strike the right balance throughout in the way in which we carry forward the changes. People across the community must know and respect the officers in the new service. Both sides must feel that the service genuinely reflects their values, needs and traditions. They must emphatically not feel that, by joining the service, let alone supporting it, they are in some way betraying members of their tradition and their side of the community in Northern Ireland.
        Ultimately, what the police do—how representative they are; how they are trained and equipped—matters more than what they are called. The Government are determined to ensure that the police have the necessary resources and capabilities to protect the community and uphold law and order.
        Hon. Members have referred to what they sometimes call the mafia society in Northern Ireland. It is certainly a society that carries the legacy of 30 years of conflict and the operation, persistence, and contamination of paramilitary organisations. Under the new political dispensation, we have the opportunity for society as a whole and its policing service to unite in standing up to, and facing down, each and every one of those paramilitary organisations. If we do not, we will never succeed in creating the decent, civic society in Northern Ireland to which we all aspire.
        The Government are determined, therefore, that the policing service that is being created is not simply rebadged or renamed, but is a truly effective, capable policing service. It is true that, in a sense, the Patten report was an important part of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland—quite rightly. That is why it was spawned by the Good Friday agreement.

        819
        Equally, what the Patten report and its implementation must be about is, above all, efficient and effective policing, to cope with the threat and the dangers that persist in Northern Ireland. In some cases, some interpretation of the Patten report has been needed. Patten did not give a detailed blueprint for everything. In some cases, also, we have been able to move forward and implement Patten without legislation; not every change, alteration, modification, needs to be provided for in law.
        Indeed, Patten himself did not contend that his report spelled out every particular, and in parts he deliberately avoided being too prescriptive on the detail, so as to allow other voices to be heard. Those other voices have been heard since the report was published, and they will continue to be heard as we proceed along the path of its implementation.
        So when we introduced the Bill on 16 May, we acknowledged that it would need some changes and adjustments. I never said at the time that the Bill was the last word. It was the first stab—I happen to think that it was a good, honourable and faithful stab—at implementing the Patten report. It does not deserve some of the descriptions made of it, in many cases—not all—for straightforward ulterior political purposes by some individuals in Northern Ireland who never had, and never will have, any intention of supporting the police, reformed, renamed, rebadged or otherwise.
        I have listened to constructive comments on the Bill and have made, and shall continue to make, where the argument is persuasive, necessary changes to meet legitimate concerns. Indeed, on a number of points, as will be known to hon. Members who followed the Bill's progress through its Committee stage, we have acted: in relation to the Policing Board, its objectives, its planning, the code of ethics and other codes of behaviour and operation, and on reports and inquiries by the board. I have shifted the balance since the Bill was published to reflect concerns that there were too many safeguards. I think that I struck the balance in the wrong place. There were too many limitations. I have listened and I have moved.
        The wording of the oath is now more in line with Patten, and all serving officers are required to understand the new oath and the need to carry out their duties in accordance with it. Those who made that case were right, and we have moved to accommodate their view. We have also removed the 10-year cut-off for 50:50 recruitment. I, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have been, and remain, open to argument, to further debate and change, which no doubt will take place as the Bill leaves this House and moves on to the other place. That is because I recognise the historic importance of this opportunity and of this legislation that we have been considering in Committee and again today.
        This is perhaps the best chance that we shall have to create an outstanding modern police service, one that will be a model of its kind for the rest of the world to emulate, and to allow the police to change and develop in a way that they have wanted for years. The RUC did not want to be trapped in the identity, the character, of a security force. The RUC members and officers themselves, led by an able and outstanding Chief Constable, wanted to evolve into a community-based partnership policing
        820
        service as circumstances and conditions allowed, to make the transition from an anti-terrorist security force to a community-focused and community-based police service; in other words, a new police service for a new political dispensation, a new society, that is emerging, with difficulty, in Northern Ireland. That is Patten's vision and I believe that the Bill is entirely faithful to it. It is a full, honourable and faithful implementation of every part of Patten's recommendations. That is why I commend it to the House.
        11.20 pm
        Mr. MacKay: When I opposed the guillotine motion a few hours ago, I described this as a sad day for Parliament and a sad day for Northern Ireland. I deeply regret that everything that I said has been borne out in the course of the debate.
        We have managed to debate only three groups of amendments, and seven groups were not debated at all. On the first significant group of amendments that was debated—it was on the Policing Board and district policing partnerships—no votes were taken on important amendments moved by myself, my colleagues and the Ulster Unionists because we did not reach them on the amendment paper. That is not a proper way to scrutinise a Bill.
        The guillotine motion was debated briskly by everyone who took part in the debate on it.
        Shona McIsaac: It took two hours.
        Mr. MacKay: The hon. Lady, who was not present for one moment of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] She was not present, and I have no intention of apologising. She says that the debate on the guillotine motion took two hours. It took marginally less than that, but the truth is that many Members wished legitimately to express their concern that a Bill that had moved briskly through Committee in 11 sittings was being guillotined. They legitimately said that there was not sufficient opportunity in the guillotine motion to debate the legitimate amendments that were on the amendment paper in the names of right hon. and hon. Members from a variety of parties on both sides of the House. We have been proved right, because only three of the seven groups of amendments were discussed.
        Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I wonder why.
        Mr. MacKay: The Northern Ireland Whip says that he wonders why. I shall do my best to answer him by returning to the point that I was making when I was interrupted by a sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac).
        Debate on the guillotine motion proceeded briskly with each Member speaking briefly. We then moved on to the first group of the amendments on what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the rest of the House will agree are serious issues, such as who should sit on the Policing Board and on the partnerships. Rightly, the Minister of State nods

        821
        his agreement. In that debate, everyone spoke briefly with one exception—the Minister took 51 minutes to reply. [Interruption.] I do not object to the fact that he took 51 minutes to reply, but there were relatively few interventions.
        The Minister took 51 minutes to respond—I respect him for doing so—because many amendments had been debated. He had to respond to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) who, with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), had tabled a significant number of amendments about which they feel strongly. The Minister had to respond to the amendments that I spoke to on behalf of the official Opposition and to those that were spoken to by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The Minister also responded to significant interventions from other Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland.—[Interruption.] There is no point in the Secretary of State tapping his watch: this is not our timetable, it is his. The Minister of State took 51 minutes to respond because significant issues had been raised and he was doing his best to reply properly. That illustrates why more time was necessary for debate on Report.
        Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the historic moment of today's events in that this is the first time that I have moved an amendment that has been accepted by the Government.
        Mr. MacKay: It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that because I know that his colleagues on the Treasury Bench do not often accept his amendments. Indeed, I suspect that this might be a unique occasion.
        We had a response to only three groups of amendments, and the deeply significant amendments in the fourth group concerned the name of the RUC. I noted that the Secretary of State, in what were, by and large, sensitive and thoughtful remarks on Third Reading, spent most of his time discussing the name, and I suspect that that was the speech that he would have liked to have made in speaking to his amendments, which he was not able to do because of the guillotine motion moved by his Minister of State.
        The trouble is that the Secretary of State said many things about the name—many of which I agree with and some of which he knows, from the amendments in my name, I do not agree with—but no Member is now able to discuss the name or the amendments relating to it. The guillotine chopped off all the remaining amendments, and there has been no discussion of them whatsoever.
        When the other place receives the Bill, it will wish to scrutinise it in great detail, not least because this House has been unable to do so. That is a great pity, because if we had been given two days for Report and Third Reading, which legislation of this significance deserves, the Bill would have gone to the other place having been fully debated. I do not particularly blame the Secretary of State because he is not one of the business managers. I blame the business managers because they have completely lost control of Parliament. They are trying to thrust far too many Bills through the House in this Session and there cannot, therefore, be proper consideration of serious Bills such as this.
        822
        This has been a very sad day for Parliament and a very sad day for Northern Ireland. I hope that the other place will be able properly to debate amendments that we were unable to debate. [Interruption.] I think that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), is saying that I do not mean that.
        Helen Jackson indicated dissent.
        Mr. MacKay: I could not quite hear what the hon. Lady said, relatively loudly, from a sedentary position, but I will be happy to let her intervene. She does not want to intervene. Clearly the remark was not worth your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        This has been a sad day and it is important that the other place properly debates the Bill and votes on it. Many Labour Members, particularly from the new intake, have not been present during most of the proceedings. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who takes an interest in Northern Ireland matters from time to time, did not turn up once during the earlier debates, but has been chattering away from a sedentary position. She seems to think that debate is wrong and rubber-stamping is right. One day she might learn otherwise, although I suspect that she will not because I doubt that she will be a Member of the next Parliament.
        It is important that the other place takes careful note of what has happened tonight and of the lack of debate and votes. I look forward to returning to these deliberations when we eventually consider Lords amendments well into the autumn.
        11.29 pm
        Mr. Mallon: I have sat in this House for about 16 years—right through Thatcherism, Majorism and the type of approach that ignored the political position of a very substantial section of the community in the north of Ireland. Tonight, I have heard that approach repeated. Tonight, I have heard the type of Majorism, Thatcherism and the ignoring of a position of people in the north of Ireland in a way that I never believed I would hear from these Benches. So be it.
        Hearing such a speech is a matter of regret to me and to my party, because I and my colleagues know what its effect will be. I do not have to tell the House what the effect will be—the House knows—but it will come about because the Secretary of State will not persuade people to join the police service. He is not able to. I can tell him that, after tonight, he stands very little chance. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) will not be able to persuade people to join the new police service—not through any defect in himself, but because of the points that were made previously this evening.
        Let us put the issue into context, in the sense that the Secretary of State focused on the change of name. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members are not aware that the clause before us on the name of the new police service is draft No. 3. Draft No. 1 was ditched after Hillsborough. The Government's first draft was in accord absolutely and

        823
        totally with the new clause that I and my colleagues tabled in Committee. The Government voted against a new clause on the new name that they had themselves written. That is on record for anyone to read.
        Draft No. 2 represented the Government's adoption of a Unionist motion, which I gravely suspect the Government also wrote a considerable time ago when the Hillsborough virus first set in. At least they tried to amend it with amendment No. 197, which they withdrew with inordinate haste tonight. The clause before us is mark 3 of the Government's statement on the name of the new police service. That would be a serious business in any piece of legislation, but it is much more serious in this one.
        I shall briefly—I know that I have to be brief—refer to some of the allegations and accusations that have been made across the Floor tonight. I simply remind the House who Chris Patten was. He was not a Catholic nationalist from Northern Ireland; he was chairman of the Conservative party, a Cabinet Minister, a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, a European Union Commissioner and the Governor of Hong Kong. What did he say about the very essence of the matter—the joining of the police service? He said:
        if you are going to get a police service which young Catholics as well as young Protestants…are going to join, then it can't be identified with the central political argument in Northern Ireland and it is as simple as that.
        Those are not my words, but Chris Patten's. Yet the very basis upon which the Government propose to implement the Bill is a Unionist amendment.
        I have my own views about the use of the terms "Catholics" and "Protestants" in relation to the Bill and the issue. I happen to believe that people are people, not religious tags. I referred to Chris Patten and who he is because I want to avoid that.
        I believe that what has happened in the House tonight has done irreparable damage to the prospect of a new policing dispensation.
        Mr. Tony McWalter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Mallon: I do not have time to give way. In fairness, I have been sitting in the Chamber since 4.30 pm, waiting to make a contribution.
        In an earlier intervention, I asked the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who he would regard as the primary authority on what Catholics might do—a small political party such as the SDLP or the Catholic Church, through a spokesman and its hierarchy. I admire the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. At least sometimes, most times, almost always, he is honest, if honestly wrong on many issues. I believe that with regard to the terms in which Patten's comments are couched and also the objective of the Bill, we should consider what the Catholic Church has said through a spokesman, Father Tim Bartlett. It is on record, and I know that it represents the view of the Catholic hierarchy—[Interruption.] I will face any challenge on that.
        824
        I will amend the quote slightly, because I do not like being hurtful. Father Tim Bartlett stated:
        The failure—
        I put in the words "of this Government"—
        to remain faithful to key elements of the Patten Report in the current Policing Bill and the willingness to subject a fundamental issue of civic justice—the right to representative policing—to the "spin and win" of politics, has provided one of the greatest obstacles to encouragement for young Catholics to have emerged in recent years.
        Not my words, not a politically biased position, but the words of those who, with the SDLP, will have to try and ensure the involvement and the inclusion of the community that we represent in a new policing dispensation.
        Why ignore those words? Why treat them as though they were never said? Why treat the issue as something that is clever in Westminster terms, but irrelevant in terms of persuading a divided community to be part of a policing dispensation?
        I referred to the Hillsborough virus. It is a matter of record that the first clause of the Bill was exactly what we presented as a new clause in Committee. All of a sudden, when it looked as though decommissioning had at least begun to be resolved, what appeared on the table? Patten. No sooner was it on the table—within 10 minutes of acquiescence in the position on decommissioning—there was an immediate movement by the Government. What they had written was no longer relevant. What they had written was torn up. The Secretary of State shakes his head.
        Mr. Mandelson: I am sad.
        Mr. Mallon: So am I. As I said at the beginning, I have seen much political chicanery on the issue. This is the third time that the Secretary of State has made deals, and on the name of the new police service—
        It being seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER,pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—
        The House proceeded to a Division.
        Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman's point of order to do with the Division?
        Mr. King: Yes. Three hon. Members spoke on Third Reading on a hugely sensitive and important issue. The Secretary of State is in his place. He acknowledged in his speech the sensitivity of the issue. He also recognised, as did other hon. Members, that it has been impossible to comment on several important issues. We are currently holding a vote, but something will have to be done, or the people of Northern Ireland will not feel that the serious subject of our discussion has received the attention from this Parliament that it deserves.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear that point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that our arrangements this evening were made under an Order that was agreed by the whole House.
        The House having divided: Ayes 307, Noes 16.

        Division No. 258]

        [11.40 pm

        AYES

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Ainger, Nick

        Darvill, Keith

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Davidson, Ian

        Ashton, Joe

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Atherton, Ms Candy

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

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Barnes, Harry

        Dawson, Hilton

        Barron, Kevin

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Battle, John

        Denham, John

        Bayley, Hugh

        Dobbin, Jim

        Beard, Nigel

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Doran, Frank

        Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

        Dowd, Jim

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Drew, David

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Berry, Roger

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Best, Harold

        Edwards, Huw

        Betts, Clive

        Efford, Clive

        Blackman, Liz

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Etherington, Bill

        Blizzard, Bob

        Fearn, Ronnie

        Borrow, David

        Fisher, Mark

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Flynn, Paul

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Browne, Desmond

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Burden, Richard

        Foulkes, George

        Burnett, John

        Fyfe, Maria

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Cann, Jamie

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Casale, Roger

        Godsiff, Roger

        Caton, Martin

        Goggins, Paul

        Cawsey, Ian

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Gorrie, Donald

        Chaytor, David

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Clapham, Michael

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Hain, Peter

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Hancock, Mike

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Hanson, David

        Clelland, David

        Harvey, Nick

        Clwyd, Ann

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Coaker, Vernon

        Healey, John

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Cohen, Harry

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Coleman, Iain

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Colman, Tony

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Heppell, John

        Corbett, Robin

        Hesford, Stephen

        Corston, Jean

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Cotter, Brian

        Hill, Keith

        Cousins, Jim

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Cox, Tom

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Crausby, David

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Cummings, John

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Hurst, Alan

        826

        Hutton, John

        Mudie, George

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Jamieson, David

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Jenkins, Brian

        Norris, Dan

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        Olner, Bill

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Öpik, Lembit

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Pearson, Ian

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Pendry, Tom

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Kemp, Fraser

        Pickthall, Colin

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavetree)

        Pike, Peter L

        Khabra, Piara S

        Plaskitt, James

        Kidney, David

        Pond, Chris

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Pope, Greg

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Pound, Stephen

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Lammy, David

        Rammell, Bill

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Rapson, Syd

        Laxton, Bob

        Raynsford, Nick

        Lepper, David

        Rendel, David

        Leslie, Christopher

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Levitt, Tom

        Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Rooney, Terry

        Linton, Martin

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Livsey, Richard

        Rowlands, Ted

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Roy, Frank

        Lock, David

        Ruane, Chris

        Love, Andrew

        Ruddock, Joan

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Salter, Martin

        Macdonald, Calum

        Sanders, Adrian

        McFall, John

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Sawford, Phil

        McIsaac, Shona

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Skinner, Dennis

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        McNulty, Tony

        Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        MacShane, Denis

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        McWalter, Tony

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        McWilliam, John

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

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Snape, Peter

        Mallaber, Judy

        Soley, Clive

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Spellar, John

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Martlew, Eric

        Stevenson, George

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Meale, Alan

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Merron, Gillian

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Stringer, Graham

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Miller, Andrew

        Stunell, Andrew

        Moffatt, Laura

        Swinney, John

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Moore, Michael

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

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

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Mountford, Kali

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        827

        Timms, Stephen

        Watts, David

        Todd, Mark

        Webb, Steve

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Welsh, Andrew

        Touhig, Don

        White, Brian

        Trickett, Jon

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Truswell, Paul

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Winnick, David

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Wood, Mike

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Woolas, Phil

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Worthington, Tony

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Wray, James

        Tynan, Bill

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wareing, Robert N

        Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

        Mr. Kevin Hughes.

        NOES

        Body, Sir Richard

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Cash, William

        Ross, William (E Lond'y)

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Swayne, Desmond

        Gill, Christopher

        Townend, John

        Gray, James

        Trimble, Rt Hon David

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Maginnis, Ken

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Mr. Roy Beggs and

        Robertson, Laurence

        Mr. William Thompson.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

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

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
      That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) (Variation) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
      The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 112.

      Division No. 259]

      [11.52 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Berry, Roger

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Best, Harold

      Ainger, Nick

      Betts, Clive

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Borrow, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barron, Kevin

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Battle, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Browne, Desmond

      Beard, Nigel

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burden, Richard

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Burnett, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      828

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hanson, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Healey, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chaytor, David

      Heppell, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Clelland, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hurst, Alan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hutton, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cohen, Harry

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Coleman, Iain

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Colman, Tony

      Jamieson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Jenkins, Brian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cox, Tom

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Darvill, Keith

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kidney, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kirkwood, Archy

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

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lammy, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Denham, John

      Laxton, Bob

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Leslie, Christopher

      Doran, Frank

      Levitt, Tom

      Dowd, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Drew, David

      Linton, Martin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Livsey, Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Efford, Clive

      Lock, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Love, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fisher, Mark

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Flynn, Paul

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McFall, John

      Foulkes, George

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fyfe, Maria

      McIsaac, Shona

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McNulty, Tony

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      MacShane, Denis

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McWalter, Tony

      Goggins, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hain, Peter

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Meale, Alan

      Hancock, Mike

      Merron, Gillian

      829

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

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

      Miller, Andrew

      Snape, Peter

      Moffatt, Laura

      Soley, Clive

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Spellar, John

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morley, Elliot

      Steinberg, Gerry

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

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stunell, Andrew

      Norris, Dan

      Swinney, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Timms, Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Todd, Mark

      Pike, Peter L

      Touhig, Don

      Plaskitt, James

      Trickett, Jon

      Pond, Chris

      Truswell, Paul

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rapson, Syd

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Tynan, Bill

      Rendel, David

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooney, Terry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rowlands, Ted

      Watts, David

      Roy, Frank

      Webb, Steve

      Ruane, Chris

      Welsh, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      White, Brian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wood, Mike

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Woolas, Phil

      Sawford, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wray, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Butterfill, John

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Beggs, Roy

      Clappison, James

      Bercow, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Boswell, Tim

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cran, James

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Brady, Graham

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Brazier, Julian

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Burns, Simon

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      830

      Evans, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Fallon, Michael

      Prior, David

      Flight, Howard

      Randall, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fraser, Christopher

      Robertson, Laurence

      Gale, Roger

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Garnier, Edward

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gibb, Nick

      Ruffley, David

      Gill, Christopher

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gray, James

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Green, Damian

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Greenway, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      Spring, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Streeter, Gary

      Horam, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Syms, Robert

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Townend, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Trend, Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lidington, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Wells, Bowen

      Loughton, Tim

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Luff, Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Wilkinson, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Mr. Peter Atkinson and

      Ottaway, Richard

      Mr. Stephen Day.

      Question accordingly agreed to
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
      That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions)(No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
      The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 109.

      Division No. 260]

      [12.5 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Berry, Roger

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Best, Harold

      Ainger, Nick

      Betts, Clive

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blackman, Liz

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Borrow, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Barron, Kevin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Battle, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Beard, Nigel

      Browne, Desmond

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Burden, Richard

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Burnett, John

      831

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hancock, Mike

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hanson, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Healey, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chaytor, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hurst, Alan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hutton, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Coleman, Iain

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Colman, Tony

      Jenkins, Brian

      Connarty, Michael

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Crausby, David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kidney, David

      Darvill, Keith

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Davidson, Ian

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

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

      Lammy, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dawson, Hilton

      Laxton, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lepper, David

      Denham, John

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dobbin, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Doran, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Dowd, Jim

      Livsey, Richard

      Drew, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lock, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Love, Andrew

      Edwards, Huw

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Efford, Clive

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Etherington, Bill

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fisher, Mark

      McDonnell, John

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McFall, John

      Flynn, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Foulkes, George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fyfe, Maria

      McNamara, Kevin

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McNulty, Tony

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWalter, Tony

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McWilliam, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mallaber, Judy

      Goggins, Paul

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hain, Peter

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Meale, Alan

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      832

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Soley, Clive

      Miller, Andrew

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Spellar, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stevenson, George

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

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mountford, Kali

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mudie, George

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Swinney, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pearson, Ian

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pike, Peter L

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Todd, Mark

      Pond, Chris

      Touhig, Don

      Pope, Greg

      Trickett, Jon

      Pound, Stephen

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Rapson, Syd

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rendel, David

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tynan, Bill

      Rooney, Terry

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Roy, Frank

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ruane, Chris

      Watts, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Webb, Steve

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      White, Brian

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wood, Mike

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wray, James

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

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

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Snape, Peter

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clappison, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Beggs, Roy

      Bercow, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Collins, Tim

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cran, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Brady, Graham

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, Nigel

      Burns, Simon

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Cash, William

      Flight, Howard

      833

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Prior, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Gale, Roger

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence

      Gill, Christopher

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gray, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Green, Damian

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Greenway, John

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hammond, Philip

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hayes, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Spring, Richard

      Horam John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Steen, Anthony

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Swayne, Desmond

      Key, Robert

      Syms, Robert

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Leigh, Edward

      Townend, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tredinnick, David

      Lidington, David

      Trend, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Viggers, Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wilkinson, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. Peter Atkinson and

      Mr. Stephen Day.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
      That the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
      The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 109.

      Division No. 261]

      [12.18 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Blizzard, Bob

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Borrow, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Barnes, Harry

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Barron, Kevin

      Browne, Desmond

      Battle, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burden, Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Burnett, John

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Best, Harold

      Cann, Jamie

      Betts, Clive

      Casale, Roger

      Blackman, Liz

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Chaytor, David

      834

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hurst, Alan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hutton, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Coleman, Iain

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Colman, Tony

      Jenkins, Brian

      Connarty, Michael

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Crausby, David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Darvill, Keith

      Kidney, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kirkwood, Archy

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

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lammy, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Denham, John

      Laxton, Bob

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Leslie, Christopher

      Doran, Frank

      Levitt, Tom

      Dowd, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Drew, David

      Linton, Martin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Livsey, Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Edwards, Huw

      Lock, David

      Efford, Clive

      Love, Andrew

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Etherington, Bill

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Fisher, Mark

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Macdonald, Calum

      Flynn, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McFall, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foulkes, George

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McNamara, Kevin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacShane, Denis

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McWalter, Tony

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McWilliam, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Goggins, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hancock, Mike

      Miller, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Healey, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mountford, Kali

      835

      Mudie, George

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Norris, Dan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stringer, Graham

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stunell, Andrew

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Swinney, John

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pearson, Ian

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Plaskitt, James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pond, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pope, Greg

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Todd, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Touhig, Don

      Rapson, Syd

      Trickett, Jon

      Raynsford, Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roy, Frank

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ruane, Chris

      Tynan, Bill

      Ruddock, Joan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Salter, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sanders, Adrian

      Watts, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Webb, Steve

      Sawford, Phil

      Welsh, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      White, Brian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Worthington, Tony

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

      Wray, James

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Spellar, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Collins, Tim

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Cran, James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Beggs, Roy

      Day, Stephen

      Bercow, John

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Fallon, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Flight, Howard

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Burns, Simon

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Butterfill, John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Cash, William

      Gale, Roger

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Garnier, Edward

      Gibb, Nick

      Chope, Christopher

      Gill, Christopher

      Clappison, James

      Gray, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Green, Damian

      Greenway, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Grieve, Dominic

      836

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hammond, Philip

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Hayes, John

      Ruffley, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Horam, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Key, Robert

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Steen, Anthony

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Syms, Robert

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Townend, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tredinnick, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Viggers, Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wells, Bowen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wilkinson, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Prior, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robathan, Andrew

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      Robertson, Laurence

      Mr. Peter Luff.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No.63) on the Invest to Save Grant (HC 538), which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
      The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 128.

      Division No. 262]

      [12.31 am

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Burden, Richard

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cann, Jamie

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Casale, Roger

      Barnes, Harry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Chaytor, David

      Battle, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Betts, Clive

      Clelland, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Clwyd, Ann

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Borrow, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Colman, Tony

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Connarty, Michael

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Browne, Desmond

      Corston, Jean

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cousins, Jim

      837

      Cox, Tom

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Crausby, David

      Laxton, Bob

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Lepper, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Levitt, Tom

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Darvill, Keith

      Linton, Martin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Lock, David

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

      Love, Andrew

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dawson, Hilton

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Macdonald, Calum

      Denham, John

      McDonnell, John

      Dobbin, Jim

      McFall, John

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Doran, Frank

      McIssac, Shona

      Dowd, Jim

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Drew, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Edwards, Huw

      McNulty, Tony

      Efford, Clive

      MacShane, Denis

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Etherington, Bill

      McWalter, Tony

      Fisher, Mark

      McWilliam, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Martlew, Eric

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Meale, Alan

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Merron, Gillian

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Godsiff, Roger

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Goggins, Paul

      Miller, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hain, Peter

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mudie, George

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Healey, John

      Norris, Dan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Heppell, John

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Hesford, Stephen

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hill, Keith

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hope, Phil

      Pearson, Ian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pike, Peter L

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pond, Chris

      Hurst, Alan

      Pope, Greg

      Hutton, John

      Pound, Stephen

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Rowlands, Ted

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Roy, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ruane, Chris

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kidney, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Sawford, Phil

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lammy, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      838

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Soley, Clive

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Spellar, John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Tynan, Bill

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Stevenson, George

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Watts, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Welsh, Andrew

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      White, Brain

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Swinney, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Worthington, Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wray, James

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Todd, Mark

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Touhig, Don

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Gibb, Nick

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gill, Christopher

      Beggs, Roy

      Gray, James

      Bercow, John

      Green, Damian

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Greenway, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Grieve, Dominic

      Boswell, Tim

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hammond, Philip

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hancock, Mike

      Brady, Graham

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayes, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Burnett, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Burns, Simon

      Horam, John

      Butterfill, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Key, Robert

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Chope, Christopher

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clappison, James

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Lansley, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Leigh, Edward

      Cotter, Brian

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cran, James

      Lidington, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Livsey, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Day, Stephen

      Loughton, Tim

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Evans, Nigel

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fabricant, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      839

      Prior, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robertson, Laurence

      Townend, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tredinnick, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Trend, Michael

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Waterson, Nigel

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Webb, Steve

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wells, Bowen

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Whittingdale, John

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

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Steen, Anthony

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)

      EDUCATION
      That the draft Education (School Government) (Terms of Reference) (England) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
      The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 129.

      Division No. 263]

      [12.45 am

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clelland, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Clwyd, Ann

      Battle, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cohen, Harry

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Colman, Tony

      Berry, Roger

      Connarty, Michael

      Best, Harold

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Betts, Clive

      Corston, Jean

      Blackman, Liz

      Cousins, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cox, Tom

      Blizzard, Bob

      Crausby, David

      Borrow, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Darvill, Keith

      Browne, Desmond

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davidson, Ian

      Burden, Richard

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

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dawson, Hilton

      Cann, Jamie

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Casale, Roger

      Denham, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Chaytor, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Doran, Frank

      Clapham, Michael

      Dowd, Jim

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Drew, David

      840

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Edwards, Huw

      Mallaber, Judy

      Efford, Clive

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Etherington, Bill

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Flynn, Paul

      Meale, Alan

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Merron, Gillian

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Fyfe, Maria

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Moffatt, Laura

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Goggins, Paul

      Mountford, Kali

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mudie, George

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Norris, Dan

      Hain, Peter

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Olner, Bill

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Hanson, David

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Healey, John

      Pearson, Ian

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pike, Peter L

      Heppell, John

      Pond, Chris

      Hope, Phil

      Pope, Greg

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pound, Stephen

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Hurst, Alan

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Rapson, Syd

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Roy, Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Ruane, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Sawford, Phil

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kidney, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Lammy, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Soley, Clive

      Laxton, Bob

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Lepper, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Linton, Martin

      Stevenson, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Love, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McDonnell, John

      Swinney, John

      McFall, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      McIsaac, Shona

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      McNulty, Tony

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      MacShane, Denis

      Todd, Mark

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Touhig, Don

      McWalter, Tony

      Trickett, Jon

      McWilliam, John

      Truswell, Paul

      841

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      White, Brian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wood, Mike

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Woolas, Phil

      Tynan, Bill

      Worthington, Tony

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wray, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Watts, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Horam, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bercow, John

      Key, Robert

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Boswell, Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Leigh, Edward

      Brady, Graham

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brazier, Julian

      Lidington, David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Burnett, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Butterfill, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Luff, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cash, William

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Collins, Tim

      Öpik, Lembit

      Cotter, Brian

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cran, James

      Paice, James

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Prior, David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Rendel, David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Robathan, Andrew

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Robertson, Laurence

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Evans, Nigel

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Fallon, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Flight, Howard

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fraser, Christopher

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gale, Roger

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

      Garnier, Edward

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Spring, Richard

      Gibb, Nick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gill, Christopher

      Steen, Anthony

      Gray, James

      Stunell, Andrew

      Green, Damian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Greenway, John

      Syms, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hancock, Mike

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hayes, John

      Townend, John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Trend, Michael

      842

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Webb, Steve

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wells, Bowen

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whittingdale, John

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    DATA PROTECTION
    Motion made,
    That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the salary of the Data Protection Registrar shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    PETITION

      United Christian Broadcasters
      12.56 am
      Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I am delighted to be able to present a petition on behalf of 1,167 residents of the Lagan valley and surrounding areas. The collection of signatures has been co-ordinated by Ruby Hutchinson on behalf of United Christian Broadcasters.
      The petition states:
      The Humble Petition of the Residents of Lagan Valley and surrounding areas sheweth
      That United Christian Broadcasters and groups like it are banned by law from applying for many types of broadcasting licence. This applies to both television and radio, and relegates religious broadcasting to the very limited opportunities provided by local radio, satellite and cable broadcasting. The legislation entrenches a suspicion of religious groups that is unjustified and unfair, and it impugns the religious basis on which they are founded.
      The Petition also addresses the broadcasting codes for television and radio, which again single out religious groups for special restrictions. It is not right that secular groups should have freedom of expression, which is denied to faith-based groups.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their rules and codes of guidance to remove provisions that discriminate in wording or in practice against religious bodies.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  12.58 am
  Sir Michael Spicer: Nowadays I always make it a practice to declare an interest as president of the Association of Electricity Producers, in case there is a read-across from defence to electricity. I also declare that the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Malvern is in my constituency. Although I do not intend to refer specifically to that establishment, it is fair to say that the Government's proposals have alarmed my constituents and made them unsure of their future. I do not want to make that case tonight, but I cannot resist reminding the Minister that only this Monday an exhibition opened in Malvern to celebrate its heritage as the home of radar, which was arguably the most important technical development of the second world war.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who represents DERA Fort Halstead, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who represents DERA headquarters at Farnborough, are present. I am also pleased to see such a heavy contingent of shadow Cabinet Ministers and deputy Ministers on our Front Bench.
  An independent state has two primary functions: to protect its citizens from the threat of internal anarchy, through the rule of law, and to provide them with adequate defence from any threat of foreign or terrorist aggression. In circumstances in which adequate defence is as dependent as it is today on technological developments, it follows that the state must retain its capability to plan, evaluate and monitor the applications of defence technology and to satisfy the needs of its intelligence services. In other words, the state must have its own capability to know what is going on and what is coming up in defence technology. That is what DERA does.
  For Britain, there is a particular dimension to the issue. British defence technology is entwined with and highly dependent on technical developments in the United States, even if the successful bilateral co-operation at governmental level with several other countries, notably France, is taken into account. The bond that has been built up between our defence scientists and those of the United States is at the core of Britain's high technology defence system. Britain is undoubtedly the net gainer in that relationship; that is the context in which the Government's proposals for the future of DERA, which were outlined in the consultation document published in April, should be viewed.
  The essence of those proposals is that DERA should be split into two parts. The first, comprising some 3,000 people, would be known as retained DERA—or RDERA, to use one of the abbreviations that the military prefer—and kept in the public sector. The second, comprising some 9,000 staff, would be semi-privatised and known as new DERA, or NDERA.
  844
  The first problem arises because of the lack of clarity over how the split is to be made. Paragraph 13 of the consultation document, or CD, states:
  Work to define precisely the separation of the two organisations will not be complete until the autumn…
  My information is that Ministry of Defence officials are finding it more difficult today to decide the criteria for separation than when the consultation paper was published, and it is easy to see why that should be so.
  Leaving aside the possibility that elements of pure research or down-the-line development might be hived off to an independent establishment, the main functions of providing advice to the Government and, above all, collaborating with other countries at intergovernmental level, cannot be easily split. Indeed, one questions whether they can be split at all. For that reason, the suspicion grows that the Government, under the guise of phoney privatisation, really propose a cut of some 75 per cent. in the nation's defence evaluation and development capability. Apparently, the job that was done by 12,000 people can now be done just as easily by 3,000.
  The consultation paper of course puts that very differently. It talks of new DERA, in new Labour speak, becoming
  a globally-branded technology-based knowledge provider in the new economy of the 21st century…a large player among the private or semi-private independent research and technology organisations around the world…
  However, if it is to be a truly competitive "knowledge provider", why the need to retain a special share, why the continued MOD control, and why semi-privatise in a half-baked way that will merely distort the existing market for other independent so-called knowledge providers? Therein lies the second cause for confusion.
  The Government have apparently given their American counterparts the assurance that new DERA will be a private sector organisation
  completely separate from retained DERA and without any favoured status…
  By contrast, and totally at variance with that, Sir John Chisholm, DERA's chief executive, has assured members of his staff that the two organisations will be extremely close and will continue to share accommodation and possibly support facilities.
  The question of how close the two new organisations will be to each other goes to the heart of the matter, not merely because of the economic impact that the semi-privatisation of DERA will have, but because of the enormous implications for how the proposal will be viewed in the United States. In answer to a question that I put to him on 3 July, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
  The hon. Gentleman refers to Anglo-American concerns; I assume that what he really means is anxieties in the United States. If he checks the situation carefully, he will find that the United States is content with the latest proposals, so that criticism does not arise.—[Official Report, 3 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 6–7.]
  The Secretary of State was either grossly misinformed on this matter or was being disingenuous. The fact is that there is widespread concern in the United States about the Government's muddled proposals for the future of DERA.
  I first became aware of the seriousness of those concerns when I paid a visit to the Pentagon in Washington towards the end of last year. If the Chisholm version of what will happen comes about and the two

  845
  DERAs remain very close to each other, it is possible that the Americans will put a complete embargo on relations between British and US defence scientists. That will happen if the word spreads in United States defence circles that if people speak to scientists retained on the Ministry of Defence payroll they would, in the process, pass information to scientists competing for work in the private sector. Even if officials and politicians were prepared to swallow that, it is unimaginable that scientists working for US defence contractors would do so.
  A scientist in a US naval laboratory has recently been quoted as saying
  Unless technical co-operation programmes rules are changed drastically this split in DERA will certainly decrease the level of collaboration with the UK. Personally I think it will decrease it greatly.… I think there will have to be a general decrease in openness until it is seen that new DERA and retained DERA are indeed separate bodies. Until that happens there will be the fear that government to government information will go to the new DERA improperly. I think we will see a big loss in exchange of information between the US and the UK. And I think it is a shame because the work we have done together has been of great value to us.
  The future of Britain's defence technical evaluation and collaborative capability is at stake. This is a serious matter, given the growing importance of high-technology defence. Under the cloak of spin, weasel words and pretended privatisation, the Government have, in effect, proposed a 9,000 personnel cut in the defence budget. They have completely failed to explain the benefits of these proposals to the defence of this country. I hope that they will do so tonight; it is certainly what the Select Committee on Defence has called for.
  1.9 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) on his success in securing the debate, if not on his luck, given the late hour at which it is taking place.
  I am probably uniquely well placed to reply to the debate, having represented my party on the Opposition Front Bench on the two most similar privatisations conducted by the last Conservative Government—the privatisation of the British Technology Group, and that of AEA Technology.
  On 17 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the start of consultation on our revised proposals for the future of DERA. The formal consultation finished on 9 June, and we are currently examining the many useful and constructive responses received during the process. I emphasise that it was a genuine consultation. We are committed to listening to the views of our stakeholders, not least those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who work at DERA. I am sure he will recognise the importance of carrying out the process properly, and will agree that we should take time to consider carefully the issues that have been raised.
  However, we recognise that uncertainty over the future is potentially unsettling for DERA's staff. We intend to move as quickly as we can. We expect to complete our analysis of the responses to consultation within the next week or so, and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement soon after that.
  Our intention to seek a public-private partnership as the way forward for DERA was first announced in the strategic defence review. We believe that the
  846
  opportunities presented by that approach will offer a significant boost both to defence research and to science and technology organisations across the United Kingdom. No one in the Ministry of Defence underestimates the range and complexity of the issues that must be addressed if we are to achieve our objectives of unlocking the expertise that exists within DERA, and of maximising commercial exploitation of Government-funded research.
  DERA provides a key capability in the United Kingdom, and we are determined to ensure a successful future for the organisation. That is why we have spent the last two and a half years examining the range of options that are available. As I have said, one of the reasons why it has taken so long is the complexity of the subject. There is a wide range of stakeholders, all with specific and often differing views and interests. In the face of such complexity, it is important that we fully explore the key issues. We must get them right if we are to ensure a successful future for the organisation.
  Let me turn now to why we have chosen the public-private partnership as the way forward for DERA. The pace at which new innovations in technology are identified and applied is increasing rapidly, both in government and in industry. The civil sector is investing increasingly in areas of research that are also relevant to defence, and we need to find new ways to take advantage of that. Scientific expertise in areas that used to be largely the preserve of the public sector has now spread across government, industry and academia. We need to be more agile and innovative in creating partnerships that allow access to the best technology, wherever it may be.
  DERA itself was created as a result of significant changes, which included the need to respond to new demands from its customers following the end of the cold war. Its management and staff can be justly proud of their achievements since the agency was formed. However, if DERA is to continue to thrive, it must be capable of responding to the environment in which it will have to operate over the coming decades. That includes the need to face challenges resulting from wider changes in the procurement of military equipment, including those resulting from the Government's strategic defence review.
  DERA's direct funding from the Ministry of Defence—about half being from research—has declined significantly over the last 10 years. That is not because we do not rate highly the value of the science and technology that DERA produces. It largely reflects the transfer of risk in procurement from Government to prime contractors.
  Even if unlimited money were available, the way in which to address the impact of the decline in DERA funding would not be simply to call for extra spending. That would ignore the other external challenges facing DERA. The answer is to find a way of allowing DERA to exploit its treasure trove of knowledge and ideas to the benefit of a wider market than its traditional defence customers. That idea is not only good for DERA; it is good for the MOD. It ensures that DERA becomes fully involved in the wider defence science and technology base, and so brings a broader expertise to its core customers' problems. It is also good for the United Kingdom as a whole, because it means that DERA will be able to make a growing contribution to the country's economic activity.

  847
  Initially, we believed that it would be possible to place the bulk of DERA in the private sector operating as a plc, but constrained to ensure that the UK's and our international partners' security interests were properly protected. Following extensive and, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, genuine consultation on the proposal last summer, it became apparent that there was strong disquiet among a number of stakeholders, not least our international allies.
  We looked at two possible ways around that problem. The first involved setting up virtually the whole of DERA as an independent publicly owned corporation—IPOC for short; in the MOD, we are very fond of abbreviations—with Government remaining as the majority owner. The second approach would see about three quarters of DERA's staff extracted to form a company that would transfer to the private sector with a core group of staff retained within the MOD for strategic reasons.
  We conclude that the first option would simply not work. Although DERA would remain in the public sector, its staff would no longer be civil servants and would be working in a company with obligations to external shareholders. That would give insufficient protection to the MOD in terms of sensitive programmes, collaboration with foreign laboratories, and in those areas requiring the highest level of impartiality.
  Other stakeholder concerns about the need for a clear relationship between DERA and the MOD were less well met by that option, and stakeholders felt that a much cleaner separation between the two organisations was required. In particular, international partners, from whom the MOD derives considerable benefit, expressed concerns about their ability to continue the full range of collaborations if that approach were adopted.
  We examined an alternative approach, which would have created an IPOC in which employees were the main shareholders. However, that offered little benefit over the current trading fund. We have, therefore, concentrated on finding a workable solution that will allow us to retain in the MOD the most sensitive areas of activity from DERA. That will allow those elements of work that do not need to be within government to be transformed into a company in the private sector in a way that ensures their continuation as a prosperous, growing force for national economic good.
  Based on that analysis, we have identified a preferred approach known as "core competence". That would lead to a clear separation of the two parts of DERA. The element to be retained in the MOD would include the chemical and biological defence sector at Porton Down and the majority of the Centre For Defence Analysis, as well as a number of teams and individuals involved in either sensitive projects or top-level systems research. Final decisions have not yet been made, but we expect the number of staff within the retained elements to be fewer than 3,000.
  The elements retained in the MOD would provide a high-level overview across the whole spectrum of science and technology currently addressed by DERA. That would ensure that the MOD had an impartial source of advice and system research capability to provide high-level assessment, integration and management of its
  848
  research programme and international research collaboration. That capability would be focused on those activities that must be carried out within government.
  The remainder of DERA, about 9,000 staff, would continue to be a major supplier of science and technology to the MOD, but have the necessary commercial freedoms to develop its business for a wider range of customers, in the defence and civil areas. Indeed, we would expect that organisation, which has been referred to as new DERA in the consultation document, to become a globally branded, technology-based knowledge provider in the new economy of the 21st century. That vision is based on the synergy that would exist between its core research and technology work for the MOD and the exploitation of that technology into broader markets.
  The nature of the relationship between new DERA and the rest of the MOD, including the retained element of the current DERA, has been the subject of much ill informed and potentially damaging speculation. Our proposals in the consultation document explicitly state that new DERA would be a private sector organisation with a clear separation from the MOD.
  Although the MOD might initially retain a financial stake in new DERA, the sole purpose of that would be to ensure that the taxpayer obtained a share of any immediate benefit resulting from new DERA's additional freedoms in the private sector. Our aim would be to sell the MOD's stake as soon as it is financially sensible to do so.
  We fully recognise that new DERA will be a critical supplier to the MOD. It will contain many capabilities and facilities of great importance to its defence customers, and it is likely to continue to be our largest source of scientific and technical advice into the foreseeable future. However, that does not imply that the relationship between MOD and new DERA will, in principle, need to be different from that which exists with other private sector organisations.
  Stakeholders, particularly industry and our collaborative partners, have indicated strongly that they want to be clear whether the people with whom they deal are in the private sector or the public sector. It is also clear that there would be a fundamental contradiction between allowing new DERA the commercial freedoms necessary to operate successfully in the private sector and, at the same time, allowing it to have a privileged relationship with the MOD.
  The realisation of that vision for new DERA is dependent to some extent on how it is placed in the private sector. The most sensitive activities are to be retained by the MOD, which will allow us to minimise the constraints under which new DERA can operate. That will, in turn, create an environment that permits the fullest exploitation of its potential.
  New DERA will still have broadly the same range of capabilities and skills as at present. Consequently, we are able first of all to contemplate its incorporation as a plc. That could be followed fairly swiftly by a flotation, as soon as DERA had reached a suitable stage of development, possibly in 2001.
  Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister mentioned the special share, which he said would be only a temporary measure to ensure that finances were properly sorted out and that any benefits went to the taxpayer. However, the

  849
  special share is given much greater emphasis in the consultation document than the Minister implied. The document states:
  MOD would, through its special share, retain the right to approve Directors on security grounds…
  Through the special share, Mod would retain the right to revert certain, named strategic assets to public ownership under exceptional circumstance.
  The document details a whole list of considerations that have nothing to do with the innocent explanations given today by the Minister, but everything to do with keeping DERA in the semi-public sector—which will create not only distortions, but great concerns for our United States allies. I hope that he will deal with that matter, which was a very important aspect of my speech.
  Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. As the previous Government—and I, as an Opposition Front Bencher—learned very well in the other privatisations, special shares are difficult to operate in practice. Particularly in the case of AEA Technology, however, special shares operated perfectly adequately. Special shares are intended to be a means of facilitating the transition from the public sector to the private sector, to give the organisation time to bed in and to ensure that the Government's interests are properly protected. I am quite happy to examine the issue that he has raised and to write to him more fully—whereupon I hope that I shall be able fully to alleviate his concerns.
  Special shares have to be constructed quite carefully, but I see no difficulty in doing that. That has been done very frequently in the past, although, I accept, with varying success. In the best circumstances, and certainly in the short term, special shares have worked very well in protecting the Government's interests.
  There has also certainly been debate in Europe on the validity of special shares. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that discussions have already been held with the European Commission on the special share, and that there has been no indication that they are regarded as unacceptable. Although we would obviously explore the issues in more detail following any decision by Ministers, the provision of such shares has been effectively enforced in the past. Quite honestly, I think that they could be enforced perfectly adequately for new DERA.
  I accept that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the matter, but I think that his concerns are unfounded, and that there has been adequate experience in the operation of special shares to allow us to do it adequately in this case.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What would happen once the assets were transferred to new DERA? Recently, at the DERA establishment at West Freugh, in Wigtownshire, live cluster bombs were dropped in Luce bay. I believe that the
  850
  West Freugh establishment is destined to be transferred to new DERA. Once DERA is transferred to the private sector, who would undertake the continuing responsibility for looking after ordnance that has been dropped and will be cemented in Luce bay?
  Dr. Moonie: That is a good point. The matter is part of my responsibilities but, frankly, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an adequate answer at present. I will be happy to write to him to explain the position more fully. It would be improper of me to give him an off-the-cuff answer that might well be, at best, a half truth. I will certainly look into the matter and write to him about it.
  In conclusion, as the time is marching on, the proposals put forward in April represent an imaginative way ahead.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I am sorry, but I must press the Minister on relations with America. Do these proposals meet with the approval of the Americans? That is central to the issue that I was trying to raise.
  Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman is right. As far as the Ministry of Defence is aware, our proposals meet the concerns of our partners. They have been discussed with them—that includes the United States.
  The MOD will be able to form effective partnerships in the future, to draw on the best scientific capability from the public sector, the private sector, academic interests and our international allies. New DERA, along with the rest of industry, will be a key part of those partnerships, but it will also provide wider benefits to the United Kingdom by spinning out new technology to be exploited commercially and to contribute to wealth creation in the UK. Those partnerships offer the best way forward for the organisation, they give us the best of both worlds and I certainly think that they will be a success.
  Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister must give some evidence about the American relationship. All the evidence that I have produced and that has come through from America—both anecdotally and from people coming back from DERA—shows that at desk level there is serious concern about the massively important issue of co-operation on technology and about scientists getting together. The Government cannot blandly state that the Americans are happy. The Minister must give some further indication—some evidence.
  Dr. Moonie: It is not normal for a Minister to have to give an assurance that the information that he is giving is truthful. On this occasion, that is exactly what I am saying. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to reply more fully, I will do so, but I do not have time tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past One o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Land Settlement Association
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10 am
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to open this debate on the problems of the former tenants of the Land Settlement Association. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is aware of the long-standing taxation problems faced by those former tenants. Their circumstances are unusual and perhaps even unique in tax terms, and, unfortunately, the discussions that myself and parliamentary colleagues, several of whom are present, have had with the authorities on their behalf have run into the sand. I am, therefore, glad to have the opportunity to raise the matter in some detail in Parliament.
As a matter of background, I inform hon. Members that the land settlement schemes were originally set up in the 1930s in different parts of the country, including my constituency of North-East Bedfordshire, to provide a home and four or five acres of land on which unemployed people could earn their living. There are settlements in about 20 parliamentary constituencies throughout the country. Unfortunately, the scheme ran into serious trouble in the 1970s. It was badly managed and the tenants were obliged to buy their seeds, fertilisers and other essentials through the scheme and to sell their produce to it. The scheme was run by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, and was supposed to arrange cropping and market the produce. In practice, however, it was inefficiently managed, and the tenants and their families worked long, backbreaking hours for minimal rewards. They were often heavily in debt to the scheme, which was failing them at every turn.
In 1981, the decision was taken, rightly, to close it down. However, that left many tenants without jobs and potentially without homes. Eventually, most of them banded together to sue the Ministry. The claim was made under two headings. First, they claimed the loss of the earnings or profits that they should have made but did not. Secondly, they submitted a general damages claim for distress and anxiety, to compensate them for the acute hardships that they had suffered over so many years. Fortunately, most of them were entitled to legal aid and eventually, in the early 1990s, a settlement was reached. Overall, they settled for £7 million, to be divided between some 300 to 400 families. That represented about 25 per cent. of their formal monetary claim, leaving aside their important general damages claim for distress and anxiety—I use the words in which the claim was legally drafted. The average payment received by a tenant seems to have been about £20,000 to £25,000. That is no more, and perhaps less, than they could have expected to receive on their hardship claim alone. Such general damages claims are exempt from taxation.
132WH
At the time of the settlement, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who hopes to join us this morning, was given to understand that the settlement would not be taxable in the tenants' hands, as he has been good enough to explain publicly. The tenants were also so advised by their Queen's counsel at the time, albeit that his particular reasons for advising them that their settlement would not be taxable were incorrect in tax law.
Nearly all the tenants used their modest damages to help purchase the homes in which they lived. Most of them are now in their 70s, with few or no assets other than those homes and little or no income other than their state retirement pensions. The problem in their lives is the spectre of a tax bill that most of them do not know how they could pay. They are tired and frightened. Some of them have already sold up and moved away, hoping to avoid being chased for tax that they could have paid only by selling their sole home or by incurring a heavy charge against its value.
The problem on which we ask Ministers to focus, in consultation with their senior officials in the Inland Revenue, is that the tax burden as administered bears unduly harshly on the tenants. The established tax rule, which was laid down in a commercial tax case a considerable time ago—40 or 50 years—says that a claim for loss of profits over many years must none the less be treated as taxable in the year in which compensation is received. That is usually fair for a normal trading corporation, which can generally mitigate the effects by writing down plant and machinery, finding other offsets to mitigate the tax charge or by spreading the cost over future years. However, most of the tenants had no business to continue and, if they did, it was so poor that they were usually paying little or no tax. Many of them had had their businesses closed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the scheme came to an end. Whereas in the ordinary course of events little or no tax would probably have been payable on the modest profits that they lost in each of the eight or so previous years, they now face something like a 25 per cent. tax burden on their damages.
A solution is available, if only the Inland Revenue could be persuaded to permit it, without forcing those impecunious tenants through the courts. It is well established, and common ground with the Revenue, that compensation relating to hardship claims—as theirs did—is not taxable. The Revenue has long made it clear that, provided that the tenants pay up the other half of their claim, it is prepared to treat 50 per cent. of the compensation as non-taxable. I welcome that, although I do not welcome the fact that the offer is held as a sword of Damocles over the tenants, which may be used if they seek to press their claim further. This country should not be administered in that way. I hope that the Revenue will take that point to heart.
Mr. John Burnett: I pay tribute to the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has led the campaign with great perseverance and skill. He has many hon. Members

133WH
behind him. Does he agree that the fair and tax-efficient apportionment of damages is invariably agreed between parties at arm's length?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point because, as I will seek to explain, the matter could have been organised at the outset so that we and the tenants were not troubled.
Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend will take this point from me, as the Minister responsible at the time. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of the officials who advised me that the money was in no sense to be taxable. There was no question of that because it was seen as an ex-gratia payment, not for specific profits and the like, but because the LSA had been run appallingly and people's lives had been destroyed, simply because the Government—Governments of both parties—had failed to look after them as promised. We therefore always treated it as a non-taxable payment. This argument took place afterwards; had we known then, we would have made perfectly sure that the payment was not taxable. The Inland Revenue is reading back into circumstances matters that did not then exist. The sad thing is that successive Governments have failed to live up to their responsibility and to say that, if it is taxable—if the Inland Revenue will not listen—they should make a further payment to ensure that the tax is covered entirely.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. He makes a crucial point, which the Revenue and Ministers ought to take into account. It was an ex-gratia settlement; to divide it artificially into taxable and non-taxable parts to the disbenefit of the former tenants is not necessary.
My right hon. Friend also makes the excellent point that it is not a party political matter. There is all-party support for the case that I make today. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) represents about 40 tenants, and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that she will catch your eye. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) will speak for the Liberal Democrats. My hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal are all concerned about the matter, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has to be in Scotland on public defence business.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: After that distinguished roll-call, it seems almost churlish not to have mentioned the Minister's parliamentary private secretary.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that all hon. Members will row in behind us, which is the object of the debate.
134WH
Before I was so helpfully interrupted, I was saying that a solution was available if only the Inland Revenue could be persuaded to permit it without forcing those impecunious tenants through the courts. In so far as their compensation relates to their hardship claim, it is not taxable.
My question to the authorities is why the compensation should not all be treated as a hardship claim—at least to £25,000, which would cover the position of most tenants. I feel confident in saying that the general damages that a court might award for the sort of hardship suffered by those people for so many years would be at least £25,000; it might be substantially more. If this matter had been thought about correctly in the early 1990s when the settlement was reached, it could easily have been structured to do that.
Furthermore, there is no law to say that the Revenue cannot so treat it now; previous cases put no impediment in its way. No case that raises that precise issue has come before the courts. Case law is simply that such decisions must not be a sham. Payments cannot be treated as non-taxable if, in reality, they are made only as compensation for loss of profit. However, those payments were clearly claimed on the twin bases of general damages, which are untaxable, and damages for loss of profit, which are potentially taxable. As the total amount paid out would not exceed what could reasonably be attributed to the non-taxable proportion, I submit that that would be the fair way to do it.
To be fair to the Inland Revenue, this is, to some extent, a grey area. I have had a number of detailed conversations with its officials over the years and we reached the point at which they argued not that it could not be done but that it had never been done by the Revenue in such a way. The officials and I agreed that the matter should be taken to Ministers who, unfortunately, have persistently ducked, or been persuaded to duck, the issue. First, they have said that they are not allowed to get involved in individual cases because that is for the Revenue alone. Secondly, they have said that if the tenants wish to press their case, they must take it to the special Commissioners of the Inland Revenue.
I ask Ministers and their senior officials to think again. They know perfectly well that the tenants have no money to bring court cases and that legal aid is not available for cases that go before the special commissioners. There is no great issue of precedent because the situation of the LSA tenants must be virtually unique. The amount of tax involved in public terms is not large. The total, apart from interest, is probably no more than £1.5 million divided between the few hundred tenants. The problem is, however, that that represents many thousands of pounds for each tenant, which they have not got. There is also the difficulty of interest. That, too, is artificial. The former tenants have sunk their compensation into their homes and have no pot of money that is earning interest. Indeed, had they not invested in their homes, they would almost certainly have been drawing housing benefit for many years.
There is a way ahead. It is said that when the long-running litigation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was drawn to Mrs. Thatcher's attention, she simply ordered it to be sorted out and at least a settlement was reached. However, it is a pity that

135WH
the settlement did not wrap up the overall tax position as it so easily could have done. The Revenue has argued that all the points must be
fair to the general body of taxpayers.
That is not really so. If the question of tax had been properly considered at the time of the settlement, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could have agreed to attribute most, if not all, the settlement to the distress and anxiety factors.
Let me put in a word for the Revenue. It has tried to help with the debts forgone aspect, which affects a few of the tenants. We are grateful for that, but there is no rule to say that the two portions of the claim—the distress and anxiety factors and the loss of property factors—have to be split 50:50. The Revenue always has a wide discretion over interest.
In summary, this is a long and unhappy saga in which 300 to 400 families of modest means have been badly treated by Governments over the years. They are continuing to suffer great anxieties eight years after they reached what they thought was a final settlement. Ministers and the Inland Revenue have ample discretion to treat them fairly. Their tax burden should be kept to a minimum and they should be allowed to live out their lives in their own homes free from anxiety. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say enough to show that there is a will to achieve this and that a way will be found to bring it about.
10.18 am
Mrs. Diana Organ: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for securing the debate on the Land Settlement Association. I pay tribute to his tireless campaign on behalf of ex-LSA tenants. It is interesting that I am probably the only Labour Member who intends to contribute to the debate. This is not a party political issue. We are all concerned about the history of the case and the way in which the ex-tenants have been treated by various Governments over many years.
The issues raised this morning are a source of considerable anxiety, hardship and distress to several of my constituents and their families in the Forest of Dean—hard-working growers who pay their taxes appropriately, but find the pressure from the Inland Revenue very disturbing. In the Scarr area of Newent, there were 40 ex-Land Settlement Association tenants. Unfortunately, since the compensation was agreed and the dispute began in 1991, five of those tenants have died. The Inland Revenue has agreed to put a temporary hold on collecting the tax as a result of the dispute about tax liability on the compensation. That has real implications for the widows and next of kin of the growers, because they cannot fully wind up the estates of those ex-tenants.
Now is the time for the question to be fairly settled. In my constituency, the case for the ex-tenants has been staunchly put by Mr. Duncan Reed of Newent on behalf of the other growers. I was first made aware of the problem within three weeks of my election in May 1997. Following correspondence and meetings with Mr. Reed and other ex-tenants, Treasury Ministers suggested in correspondence that the group should present individual cases to the Newent division of the General
136WH
Commissioner of the Inland Revenue, an independent tribunal. That option was offered to the Newent growers five years ago, but was rejected.
Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Lady would accept that it was not intended that those circumstances should arise. By saying that those people should go to the independent commissioner, the Government are avoiding their responsibility, because, in terms of the tax advice that they gave, the Government got it wrong in the first place. Therefore, they should not ask people to appeal; they should put it right. Would not the newspapers be appalled if a private company or organisation had got it wrong, but refused to do the decent thing by way of compensation?
Mrs. Organ: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The episode was bungled by politicians and must be put right by politicians, not by the General Commissioners. I have sympathy with the Newent group's decision to reject that option because, as we all agree, the episode was bungled through the incompetence of previous Governments. It should be put right by politicians.
According to my constituents in Newent, the scheme was poorly run, poorly managed, inefficiently marketed and wasteful. Growers worked for long hours with very little return. The closure came in the early 1980s. Again, questions were asked about the management and legality of the procedures taken with regard to closure. Closure meant that the growers had to band together with very few resources and sue the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No consideration was given to the legal consequences or the suffering of tenants that would flow from the decision. The ex-tenants and I feel that, as the previous Government caused that unfortunate situation through their incompetence, the issue should be resolved by politicians, rather than by the Inland Revenue and the independent appeals commissioner, who adjudicates in normal tax disputes. This is not a normal tax dispute; it is a unique situation.
The argument of the Newent ex-tenants is clear and, I believe, wholly justified. When the scheme was wound up, they were given compensation of about £20,000 to £25,000 on average. That hardly covered their general damages claim, which was non-taxable. It is absolutely clear that the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), intended and believed that the settlement would not be taxable. He has made that quite clear publicly, especially in his letter of 25 January 1997 to Sir Anthony Battishill, chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, in which he said:
it was quite clearly Ministers' intention at the time of the settlement that the out-of-court payments were intended to compensate the ex-tenants of the LSA for personal hardship caused by their association with the LSA. It was not, therefore, intended as taxable compensation for loss of earnings.
The letter also states that
it was Ministers' intention that the overall settlement was intended to compensate the ex-tenants for personal hardship and not for pecuniary loss.
It seems that the whole scheme—including the running of it, the closure of it, the settlement of it and the tax liability dispute—has been a fiasco. The Tory Administration from 1979 to 1997 never properly

137WH
managed it or sorted out its problems, and they managed the whole affair incompetently. MAFF and the Treasury never sorted the matter out between them. Ministers did not make their intentions clear and give direction.
I realise that the intentions of MAFF Ministers do not normally count in determining tax treatment for out-of-court settlements, but the matter should have been sorted out by the Department and the then Government. However, the growers believed that it had been sorted out. They believed that the intention expressed to them by the then Minister meant that they were entitled to non-taxable compensation. Meanwhile, the growers of Newent, represented, as I said, by Mr. Duncan Reed, suffered hardship and anxiety. They struggled with the poor and inefficient running of the scheme and had to fight their case over the inept closure with poor resources. They are not young, and suffered terrible anxiety and personal hardship. That has been an extra burden. Many of those people are now in their 60s and 70s. They have had to use their modest damages to help purchase their homes—otherwise they would have been virtually homeless—and they have been frightened by the pressure on them from the Inland Revenue. That is no way to treat the ex-growers. They have little else by way of assets or income with which to fight the case and the whole bungled affair is a recurring nightmare for them. We must put an end to the nightmare for my constituents.
The previous Government created the mess and the present Government need to sort it out fairly, justly, humanely and sympathetically. I ask the Minister not to suggest that taking the case to the General Commissioners of the independent tribunal would be the best way forward. We went round that loop five years ago and it did not resolve the issue for the people concerned. We should be giving them what is rightfully theirs. The compensation for hardship should be tax-free. The spirit, intention, understanding and reality in which the compensation was given was that it was not for the restriction of trading opportunities but for the personal hardship that they suffered and for the capital loss. In that case the ex-tenants of the LSA in the Scarr area of Newent are not liable to tax on their compensation. We need to resolve the issue for them now.
10.27 am
Mr. James Paice: This issue has been on my desk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ever since I have represented my constituency.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. I am not the Deputy Speaker, and I should be addressed by name.
Mr. Paice: I apologise, Mr. O'Hara.
I have been aware of this issue since becoming the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire in 1987. I then had two of the former LSA estates in my constituency—Great Abington and Fen Drayton, which, since the boundary changes at the last election has become the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). My right hon. Friend
138WH
the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) will recall that I was his parliamentary private secretary when the case was settled. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs Organ) waxed lyrical about how the previous Government messed everything up. It is worth pointing out, if we are going to make partisan points, that it was the Labour Government in the 1970s who caused the problem by messing up the way the whole thing was run. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said, the issue is not really partisan. It is a matter that goes across all parties.
Mr. Gummer: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he dwell on that point? The LSA was appallingly run and the fault of that lies with all parties. The Labour party did not even bother to put it right. It was badly run and the way in which people were treated was almost slavery because they were tied in. They owed so much money that they could not get out. We understood that, which was why we tried to put matters right by winding up the scheme and paying compensation, not for loss of earnings or anything else, but for the way in which our fellow citizens had been treated.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair):Order. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is becoming a speech.
Mr. Gummer: May I just ask whether my hon. Friend accepts that, at all points, we would believed that the money would be without tax. If we had not believed that, we would have operated matters differently. Such people should not suffer.
Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend is right. That is my recollection of the discussions at which he allowed me to be present. He was also right to refer to the shambolic way in which the LSA was run prior to the decision by Lord Walker of Worcester to abolish it soon after the Conservatives took office in 1979 because of the condition of the estate. It is worth emphasising that the tenants had no say in how the estate was run. I checked that fact this morning with the leader of the group of tenants on Abington estate in my constituency. The entire scheme was operated by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food employees. I shall not get into the usual arguments about civil servants running businesses, but that was what was supposed to be happening. The tenants had no input. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, the tenants were completely tied into the system, but it was one over which they had no operational influence or control.
I join all the tributes paid to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire for his leadership of the group. As he said, the original claim was for about four times the final settlement. It was for £23.5 million and the tenants settled for about£7 million. I am the first to accept that individuals must decide whether to take advice from tax advisers and that the Revenue cannot be held responsible for that tax advice, but the tax advice given to the tenants was that the sum would not be taxable.

139WH
I want to refer now to the papers given to the tenants that set out the agenda for a meeting at Sandy in Bedfordshire in what was then in my right hon. and learned Friend's constituency.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: It still is.
Mr. Paice: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for confirming that. The meeting was to take place on 29 June 1991, when Simon Goldblatt QC and others were to consult the tenants about the offer that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal had put to them when he was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The document contained sections entitled, "What is the offer?" and "Has the method of distribution been decided?" It stated that the fund would be divided into a
first slice from which a flat-rate payment will be made to each Plaintiff in the sum of £5,000,
but the main pool for distribution was on a time-related basis whereby points were allocated up to the previous six years. Incidentally, there was nothing to be gained for tenants who may have been in the scheme for 20 years or more.
The key point is that it had nothing to do with compensation for loss of profits because the settlement bore no relevance to the type of business, the level of trading, or the costs, efficiency or profitability of the businesses. In other words, no attempt was made to assess what profits may have been forgone. The fund was distributed purely on a time-serving basis without direct relevance to the businesses that were being undertaken. That is an important point and emphasises the fact that the compensation was not distributed in accordance with the loss of profit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean all referred to the fact that the people were tenants and were, in effect, facing homelessness once the estate was abolished, as a result of which many of them borrowed significant sums to buy their homes. They would otherwise probably have been on housing benefit and in local authority housing. They used the money that they received, albeit a relatively small sum, to pay off some of their debts. Most of them were in their 70s and are now living on a state pension. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, some of the tenants are deceased, including some of my former constituents, yet their widows still carry the heavy burden of concern, which we know is doubly worse for old people than others.
The 50 per cent. limit set by the Inland Revenue for distress and anxiety is arbitrary. It is therefore clearly open to dispute, and the Revenue can increase it if it feels so inclined. I should have said that by law the tenants would have had a right to local authority housing. It is not that they might have done; they would have had a right to it on the abandonment of the scheme.
The businesses were small. Most of them were one-man bands, or perhaps had a husband and wife working together. They operated on a low-profit basis, partly because of the shambolic way in which matters were organised. In an ordinary year, they would not have paid much tax, if any. To tax the debts forgone or the loss of earnings so that that will create a significant tax
140WH
burden is far more onerous than if it is trickled out in the normal course of events. More important, many of the businesses ceased trading when Lord Walker of Worcester abolished the scheme in the early 1980s. The settlement was 10 years later. They had no method to generate the tax and mitigate the effects, because many of their businesses had ceased.
None of the former tenants has the resources to take the matter to the commissioners, which the Minister should take into account. The Revenue has helped at meetings; I have attended at least one meeting at which its officials were present. It has been intransigent in its actions, insisting on the arbitrary 50 per cent. rule. As I understand it—I am subject to correction—it is rolling up interest on the tax debts as it has assessed them. Although it gave the period of grace to which the hon. Member for Forest of Dean referred, that ended nearly a year ago, so interest is now rolling on those tax assessments.
Not all tenants were in the same position, as only some had debts. Therefore, only some had debts forgone. In the House of Lords, the tenants won a case for breach of contract. I am advised that some of the money that they received resulted from that case, so that should not be taxable either. The Minister's predecessors in this Government and, I am afraid, the previous one have consistently said that the matter is one for the Revenue to resolve and in which Ministers cannot interfere. I do not believe that that is the case.
By way of example, I shall make an analogy with another issue. A few years ago, a large charity for the homeless in my constituency was faced with a wholly unexpected and large VAT bill. I know that that concerns Customs and Excise, not the Revenue, but there was local outcry and Customs was adamant that it had to interpret the law that way and charge the VAT. Some people and I took a delegation to see the Conservative Minister responsible, who, needless to say, gave us the line that it was not for Ministers to intervene. Lo and behold, in a matter of days, Customs and Excise turned round and decided that there might be a way forward, and we were all able to emerge from the matter with some credit. Frankly, I do not accept that there is no way in which Ministers can influence such matters.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have puzzled over the intransigence of the Revenue. I suppose that it is based on the floodgates argument—namely, if a concession is made, it will somehow be relied on in future. However, the hon. Gentleman's remarks and those of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean have made it clear that the circumstances are unique. Although precedent will never be eliminated in all circumstances, the notion that a favourable decision in this case will be relied on in future is so remote as to be discounted.
Mr. Paice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. As Governments have generally ceased their involvement in running businesses during the past couple of decades, one cannot even imagine a similar case arising in future. Therefore, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, the precedent argument is an excuse rather than a realistic concern about the future.

141WH
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal referred to a suggestion that I was going to make. Those of us in this Chamber who have been in government are conscious that Ministers always want a way out. Would not some kind of ex-gratia payment be possible? If the Revenue insists on tax assessments for various reasons—with which we do not agree—cannot the issue be reopened and an ex-gratia payment made that would nullify the tax burden? The income is peanuts in terms of public expenditure. It is of no consequence to the nation but of huge consequence to former tenants up and down the country, most of whom are elderly, have no businesses and are eking out their later years. Those people are very worried.
I have regular meetings with former tenants of the Abington estate, some of whom are still there, some of whom have moved away. Every time I have those meetings, their concern and anguish is clear. The matter must be settled. It is of no comfort to me that it has taken such a long time. It is now 18 years since the estate was abolished, and eight years since the settlement was agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a wide body of concern in the House about the way in which this matter has been handled. We do not want to apportion blame or responsibility, but we want the threat that has hung over the heads of hundreds of people during the past eight years to be removed, so that they can look forward to a slightly more comfortable life in their later years. I hope that the Minister will understand the intensity of concern among tenants and those of us who represent them.
10.42 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) not only for running a long-standing campaign on this issue but for keeping other hon. Members informed. That has been extremely helpful.
I speak on behalf of a constituent who is affected. First, in the light of the comments this morning, there is a great deal of unity across parties. We are considering not a party political issue but an issue of justice that unites Members from all parties. The apportionment of blame is not the way forward. Secondly, we are united in believing that tenants have been consistently let down, under the LSA and since its winding-up. Thirdly, an urgent resolution to the problem is needed, given the age of the people affected.
Two solutions are available. One is for the Inland Revenue to write off the debt and not pursue the tenants for the tax and the other is an ex-gratia payment to enable tenants to meet the tax liability. Justice will therefore have been seen to be done. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire that I cannot be here after 11 am because I have another engagement. I would have liked to hear the Minister's response. I hope that he will take on board the views expressed across the party divide, and that he will be able to give some hope to those tenants who have waited all too long for justice to be done.
10.45 am
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) on running the campaign for a small group in society who have had a particularly hard lot for a long time. I hope and believe that the Minister is a fair and decent person and that this debate will help towards a solution to the problem. It is a disgrace that the matter has dragged on for nine years, and that the tax situation has not been resolved, although the original intention seems to have been clear.
It is difficult to add to the excellent contributions made by my right hon. and learned Friend, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) and others. There is no legal requirement for the Revenue to treat the payments in the way that it is; it is not a matter of law from which it has no escape. The Revenue might take the view, within the narrow confines of its perspective, that payments of up to £25,000, for example, were made for general suffering and did not relate to loss of profit. The Revenue itself chose to use a commercial case as a case study, from which it took its 50:50 offer. As other hon. Members have said, the cases are not analogous, nor has there been any case before the courts that is precisely analogous. That is a good reason for the Revenue not to take the view that a common-sense approach to the matter would create a dangerous precedent.
It is unreasonable, and a sign of weak government, for Governments of both parties to have ducked the issue. The matter is a practical one: the individuals concerned are elderly and had to put up with virtual serfdom when they were members of that badly administered, crackpot land settlement scheme. By saying that the Revenue has to act in such a way because it is legally required to do so, Governments are passing the buck in the worst traditions of this country. Governments can advise and tell the Revenue what to do, as there is nothing in law to stop them, and the Revenue is free to take a sensible and enlightened view.
If the Revenue persists with the position that it has taken, the Treasury is likely to incur just as much expense as if it surrendered the tax. The cost of fighting the cases through the commissioners who made the unwise recommendations and of making housing benefit and other social security payments is likely to be just as great. The tax involved is only £1.5 million, which might be quickly consumed in such expenses.
It was fortunate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) could attend and put on record the Government's position at the time of the settlement. He made it absolutely clear that the settlement was intended as an ex-gratia payment for the various nasties that the Government had inflicted on the people involved, in particular the suffering resulting from poor administration and the unwise method by which the MAFF scheme was managed. In all practical senses, he committed the Government at the time. For the Inland Revenue to turn around afterwards in contradiction of the position expounded by the Minister responsible at the time is a form of retrospective taxation, which I trust the Government continue to set their face against as a matter of principle.

143WH
The position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the Government was made clear publicly at the time. The matter was not handled behind closed doors. The 400 families involved were clearly led to believe that the payments would not be subject to tax. For the Government collectively to go back on that is morally improper, and to find clever legal ways of proposing to do it is unnecessary.
As others said, two perfectly easy solutions are available.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I should like the hon. Gentleman to clarify his comments, as he may have inadvertently misled the House. I am not aware that the Government ever said that the payments were not liable to tax, but the hon. Gentleman implies that they did. Will he correct that point?
Mr. Flight: I believe that that is so. The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal this morning made it clear that, when he was the Minister responsible he made it clear publicly that the Government intended the payments to be ex-gratia, and not subject to tax.
Mr. Timms: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right or that a statement on record makes that point. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made clear this morning his recollection of his understanding at the time, but I do not believe that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) can point to a statement to that effect.
Mr. Flight: I thank the Financial Secretary for raising the issue. It might be appropriate for him to interview my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and put on record what my right hon. Friend believed that he said publicly. However, the Financial Secretary will find that the record shows that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal publicly communicated his understanding of the position.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: After the event, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal wrote a letter that clearly sets out the advice that he received from his civil servants and his clear understanding at the time, which, rightly, permeated MAFF. The tenants were advised from another angle, and they had a similar point of view. Of course there was some to-ing and fro-ing, and there has been some discussion about that. However, the general understanding in MAFF was perfectly clear.
Mr. Flight: I do not know the precise time involved, but I also have proper reason to believe that the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, the Minister at the time, was not confidential but available and was therefore known, as I said earlier, by the 400 families involved.
Mrs. Organ: That is the crux of the issue. That may have been in the mind of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, and the intention throughout MAFF, and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal may have subsequently written to the chairman of the Board
144WH
of Inland Revenue, made a public statement or written a public letter. However, the problem is that when the settlement was made he did not give clear directions or lay down absolutely clearly that he intended it to be non-taxable. The problem is that no communication took place between the two Departments. That may have been the intention, but does the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs agree that it was not clear?
Mr. Flight: Like me, the hon. Lady listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said this morning. In my view, he made it clear that there was no question at the time that the settlement would be taxable—on the advice of his civil servants and lawyers. It would therefore have been inappropriate to have even raised the issue of tax.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman can, will he put himself back into the minds of those to whom the settlement was offered? Does he think that they would have accepted it if they had been told that it was liable to tax?
Mr. Flight: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal also said that if there had been any question of the settlement not being an ex-gratia payment, as his officials advised him, the Government would not have viewed it as an appropriate settlement.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I support my hon. Friend's stance. Constituents who have come to see me said that they were clearly told that no tax would be payable on the settlement. It was clear in their minds.
Mr. Flight: As my hon. Friend says, that was the legal advice given to the 400 families at the time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal has put clearly on the record his position both in regard to the intent of the Government at the time and the advice received by officials. With great respect to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, the issue was not unclear. What happened was that subsequently, when everyone believed that the settlement was an ex-gratia payment that would not be taxable, some bright individual in the Revenue looked up that old commercial case and thought, "Ah, hah! We'd better levy some tax here." The thing has been sitting around disgracefully for eight years since then, because no Government can morally justify taxing the sum, thereby delaying, until a year ago, the date until which interest would run. For some extraordinary reason, no Government have chosen to grasp the nettle and resolve the matter.
Mr. Paice: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of what Governments said, it is important to realise that the statement by my right hon. Friend that no tax would be involved was not made only this morning. It was made five years ago when, although he was no longer the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he was still a senior member of the Government. The Minister is chasing for a Government statement; a senior Minister clearly said in 1995 that the events leading up to the settlement in 1992 were made on the basis that no tax was payable.
Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful addition. I cannot help but comment that it was

145WH
therefore a great pity that the Government in 1995 did not follow what the then Minister had said. I am sure that the present Financial Secretary will wish to rectify that.
Mr. Timms: I want to put one further point to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean that at no time during the process did MAFF ask the Inland Revenue what the tax position would be. At the heart of the matter is the fact that the position was never resolved, which is why the Inland Revenue has subsequently had to take the decision that it has.
Mr. Flight: I thank the Minister for that comment, but I do not believe that that is a fair stance. There are all manner of situations whereby tax may or may not arise. If organisations go to the Inland Revenue for clarification, it frequently will not give a view. Clear advice was given in the Ministry on behalf of Government and much learned legal advice was given to the 400 families at the time. Although I am not questioning the good faith of the Revenue in subsequently erasing the tax claim that it raised, to suggest in retrospect that the Revenue should have been approached to give a ruling at the time of the settlement would be to put matters the wrong way round. The belief of all involved was that the payment was ex gratia and non-taxable. As I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire noted earlier, it was not legally necessary for the Revenue to apply that particular commercial case to the situation, which is different.
It is ridiculous for a Government—whether this Government or the previous one—to take such a Scrooge-like attitude to some of the most downtrodden members of our society. The matter is easily resolved, either by the Government persuading the Inland Revenue to take the approach that my right hon. and learned Friend has suggested or by their squaring the circle by making an exgratia payment of about £1.5 million to cover the burden if they feel—incorrectly—that there is an important point of tax law. They would probably save money by taking that approach as an alternative to allowing the matter to proceed, thereby incurring the various legal, social security and other expenditure involved.
The Minister knows that telling the people to go to the commissioners is no answer—they cannot afford the legal costs involved and they would not be entitled to legal aid. That five-year-old ducking tactic does not wash now. I hope that the Minister will justify his reputation and our proceedings by getting the silly issue resolved, as the Government have the power to do.
11.2 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for his vigour in pursuing the matter and to all those who have so eloquently presented their constituents' cases in the debate. What we have heard has left me in no doubt about the anxiety experienced by constituents of several hon. Members.
146WH
As we have heard, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wound up the Land Settlement Association in 1983. There were 500 tenants at the time, 293 of whom joined in an action against the Ministry, which was on two counts—first, mismanagement and, secondly, distress and anxiety. The mismanagement issue regarded loss of profit and that is taxable. The distress and anxiety count concerns personal injury and so is not taxable. I make that important point because those two issues of profit and personal injury have been of concern from the beginning of the discussion of the case. The action led to out-of-court compensation from MAFF in 1991.
The nature of a compensation payment in an out-of-court settlement depends on the terms of the settlement read in the light of the pleadings. Establishing the precise details of the claims proved difficult in this case. The grounds for the 293 individual claims boiled down to just two grounds. The nature of the claims is now common ground. The loss of profits was quantified at £28.8 million. The personal injury claim was not quantified, but £6.5 million was offered and accepted in full settlement of all claims. In addition, debts of £677,000 owed to MAFF were forgiven.
To avoid for all parties the difficult task of analysing each of the 293 claims and apportioning the award for each individual between the taxable quantified elements and non-taxable unquantified elements, the Revenue offered a general compromise. In broad terms, it sought to tax 50 per cent. of the cash award and 40 per cent. of the debt forgone. It was for each individual to decide whether to accept that offer or pursue their claim in the normal way. About half the cases were settled on that basis. Negotiations continue on the remaining cases, principally because of a reluctance on the part of many individuals to accept that any tax is payable. When information was most recently collated a couple of years ago, 141 tenants had open appeals.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister is stating the Revenue's position that the apportionment depends on the settlement in light of the pleadings. Will he think carefully about the two cases of Wiseburgh v. Domville and Roberts v. W. S. Electronics, which I have mentioned repeatedly in correspondence? Both cases show that what is agreed must not be a sham but a genuine representation of what has happened. The cases do not mean that if someone makes an apportionment, it must be an arbitrary 50:50, and they certainly do not mean that we cannot take the general damages aspect first up to, say, £25,000.
Mr. Timms: It is true that the relevant tax case does not specify a 50:50 split of the cash award. The Revenue's offer was an attempt to produce a fair figure in the absence of specific information. Given that only limited information is available, the Revenue's general compromise to tax only half in recognition of distress in each case does not seem to be unreasonable. However, I understand the anxiety about that aspect of the offer.
The tax charge has been the subject of representations by taxpayers and several hon. Members over a number of years to the Revenue and Treasury Ministers to the effect that the situation of the Land Settlement Association is unique. The most recent approach to Ministers was an oral question last December in

147WH
response to which my hon. Friend the Paymaster General explained that no change was made to tax legislation when the compensation was paid and that, therefore, the current tax law applied. My hon. Friend also pointed out that Ministers do not intervene in individual cases. If agreement cannot be reached between the Revenue and taxpayers about the meaning of tax law, the matter can be resolved by the appeal commissioners and the courts.
The most recent approach to the Revenue resulted in a meeting between the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the chairman of the Inland Revenue and officials on 4 April. It covered the Revenue's view of the relevant law. As well as the tax charge, the matter of interest chargeable on the unpaid tax was raised. The Revenue agreed to discuss that with the tenants to see whether a compromise on interest could be reached as part of a settlement of the open cases. It suggested that settlement of the open cases, including interest on unpaid tax, should be considered by the inspector who was dealing with them. The inspector wrote to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with an offer for the tenants to settle the outstanding appeals. It included charging interest only up to 5 April this year.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister is correct. The Revenue wanted to charge interest up to 5 April this year, notwithstanding the understanding that interest would be suspended while the difficult matters were discussed. I was shocked that it asked for interest to be paid up to 5 April when we had been going to and fro over such a grey area. Will the Minister reconsider that decision?
Mr. Timms: The point that I want to emphasise is that those are not matters for Ministers. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds that unhelpful, but that is the position. The chairman of the Inland Revenue wrote to him and said that the Revenue would see whether some compromise on interest could form part of the settlement of the open cases. He also suggested that the issue of the interest charged could be explored at a meeting between the inspector and the tenants to discuss the settlement of those cases.
The offer to explore all those issues with the inspectorate of taxes has not so far been taken up, although my advice would be that it certainly should be. Mr. Richard King is the inspector who is co-ordinating all the open cases, and he should be the next port of call for those who are dealing with the issue.
Mr. Flight: The Minister and the Government might choose to take the constitutional stance that he has described, but having heard what was the Government's intention at the time, is it not in the Minister's power to solve the problem by making an ex-gratia payment to cover the tax that must be paid?
Mr. Timms: I simply make the point that that is a matter of law. The responsibility of the Revenue is to interpret the law, and the law in that area is clear.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister says that the law is clear, but he knows that he cannot put his finger on any case that says that there must be a 50:50 split. What is
148WH
more, the Minister has mentioned officials by name, which I have been extremely careful not to do. To push the tenants back to Mr. Richard King, who has been handling the matter for years, is simply to push them back to square one.
Mr. Timms: No, I suggest that that is the right place to take the discussion forward. A range of issues could be discussed with the inspector.
Mr. Paice: I am concerned about the proposition that we should go back to Mr. Richard King. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and I were present at a meeting with Mr. Richard King in one of the rooms off Westminster Hall three or four years ago, so we have been down that road. As a result of that, my right hon. and learned Friend had meetings with more senior Revenue officials, who suggested that the matter should be taken up with Ministers. Therefore, it is unreasonable for Ministers to say that we should now go back to square one and talk to Mr. Richard King.
Mr. Timms: It really is not for Ministers to take views on the tax arrangements of individual taxpayers. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) raised the same issue. If it were for Ministers to do that, we would spend all our time in Westminster Hall debating the tax affairs of individuals. There is a procedure for pursuing such matters, which should be used to resolve this matter. The Inland Revenue must apply its interpretation of the law to the tenants of the Land Settlement Association, as it has been applied to other taxpayers who have received compensation for loss of profit. Indeed, many of the Land Settlement Association tenants have already settled their tax liability on the compensation received on that basis. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made it clear that, when the payments were made in 1991, it was the intention of Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the payments should not be taxable. As my hon. Friend the Paymaster General made clear in a debate last December, no change was made to the law, so the current law must apply to this case.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I had a succession of meetings with Mr. King and a very intelligent young lawyer called Mr. Deeps Jaggi, with whom I worked when I was a Minister. We agreed that, because the Revenue had never had to face such circumstances before, it would have to go to Ministers. The point was subsequently taken, however, that it should not go to Ministers, which is why I went to see the head of the Inland Revenue personally. These matters are not covered by settled tax law and I have received many letters suggesting that the issue should be pushed away to the special commissioners. The Revenue can clearly exercise discretion, rather than transfer the issue to the special commissioners and perhaps to the Court of Appeal, with which the tenants have no money to deal. None of that process is settled law, so does it not require proper intellectual consideration by Ministers with senior tax officials and the head of the Inland Revenue?
Mr. Timms: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was a matter that needed to be settled by

149WH
the Revenue and not by Ministers. I agree with that view. It is well established that compensation that is received for personal hardship is not liable to income tax, but that compensation for the loss of trading profit is taxable as trading income. The nature of compensation payments in out-of-court settlements depends on the terms of the settlement and on the pleadings.
I understand that the tenants received conflicting advice from professional advisers. Their counsel advised that no tax would be payable, but I understand that their accountants advised them correctly and said that tax would be payable—a point that has not so far been made. It was unfortunate that that mistaken advice was given, but that does not mean that the tax charge should be waived. Equally, problems with payment are not grounds for waiving a tax charge, as other taxpayers face difficulties in paying tax. As there are difficulties in analysing each of the many claims for compensation and apportioning the award for each individual between taxable and non-taxable elements, the Revenue has offered a general compromise to settling the tax charge. Some tenants have settled on that basis, but others have not done so.
Tenants and their Members of Parliament have made representations saying that the circumstances of the Land Settlement Association compensation are unique and that no tax should be payable. There has been disagreement about the Revenue's view that a relevant tax case means that all the elements of the claim—loss of profit and distress—must be taken into account when deciding on the nature of the out-court-settlement. It has also been suggested that the tenants should be able to choose the approach that is most advantageous to them. In this instance, that approach would be to claim that the payment was wholly for distress. I understand that the Revenue's view is that the judge in the tax case accepted that a head of claim could be dropped before settlement but not afterwards. That means that both heads of charge must be taken into account in the LSA case. Of course, tenants who want to pursue their argument through the appeal process are entitled to do so.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: To what case is the Minister referring? I have not been told that a case has established that one part of the claim has to be dropped. Surely he is speaking merely about the Revenue's interpretation.
Mr. Timms: I do not have the details of the case with me, but I can ensure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman receives them. I must emphasise that Treasury Ministers do not intervene personally in the Inland Revenue's application of tax law or in its handling of particular cases, although it has been suggested that we should do so. If hon. Members reflect on what such intervention would mean, they will be much less enthusiastic. Ministers do not influence the way in which local inspectors settle specific cases. The
150WH
Inland Revenue is independent from Treasury Ministers in applying tax law. That independence in administering the tax system must be scrupulously observed.
Mr. Paice rose—
Mr. Flight rose—
Mr. Timms: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice).
Mr. Paice: This is a fairly crucial point. I speak for myself, but I suspect also for others. I understand that Ministers should not interfere in the tax affairs of individual constituents, but we are not talking about individual cases. To describe these cases as individual is to pick on a weak point—almost, it seems, in order to divide and conquer.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it could be called a class judgment. The court has to look not at Mr. Smith's and Mr. Brown's tax affairs, but at the entirety of cases, especially as they arose as the result of government action. It should not be a matter of individual inspectors dealing with individual taxpayers, but of an overall ruling to resolve the affair for that class of former tenant.
Mr. Timms: It is a matter for the Revenue to resolve on the basis of the law as it stands. It is for the Revenue to decide how the matter should be concluded.
Mr. Flight: Is it not the case that if there is some doubt about the law—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has made it clear that that is the case in this instance—the Inland Revenue will often concur with the Government on the interpretation to be followed? Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend said that when he spoke to the head of the Inland Revenue, he was advised that it was for the Government to make a decision.
Mr. Timms: No, the hon. Gentleman is not right. Such matters are determined by the Revenue on the basis of its understanding of the law. The Revenue does not ask Ministers for their views.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary; he has been generous in giving way. When are Members of the House of Commons entitled to seek redress on behalf of their constituents if not on occasions such as this? The hon. Gentleman should have no difficulty in persuading us that Ministers should not crawl over the tax affairs of individuals, but an issue of principle that goes beyond the affairs of individuals is surely the sort of issue upon which Ministers should take a view.
Mr. Timms: The Revenue has to work in line with established law and case law, as set out in statute or as determined by the courts. It is not for Ministers to seek to push the Inland Revenue in a particular direction. Individuals who have a problem with the tax system have recourse to the commissioners and the appeal system. That has always been the arrangement. That is how such matters should be resolved.

151WH
The rules that the Revenue seeks to apply to the compensation received by the Land Settlement Association tenants are those that apply to other taxpayers who receive compensation. The tax system should be neutral. It should apply equally to all taxpayers. Disagreement about the meaning of tax law and its application to individual cases is a matter for the Revenue, not Ministers. The Revenue does not have policy discretion to ignore the application of tax law in certain circumstances.
As for concerns about the difficulties of paying a tax bill, tax collectors have some leeway to allow payment over a period if a taxpayer's personal circumstances justify it. I also understand the concerns about interest accruing on unpaid tax. As I said, the Revenue has agreed to consider that with the tenants to see whether some compromise can be reached as part of a settlement for the open cases. Again, I suggest that the tenants explore that with the Revenue.
I hope that agreement can be reached. I accept the strength of feeling expressed this morning, and I know that that reflects the concerns of the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members. However, if the Revenue's compromise offer or its view of the law continues to be disputed, the matter should go to the independent appeal commissioners and to the courts, to determine how the law should be applied.

Medicine Purchasing
11.24 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: The internet has given millions of people worldwide access to medical information and products in unprecedented volumes. It is becoming increasingly evident that many internet sites do not conform to United Kingdom standards. There are more than 20,000 health-related websites, with an increasing number selling powerful drugs that would normally be available only on prescription in the United Kingdom. Other products on offer include over-the-counter medicines, and vitamins, minerals, functional foods and herbal remedies, for which medicinal claims are made. New developments based on genome research will not only increase the number of medicines available. In the future, techniques such as gene testing and genome sequencing will be offered directly to the public via the internet and the situation could thus become increasingly complex.
At present, 7 million or so people in this country have home internet access and 45 per cent. of the United Kingdom population has used the internet at least once. Those figures will almost definitely increase in the near future, especially with the wider availability of new devices such as digital television, WAP phones and the later computer games consoles, all of which offer internet access. In the United States it has been predicted that the domestic market for online health services will increase from $200 million in 1999 to $10 billion in 2004—a 50-fold increase. In recent months, Pharmacy 2U, the first United Kingdom online pharmacy, has been launched. Both the British Medical Association and the National Pharmaceutical Association have expressed reservations about such developments.
The Government have taken e-commerce on board as one of the key elements for the United Kingdom's future in trading development, with a target of bringing the entire nation on line by 2005. However, specific areas of e-commerce, particularly those related to public health, will need more stringent validation processes to prevent malpractice. The number of relevant sites is likely to increase in coming years, which gives rise to several concerns. Consumers who bought prescription drugs from unregulated online websites could bypass medical advice before and after purchase and thus be at risk from the adverse affects of inappropriately prescribed medications, dangerous drug interactions or contaminated drugs, not to mention the issue of confidentiality of medical information.
Customers in the United Kingdom can purchase goods from overseas sites, some of which provide no contact details. That is a matter of concern in the light of potential negligence. Internet users should also be aware that products with the same name may contain different ingredients in different countries and that countries may apply different laws on what medical products can be sold and shipped across national borders. That means that it is possible that products that are not approved for marketing in the United Kingdom, or which have been identified as a hazard to public health, may not be allowed into the country, if they are identified at entry. That would leave the customer without the option of reimbursement.

153WH
Obtaining a prescription drug by filling out a questionnaire and without seeing a doctor poses serious health risks. A questionnaire does not provide sufficient information to enable a health care professional to determine whether a drug is suitable, or whether another treatment would be more appropriate. It might not pick up an underlying medical condition that might make a drug harmful. An associated danger is that, once the questionnaire has been provided to the supplier, the customer has no control over the confidentiality of the records. A recent study by Health Which?, a Consumers Association publication, showed that some prescription drugs—Viagra and Xenical—were sold when, for medical reasons, they should not have been. That happened despite the fact that the information supplied in the questionnaires should have been sufficient to justify refusing the drugs. The research also highlighted the fact that in some cases the consumer could not gain access to information on the professionals who were in charge of issuing the prescription. One site was simply signed off in the name of "Your family doctor". In a society in which health professionals register with official bodies and accept an ethical and moral code of practice, that behaviour is surely unacceptable. Similar results were reported in a study carried out in the United States in 1999.
What can be done? The American Medical Association has issued guidelines for the development and posting of website contents to govern the acquisition and posting of online advertising and sponsorship, which will ensure site visitors' and patients' rights to privacy and confidentiality and provide effective and secure means of e-commerce.
In March, a 52-year-old man with a history of heart disease died in the United States of America after buying Viagra online. Following that, the Clinton Administration proposed an additional $10 million investment to target and punish those who engage in illegal drug sales over the internet. That strategy will establish new federal requirements for all internet pharmacies to ensure that they comply with state and federal laws. It will create new civil penalties for the illegal sale of pharmaceuticals and give federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, new authority swiftly to gather information needed to prosecute offenders. It will also expand federal enforcement efforts and launch a new public education campaign about the dangers of buying prescription drugs online. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy has unveiled its verified internet pharmacy practice sites programme, which provides consumers with valuable information about the credentials of online pharmacies.
In the US, the FDA has issued warnings about purchasing from sites outside US jurisdiction. In the United Kingdom, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Medicines Control Agency have provided assistance to community pharmacists on commonly encountered aspects of the internet and e-commerce, such as confidentiality, encrypted data transmission, provision of professional advice, comprehensive information on products and home delivery of medicines.
154WH
The intrinsic nature of the web is the provision of worldwide services, which opens up fantastic possibilities for the consumer. However, that translates into obvious difficulties in the regulation of services provided. The fact that the content of web pages cannot be regulated shows that alternative measures for quality control must be put in place. Immediate ones could be the creation of a validation scheme for online health-related purchases through kite marking, guaranteed widespread access to a listing of sites and confidentiality of data.
Internet providers of health-related services should comply to quality standards, which should be the product of discussions between all the professional bodies involved, including the Department of Health, pharmaceutical societies, on-line businesses, consumer associations and so on.
While keeping consumer choice prevalent on the agenda, we must guarantee quality. The internet could be a powerful tool for delivering health care services. However, we should keep in mind the fact that guidance from the internet should not be used as a replacement for consultation with the consumer's health care provider. Guidance has been issued not only at a national level, but as a result of international attempts to provide the possibility of an informative choice to the internet user. That is true of the guide issued by the World Health Organisation in 1999. That was developed not only for consumer information but to serve as a model for member states to adapt into locally meaningful advice for internet users, to help them to obtain reliable, independent and comparable information on medicinal products.
Do consumers have easy access to those guidelines? The provision of internet links between health information sites, such as NHS Direct, as well as institutions governing aspects related to the provision of medicines, would facilitate access to safe online traders. At present, most attempts to regulate and validate such sites are at the initiative of the industry itself. For example, in the UK the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry is considering a paper on internet trading. Some work has already been done on advertisement of medicines on internet sites. Parallel to that, the first meeting between stakeholders will take place on Monday 17 July, which is next week, in the presence of the chief pharmacist and members of the RPS, the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, the Doctor Patient Partnership, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the UK on-line pharmacy Pharmacy 2U. It will be some meeting. The British Standards Institute has facilitated the meeting. However, Departments should take a proactive approach to promoting dialogue and regulatory initiatives.
In the light of those developments, will my hon. Friend the Minister outline the steps that her Department and agencies such as the MCA are taking to tackle those problems? Do they have any plans to take an active role in co-ordinating the various schemes being considered by the ABPI and other organisations?
11.34 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson)

155WH
on securing the debate. The electronic purchase of medicines is a matter of increasing concern, and I welcome the opportunity to respond on the issue. As my hon. Friend has said, use of the internet is increasing at a pace that few would have anticipated. There are now at least 12 million internet users, and that figure is growing daily.
Electronic commerce, or e-commerce, lies at the heart of the Government's vision of a modern, knowledge-driven economy in the UK. That is why we are planning to make Britain one of the world leaders in e-commerce by 2002. E-commerce can bring major benefits to the public by providing wider choice and easier access to a vast array of products and information. However, more information does not always bring benefits; we must make sure that the information is reliable. It also sometimes takes time for the law to catch up with new developments. I remember from my days as a law undergraduate how long it took contract law to catch up with the availability of telephones and then fax machines, for example. Development of the law and of technology should happen in parallel.
The increased use of e-commerce should be balanced with the provision of essential safeguards for consumers, and that is particularly important for medicines. The availability of medicines on the internet is underpinned by controls on their advertising, promotion and sale. Before my hon. Friend entered Parliament he had a distinguished academic record and he knows only too well the importance of relying on scientific advice and ensuring that what is offered to the public for sale is safe.
In recent months, there has been a rapid development of internet sites offering medicines for sale. It is easy to see how such developments can offer advantages to people who find that shopping medium more convenient and attractive, but safeguards must be in place. We recognise that medicines are not like ordinary items that can be purchased on the net, such as clothing, electrical goods and jewellery. Everyone who buys a medicine, through whatever medium, must have medication that is appropriate to his or her condition.
A well-established framework of domestic and European law, providing safeguards to the public, is already in place. In particular, medicines are categorised on grounds of safety into those that can be used with or without medical supervision. In the case of prescription-only medicine, a doctor's or dentist's prescription is required, which provides an important safeguard. In addition, prescription-only and pharmacy medicines must be sold under the supervision of a qualified pharmacist, on premises that are registered and inspected by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. General sale list medicines provide convenient access for some products that safely provide symptomatic relief for minor conditions and they can be sold by any general retailer if the premises are lockable and the medicine is in an unopened manufacturer's pack.
In addition to those legal controls, there are professional safeguards. In the past year, the UK's first true internet pharmacy sites have opened. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has published interim standards specifically for internet pharmacy which make clear that pharmacists selling medicines online must exercise precisely the same care in supplying medicines as their colleagues working in other locations. It is part and
156WH
parcel of a pharmacist's role, in any setting, that they have sometimes to refuse to sell people medicine if, in their professional opinion, it would not be safe or right to do so. That is an important safeguard. The safeguards already in place make it an offence to sell, rather than buy, medicines inappropriately. We put the responsibility clearly on the supplier.
There has been debate within the retail pharmacy world about the rights and wrongs—for commercial and ethical reasons—of internet-based pharmacy. What is clearly emerging from that debate is that some pharmacists believe that they can offer a fully professional service, which consumers and patients will trust and want to use, on the internet. Further safeguards are provided by the controls, through British and European Community law, on advertising. Those completely prohibit the advertising of unlicensed and prescription-only medicines to the general public. Although non-prescription medicines can be advertised, there are restrictions on the advertising of medicines for certain serious conditions. Those regulations apply as much to the internet as to any other medium.
The rapid development of e-commerce has encouraged, in parallel, an equally rapid development in electronic advertising and promotion through a variety of websites. That challenges the existing European legal framework, which was negotiated and implemented in the late 1980s when e-commerce and the use of the internet by European Union citizens was in its infancy.
The growth of e-commerce has prompted the European Commission to review the existing legislative framework. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in the review, as a leading player in e-commerce and the internet. Our input will take account of the discussions that the MCA is having with other regulators involved in advertising control, industry and consumer groups. We will not ignore the agency's public health responsibilities while the European review of advertising and e-commerce is under way.
Our plan is not to limit the availability of useful information about medicines. We want to encourage the provision of good quality information and health care to consumers. Existing law already permits the provision of health information and the internet can play a leading role in that. For example, the right remedy campaign this winter empowered the patient by making more information available. The Government have told people clearly that there are many sources of advice, including pharmacists and NHS Direct.
As part of the Government's "Information for Health" strategy, a programme of work is in place to give public, patients, and health care professionals access to NHS accredited sources of information. That information comes not only from the NHS but from patient groups, from which people can learn about long-term conditions. However, we recognise our responsibility, and a source that has an NHS label is reliable and has been tested. Such information can make a significant contribution to ensuring that medicines are taken safely and effectively.
The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the telephone help line, NHS Direct. Last December, the Prime Minister launched NHS Direct online, which represented an important step towards making accredited information available on the internet.

157WH
Experience gained from the help line is transferred to the online service, which is one of the most popular and best regarded health websites in the United Kingdom and provides a gateway to accredited information on the internet. Sex, religion and health are the three most searched-for areas on the internet. There is a lot of information about health, but some of it is extremely unreliable. The online service provides links to several hundred accredited sources of information on the internet and other formats. Users can feel confident that the information that they access will be reliable and of good quality.
I come now to the question of enforcement—the criminal investigation of alleged breaches of medicine regulations that can lead to prosecutions in the criminal courts. If a defendant is found guilty, the maximum penalties are two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Powers also exist, and are used, to confiscate assets and seize and destroy products.
That work is also carried out on behalf of Ministers by the MCA's enforcement group, which is a team of highly trained and experienced investigators. The MCA works closely with other enforcement agencies here and overseas. In particular, the MCA has close ties and workings with the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigation, which investigates internet crime related to pharmaceuticals. My hon. Friend referred to the Clinton Government's initiative aimed at effectively controlling and policing the internet. We were pleased that that initiative was backed up by a substantial financial commitment. That is important, as about 75 per cent. of overseas websites potentially advertising prescription-only or pharmacy medicines in the UK are based in the USA. As such a close link exists, it is important for us to work together. The MCA's enforcement arm is also accredited to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The MCA has an impressive track record and is recognised as a world leader in the successful investigation of pharmaceutical crime.
In response to the growing significance of the internet, the MCA has set up a special unit within its enforcement group whose work is to investigate possible breaches of regulations on the internet. Officers have received special training in web search techniques and investments have also been made in search engines and other specialist equipment that may be required. As a result of their investigation, action has already been taken against a number of websites that have been in breach of the law. Those breaches have involved both licensed and unlicensed medicines. Some websites have been closed down, while others have had to amend their web pages to comply with the law.
In the case of subversive, covert or apparently deliberate criminal acts, the MCA may attempt enforcement immediately through the criminal courts.
I assure my hon. Friend that mechanisms and the legal framework already exist to ensure that the interests of public health are met.
158WH
When the business is located in the UK, direct action by the MCA is relatively easily achieved.
Dr. Gibson: Is my hon. Friend aware of how many such prosecutions there have been? Has there been one or more?
Ms Stuart: There have been a couple of prosecutions, and several are in the pipeline. I would be happy to provide my hon. Friend with precise figures. It is important to recognise that those who attempt to subvert often do so opportunistically, so the threat of action, or simply the process, often displaces them.
What happens when, as is not unlikely on the internet, the perpetrator is abroad? The market is increasingly becoming global. Although our experience is that there is often a UK base or business presence in the UK of some description, the perpetrator is more frequently an opportunist trader—a criminal seeking to make easy and quick money and evade the law.
In such situations we can and do seek the assistance of colleagues in other countries. In 1999, senior pharmaceutical law enforcement officers from 12 countries met in Ottawa and set up a permanent body known as the International Forum on Pharmaceutical Crime to foster the coming together of enforcement groups from different countries to enforce pharmaceutical law. The MCA was asked to provide support and act as a co-ordinating point for the forum's work, and was glad to do so. High on the list of the forum's policy objectives is a strategy for developing practical enforcement measures against criminal activities on the internet involving pharmaceuticals. As crime and illegal activities become increasingly international and use the most modern technology it is necessary to work in a co-ordinated fashion.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to maintaining and developing existing enforcement capabilities so that, where the protection of public health requires it, the full weight of the law can be brought to bear swiftly and effectively.
What is the driving force behind e-commerce, making the internet available and providing information? We have no problem with the use of e-commerce; indeed, we encourage it. We want people to trade on the internet, and take the opportunities that it provides. However, as I said at the outset, medicines are a different matter. Consequently, we have placed specific responsibilities on suppliers. As a Government, we must ensure that the framework that we end up with is one that protects our citizens, provides them with reliable information, and, furthermore, provides them with the means to establish whether information is reliable. NHS Direct and NHS Direct online have been significant developments in that regard. In the light of rapid technological developments in the marketplace, the legislative framework must be examined to ensure that it meets the needs of the public and, in particular, strikes the correct balance between patient empowerment, ease of availability of medicines and adequate protection of public health. However, as I explained earlier using the analogy of contract law, it can take a long time before the legal framework is right.

159WH
It is also important to recognise that the process is evolutionary, in which, especially in light of the international dimension, we work with the other agencies involved to create a system that will not allow evasion or create loopholes or conflict and will coordinate action. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that we are including in the strategy not only stakeholders and the pharmaceutical industry but, more important, patient groups, because ultimately the failure or success of the strategy will be judged by whether patients have been adequately protected. It is on that basis that negotiations proceed.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that we are committed to striking the right balance. Effective regulation, enforcement and the provision of good-quality information are crucial to realising that aim. I am deeply grateful to him for having raised the issue. Something makes me feel that this may not be the last time that we discuss the issue in the House.

Fire Services (Shropshire)
11.50 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: There is great unhappiness and no little dissatisfaction in Shropshire following the decision to replace two appliances with a single appliance at five retained fire stations. The dissatisfaction in my county springs from the fact that the nature of the decision is not readily accepted. People are dissatisfied about the unsatisfactory way in which the consultation was carried out and about the underlying reason for the decision, which is the inadequate funding in our county. I shall deal with each of those points in turn.
The decision is almost universally opposed by Shropshire residents living in parts of the county that rely on retained fire service men. Six of the largest parish councils in the eastern part of my constituency—Alveley, Claverley, Chelmarsh, Cleobury Mortimer, Highley and Stottesdon—not to mention Bridgnorth town and district councils, have all voiced their strong objections, for sound and practical reasons.
The area covered by Bridgnorth district council is divided by the River Severn—which I am sure that the Minister will recognise as one of Britain's largest and most important rivers—with crossing points only at Bridgnorth itself or downstream at Bewdley in the adjoining county of Worcestershire. It follows, therefore, that simultaneous fires in Alveley, on one side of the river, and Highley, on the other, would, although those places are fewer than 2 miles apart as the crow flies, necessitate a road journey of about 15 miles by the northern route, or 19 miles by the southern route. In neither case would the bypasses at either Bridgnorth or Bewdley be accessed, because the road to and from Highley does not connect with the bypasses, but runs directly into each of the town centres.
As a result of reducing the number of fire appliances at Bridgnorth from two to one, calls on the single engine at Cleobury Mortimer are almost bound to increase. However, difficulties in recruiting suitable fire fighters in that town are already causing major headaches. A further practical anxiety is that, in the event of an incident in the area that requires the attendance of two appliances, one of the adjacent areas will inevitably be left without cover for the duration.
My constituents have many other, equally valid, practical objections to the proposals. For example, the eastern part of my constituency faces the additional hazard of fires started in dry weather spells by the steam engines that power the Severn Valley railway, which is an important tourist attraction in my constituency. Time prevents me from detailing all their other practical objections.
I come now to the vexed problem of the consultation process. Four consultation meetings have been held, the last one being in Bridgnorth on 8 June. However, on 24 March the chairman of Shropshire and Wrekin fire authority wrote to me and said:
Thank you for your letter…regarding the Fire Authority's proposal to replace two appliances with one at a number of retained stations… The new appliances were ordered some considerable time ago, and are scheduled for completion in April/May this year.

161WH
Not only are my constituents angry that the consultation meeting was held after the decision had already been made, but they are incensed that the only people admitted to the meetings were the so-called stakeholders. The general public were specifically excluded from them.
The nub of the matter is the inadequacy of the standard spending assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) put it in a nutshell when he wrote to the Minister. He said that the Shropshire budget for fire services was £12.5 million, but that the SSA for this year was £8.5 million. He added that Shropshire was therefore underfunded by 47 per cent. and that the £4 million shortfall must be taken out of other services provided by the Shropshire county council.
To put it another way round, the standard spending assessment for fire services in Shropshire at £20.58 per head of population is the third lowest of all counties in England—a mere 63p above the lowest figure, but nearly £8 per head less than that of the highest. If Shropshire had achieved even the average of all English fire authorities at £28.17 per head, the SSA would almost exactly match the actual budget. We are asking for the same average deal as everyone else, as a result of which there would be sufficient funds for us to provide an adequate service throughout the county.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the real anger that the funding problem is causing in Whitchurch and Market Drayton, which will also be cut back to one pump? People contrast the £22.2 million that Cheshire receives and the £21.9 received by Staffordshire with the £8.1 million received by Shropshire. The formula is wrong.
Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The formula is wrong and it has been for a long time. What depresses me and my constituents, however, is that the Government have recently made it known that there is unlikely to be any change to the formula for determining such matters for at least another three years. That, taken together with the fact that, for the past three years we have been at a standstill in terms of any alteration to the formula, means that, in effect, something that was wrong six years ago—sorry, three years ago—will still be wrong in three years' time.
The Government are fond of blaming the previous Administration on such occasions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gill: Before I give way to the Minister, I want to say that the Government's excuse is wearing thin. The Labour Administration have been in power for three years and it is no use their looking backwards. The electorate in Shropshire want the Minister to look forward and to give us some hope for the future.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman referred to six years; he then paused and referred to three years, which
162WH
is the time that the Government have been in office. But he supported a Government who, according to his argument, caused Shropshire to be severely underfunded. How did he justify that, and why, now that we have a different Government, does he want to change the standard spending formula that he previously supported?
Mr. Gill: I have never supported the formula. I am on the record in the House as having voted, together with the former Member for North Shropshire, against the revenue support grant settlement in the previous Parliament. I am a long-term opponent of the formula. My point about the three years and the three years is that the Govt have not altered the formula. They recently announced that they are unlikely to do so for the next three years. That is a period of six years during which time the residents of Shropshire will continue to be disadvantaged.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the formula is wrong. It gives Shropshire a bad deal on just about every count. Shropshire is almost bottom of the league for the funding of police, health, social services and almost everything else. It is self-evident that that is a result of the funding formula. The Minister does not have a point when he says that I have supported the formula. I am on record as being absolutely opposed to it and pleading with this and the previous Government to effect changes that would produce a more equitable solution for my constituents.
In the final analysis, what emerges is that the intention to downgrade the number of appliances at five fire stations from two to one is driven by economics. Our county's inadequate budget means that the fire authority is forced to make cuts wherever it can. Many of my constituents question the rationale of cutting back on the retained sector, which is extremely cost-effective. The current proposals will realise a saving of less than 1 per cent. of the budget, but will result in a massive 15 per cent. reduction in capacity. If we reduce the number of fire engines from 33 to 28, it follows—this is fact not opinion—that the availability of fire engines to fight fires in emergencies in Shropshire will be reduced by 15 per cent.
Furthermore, the fire authority was obliged by law to stage a consultation exercise which, in the circumstances, was nothing more than a charade. The general public are fed up and disillusioned with being invited to participate in a plethora of consultation exercises when it is increasingly plain that the decisions have often been made. Either the outcome of public consultations should be respected or Ministers should have the courage to do what they have to do and take the electoral consequences. It is not satisfactory to govern on the basis that the Government consult on an idea that they have already formed knowing full well that, come hell or high water, they will not be distracted from their original intention. The public have to spend a lot of time and, in the case of local authorities, a lot of money responding to such consultations, when the answer is invariably a lemon.
No change in fire cover in any county can occur without the Home Secretary's formal approval. What will the Minister do? Will he take a chance with people's lives and property by endorsing the fire authority's proposals, or will he demand a re-examination of the

163WH
funding formula so that fire service standards, set by his Department, can be adhered to? Before the Minister responds to the debate, I respectfully remind him that the buck stops with him. Rural Shropshire will not be fobbed off with lame excuses or any attempt to shuffle off ultimate responsibility on to others.
I remind the Minister—not as an afterthought because this is central to our consideration—of the importance of firefighters and the damaging effect that failure to come up with satisfactory responses will have on morale. There is a fear among retained firefighters in my constituency that, if the two fire appliances in Bridgnorth are replaced with one, there will be a lesser requirement for retained firemen, which will affect recruitment and morale in the fire service generally. Retained firefighters are an essential and highly valued part of our rural community. Without them, the Government would be faced with massively increased expenditure, not to mention recruitment problems.
I trust that, in his reply, the Minister will acknowledge the importance of the human dimension, but, as things stand, the proposals are opposed by the tax-paying public, the county, district, town and parish councils, the trade unions and, not least, the firefighters themselves. All that comes on top of a catalogue of complaints from the countryside, which were succinctly summarised by Mrs. Morris, the clerk to the Stottesdon and Sidbury parish council, who lists them as follows:

Reduction in policing

Removal of Accident and Emergency to greater distances

Downgrading of Kidderminster Hospital

Loss of village shops and post offices

Local pubs closing

Lack of rural transport

Fuel/taxation/vehicle running costs are rising

Schools struggling due to budgets

Roads deteriorating very badly

Unreliable SHROPDOC service

Planned reduction in fire service.

I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will give people in the countryside some hope that the one service for which he is responsible will not follow those other services in being run down to an unacceptable level.
12.7 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): As someone who also represents a rural area, and who is concerned about rural issues, I am pleased to note that, despite the many difficulties to which the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred, employment is increasing in rural areas. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to raise his concerns about fire services in Shropshire.
Before I proceed, I am sure that hon. Members will want to join me in expressing our shock and sadness at the news of the very serious fire at Southgate near Telford on Sunday, when a mother and two young children died in a house fire. That was a serious incident, and I am sure that all hon. Members would want us to express our condolences to the surviving members of the family, their relatives and friends.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I thank the Minister for that expression of regret and concern. As he rightly says,
164WH
all hon. Members would wish to be associated with those remarks. That is an appalling tragedy and our hearts go out to the family.
Mr. O'Brien: That tragic incident reinforces the need for those of us in Government, Members of Parliament, the fire service and individuals to redouble our efforts to reduce fires and casualties in the home, and to treat that matter seriously, rather than as a political football. That is why, with the support of fire service interests, the Government are seeking to make a commitment to prevention as the first line of defence against fire, to develop a clearer vision for the fire service and to set out a clear strategy for the next 10 years with clear targets for improvements. We want to make progress in a way that can be measured against that commitment. To that end, we have publicly set a target of reducing the average number of accidental house fire deaths by 20 per cent. in the next five years.
I fully understand the importance that the hon. Member for Ludlow and his constituents attach to the quality of the fire service provided by the Shropshire and Wrekin fire authority. We have good reason to be proud of our fire service. In many ways, we have the best fire service in the world. It puts out fires. We can be grateful because, in some countries, there are substantial delays and other problems in fire services doing that job.
The fire service achieved consistently high standards of performance, often in difficult and hazardous circumstances. The high performance in responding to fire calls has been confirmed year after year by the Audit Commission. That body's latest figures show that, in 1998–99, the fire service nationally met attendance standards in responding to fire calls in 96 per cent. of occasions. In the Shropshire and Wrekin area, even that excellent performance was bettered—attendance standards were met in 97.6 per cent. of occasions. The fire service in that area has an extremely high standard and I am sure that it will do all that it can to retain it.
The ability to attend fires is influenced, among other factors, by the proximity of fire stations. A proposal from Shropshire and Wrekin fire authority is worrying the hon. Gentleman. The authority seeks to replace two pumping appliances at Ludlow fire station, which is in his constituency, and at Newport, Whitchurch, Bridgnorth and Market Drayton, with an extra large appliance that can carry nine staff. As the hon. Gentleman noted, the authority is consulting on the proposal, but has not yet made an application under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. That application will not doubt be made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in due course. It would be appropriate for Ministers to express a view at that point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is inappropriate and wrong for Ministers to express views on matters on which they will have to exercise a semi-judicial role before they are submitted to them.
I will be clear on the matter. The statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire services rests with a fire authority. That is all about local democracy and local control of fire services. It is for Shropshire and Wrekin fire authority to keep its fire cover provision under review and to set a budget that allows it to meet its statutory and other obligations and, in particular, to provide a service that meets the national standards for fire cover.

165WH
I will come to finances, but I want to say more about the section 19 procedure. Under section 19(4) of the 1947 Act, a fire authority cannot reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances or fire fighting posts without the express consent of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is given a specific statutory role, which he does not exercise until an application is made to him. Any wish that we express a view on the matter now would be inappropriate for that reason. The Home Secretary will grant an application only if satisfied that the proposals have been publicised sufficiently widely, in sufficient detail and with adequate time to enable an interested party to make representations. Recently, I referred back an application under section 19 because I was not satisfied about the extent of the consultation period.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Ludlow said about the way in which consultation was conducted in this case. In considering such matters, I must also advise the Home Secretary on whether the fire authority has properly considered representations. That does not mean that the authority must do what the representations suggest: fire authorities are there to exercise judgment about the way in which they can best manage their budgets and provide effective fire cover standards. Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate will also advise on whether the national standards of fire cover are being maintained. In listening to the representations made by the fire authority, we will also consider the opinions of Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate, to ensure that we have a view on whether there is a risk.
Whenever change in the fire service is proposed, someone shouts "Danger to lives." However, past changes have not caused perceptible danger to lives. The debate appears to revolve around every single section 19 application. That is why the Home Secretary always relies heavily on the advice given by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, which has great experience in assessing whether national fire standards are being maintained and protected.
Mr. Gill: I have been paying attention to the Minister's remarks, but does he accept that what the fire authority wants to do in Shropshire is driven principally by economics? We cannot consider the matter in isolation and say what we would like or what we need accordingly. Instead, the fire authority has to cut its cloth according to its pocket, and it will probably have to cut a lot of corners on public safety to do so. Ultimately, the buck stops with the Minister.
Mr. O'Brien: There is no question but that the Home Secretary will have to make a decision—I will consider the papers and advise him on it—on whether to grant the fire authority's application. However, it is for the authority and not for the Minister to make the initial application, set out the procedures and comply with the requirements for appropriate consultation. This country has a tradition of local control of fire services.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned funding. Every single public service that I know of requests greater funding, and taxpayers often balk at the idea that they will have to pay more tax in order to provide it. There
166WH
is always a balance to be struck. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will want to know that the fire authority is spending their hard-earned money in order to deliver value for money in fire cover. It is right and proper for taxpayers to want to know that the fire authority is exercising care in deciding how to spend its budget. It is spending taxpayers' money—funds that are provided by those who work in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in the surrounding area. They want value for money and it is right that the fire authority should consider that in taking any decisions. It is also right for those constituents to want to ensure that their homes are safe and that proper and effective cover is in place. That is why the Government take great heed of the experienced voice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services.
Mr. Gill: Does the Minister recognise that every taxpayer in Shropshire is obliged by law to pay the same rate of taxes as people in other parts of the country? Our complaint is that, out of every pound that we pay to the Treasury, we are getting back less pro rata than many other counties, including that of the Minister. In his own county of Warwickshire, for example, the SSA per head for fire services is nearly £3 more than in Shropshire. Surely, in equity, the figures should be balanced up and poor old Shropshire should not be bottom of the pile on every heading.
Mr. O'Brien: Warwickshire had serious problems in fire service funding under the previous Government. At one stage, the inspectorate was about to declare it unable to continue to operate. It is now in much better financial shape and we are providing a better settlement for the fire service than has ever before been achieved. The distribution of funding is based on the standard spending assessment formula that we inherited from the previous Administration. We consulted on that after we came to office in 1997. When a funding formula is changed, there are winners and losers; the hon. Gentleman obviously hopes that Shropshire will be a winner.
Mr. Gill: For a change.
Mr. O'Brien: I would hope that my constituency of Warwickshire, too, might benefit from such a change, but other hon. Members will be worried that their constituencies might lose.
We consulted on changes to the local government SSA formula, but we found that some local authorities did not want change. Later this summer, we shall publish a Green Paper to try to obtain local authority agreement on how to proceed. It is not simply a matter of the Government's issuing an edict. We need to discuss our proposals properly and democratically with those who represent local people. The Green Paper will set out proposals and options for change in the SSA.
We are prepared to tackle that issue in a way that the previous Government were not, but it requires some sort of consensus among local authorities. For entirely proper and legitimate reasons, the hon. Gentleman wants Shropshire to benefit, but other hon. Members will want to represent their constituents.
Mr. Peter Bradley: I can think of at least one way in which Shropshire and Warwickshire could benefit from a reform of the SSA system. The Home Office recently announced a £15 million increase in police funding in recognition of the sparsity factor in rural areas. Can the Minister say how seriously he and his colleagues are reviewing the inclusion of an enhanced sparsity factor in the funding of fire services?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, I can. I have met people from Shropshire and Wrekin fire authority who suggest that the fire service SSA formula should include a sparsity indicator. If, in the light of consultation on the Green Paper, we decide to continue with a formulaic method of distributing grants rather than a system that gives greater recognition to the individual council tax payer, we shall have to consider the priorities further with the Local Government Association.
One of the problems will be how to gauge a sparsity indicator. Earlier work suggests that taking such an approach for the fire service could cause technical difficulties that do not apply to the police. It might produce perverse results. We already have enough problems with SSAs producing perverse results by giving more to those fire services with a higher number of call-outs. That is almost an incentive for more call-outs to be received.
We shall need to consider that proposal in the Green Paper. We want to take perversity out of the system. We do not want to put perversity back in by including a sparsity formula in the SSA that does not work. It is a technical and complex issue. None the less, sparsity raises proper and legitimate questions. There is no simple solution. We need to reconsider the means by which we distribute grants. I hope that we shall be able to do that during the wider consultation that we hope to undertake later this year.
I am aware of the financial pressures faced by the Shropshire and Wrekin fire authority, and other authorities. Indeed, in May I met a delegation from the authority, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), to discuss its concerns about funding. More generally, we listened carefully to fire authorities' concerns during the comprehensive spending review. That provided that fire authorities in England would receive, overall, an increase in the fire service element of total standard spending of £143.6 million over three years, including £47.4 million, 3.5 per cent., for 2000–01. That is well above the settlements that were given under the previous Government. We are listening carefully to the
168WH
representations of the fire service. It will take time for us to undo some of the problems that we have inherited, but we are determined to try to deal with them.
Mr. Paterson: The Minister kindly wrote to me on 14 June suggesting that my proposed delegation of all Shropshire's MPs to visit him should be postponed until after publication of the Green Paper. I want to stress the intense hostility, in Whitchurch and Market Drayton, to the proposed changes, which are forced on the fire authority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has said, by the failures of the spending formula. Will the Minister commit himself to accepting a delegation before a final decision is made?
Mr. O'Brien: I shall certainly see a group of MPs—it might be appropriate to see the chief fire officer and chairman of the fire authority as well—before a final decision is made. I have no problem in giving that undertaking.
I have mentioned already that the increase in funding for 2000–01 was 3.5 per cent. as a national average. Shropshire and Wrekin's share of total standard spending for the fire service for 2000–01 has increased by the above average 4.4 per cent. That increase should be seen in the context of the firefighters' pay award of 2 November, but the Government have recognised the problems of Shropshire. We have acknowledged them in the funding for Shropshire, and provided extra help. I do not deny that there are inherited problems, which remain serious. I hope that we can tackle those in the long term, by considering the standard spending assessment overall so that we can deal with the wider problems of counties such as Shropshire, and in the shorter term, in dealing with the section 19 application when it is made. We should look at the question in the round.
I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that no decision will be made that will put at risk the lives of people in Shropshire. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services will advise the Home Office on whether there is a risk to lives. Our clear position is that we do not put lives at risk. Sometimes difficult judgments must be made, but if Her Majesty's inspectorate advises us of a serious risk to lives, the relevant application will not be approved. However, if the advice is that the matter concerns redistribution and doing things differently, we shall, while others may take a different view, weigh heavily the views of those who have great experience and knowledge about the risks of fire.
I hope that I have provided some reassurance. I thank the hon. Member for Ludlow for initiating the debate, which concerns matters of great importance. I shall consider them very carefully when the section 19 application and the future funding of the fire service in Shropshire are considered.

Social Summit, Geneva
12.28 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I declare an interest. I chaired the Low Pay Unit from 1988 to 1998, I am trustee of the Daycare Trust, and I am parliamentary representative on the executive committee of UNED-UK, for which I was nominated by Globe UK, of which I am the vice-chair.
I thank Madam Speaker for allowing this Adjournment debate on the conclusions of the UN social summit, the 24th special session of the General Assembly, entitled "World Summit for Social Development and Beyond: achieving social development for all in a globalising world", which was held in Geneva in June. It is a plus five UN conference, following the pattern of the UN subject-specific conferences that followed the Rio conference of 1992 on development and the environment.
The first social summit was held in Copenhagen in 1995 and I was present as a delegate representing local government. In 2000, I was a non-governmental organisation delegate on the UNED-UK delegation. I was pleased to discover that the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), was leading the Government delegation. The summit looked back on what had been achieved in social development over the past five years, as well as looking forward to the UN development targets for 2015. The Minister laid a well-received emphasis on UK domestic policies in her address to the plenary session. It was an example of a developed country reporting on what it had done to deal with poverty rather than lecturing developing countries on what they must do. I am proud of our policies on the new deal, child care, the working families tax credit, the minimum wage, and so on. In contrast, Baroness Chalker, the leader of the delegation in 1995, completely ignored the subject of poverty in the UK.
The UK national report, dated December 1999 and presented to a UNED-UK conference in March 2000, has been widely welcomed, especially as a statement of intent. I particularly commend to hon. Members the social indicators in annexe 1. Will the Minister tell me when the first statistical series will be published to measure progress and the House given a chance to debate them? The only criticism of the report is that civil society in the UK was not involved in the analysis or conclusions before its publication. If the Government are almost to prescribe that civil society be involved in developing countries' Governments' reports on progress on social development, it is important that the Government should operate in the same way in the UK. I am always told that third-party endorsement is much the best.
The conference was attended by more than 7,000 people and some 160 Governments were represented. The UK report stood up well in comparison with progress elsewhere. The summit called for, among other things, the number of persons living in extreme poverty to be halved by 2015; the achievement of free, universal primary education by 2015; the avoidance of unilateral measures affecting the health and well-being of women and children, and greater steps to ease the debt burdens
170WH
of developing countries. In opening the special session, Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for an end to extreme squalor, which he said was
an affront to common humanity.
He also said that no country could be called truly prosperous so long as many of its citizens were left to fend for themselves in the face of ignorance, hardship and disease.
Plainly, improvement since 1995 has been slight. The Oxfam report "Missing the target: the price of empty promises", available on its website, clearly sets out the failure of the international community. Controversially, at the beginning of the conference, a review document, "2000: A Better World for All", was jointly published by the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD. It was controversial because many non-governmental organisations felt that the UN should not be so directly associated with the other institutions. I disagree; the UN needs to ensure that those institutions works with it and are tied into the UN agenda. Furthermore, the factual analysis, which was not challenged by the NGOs, showed that while significant improvements are taking place elsewhere, many countries in Africa need special help—a message that was reiterated in the conference outcomes.
The document, "Voices of the Poor: Crying Out for Change", which was launched at the conference, was badged as being by the World Bank, but is in fact a co-production with the Department for International Development. It is a part of a series that started with "Can Anyone Hear Us?", published at the beginning of the year, and will end with "From Many Lands", which will be published at the end of the year. In the series, a poor man from Adaboya in Ghana is quoted as saying
Poverty is like heat; you cannot see it; you can only feel it; so to know poverty you have to go through it.
We all need to be reminded that sustainable social development can be achieved only by building from the bottom up, not the top down.
In a lengthy final document, the summit reflected concerns that had come to light or assumed greater prominence since the 1995 social summit in Copenhagen. In reaction to the Asian financial crisis, measures were recommended to assist in warning about, preventing and mitigating the effects of sudden international financial flows. Steps were called for to help countries in transition to market economies preserve and enhance basic social services and link up with global markets.
The final document, completed after the session was prolonged into a Saturday meeting, urged the reallocation of resources from excessive military expenditures to social programmes in response to the debt problems of middle-income developing countries. It also urged efforts to refrain from using food and medicine as tools for political pressure.
The conclusions in the outcomes document run to nearly 100 pages. I cannot discuss all the points, but they are on the website, which is www.un.org/socialsummit. The document consists of three parts. Part one contains a ringing political declaration on the centrality of more equitable, socially just and people-centred societies. Part two is an update on the five years since Copenhagen, and part three contains 160 paragraphs on new initiatives in the 10 Copenhagen commitments.

171WH
The 10 commitments were to create an enabling environment for social development; to eradicate poverty; to promote full employment; to promote social integration; to promote full respect for human dignity and ensure that equity and equality are fulfilled; to provide education and access to primary health care for all; to accelerate development within Africa and the least developed countries; to ensure structural adjustment programmes to include social development goals; to increase resources; and to promote cooperation to deliver social development. I have paraphrased what is said more eloquently in the outcomes document.
What does the Minister think about the new initiatives? Commitment one is to enhance partnerships with business, trade unions and civil society at a national level in support of the goals of the summit. How do the Government plan to enhance such partnerships? Commitment three is to promote the goal of full employment. I am pleased that the Minister, who was present at the conference, announced that the Government will support the convening of a world employment forum by the International Labour Organisation in 2001, and that they have now ratified all the core ILO conventions, including ILO convention 182 on banning the worst forms of child labour. Well done. Can that be publicised, especially in terms of the ethical trading initiative? I have read nothing of it in the press. While I deplore overspinning, the matter has been underspun.
Commitment four is to promote social integration. Will the Government
facilitate the contribution of civil society organisations to relevant international forums?
That is a quotation from the document. It was disappointing that the United Kingdom delegation did not include civil society. The Trades Union Congress and NGOs asked to participate in the delegation, but apparently were too late.
Can it be a basic rule for all United Nations conferences that standard invitations go to business, trade unions and non-governmental organisations, which then nominate at least one representative to the delegation? This time, the UK delegation had none. Having said that, I thank the officials and the Minister for the courtesy that they extended to the representatives of NGOs who separately attended the conference.
Commitment five concerns equality and equity between women and men, and it reiterates a call for the gender mainstreaming of all social development policies. That has recently been dealt with in detail at the five-year review of the World Conference on Women, Beijing plus five, which was held in June. The document also calls on Governments to
consider signing and ratifying the optional protocol to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
The UK Government have fought hard for the optional protocol at international level, so when will Ministers sign and ratify it? In promoting social integration, will the Government support the Second World Assembly on Ageing, which will be held in Spain in 2002?
Commitment six concerns education for all. Following the World Education Forum in Dakar, do the Government commit to their part in the $8 billion
172WH
additional support for increased development assistance and debt relief for education and health care for all? A successful side meeting of the World Trade Organisation on intellectual property rights took place at the same time as the social summit. What actions do the Government intend on public-private partnerships to invest in research aimed at finding affordable remedies for diseases that especially afflict people in developing countries? That is a new commitment over and above that relating to HIV/AIDS.
In relation to commitment seven to accelerate development in Africa and the least developed countries, will the Government comment on the commitment to raise Overseas Development Administration funding from 0.15 per cent. to 0.2 per cent. of GNP for those countries? It was good that Ireland promised to be the sixth country to reach the overall UN aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, and announced an immediate increase in order to reach that goal. I hope that the Government's comprehensive spending review will show similar commitment. It is equally important to ensure that ODA funding goes to the least developed countries. How are we measuring up to the 0.2 per cent. target for least developed countries? Are the Government working on the 20:20 initiative, in co-operation with civil society, to ensure access to basic social services for all in the countries of the world? I do not expect the Minister to have answers to all of those questions available now, but I look forward to his written replies.
Commitment nine would significantly increase the resources allocated to social development. I would like the Minister to respond in relation to that today. He may have a copy of my letter to the Financial Times of 6 July and my early-day motion 920 on 3 July, in which I celebrated moves at the summit to investigate the Tobin tax. The alternative social summit, which was held by NGOs the week before, concentrated on debt relief and the Tobin tax. Adjournment debates on the matter have been held in this Chamber this year, and parliamentarians all over the world are supporting the investigation of a Tobin tax.
The Canadian delegation took the lead at the summit by tabling a call for such an investigation, while the EU delegation, including the UK, supported it. Paragraph 111 emerged at the end of the negotiations. It states that the Governments agree to conduct
a rigorous analysis of advantages, disadvantages and other implications of proposals for developing new and imaginative sources of funding, both public and private, for dedication to social development and poverty eradication programmes.
Therefore, a study will be authorised, without dissent by the member countries of the UN, into a currency transfer tax—the Tobin tax—and other potential sources of revenue for social development. The form of words in paragraph 111 was agreed as a compromise that will enable a broader study. The Canadian delegate spoke at the final plenary, partly to say explicitly that the intention behind the paragraph is that a study of the currency transfer tax should be made.
Clearly, that could be the start of more effective global public management of the international financial system. Given that the UK, through the EU, supported an investigation of the currency transfer tax, what does the Minister believe is the first step in such an investigation? What do the Government intend to do?

173WH
Will they work with the EU on proposals for the high-level intergovernmental event on financing for development, which will be held in 2001? Could a paper be tabled before Parliament before that event to enable a full parliamentary debate to take place? Do the Government intend to consult with financial institutions and academics—and NGOs, especially the Association pour la Taxation des Transactions Financières pour l'Aide aux Citoyens and War on Want—on the advantages, disadvantages and other implications of a Tobin tax?
The Government may want to comment on other proposals under commitment nine—international co-operation in tax matters; methods for dividing the liability of multinational corporations to pay taxes on profits among the various jurisdictions in which they operate; ways to combat the use of tax shelters and tax havens; mechanisms to stabilise commodity export earnings; ways to prevent tax avoidance and promoting treaties for avoiding double taxation; exploring ways and means to increase and widen flows of public and private financial resources to developing countries; and, promoting the micro and small enterprise sector. Another crucial mechanism is, of course, the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, as well as achieving the important goal of allocating 0.7 per cent. of GDP to the ODA.
I have dealt with new sources of finance at length because developing countries feel betrayed in that regard. Few countries have equalled the UK Government's real terms increase of 29 per cent. in ODA funding since 1997. Neither debt relief, aid nor trade is enough. A global taxation arrangement is necessary to provide the resources that will ensure that poverty is eradicated around the globe.
Commitment 10, which deals with promoting a partnership framework for delivering social development, lacks clarity on the way forward. Can the Minister tell us about any proposals tabled at the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union for following up this summit and the other plus five summits? The summits need to be drawn together, at least to ensure co-ordination of resources for agreed targets. The social summit covered the full range of world interests, with the exception of the environment. Does the Minister consider that there is a case ahead of Rio plus 10 and the 2002 summit for bringing together the Commissions on Social Development and Sustainable Development, so that their yearly focus is together rather than separate?
The outcome under paragraph 126 of the document is to
invite parliamentarians to continue to adopt legislative measures and to expand awareness raising, necessary for implementing the commitments of the World Summit for Social Developments and the further initiatives contained in the present document, and encourage the contribution of the IPU in this effect.
At the summit, the Inter-Parliamentary Union held a well-attended event at the ILO to review social security provisions throughout the world. Parliamentarians for Global Action held a separate one-day conference at the World Economic Forum on Social Development, with the noble Lord Paul of Marylebone as a key speaker. I understand that there is an intention to hold a joint
174WH
World Trade Organisation and Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in February 2001 to examine the basis of a new development round. Clearly, parliamentarians throughout the world wish to support Governments who want to ensure that social development succeeds for all the people. We are the full representatives of civil society through the ballot box and we know that our voters want action. What action do the Government intend to take in response to the conclusions of the World Summit for Social Development?
12.45 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Peter Hain): My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) is an excellent parliamentarian. I know that, because he is my Member of Parliament. I thank him for providing me with the opportunity to discuss the follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development. I welcome the special expertise that he has brought to the debate and the energetic way in which he is following matters through, which is extremely helpful to both the House and the Government. He has identified the importance of such issues.
As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the lead Department in the process, I have pleasure in replying to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities addressed last month's special session of the UN General Assembly entitled "The World Summit for Social Development and Beyond: achieving social development for all in a globalising world". She emphasised the Government's determination to ensure that the wealth and opportunities created by globalisation are used to reduce global poverty.
Before turning to some of my hon. Friend's specific informed questions, I shall comment on the Copenhagen process more generally. The declaration and programme of action agreed at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995 provided a clear framework for all countries to develop policies to promote social justice and to combat poverty. For the first time, agreement was reached on the importance of economic and social policies being mutually reinforcing. Economic growth, opportunity and fairness go hand in hand. An economy in which a significant proportion of the population is unable to fulfil its potential will be poorer and less productive. Stable and sustainable pro-poor economic growth and sound social policy are crucial in combating poverty.
We have worked hard to promote economic growth and social justice, both at home and overseas, in line with the commitments made in Copenhagen. Our ambition is for everyone in all countries to have the opportunity to make a contribution, to work, to learn, to enjoy the benefits of economic prosperity and to participate in community life. Although British society is rich in its diversity, not all of our citizens have always had the opportunity to maximise their potential and contribute to society. Economic growth, together with effective policies to help people into work, make work pay and raise skills through lifelong learning, have formed the basis of the Government's strategy to further social development at home.
Last September, in a document "Opportunity for All", we committed ourselves to increasing opportunity, tackling the root causes of poverty and investing in

175WH
individuals and communities. We also identified a range of indicators against which progress could be monitored on income, employment, education, health, housing, pension provision and fear of crime. Our strategy is producing encouraging results. The number of those in employment has increased by more than 900,000 since the general election and long-term unemployment has been cut by half since May 1997. The proportion of children in workless households has fallen from 20 per cent. in spring 1994 to 17.6 per cent. in spring 1999. Furthermore, budget measures will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty by next year.
The Government have also demonstrated their commitment to promoting the goal of full employment agreed in Copenhagen five years ago. Our approach can be summarised as, "Work for those who can, security for those who cannot." Our policies and initiatives were designed to move people from dependence to independence. The new deal programme is the United Kingdom's largest ever investment in work. At its heart lies the simple proposition that the vast majority of workless people have the potential to earn their own living but, in the early days of going back to work or becoming self-employed, both employee and employer need positive help. The acquisition of new skills is essential for preventing poverty and social exclusion. For those out of work, the new deal provides access to a wider range of job opportunities and a route back to employment; for those in work, it provides a way of meeting changing job demands, finding greater job security and improving incomes.
The achievements of the new deal have been impressive. It provides intensive and substantial support for young people, the long-term unemployed, lone parents, people with disabilities, older workers and partners of unemployed people. Unemployment is much lower as a result of the new deal and employment is at record levels, with 27.78 million people now in work in the United Kingdom. That figure represents 74.3 per cent. of the working age population.
The Government have a legislative framework to promote social inclusion and increased opportunity for all. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates fundamental rights and freedoms in the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law. That safeguards our basic liberties in law as enforceable rights and will help build a culture of respect for rights and responsibilities throughout the country. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced new statutory offences for racist crime and placed a new statutory responsibility on local authorities and the police to reduce crime and disorder. Those Acts, and part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, are also important in strengthening measures to prevent violence against women.
In our international development work, to which my hon. Friend referred, the eradication of poverty forms our central goal. There is no doubt that enormous advances in poverty reduction are possible over the next few decades. There are still massive obstacles to overcome but, with increased political will across Governments and civil society worldwide, the target of reducing by half the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 can be met.
176WH
The Government recognise that progress depends, first and foremost, on the efforts of developing countries themselves, but they can only succeed if the international community provides effective support. We have worked hard to mobilise the international community into purposeful, meaningful action, not least by continuing to push for debt relief focused on poverty reduction in heavily indebted poor countries. We are also working for a more collaborative and harmonised approach among donors, coupled with genuine ownership of the process by recipient countries.
Britain is committed to working for the worldwide observance of labour standards to uplift the poorest members of society. In June 1998, member states of the ILO unanimously adopted a declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work, which covers freedom of association, collective bargaining, the elimination of discrimination and the abolition of forced and child labour. By adopting the ILO declaration, countries reaffirm their obligations to respect, promote and realise those principles.
As I have outlined, Britain has made substantial progress in furthering social development at national and international level since the world summit five years ago. The aim of those gathered in Geneva last month was not merely to assess the progress made in meeting the Copenhagen commitments; Governments agreed that it was important to identify new initiatives that take account of developments over the past five years and enable a more effective implementation of the Copenhagen declaration and programme of action, as my hon. Friend has called for.
In her statement to the UN General Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities emphasised that a key objective for Britain at the special session was the need to define principles to underpin social policy. National ownership is crucial for the development of any effective social policy, and it is imperative to take full account of regional and national differences. For that reason, the United Nations is uniquely placed to lead an exploration of the key aspects of social policy that are essential for economic development.
I am pleased to inform the House that agreement was reached in Geneva that the UN's commission for social development should set in hand an exchange of experience and best practices involving the UN itself, its specialised agencies and the international financial institutions. We look forward to seeing the results of that exercise, initiated by the United Kingdom, in the months to come. The special session to follow up the world summit for social development also reached consensus on several other new initiatives to enhance implementation of the Copenhagen commitment. UN member states reiterated their commitment to the target of reducing by half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, and committed themselves to a target date of 2015.
In Geneva last month, UN member states also reached agreement on a strong reference to ratification of the core ILO conventions, which are essential instruments for protecting workers' rights, increasing social dialogue and ensuring respect for individuals. The General Assembly recognised the important part that

177WH
businesses play in social development, and the need to encourage the private sector, as well as the public sector, to exercise its social responsibilities.
My hon. Friend asked several interesting questions, to which the Government will provide written responses in due course, and I shall arrange for those responses to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. However, I shall deal with four of his points now. He mentioned a currency transaction, or Tobin, tax. I have seen his early-day motion, 920, and his letter to the Financial Times. The special session agreed to analyse proposals for developing new and innovative sources of funding for social development, and one of those proposals is likely to be a tax on international currency transactions.
The Government believe that a so-called Tobin tax could have several serious drawbacks. In particular, it might introduce economic distortions into the international financial system, and it is unlikely to be effective in a crisis. It would also be practically impossible to achieve global coverage, and there would be huge scope for avoidance. Unless those drawbacks can be overcome, a tax on currency transactions will not be a viable source of funds for social development. Nevertheless, it is an important proposal, and the Government will be interested to see the results of an analysis of such proposals in the months ahead.
Mr. Colman: As London is the world financial centre, rather than waiting for conclusions, might the Government be willing to take the initiative for such an investigation, examining both disadvantages and advantages, much as we have led on the HIPC initiative?
Mr. Hain: I shall obviously consult ministerial colleagues who have direct responsibility for the matter, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's request is brought to their attention. We recognise that the issue must be examined carefully to ascertain the progress that can be made. I welcome the energy that he has contributed to the debate.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the crucial importance of international action on HIV/AIDS. The special session defined more clearly the contribution of
178WH
health to social development, and identified the fight against HIV/AIDS and other major pandemics as central priorities for action in Africa and the least developed world. An appeal has been made to the private sector to develop medicines at affordable prices for the worst affected developing countries. A notable advance in that respect is the special session's recognition of the importance of supporting exemptions to intellectual property rights, giving due regard to international laws and agreements, in order to promote access to essential medicines that can save lives.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the need to ensure better co-ordination of follow-up processes to global conferences in the 1990s. The UK, with our EU partners, is working towards that end during the current session of the UN's Economic and Social Council.
I acknowledge the valuable role played by my hon. Friend and members of the private sector and civil society in Britain through participation in the international symposium organised by the Swiss Government and exchanges with the British delegation before and during the Geneva meeting. We were offered valuable support, direction and encouragement in the negotiating process. We must now continue to work together to ensure that the commitments made in Copenhagen and renewed and developed in Geneva are pursued with vigour in the years ahead. Only then can we genuinely claim to have achieved the goal of social development for all in a globalising world.
I note the points that my hon. Friend firmly and legitimately made about participation of NGOs in Government delegations. We shall examine carefully the composition of future delegations, because we as a Government are more open to NGOs and civil society in general than any of our predecessors. We have, for example, NGO secondees working in the Foreign Office, and our own staff have been seconded to work in several NGOs that have Foreign Office interests. We want an open-door policy towards NGOs, and we shall consult on exactly how that can be accommodated in the context of international conferences and the composition of delegations. Regardless of the final outcome, I give a commitment to consultation with NGOs.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reviews of British shipbuilding capabilities and capacity he is conducting; and if he will make a statement. [128770]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Quentin Davies, dated 11 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about reviews of British shipbuilding capabilities and capacities. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  Weapon type

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Sub-machine guns

  —

  8

  —

  2

  —

  36

  Shotguns

  —

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  Pistols

  —

  —

  —

  —

  491

  —

  Specialist rifles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  139

  New special forces small arm

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,380

  Total per year

  —

  8

  —

  102

  491

  1,555

  At present there are only two future purchases planned in the next five years: the Personal Defence Weapon, which will replace the current in-service 9 mm pistol, where we plan to procure up to 15,000 weapons and a small buy of about 20 large calibre Sniper Rifles.

  Search Systems
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his Department's plans are for the incremental acquisition of new equipment on to the Nimrod MRA4; and if he will make a statement; [128711]

  (2) how the Active Search Sonobuoy System will be capable of discriminating real submarine targets from false acoustic alarms; and if he will make a statement; [128709]

  (3) how long the procurement of the Active Search Sonobuoy System will take; and if he will make a statement. [128710]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  446W The Ministry of Defence keeps British shipbuilding capabilities and capacity under regular review, in consultation with other Government Departments, Trade Unions and representatives of the shipbuilding industry.UK Shipbuilding yards play a crucial role in supplying warships and major vessels to the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. As you are no doubt aware, the Strategic Defence Review announced a considerable commitment to the UK Shipbuilding Industry over the next 15–20 years; through major ship programmes, including the Future Aircraft Carrier, the Type 45 Destroyers and the Future Surface Combatant. These programmes provide a secure long-term platform for the UK Shipbuilding Industry to increase its efficiency and effectiveness.

  Personal Weapons
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personal weapons, and of which types, have been procured in each of the past five years; and how many are planned to be procured in the next five years. [128772]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Quentin Davies, dated 11 July 2000 I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number and type of personal weapons that have been procured in the past 5 years and how many are planned to be procured in the next five years. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The following personal weapons have been procured for the Armed services in the last 5 years:—

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 11 July 2000:
  I am replying to your three questions (Nos 128709–128711) to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Nimrod MRA4 and Active Search Sonobuoy System. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  You asked about the Department's plans for the incremental acquisition of new equipment onto the Nimrod MRA4. As this aircraft is still in development, it is too early for a comprehensive plan of future enhancements to be drawn up. Nevertheless the opportunities offered under the Smart Procurement Initiative, through incremental acquisition, will be actively pursued at the appropriate time. At present, there is one new system which is being progressed with the aim of enhancing the aircraft's capability, that is the SR(SA)903 Active Search Sonobuoy System (ASSS).
  You also asked how ASSS will be capable of discriminating real submarine targets from false acoustic alarms. ASSS will use sophisticated software which will analyse the acoustic signature of the contacts picked up by the sonobuoy. These solution algorithms will be able to discriminate real from false targets.
  Your final question asked how long the procurement of the ASSS will take. Subject to the project being approved next year, the plan will be to deliver an ASSS capability in line with the In-Service Date of the main Nimrod MRA4 programme (March 2005).

  BNFL (Berkeley Centre)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the work for his Department being undertaken at the BNFL magnox facility at Berkeley Centre in Gloucestershire. [130418]

  Mr. Spellar
  The work undertaken for the Department by BNFL Magnox, Berkeley Centre, has been very successful, but it did not commence until June 1999 and has taken longer than anticipated because of problems developing the experimental apparatus.

  Performance indicator

  Target (percentage)

  Key target 1—Peacetime manning

  92.75

  The percentage of available trained personnel either filling established posts or on diversions for which there is an approved Manning and Training Margin

  Key target 2—War, crisis and MOD authorised unestablished commitments

  ≥98

  The percentage manning level of war, crisis and MOD authorised unestablished tasks

  Key target 3—Career management

  80

  The percentage of PMA's customers who are either satisfied or not dissatisfied with the service provided by the PMA

  Key target 4—Manpower planning

  No greater than ±1

  Percentage variation between actual trained strength and the authorised trained strength taken as an average over the financial year

  Key target 5—Finance, efficiency and business practice

  Cash allocation not exceeded

  Containment of operating costs within resources allocated

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Key Targets have been set for the RAF Training Group Defence Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [130367]

  Mr. Spellar
  Key Targets set for the Chief Executive of the Training Group Defence Agency for the Financial Year 2000–01 are set out as follows.

  Key Target 1—training output

  The number of RAF trainees who graduate

  Target

  KT1a—quantity of output (ab initio flying training)

  Fast Jet Pilots

  59

  Multi-Engine Pilots

  56

  Rotary Wing Pilots

  33

  Fast Jet Navigators

  28

  Multi-Engine Navigators

  8

  Rotary Wing Navigators

  10

  Airman Aircrew

  97

  KT1b—quantity of output (ab initio ground training)

  Officer Initial Specialist Training

  265

  RAF Tradesman Training

  2,014

  RAF Regiment Induction

  272

  Key Target 2—training places

  The number of training course places provided

  Target

  KT2a—training places (flying)

  Flying Training1

  824

  Flying Training2

  83

  448W
  Further examination of spent fuel is taking place and it is now planned that the site will revert to its fully safeguarded status by 30 September 2000.

  RAF Personnel Management Agency
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the RAF Personnel Management Agency for the Financial Year 2000–01. [130366]

  Mr. Spellar
  Key Targets set for the RAF Personnel Management Agency for the Financial Year 2000–01 are set out in the table.

  Key Target 2—training places

  The number of training course places provided

  Target

  Key Target 2b—training places (ground)

  RAF Pre-Employment and Career Development Training

  31,607

  1RN, Army Central Flying School RAF Refresher

  2Foreign and Commonwealth courses

  Key Target 3—quality of output

  KT3—quality of output

  Target

  Satisfaction with the quality of graduate trainees as measured by the Agency's customer satisfaction matrix

  Satisfactory Rating

  Key Target 4—cost management

  KT4—cost management

  Target

  Output based management

  Deliver restricted Prototype of a Financial Management and Accounting system

  Airborne Early Warning Capability
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to acquire a future naval airborne early warning capability; and if he will make a statement. [129228]

  Dr. Moonie
  We plan to acquire a Future Organic Airborne Early Warning (FOAEW) system to replace the capability currently provided by Sea King airborne early warning helicopters. FOAEW will operate from
  449W
  the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) and complement the deployment of the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). It will mount powerful radar systems to provide wide sensor coverage against both air and surface threats, and command and control for operations by the carrier air group. Expressions of interest for participation in the programme were sought from industry in February 2000. The planned in-service date for FOAEW is 2012.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea King airborne early warning variants are in service; how old they are; and how many are operationally available. [129229]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are 13 Sea King Airborne Early Warning helicopters in service. Of these, nine are operationally available, with the remainder undergoing major maintenance programmes and a capability upgrade. Ten of the airframes were first delivered to the Royal Navy between 1969 and 1971 and converted to the Airborne Early Warning variant between 1982 and 1987. The other three airframes first entered Service as in between 1985 and 1986, being converted during 1997 and 1998.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to withdraw the(a) Sea King airborne early warning and (b) Type 22 Batch II frigates from service. [129230]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently no plans to withdraw the Sea King Airborne Early Warning (Mk 2/7) aircraft from service.

  Plans for the withdrawal from service of the Type 22 Batch 2 frigates currently in service are as follows:

  HMS Sheffield
  2012—to be superseded by a T45 Destroyer

  HMS Coventry
  2001—to be superseded by HMS St. Albans, a T23 Frigate.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the Type 23 Frigates are due for refit in the next 12 months. [129231]

  Dr. Moonie
  One Type 23 Frigate, HMS Iron Duke, is due to start refit at Rosyth Royal Dockyard in spring 2001.

  RAF Aircraft
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the Royal Air Force's total inventory of Tornado F3s; and how many are operationally available; [128708]

  (2) what is the Royal Air Force's total inventory of (a) Harrier GR7s, (b) Tornado GR1s and (c) Jaguar GR1s; and how many in (a), (b)and (c)are operationally available; [128706]

  (3) how many Tornado GR4s are in operational service; [128705]

  (4) how many (a) Tornado GR1, (b) Tornado F3 and (c) Jaguar GR1 are held in reserve; and how long it would take for the aircraft in (a), (b) and (c) to be returned to front-line duties; [128707]
  450W
  (5) how many Nimrod MR2s are (a) in service, (b) operationally available and (c) in the process of being upgraded to MR4 standard. [128703]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is detailed in the table:

  Aircraft type

  Total RAF inventory

  Operating fleet1

  Sustainment fleet2

  Aircraft in storage

  Tornado F3

  3138

  85

  29

  —

  Tornado GR1

  110

  73

  436

  1

  Tornado GR4

  64

  52

  512

  —

  Jaguar GR1/GR3/GR3A

  698

  38

  7

  12

  Harrier GR7

  75

  52

  723

  —

  Nimrod MR2

  822

  18

  4

  —

  1Aircraft available to operational commanders

  2Aircraft needed to sustain operations through major maintenance and upgrades

  324 Tornado F3 currently not required by the RAF are on loan to the Italian Air Force

  420 of these GR1 currently in conversion to GR4

  5Three of these GR4 aircraft are on loan to DERA for trials

  641 Jaguar GR1 are used as Ground Instructional Aircraft and are not available to fly

  7Four of these Harrier GR7 are on loan to DERA for trials

  8The Nimrod MR2s will be replaced by 21 Nimrod MRA4. Six airframes are currently in conversion to MRA4

  The degree of operational urgency and availability of resources would dictate the time it would take to restore Tornado and Jaguar airframes in storage to front-line duties.

  Belize
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of military assistance to Belize was in each year since 1992. [129078]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost of military assistance provided by the Ministry of Defence to Belize has been as follows:

  Financial Year

  £000

  1992–93

  542

  1993–94

  793

  1994–95

  806

  1995–96

  835

  1996–97

  502

  1997–98

  272

  1998–99

  213

  1999–2000

  275

  Note:

  Provisional estimate

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also provided military assistance through the supply of non-lethal equipment under the Belize Defence Aid Fund (BELDA) and military training under the UK Military Training Assistance Scheme (UKMTAS) and its successor Assistance to Support Stability with In-Service Training (ASSIST). The allocations for these funds were as follows:

  £000

  Financial Year

  BELDA

  UKMTAS/ASSIST

  1992–93

  450

  475

  1993–94

  400

  260

  1994–95

  400

  325

  1995–96

  400

  325

  1996–97

  350

  325

  451W

  £000

  Financial Year

  BELDA

  UKMTAS/ASSIST

  1997–98

  300

  300

  1998–99

  250

  240

  1999–2000

  200

  200

  SIFF Programme
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Successor SIFF programme, indicating when a final decision will be made. [129388]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 4 July 2000,Official Report column 127W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.

  RAF Mildenhall
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Polish contractors were invited to bid for work on a support centre at RAF Mildenhall; and what reasons underlay the decision to include these contractors in the bidding process. [129403]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: Two Polish contractors, Exbud Joint Stock Company and Mostostal Zabrze Holding, were invited to tender for the contract to provide an Operations Support Centre at RAF Mildenhall.

  The reasons for including these firms in the bidding process stem from Poland's membership of NATO.

  The Support Centre at RAF Mildenhall has been identified as being eligible for NATO funding under NATO's Security Investment Programme (NSIP). The contract for this work has been opened to International Competitive Bidding (ICB).

  Under ICB arrangements, firms nominated by NATO member nations that contribute to the NSIP funding must be invited to tender for the work.

  The two firms in question were nominated by the Polish Embassy in London and invited to bid.

  During the tender period both Exbud and Mostostal Zabrze declined to tender.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to the Meteorological Office of the recruitment campaign undertaken in late 1999 and January seeking extra observers, including the cost of press advertisements. [129453]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mr. James Wallace, dated 11 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost to The Met. Office of the recruitment campaign undertaken in late 1999 and January seeking extra observers. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of The Met. Office.
  The cost of the campaign, including the cost of press advertisement, was £26,340.

  Submarines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the location and operational status is of each of the Royal Navy's(a) Trafalgar Class and (b) Swiftsure Class submarines. [129858]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) Of the Royal Navy's seven Trafalgar Class submarines, three are operationally available and four are in refit, extended maintenance or repair.

  (b) Of the RN's five Swiftsure Class, three are operationally available and two are in refit, extended maintenance or repair.

  Class

  Operational or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training

  Undergoing refit, extended maintenance or repair

  Swiftsure

  Sovereign

  Sceptre (Rosyth)

  Splendid

  Spartan (Rosyth)

  Superb

  Trafalgar

  Trafalgar

  Talent (Devonport)

  Triumph

  Tireless (Gibraltar)

  Turbulent

  Torbay (Devonport)

  Trenchant (Devonport)

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

  Balkans
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the proportion of cluster munitions dropped by the RAF in Kosovo that failed to explode. [129934]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 59W.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what money has been allocated to the clearance of unexploded ordnance, with particular reference to cluster munitions dropped by the RAF in Kosovo. [129936]

  Mr. Spellar
  While British forces continue to play a part—particularly in the clearance of unexploded ordnance—clear-up and reconstruction after a conflict are matters for civil agencies within the international community rather than specifically for the Ministry of Defence.

  The Department for International Development provided more than £7 million during the 1999–2000 financial year for the clearance of mines and unexploded ordnance in Kosovo. So far, a further £6.6 million has been committed in the current financial year.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army reservists in total have served in Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania since the beginning of the conflict there last year. [129935]
  453W
  Mr. Spellar
  Since December 1998, we have mobilised 555 members of the Territorial Army and 253 Regular Reservists for service in Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania, making a total of 808 reservists.

  Ceremonial
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of(a) Trooping the Colour and (b) Beating the Retreat in formulating his policy on each ceremony. [128808]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: The Trooping of the Colour is a birthday parade laid on by the Household Division for Her Majesty the Queen as their Sovereign and Colonel in Chief. Beating the Retreat raises funds for service charities. Both events are a traditional display of pageantry and the excellent skills of our service personnel and increase the standing and esteem of the armed forces in the eyes of the public.

  These are important factors in our current planning for armed forces events to be held in London annually from 2001 onwards.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2000,Official Report, column 408W, on departmental vehicles, if he will list the number of (a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles by make and model. [129075]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have arranged for a list showing the number of vehicles by make to be placed in the Library of the House. A further breakdown of the 23,000 vehicles by model could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  SA80 Refit
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reasons have been given by Heckler and Koch for the SA80 refit to be carried out in Germany. [129665]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: Royal Ordnance submitted a bid to the Ministry of Defence on the basis that the bulk of the modification programme should be carried out at Heckler and Koch's Obendorf facility where the original modifications were designed and implemented. The company has indicated that to carry out the modification work elsewhere would require it to invest in the acquisition of new specialist tooling equipment and the transfer of technical expertise from Obendorf, and maintains that conducting the modification work there represents the lowest risk to the timescale and cost of the programme. Equally, early indications are that work on stripping and refurbishment of weapons prior to modification could most sensibly be done in the UK.

  General Purpose Machine Gun
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current timescale is for phasing out the use of the General Purpose Machine Gun. [129667]
  454W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) in the Light Role is due to be withdrawn from service in 2015; those variants that are mounted onto vehicles or helicopters will be withdrawn in line with the relevant out of service date for the platform.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the facilities(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere which (i)manufacture the general purpose machine gun barrel and (ii) are capable of manufacturing the general purpose machine gun barrel. [129668]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: In the UK, the Nottingham Small Arms Factory, which trades as H&K UK Ltd. located within RO Nottingham, is capable of manufacturing the general purpose machine gun (GPMG) barrel. Elsewhere, the Heckler and Koch (H&K) facility at Oberndorf, Germany and the Fabrique Nationale (FN) facility at Herstal, Belgium also have the capability to manufacture the GPMG barrel.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many general purpose machine guns(a) are in service and (b) were received into service in each of the last five years. [129666]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: There are currently some 11,300 general purpose machine guns (GPMG) in service. No purchases of the GPMG have been made in any of the last five years.

  Small Arms
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities in the United Kingdom are capable of high volume production of small arms at short notice; and of these, which have test and range facilities. [129664]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the 1994 Chinook crash, (1) what assessment he has made of the state of health of Flight Lieutenant Tapper(a) five minutes, (b) four minutes, (c) three minutes, (d) two minutes and (e) one minute before the crash; [129288]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the state of health of Flight Lieutenant Cook (a) five minutes, (b) four minutes, (c) three minutes, (d) two minutes and (e) one minute before the crash. [129289]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF Board of Inquiry determined that Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook were free from emotional stress, and were well rested and physically fit prior to commencing duty on 2 June 1994. A complete medical examination of their bodies was carried out after the crash by a team headed by a consultant forensic pathologist. This showed that both were in good health and had taken neither alcohol nor drugs. Nothing was found to suggest that an explosion or any noxious agent played any part in the accident. The Board of Inquiry concluded that the mental and physical state of Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook was most unlikely to have been a factor in the accident.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pesticides
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice to local education authorities and to schools his Department has given on the use of the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos in proprietary products. [129992]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: Proprietary insecticides whose active ingredient is Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate, continue to be available for use within schools and in school grounds. However, the HSE/DETR, MAFF and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides are currently looking at the implications for the use of these products in the UK, following the recent American restrictions on their use.

  The precautionary procedures for dealing with risks from pesticides do not depend on special instructions being issued to schools. They rely on: approved uses for products; instructions for use, on the product and the packaging; and the design of suitable containers for the products.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 16 and 17-year-old parents(a) have taken and (b) are taking part in the education maintenance allowance pilots following the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit report, "Teenage Pregnancy", in June 1999. [129254]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: This information is not available at the present time. There is no special treatment of teenage parents in the main EMA pilots, but the evaluation should provide an indication of the numbers involved and will provide an assessment of any factors which are particularly relevant to teenage parents. The first results from this evaluation should be available towards the end of this year. Also, from September, two of the 15 original EMA pilot areas (Stoke-on-Trent and Cornwall) will test out additional flexibilities intended to help teenage parents participate in education, while still maintaining the 'something for something' principle.

  Residential Care Homes
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment with what frequency residential care homes are subject to Ofsted inspections; and what the Chief Inspector's assessment is of the educational standards of residential care establishments. [129771]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Ofsted inspects and reports upon residential independent schools catering for pupils with special educational needs, which are registered as schools and children's homes, at least once in a six-year period. At the request of the Social Services Inspectorate, Ofsted participates in inspections of Secure Units, which take place at intervals of approximately three years. Ofsted does not inspect the education provided in other types of residential care establishments for young people. HM Chief Inspector's annual report for 1998–99 contains sections about residential special schools (page 59) and the education of young people in secure accommodation (pages 64–65).

  Ritalin
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance he issues to schools regarding the use of Ritalin; [129957]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the use of Ritalin. [129958]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department and the Department of Health have jointly issued a good practice guide, "Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs", which includes general advice for schools on dealing with medicines safely. It also provides guidance on drawing up individual health care plans for pupils with medical needs, which could include the use of Ritalin if appropriate. My Department has not issued other specific guidance to schools on the use of Ritalin, and we have not received any representations recently on this issue.

  Inner-city Schools
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent steps he has taken to improve standards in inner-city schools. [129439]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 3 July 2000,Official Report, columns 75–76W.

  Bladder Problems (Women)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Women's Unit has to commission research into the effect of bladder problems on the quality of life of women affected by the condition. [129125]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: The Women's Unit has no plans to commission research into the effect of bladder problems on the quality of life of women affected by the condition.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evidence he has received concerning the number of women over the age of 35 who experience bladder problems; and if he will make a statement. [129124]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: I have not, in my capacity as Minister responsible for Women, received any evidence concerning the number of women over the age of 35 who experience bladder problems. However, the Department of Health statistics show that 68,410 women aged 35 and over with bladder problems were admitted to NHS hospitals in England during the period 1998–99.

  LEA/Constituency Configuration
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which parliamentary constituencies fall within which local education authorities. [129459]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  457W

  LEA name

  Parliamentary constituencies

  City of London

  Cities of London and Westminster

  Camden

  Hampstead and Highgate; Holborn and St. Pancras

  Greenwich

  Eltham; Erith and Thamesmead; Greenwich and Woolwich

  Hackney

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Hackney South and Shoreditch

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hammersmith and Fulham Ealing Acton and Shepherd's Bush

  Islington

  Islington North; Islington South and Finsbury

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kensington and Chelsea; Regent's Park and Kensington North

  Lambeth

  Dulwich and West Norwood; Streatham; Vauxhall

  Lewisham

  Lewisham Deptford; Lewisham East; Lewisham West

  Southwark

  Camberwell and Peckham; Dulwich and West Norwood; Southwark North and Bermondsey

  Tower Hamlets

  Bethnal Green and Bow; Poplar and Canning Town

  Wandsworth

  Battersea; Putney; Tooting

  Westminster

  Cities of London and Westminster; Regents Park and Kensington North

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barking; Dagenham

  Barnet

  Chipping Barnet; Finchley and Golders Green; Hendon

  Bexley

  Bexleyheath and Crayford; Erith and Thamesmead; Old Bexley and Sidcup

  Brent

  Brent East; Brent North; Brent South

  Bromley

  Beckenham; Bromley and Chislehurst; Orpington

  Croydon

  Croydon Central; Croydon North; Croydon South

  Ealing

  Ealing Acton and Shepherd's Bush; Ealing North; Ealing Southall

  Enfield

  Edmonton; Enfield North; Enfield Southgate

  Haringey

  Hornsey and Wood Green; Tottenham

  Harrow

  Harrow East; Harrow West

  Havering

  Hornchurch; Romford; Upminster

  Hillingdon

  Hayes and Harlington; Ruislip-Northwood; Uxbridge

  Hounslow

  Brentford and Isleworth; Feltham and Heston

  Kingston upon Thames

  Kingston and Surbiton; Richmond Park

  Merton

  Mitcham and Morden; Wimbledon

  Newham

  East Ham; Poplar and Cannington Town; West Ham

  Redbridge

  Chingford and Woodford Green; Ilford North; Ilford South; Leyton and Wanstead

  Richmond upon Thames

  Richmond Park; Twickenham

  Sutton

  Carshalton and Wallington; Sutton and Cheam

  Waltham Forest

  Chingford and Woodford Green; Leyton and Wanstead; Walthamstow

  Birmingham

  Birmingham Edgbaston; Birmingham Erdington; Birmingham Hall Green; Birmingham Hodge Hill; Birmingham Ladywood; Birmingham Northfield; Birmingham Perry Barr; Birmingham Selly Oak; Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath; Birmingham Yardley; Sutton Coldfield

  Coventry

  Coventry North East; Coventry North West; Coventry South

  Dudley

  Dudley North; Dudley South; Halesowen and Rowley Regis; Stourbridge

  Sandwell

  Halesowen and Rowley Regis; Warley; West Bromwich East; West Bromwich West

  Solihull

  Meriden; Solihull

  Walsall

  Aldridge-Brownhills; Walsall North; Walsall South

  Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton North East; Wolverhampton South East; Wolverhampton South West

  Knowsley

  Knowsley North and Sefton East; Knowsley South

  Liverpool

  Liverpool Garston; Liverpool Riverside; Liverpool Walton; Liverpool Wavertree; Liverpool West Derby

  St. Helens

  St. Helens North; St. Helens South

  Sefton

  Bootle; Crosby; Knowsley North and Sefton East; Southport

  Wirral

  Birkenhead; Wallasey; Wirral South; Wirral West

  Bolton

  Bolton North East; Bolton South East; Bolton West

  Bury

  Bury North; Bury South

  Manchester

  Manchester Blackley; Manchester Central; Manchester Gorton; Manchester Withington; Wythenshawe and Sale East

  Oldham

  Ashton under Lyne; Oldham East and Saddleworth; Oldham West and Royton

  Rochdale

  Heywood and Middleton; Oldham East and Saddleworth; Rochdale

  Salford

  Eccles; Salford; Worsley

  Stockport

  Cheadle; Denton and Reddish; Hazel Grove; Stockport

  Tameside

  Ashton Under Lyne; Denton and Redditch; Stalybridge and Hyde

  Trafford

  Altrincham and Sale West; Stretford and Urmston; Wythenshawe and Sale East

  Wigan

  Leigh; Makerfield; Wigan; Worsley

  Barnsley

  Barnsley Central; Barnsley East and Mexborough; Barnsley West and Penistone

  Doncaster

  Barnsley East and Mexborough; Doncaster Central; Doncaster North; Don Valley

  Rotherham

  Rotherham; Rother Valley; Wentworth

  Sheffield

  Sheffield Attercliffe; Sheffield Brightside; Sheffield Central; Sheffield Hallam; Sheffield Heeley; Sheffield Hillsborough

  Bradford

  Bradford North; Bradford South; Bradford West; Keighley; Shipley

  Calderdale

  Calder Valley; Halifax

  Kirklees

  Batley and Spen; Colne Valley; Dewsbury; Huddersfield; Wakefield

  Leeds

  Elmet; Leeds Central; Leeds East; Leeds North East; Leeds North West; Leeds West; Morley and Rothwell; Pudsey

  Wakefield

  Hemsworth; Normanton; Pontefract and Castleford; Wakefield

  Gateshead

  Blaydon; Gateshead East and Washington West; Jarrow; Tyne Bridge

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central; Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend; Newcastle upon Tyne North; Tyne Bridge

  North Tyneside

  Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend; North Tyneside; Tynemouth

  South Tyneside

  Jarrow; South Shields

  458W 459W

  LEA name

  Parliamentary constituencies

  Sunderland

  Gateshead East and Washington West; Houghton and Washington East; Sunderland North; Sunderland South

  Isles of Scilly

  St. Ives

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bath; Wansdyke

  Bristol, City of

  Bristol East; Bristol North West; Bristol South; Bristol West; Kingswood

  North Somerset

  Weston-super-Mare; Woodspring

  South Gloucestershire

  Bristol North West; Kingswood; Northavon; Wansdyke

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough; Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland; Redcar

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stockton North; Stockton South

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  Hull East, Hull North; Hull West and Hessle

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Beverley and Holderness; Brigg and Goole; East Yorkshire; Haltemprice and Howden; Hull West and Hessle

  North East Lincolnshire

  Cleethorpes; Great Grimsby

  North Lincolnshire

  Brigg and Goole; Cleethorpes; Scunthorpe

  North Yorkshire

  Harrogate and Knaresborough; Richmond; Tyedale; Scarborough and Whitby; Selby; Skipton and Ripon; Vale of York

  York

  Ryedale; Selby; Vale of York; York, City of

  Bedfordshire

  Bedford; Bedfordshire Mid; Bedfordshire North East; Bedfordshire South West; Luton South

  Luton

  Luton North; Luton South

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury; Beaconsfield; Buckingham; Chesham and Amersham; Wycombe

  Milton Keynes

  Milton Keynes North East; Milton Keynes South West

  Derbyshire

  Amber Valley; Bolsover; Chesterfield; Derbyshire North East; Derbyshire South; Derbyshire West; Erewash; High Peak

  Derby

  Derby North; Derby South; Derbyshire South

  Dorset

  Christchurch; Dorset North; Dorset Mid and Poole North; Dorset South; Dorset West

  Poole

  Poole; Dorset Mid and Poole North

  Bournemouth

  Bournemouth East; Bournemouth West

  Durham

  Bishop Auckland; City of Durham; Durham North; Durham North West; Easington; Sedgfield

  Darlington

  Darlington; Sedgefield

  East Sussex

  Bexhill and Battle; Brighton Kemptown; Eastbourne; Hastings and Rye; Lewes; Wealden

  Brighton and Hove

  Brighton Kemptown; Brighton Pavillion; Hove

  Hampshire

  Aldershot; Basingstoke; Eastleigh; Fareham; Gosport; Hampshire East; Hampshire North East; Hampshire North West; Havant; New Forest East; New Forest West; Romsey, Winchester

  Portsmouth

  Portsmouth North, Portsmouth South

  Southampton

  Romsey, Southampton Itchen; Southampton Test

  Leicestershire

  Blaby; Bosworth; Charnwood; Harborough; Leicestershire North West; Loughborough; Rutland and Melton

  Leicester

  Leicester East; Leicester South; Leicester West

  Rutland

  Rutland and Melton

  Staffordshire

  Burton; Cannock Chase; Lichfield; Newcastle-under-Lyme; Stafford; Staffordshire Moorlands; Staffordshire South; Stoke-on-Trent North; Stone; Tamworth

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Stoke-on-Trent Central; Stoke-on-Trent North; Stoke-on-Trent South

  Wiltshire

  Devises; Salisbury; Swindon North; Westbury; Wiltshire North

  Swindon

  Swindon North; Swindon South

  Bracknell Forest

  Bracknell; Windsor

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Maidenhead; Windsor

  West Berkshire

  Newbury; Reading West; Wokingham

  Reading

  Reading East; Reading West

  Slough

  Slough; Windsor

  Wokingham

  Bracknell; Maidenhead; Reading East; Wokingham

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge; Cambridgeshire North East; Cambridgeshire North West; Cambridgeshire South East; Cambridgeshire South; Huntingdon

  Peterborough

  Cambridgeshire North East; Cambridgeshire North West; Peterborough

  Cheshire

  City of Chester; Congleton; Crewe and Nantwich; Eddisbury; Ellesmere Port and Neston; Macclesfield; Tatton; Weaver Vale

  Halton

  Halton; Weaver Vale

  Warrington

  Warrington North; Warrington South

  Devon

  Devon East; Devon North; Devon West and Torridge; Devon South West; Exeter; Plymouth Devonport; Plymouth Sutton; Teignbridge; Tiverton and Honiton; Totnes

  Plymouth

  Devon South West; Plymouth Devonport; Plymouth Sutton

  Torbay

  Torbay; Totnes

  Essex

  Basildon; Billericay; Braintree; Brentwood and Ongar; Castle Point; Chelmsford West; Colchester; Epping Forest; Essex North; Harlow; Harwich; Maldon and East Chelmsford; Rayleigh; Rochford and Southend East; Saffron Walden

  Southend-on-Sea

  Rochford and Southend East; Southend West

  Thurrock

  Basildon; Thurrock

  Herefordshire

  Hereford, Leominster

  Worcestershire

  Bromsgrove; Leominster; Redditch; Worcester; Worcestershire Mid; Worcestershire West; Wyre Forest

  Kent

  Ashford; Canterbury; Chatham and Aylesford; Dartford; Dover; Faversham and Mid Kent; Folkstone and Hythe; Gravesham; Maidstone and the Weald; Sevenoaks; Sittingbourne and Sheppey; Thanet North; Thanet South; Tonbridge and Malling; Tunbridge Wells

  Medway

  Chatham and Aylesford; Gillingham; Medway

  460W 461W

  LEA name

  Parliamentary constituencies

  Lancashire

  Blackpool North and Fleetwood; Burnley; Chorley; Fylde; Hyndburn; Lancaster and Wyre; Lancashire West; Morecambe and Lunesdale; Pendle; Preston; Ribble South; Ribble Valley; Rossendale and Darwen

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn; Rossendale and Darwen

  Blackpool

  Blackpool North and Fleetwood; Blackpool South

  Nottinghamshire

  Ashfield; Bassettlaw; Broxtowe; Gedling; Mansfield; Newark; Rushcliffe; Sherwood

  Nottingham

  Nottingham East; Nottingham North; Nottingham South

  Shropshire

  Ludlow; Shrewsbury and Atcham; Shropshire North; The Wrekin

  Telford and Wrekin

  Telford; The Wrekin

  Cornwall

  Cornwall North; Cornwall South East; Falmouth and Cambourne; St. Ives; Truro and St. Austell

  Cumbria

  Barrow and Furness; Carlisle; Copeland; Penrith and the Border; Westmorland and Lonsdale; Workington

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham; Cotswold; Forest of Dean; Gloucester; Stroud; Tewkesbury

  Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne; Hemel Hempstead; Hertford and Stortford; Hertfordshire North East; Hertfordshire South West; Hertsmere; Hitchin and Harpenden; St. Albans; Stevenage; Watford; Welwyn and Hatfield

  Isle of Wight

  Isle of Wight

  Lincolnshire

  Boston and Skegness; Gainsborough; Grantham and Stamford; Lincoln; Louth and Horncastle; Sleaford and North Hykeham; South Holland and the Deepings

  Norfolk

  Great Yarmouth; Norfolk Mid; Norfolk North; Norfolk North West; Norfolk South; Norfolk South West; Norwich North; Norwich South

  Northamptonshire

  Corby; Daventry; Kettering; Northampton North; Northampton South; Wellingborough

  Northumberland

  Berwick-upon-Tweed; Blyth Valley; Hexam; Wansbeck

  Oxfordshire

  Banbury; Henley; Oxford East; Oxford West and Abingdon; Wantage; Witney

  Somerset

  Bridgewater; Somerton and Frome; Taunton; Wells; Yeovil

  Suffolk

  Bury St. Edmunds; Ipswich; Suffolk Central and Ipswich North; Suffolk Coastal; Suffolk South; Suffolk West; Waveney

  Surrey

  Epsom and Ewell; Esher and Walton; Guildford; Mole Valley; Reigate; Runneymede and Weybridge; Spelthorne; Surrey East; Surrey Heath; Surrey South West Woking

  Warwickshire

  Nuneaton, Rugby and Kenilworth; Stratford-on-Avon; Warwick and Leamington; Warwickshire North

  West Sussex

  Arundel and South Downs; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; Chichester; Crawley; Horsham; Sussex Mid; Worthington East and Shoreham; Worthing West

  Student Drop-outs
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the drop-out rate was for students on courses of further education in the most recent academic year for which figures are available. [129704]

  Mr. Wicks
  Published figures are in terms of the median college in-year retention rate, which in 1997–98 was 87 per cent. for full-time students and 84 per cent. for part-time students.

  Source:

  "Performance Indicators 1997–98: Further Education College in England", Further Education Funding Council, September 1999.

  Standards Funds
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he will ensure that education authorities which have a below average Standard Spending Assessment per pupil are able to take full advantage of the money offered through the Standards Fund. [129696]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For 2000–01, local education authorities have now accepted over 98 per cent. of the allocations offered to them through the Standards Fund. Most authorities accepted their allocations in full, including authorities that have below average standard spending assessments per pupil. The requirement for authorities to contribute to the Standards Fund was allowed for in the 5.4 per cent. increase in education Standard Spending Assessment. In addition, schools have received a share of the £290 million funding increase announced in the budget to further drive up standards, and benefit from their share of the £50 million extra in grant 462W
  for general support of school budgets announced in November. Since 1997, spending per pupil has increased £300 in real terms.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what monitoring is undertaken of Private Finance Initiative contracts for(a) schools, (b) further education colleges and (c) higher education institutions; and if he will make a statement. [129203]

  Mr. Wicks
  Responsibility for monitoring PH projects lies with the relevant procuring body. For schools, monitoring is the responsibility of local education authorities or other procuring bodies. The Department informs the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about services and payments arising from new projects, so that the overall level of revenue commitments can be monitored.

  The Further Education Funding Council supports colleges in developing projects and monitors educational achievement, financial returns and the efficient use of property. The Higher Education Funding Council for England monitors progress by requiring higher education institutions to submit progress reports on PFI contracts as part of their annual financial forecasts.

  The Department works closely with LEAs and the Funding Councils to ensure that procedures are in place to monitor progress and value for money effectively.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters to him of 14 April,
  463W
  11 May, 8 June and 6 July, relating to her constituent, the Secretary of the East Hertfordshire Branch of the National Union of Teachers. [130117]

  Mr. Wills
  A reply will be issued today.

  Undergraduates
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many home-domiciled applicants aged under 21 there were to(a) full-time and (b) sandwich undergraduate courses in each of the last three years; and how many acceptances there were onto such courses, indicating (i)the proportion of the age group in each socio-economic group this represents and (ii) the proportion of acceptances that were (A)to former polytechnics and (B)accepted in an institution in the locality of the applicant's home address. [127724]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Applicants and acceptances to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Home domiciled students aged under 21

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Applicants

  300,926

  303,729

  306,809

  Acceptances

  237,519

  239,663

  245,626

  Percentage of acceptances to former polytechnics

  35.2

  35.5

  35.1

  Percentage of acceptances to institutions in the applicant's home region1

  42.2

  42.3

  43.5

  Participation rates by social class2

  Non-manual household head4

  48

  45

  345–46

  Manual household head5

  18

  17

  317–18

  1Based on Standard Statistical Regions in 1997 and Government office Regions in 1998 and 1999. Data at a more disaggregated geographical level are not available centrally.

  2Derived from the number of initial entrants to full-time undergraduate courses and population data from the 1991 census.

  3Provisional estimates.

  4Social Classes, I, II, IIIN (Professional, Intermediate, Skilled non-manual).

  5Classes IIIM, IV, V (Skilled manual, Partly skilled, Unskilled).

  The social class mix of the underlying population is taken directly from the 1991 Census. Over time this approach becomes less reliable, particularly at a disagreggated level and the social class groupings have therefore been aggregated.

  Over the period shown, participation rates of young people by social class have fluctuated in line with overall participation. These overall trends in part reflect a large increase in the size of the age-group and the decision by some students to pull forward their year of entry to higher education from 1998 to 1997 in advance of the introduction of fees. Over the same period the proportion of young students who come from the lower social classes (HIM, IV, V) has remained constant at around 27 per cent. and the proportion who come from the higher social classes (I, II, IIIN) has remained at around 73 per cent.

HEALTH

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities fall within which parliamentary constituencies. [129460]

  Ms Stuart
  A copy of the information available has been placed in the Library. The information refers only to England and does not contain a direct mapping of constituency to trust, only health authority to trust and health authority to constituency.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases his Department has issued in the first six months of the present year. [130188]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department has issued 395 press releases in the first six months of the present year.

  Osteopathy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements will be made to support students(a) financially and (b) otherwise in obtaining a professionally recognised osteopathy qualification who are currently students at the John Wernham College of Classical Osteopathy; [130017]

  (2) how many students will be affected by the decision of the General Osteopathic Council to refuse accreditation to (a) the John Wernham College of Classical Osteopathy and (b) similar colleges in the UK; [130015]

  (3) how many vacancies exist in the UK on osteopathy courses accredited by the General Osteopathic Council; [130016]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the General Osteopathic Council regarding the decision to refuse accreditation to the John Wernham College of Classical Osteopathy; and if he will make a statement. [130013]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have had no discussions with the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) on these matters. Under the Osteopaths Act 1993, the GOsC may formally recognise osteopathic qualifications for the purposes of statutory registration with the approval of the Privy Council. However, the Act does not require the GOsC to seek the approval of the Privy Council for any decision it makes not to recognise a qualification. I understand that the John Wernham College of Classical Osteopathy has been given leave to apply for a judicial review of GOsC's decision in its case.

  The Department has been informed that some 75 students at the John Wernham College are likely to be affected by the GOsC's decision not to recognise its qualification. The college, and its validating body the North East Surrey College of Technology, are responsible for advising and assisting those students. The GOsC has no statutory duty to assist students in these circumstances but has requested that all schools of osteopathy applying to have their qualifications recognised prepare a contingency plan in the event that their applications are unsuccessful. It is now trying to assist the John Wernham College to activate its contingency plan.
  465W
  The GOsC has recognised osteopathic qualifications provided by five other schools. The Department has been informed that these currently cater for around 850 students in total but the Department does not have information on any vacancies that may exist.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Lightbulbs
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what percentage of lightbulbs used in the House are low energy. [129379]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Some 75 per cent. of lightbulbs on the parliamentary estate are of the low energy type. More light fittings will be adapted for low energy lightbulbs during the Summer Adjournment as part of a continuing exercise.

  Recycling
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee in what location in the House waste paper for recycling is sorted from other waste. [129383]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Under the present waste disposal contract, Vote Office waste paper is recycled and other waste paper is incinerated to generate electricity for the national grid; competitive tendering showed that it would cost an additional £250,000 to separate more waste paper for recycling. The Accommodation and Works Committee has, however, resolved that the issue should be considered again when the contracts are next retendered.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans there are to introduce facilities for the recycling of(a) plastics, (b) aluminium and steel and (c) glass in the House. [129377]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The House has a contract with London Waste Ltd. for waste disposal. As part of the disposal process, the company recovers ferrous and non-ferrous metals for recycling; glass is also recycled separately. General kitchen waste and packaging are incinerated, generating electricity for the national grid.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what percentage of electricity used in the House is supplied from renewable sources. [129378]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  At present none of the energy used in the House is from renewable sources. Power for the House is purchased in the competitive market on the basis of lowest price, and energy from renewable sources has proved more expensive in the past. It is the intention to obtain prices for renewable energy as part of the exercise to renew contracts for electricity supplies later this year.

  Annunciators
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many annunciators there are in the House. [129380]
  466W
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  There are 900 annunciators in the Palace of Westminster, and 1,718 on the Parliamentary estate as a whole.

  Paper
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) what was the volume of paper provided by the House in each of the last three years; [129381]

  (2) what percentage of paper provided by the House in the last 12 months was made from recycled paper. [129382]

  Mrs. Roe
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Organic Food and Drink
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what percentage of food and drink served in the House is organic. [129376]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  The House of Commons Refreshment Department does not compile any statistics on the quantity of organic food and drink purchased or sold through its catering operations. The Department is a member of the Soil Association and recognises the significant demand for organic produce. Last year the Department introduced, on a trial basis, an organic menu in the Members' Dining Room. While indisputably popular with its customers, the menu was reluctantly discontinued as a consequence of the inconsistent availability and quality of supply, and the high cost of such produce. The Department now pursues a policy of purchasing organic produce or ingredients wherever consistent availability and quality can be guaranteed by suppliers, and where it is judged that the price to be passed on to the Department's customers is affordable.

  Environmental Performance
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what(a) measures and (b) targets have been established relating to the use by the House of Commons' of resources and the Government's targets for environmental performance. [129317]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Parliamentary Works Directorate is preparing to operate an environmental management system under ISO 14001. Using the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) methodology, which was recently promulgated, measurements are being made of the percentage of our total office waste which is recovered. Targets for improvement are then to be set. Energy usage is closely monitored and significant savings will be achieved when Portcullis House is occupied and other buildings are vacated.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by her Department in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i)goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130037]
  467W
  Clare Short
  In line with Treasury guidance my Department's standard payment terms commit us to paying bills within 30 days of receipt of the goods or services or the presentation of a valid invoice, whichever is the later. The percentage of invoices settled within the 30 day period during the last financial year was 96.8 per cent. The comparable figure for 1998–99 was 96.3 per cent. We do not generally enter into different payment terms.

  Bangladesh
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if Bangladesh qualifies for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative. [129595]

  Clare Short
  From the latest information available, Bangladesh's debt sustainability ratios are below the minimum thresholds used by the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, which means that it would not qualify for debt relief.

  For a country to receive HIPC debt relief, it requires not only unsustainable levels of debt, but also a commitment to poverty reduction and reform. In the case of Bangladesh, any consideration of debt relief would be likely to require further progress in areas such as public expenditure allocations on essential services for poor people, measures to improve the quality of public services, improving revenue administration, and a serious start on structural measures such as financial sector and public enterprise reform.

  Our substantial aid programme to Bangladesh—£65 million in 1999–2000—focuses on promoting the reduction of poverty both directly and by addressing constraints on faster pro-poor growth and improved governance.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of her Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129615]

  Clare Short
  My Department has no telephone lines used by the general public that are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many agencies of her Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129632]

  Clare Short
  This Department does not have any agencies.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the prospects for inward investment to Wales; and if he will make a statement. [129499]
  468W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of topics including the prospects for inward investment to Wales.

  Wales continues to do well in attracting inward investment, but cannot afford to be complacent in the face of increasingly severe competition. Every effort is being made to raise awareness of Wales and to improve the potential for investment. The National Assembly, Welsh Development Agency and others will continue to keep existing measures under review. I believe that this will place Wales in a good position to exploit all opportunities for securing future investment.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the PFI contracts entered into by the Welsh Office prior to July 1999, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if his Office has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129060]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is as follows:

  OSIRIS—IT Network

  (a) June 1996

  (b) £48 million

  (c) No

  (d) Not applicable

  A55 Anglesey Dualling

  (a) December 1998

  (b) £110 million

  (c) No

  (d) Not applicable.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [129477]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  From 1989 to 1 July 1999 it was not the policy of the Welsh Office to write annually to members of staff who pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions.

  The Wales Office does not currently have any staff who pay such a reduced rate, but it is intended that an office notice will be issued annually, to remind any member of staff who may be paying reduced rates of the necessity of informing Personnel of any change in circumstances.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i)goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130044]
  469W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The percentage of currently presented bills paid by my Department within 30 days of receipt of the valid invoice or the satisfactory receipt of goods/services, whichever was the later, or the agreed contractual terms if otherwise specified, was(a) 97 per cent. for 1989–99 and (b) 97 per cent. for 1999–2000.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Saudi Oil
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the oil trade component in the A1 Yamamah agreements with Saudi Arabia; and what assessment he has made of the impact of oil price changes on those arrangements with Saudi Arabia since 1985. [129362]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Research Council Public Understanding Spend

  £million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  BBSRC

  0.28

  0.32

  0.40

  0.40

  0.60

  0.80

  EPSRC

  0.55

  0.93

  0.93

  0.93

  0.93

  0.93

  ESRC

  —

  —

  0.53

  0.59

  0.54

  0.75

  MRC

  0.10

  0.30

  0.20

  0.33

  0.66

  0.51

  NERC

  0.16

  0.16

  0.14

  0.23

  0.15

  0.15

  PPARC

  0.20

  0.20

  0.32

  0.33

  0.44

  0.53

  Total

  1.29

  1.91

  2.52

  2.81

  3.32

  3.67

  In the case of MRC and ESRC these figures also include some public relations activity not accounted for separately.

  These figures do not include public understanding work undertaken by Research Council grant holders as a condition of their grant, as figures on this activity are generally not available. However, as an example, BBSRC estimates that the value of such activity undertaken by its own grant holders totals at least £3 million per annum. The figures also exclude the significant amount of activity undertaken by Research Council funded institutes/centres, figures for which are not available centrally.

  Engineering
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) steps he has taken and (b) funding has been allocated to promote (i)science engineering and (ii) other science activities to (A)children and (B)the public in each year since 1994. [128277]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is a great deal of activity led by industrial interests and charities to which the Government's efforts are complementary. The Government support a range of activities to promote science and engineering to children and the general public. We also consider that it is important to do more than promote science and engineering, and takes steps to involve the public over major scientific issues and to increase the opportunities for dialogue. Except for some very specific activities, it is
  470W
  Details of the funding arrangements under the A1 Yamamah agreements are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and I am therefore withholding that information under the provisions of Exemption 1 of Part II of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information. However, the funding arrangements of the A1 Yamamah programme are kept under review by both the Ministry of Defence and the Saudi Arabian Government and adjustments have been made periodically in response to prevailing economic conditions.

  Research Councils
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money each research council allocated to the public understanding of science in each year since 1994. [128278]

  Ms Hewitt
  Research Council expenditure on public understanding of science activities in the years 1994–95 to 1999–2000 was as follows:

  not practicable to provide accurate total costings of promotional activities or to provide a breakdown for the cost of activities aimed at children.

  My Department's largest investment is through the Science Budget grant-aided activities of the Research Councils, who all have science promotion as one of their responsibilities. Estimates of expenditure by the Research Councils are given in answer to the preceding question. The Royal Society also undertakes activities in this area some of which are grant-aided from the Science Budget at about £1 million per annum, and supports among other things the activities of COPUS.

  The Department also administers two main programmes. A general programme administered by the Office of Science and Technology (OST), provides core funding to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and funds the BA's co-ordination of National Science Week. It also provides additional support for the COPUS grants scheme, including its projects aimed specifically at promoting SET for women and ethnic minorities, and funds innovative projects aimed at bringing science to a wider audience through, for example, drama, art, and the Internet. In order to gain a better understanding of the public's attitudes to science, the OST also funded last year's 'Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences', and this year, in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, has undertaken a survey looking at public attitudes to science in the UK. The OST's budget for these activities in 1994–95 was £1.0 million, and has since risen to an average of £1.25 million per annum.
  471W
  The second main programme, supported from the Department's Innovation Budget specifically supports engineering and has had several manifestations since 1994. They include:
  The Action for Engineering (AfE) Initiative ran from October 1994 to June 1996. AfE brought together 125 people representing industry, education, the engineering profession and Government to take co-ordinated action to increase substantially the influence, involvement and achievement of professional engineers for the benefit of British industry. A total of £820,000 was spent under this programme over the period 1994 to 1999.
  One of the key outcomes of AfE was the establishment of the Science Engineering Technology Mathematics Network (SETNET), which has the objective of bringing coherence and co-ordination to the many schemes and resources aimed at fostering the teaching and learning of engineering related subjects (the sciences, mathematics, design and technology) in schools. In the period 1996–99, SETNET received funding of half a million pounds. A further £260,000 has been committed in this financial year to enable SETNET to plan for expansion of its network of SETpoints.
  The Year of Engineering Success (YES), which followed AfE in January 1997, was an industry led initiative that received some £520,000 in Government support. It was aimed at increasing the awareness of the vital contribution of engineering to the nation's success and prosperity, through an ambitious public participation exercise during the calendar year 1997.
  The Campaign to Promote Engineering (CPE) was formally launched in July 1998 following the conclusion of the YES. Funding of up to £425,000 per annum was approved in February 1999 for an initial three years with an option for a further two years after review.

  The various scientific advisory bodies, including those that fall within my Department's responsibilities all see engagement of the general public as an important part of their activities, and the Chief Scientific Adviser's Guidelines on the use of scientific advice in policy-making stress the importance of transparency.

  "Made in Britain"
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what "Made in Britain" emblems are available from his Department to British companies to mark the country of origin of their products. [125677]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]: None.

  Royal Mail
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the disruption to post for businesses as a result of recent industrial action at Royal Mail offices in North London; and if he will make a statement. [130187]

  Mr. Byers
  This is an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding Royal Mail's decision to cease the use of private motor vehicles for delivery; and what assessment he has made of its impact upon service in rural areas. [129983]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: I have received no representations on this matter. Such decisions are an operational matter for the Post Office. I understand that Royal Mail does not plan any deliveries on the basis of the use of private cars and that all deliveries have a designated mode of official transport.
  472W
  However, some employees have preferred to use their own private vehicles to travel to and from their deliveries. I understand that a pilot scheme to discontinue the use of private motor vehicles on delivery has had no impact on service.

  Japanese Automotive Companies
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence underlay the statement in his Department's recent memorandum to the Trade and Industry Committee concerning the total amount of inward investment in the UK planned by Japanese automotive companies. [130047]

  Ms Hewitt
  The total amount of inward investment in the UK referred to in the memorandum represents commitments made by Japanese automotive companies in manufacturing facilities in the UK, some of which has yet to be spent.

  Vehicle Manufacturing
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence underlay the statement in his Department's recent memorandum to the Trade and Industry Committee on the competitive environment for vehicle manufacturing in the UK. [130046]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The recent problems at BMW and Ford are not indicative of the general state of the UK vehicle manufacturing industry. The evidence points to a robust UK vehicle manufacturing industry: in 1999 car exports at 1.1 million were the highest ever; UK sales were the 4th highest on record and UK car production at its highest level since 19721.

  Significant new investment continues, with c£2.0 billion worth of capital expenditure and c8,000 new jobs announced since 1997. This year alone (2000) GM/ Vauxhall has announced a £189 million investment plan for its three UK plants and Honda £130 million for the modernisation of its manufacturing line at Swindon.

  We consider that this demonstrates that a positive environment exists in the UK in which to do business.
  1Source:
  SMMT

  Post Offices
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 22W, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) how many post offices there are in each constituency; and how many of them are operating unprofitably in each constituency. [130050]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the information given in the answer to the hon. Member for Erdington on 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 22W, remains the most recent data available on the number of post offices in each parliamentary constituency.

  I would also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 5 July 2000, Official Report, column 210W.

  BNFL
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the MOX fuel supplied to Japan by BNFL in respect of which data had been falsified. [130369]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am pleased that agreement on a resolution to this problem has today been reached. BNFL has agreed that it should bring back to the UK the fuel at Takahama in Japan. BNFL's Japanese customer, Kansai Electric Power Company, has today announced that it has lifted the moratorium that it imposed on BNFL on 17 January this year on new reprocessing and MOX business with Japan.

  The Government have long recognised that finding a solution to this problem, while primarily a matter between the two companies, gave rise to various inter-government issues, including on implementation of the return of fuel. These considerations are set out in an agreement that the Government have today signed with the Government of Japan. There are two aspects to this inter-governmental agreement, an understanding based on our discussions with the Government of Japan, and a letter from my Department to Kansai Electric Power Company. Both documents are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what operational targets he has set for the Small Business Service for 2000–01. [130370]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Business Service (SBS) was established on 1 April. The Framework Document, which sets out the relationship between the SBS and the Department of Trade and Industry, has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  I have agreed with David Irwin, the Chief Executive, that the mission of the SBS should be to build an enterprise society in which all small businesses thrive and achieve their potential.

  The aims of the SBS are:

  To help all small businesses realise their potential;

  To promote world class business support to enhance the performance of small firms with growth potential;

  To help promote enterprise across society and particularly in under-represented groups and disadvantaged communities; and

  To achieve the highest standards of service delivery and provide value for money.

  I expect the SBS to review its plans regularly in response to the needs of small businesses, particularly in its first year of operation. In line with the request for all Agencies to be given operational targets, I have set the following targets for the 2000–01 year:

  Operational Targets

  150,000 individuals and businesses to use SBS services each quarter;

  80 per cent. of customers to be satisfied;

  SBS service standards to be published by September 2000;

  Review business support services and publish the results by December 2000;

  Establish an index of the impact of regulation on small businesses by December 2000;

  474W

  45 franchises to be established by April 2001;

  Establish the Information and Advisory Service, including systems to allow on-line transactions and notification of regulation to small businesses by April 2001.

  Finance

  100 per cent. of valid invoices paid within 30 days.

  Questions Delegated to the Chief Executive

  Chief Executive to reply to all letters within 10 working days, including letters from MPs delegated to him for reply.

  Investors in People

  SBS Agency to achieve its own recognition as an Investor in People by 31 March 2001.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce a small business employers' charter stipulating the rights of employers. [129954]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have no plans to introduce an employers' charter as described.

  The European Charter for Small Enterprises, agreed last month at the Feira Council, set out a number of commitments to help small businesses. Areas for action, both at the European and member state level, include improving access to finance, enhancing business support, better regulation and strengthening innovation and entrepreneurship. These actions are designed to ensure that small businesses thrive in the European Union and that it becomes the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

  Petroleum Prices
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 298W, on petroleum prices, what recent discussions he has had with the petroleum industry on the supply of petroleum to the United Kingdom market; what assessment he has made of the statement made by OPEC in Vienna on 21 June that the high level of crude oil prices was in part a consequence of market speculation; and if he will make a statement. [129303]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Officials in my Department meet regularly with Oil Industry representatives. A number of factors are influencing crude oil and product prices at the current time. Market speculation is always one of these.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 298W, on petroleum prices in the United Kingdom, what recent discussions he has had with OPEC regarding increases in production. [129301]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are not a member of OPEC and have no direct contact with it. Through membership of the International Energy Agency we do, however, engage in and encourage dialogue between groups of oil consuming and oil producing countries on matters of common interest.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 298W, on petroleum prices, what assessment he has made of when the OPEC decision of 21 June, to increase production to above pre-March 1999 levels with effect from 1 July, will be reflected in petroleum prices in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [129302]
  475W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Petrol prices, which were rising for a variety of reasons not limited to the price of crude oil, are expected to ease soon. The OPEC decision of 21 June has not yet had an impact on crude oil prices and the timing of any reduction remains unclear.

  Internet Access
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the population of each county in Wales has access to the internet. [129752]

  Ms Hewitt
  Figures are not available for individual counties in Wales. However, figures from the Family Expenditure Survey show that 15 per cent. of households in Wales could access the internet from a home computer, averaged over the financial year 1999–2000, up from 7 per cent. in the previous year.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to publish information on the civil plutonium inventory. [129968]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Figures for the United Kingdom's civil plutonium holdings are published by my Department each year and are placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The most recent were published on 13 June 2000 covering holdings at 31 December 1999.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment(a) his Department, (b) consultants to his Department and (c) non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department have made of electrometallurgical techniques to process spent nuclear fuel as developed in the (i)United States and (ii) Russia. [129966]

  Mrs. Liddell
  DTI has made no assessment of electrometallurgical techniques to process spent nuclear fuels, nor have we commissioned consultants to do so. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, a non-departmental body reporting to DTI, recently considered pyrometallurgical processing (developed in the United States) as a potential technology for the future management of nuclear fuels at its Dounreay site. It concluded that the technology was not a practicable option for dealing with the non-metallic fuels at Dounreay, and that the waste products might not be acceptable in the UK without further treatment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Moluccas
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the destruction of the Christian University in the Moluccas. [129457]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 July 2000,Official Report, column 390W. We are disturbed by press reports that State Pattimura University in Ambon has been attacked. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Kashmir
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about physical attacks on the Chairman of the Hurriyat conference in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [129946]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of media reports of an incident involving the Chairman of the all-party Hurriyat conference, Syed Ali Shah Gilani, on 30 June in Kashmir. We condemn all acts of violence and abuses of human rights which bring suffering to the people of Kashmir.

  Greece
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government's assessment of UK threat levels to, and protective measures for, UK diplomatic staff in Greece has changed since the date of its submission on this subject to the Foreign Affairs Committee. [129758]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We increased the level of our threat assessment to British Diplomatic and Military interests throughout mainland Greece in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of Brigadier Saunders. No further change has been made since then. Measures to increase security are being implemented following the visit of a specialist security adviser.

  Community Forums
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Community Forums held by his Department to encourage wider ethnic diversity in the Diplomatic Service. [129929]

  Mr. Hain
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for hosting the successful Community Forum which the Department recently organised in Glasgow. Community Forums enable the Department to reach out to communities that might otherwise not have considered the Foreign Office as a career for their young people. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) hosted a Forum in Leeds yesterday. I am delighted that the Forums, together with other initiatives taken by the Department and which we continue to pursue, have led to a significant increase in the number of applications from members of minority ethnic communities.

  Feira Presidency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library the paper referred to in section II. A. 1 of the first annexe of the Feira Presidency conclusions. [129811]

  Mr. Vaz
  Yes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason, in Annexe 1 of the Feira Presidency conclusions, DSACEUR rather than SACEUR will be consulted on the headline goal; and if he will make a statement on the proposed involvement of the United States Government. [129919]
  477W
  Mr. Vaz
  DSACEUR operates under the overall command of SACEUR. NATO has made DSACEUR the focal point within the Alliance for issues relating to ESDI. Given DSACEUR's European responsibilities, he can make an important contribution to NATO input to the elaboration of the EU's Headline Goal.

  The decisions taken at the Feira European Council will ensure effective transparency and dialogue between NATO and the EU, particular EU/NATO Working Groups on security, capability goals, EU access to NATO assets and permanent EU/NATO structures. The United States Government will be fully involved in this process. President Clinton has welcomed the Feira Conclusions.

  European Treaties
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many European documents have been designated as treaties by statutory instrument under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1973 in the periods(a) 1973 to 1982, (b) 1983 to 1993 and (c) 1994 to 1999. [130073]

  Mr. Vaz
  Between 1973 and 1982, 31 European Documents were designated as treaties under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. From 1983 to 1993 this number was 10, and from 1994 to 1999, 31.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the export of a truck to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [130365]

  Mr. Hain
  Following consultations with this Department and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry issued an export licence for an ex-military Bedford 4x4 truck for use by the Catholic Relief Service in Kinshasa. This will provide the Catholic Relief Service with the means to deliver urgent humanitarian assistance. We are satisfied that the truck will not be used for military purposes. This decision is consistent with and does not affect the Government's continued support for the EU Common Position on arms exports to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the export of two military rated trucks to the United Methodist Committee for Relief in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [130368]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have approved the export of two 4x4 wheel drive all purpose vehicles to the United Methodist Committee for Relief in Sarajevo. These goods are of ex-army stock and are rated on the Military List. The Committee needs the trucks to distribute relief to remote villages in the region. The Committee has substantially modified the trucks to curtail their military applications and has undertaken that the vehicles will be for their sole use.

  This decision does not affect the Government's continued support for the EU Common Position on arms exports to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  David Chell
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Malaysia about the case of Mr. David Chell. [130085]

  Mr. Hain
  We have not yet made any representations about the case of David Chell in Malaysia. However, if the death sentence is upheld once the appeals process is exhausted we will make strong representations to the Malaysian Government to grant clemency and have the sentence commuted. We would also consider making representations if, after all legal remedies have been exhausted, Mr. Chell and his lawyer have prima facie evidence of a miscarriage or denial of justice.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i)goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130032]

  Mr. Hain
  In 1998–99 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office paid 97.7 per cent. of such bills. In 1999 this figures rose to 97.9 per cent. Calculations are in accordance with HM Treasury's approved method.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the per capita Government spending was on the arts in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in the last financial year; and what his planned figures are for the current year. [129725]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: Central Government grant in aid spend per capita, distributed by the Arts Council of England, was: for 1999–2000 £4.57 (final outturn); and for 2000–01 £4.75 (projected). Projected figures can differ from those of final outturn: these calculations are based on population estimates (final figures for which will be available later this summer).

  I have also asked the Devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to provide this information. When it is available, I will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visitors there have been to the Millennium Dome. [129963]

  Janet Anderson
  Attendance at the Dome to date totals 3.28 million, making it the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the UK. Visitors figures are posted on the Dome website (www.dome2000.co.uk) monthly.
  479W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the total sums of(a) Lottery and (b) public money spent and pledged to the Dome project. [123983]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: A total of £538 million of National Lottery money has been granted to the project. No taxpayers' money has been invested in the Dome.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will publish the forecasts of cash shortfall at the Dome if visitor numbers are below the present estimate for the rest of the year; [123981]

  (2) what forecasts he has made of the projected revenue and costs of the Millennium Dome. [124478]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) current business plan is based on 6 million revenue-generating visitors. Should visitor numbers fall below this level the business plan will need to be reviewed. Details of the business plan are commercially confidential. NMEC's most recent budget, contained within the business plan, is as follows:

  Project Lifetime Expenditure

  Dome structure and associated infrastructure—£271.2 million

  Set-up costs, Staff, Accommodation, IT, Legal and Corporate Services—£55.4 million

  Commercial, Communications and Marketing—£42.7 million

  Exhibits and Attractions—£240.2 million

  Operations and Running costs in year of operation—£104.6 million

  National Programme; Projects (£37.3 million) and Programme Support (£9.9 million)—£47.2 million

  Project Lifetime Income

  Millennium Commission Grant—£525 million

  Commercial Income—£86 million

  Sponsorship Income—£123 million (excludes sponsorship by Ford and BT who have designed, built and funded their zones)

  Legacy; Sale of Dome—£30.0 million (as budgeted prior to the Legacy competition commencing. Original 1997 budget provision of £15 million was on the basis that the Dome would remain on-site for one year only)

  Total budget is £758 million plus an additional £3 million granted by the Millennium Commission to enhance marketing of the Millennium Experience.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 21 June 2000,Official Report, column 232W, on the Millennium Dome, in what way the precise content of a winning bid for the Dome's legacy might affect the division of the proceeds between the New Millennium Experience Company and English Partnerships. [128004]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The recommended decision on the division of proceeds will be taken by Ministers in my Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury. In taking this decision Ministers will receive information and advice from the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), English Partnerships, the Millennium Commission, and officials in their respective Departments. This will include information about the nature of the preferred bid,
  480W
  including the associated financial offer and the land and other assets required. Such information will be taken into account in deciding how the proceeds of the sale will be divided between NMEC and EP.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications for Lottery funding there have been from each constituency in the UK, ranked in descending order of the number of successful applications. [129747]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: I have today placed a table showing the number of successful Lottery applications by constituency, ranked in descending order of the number of applications, in the Libraries of the House. This information is taken from my Department's National Lottery Awards database. No complete list of unsuccessful applications by constituency is available.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the administration costs were as a percentage of Lottery income for each of the Lottery funding bodies in the most recent year for which figures are available. [129533]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: The percentage of Lottery income spent on financing administration costs for each of the Lottery funding bodies during the financial year of 1998–99 (the most recent year for which figures are available from all distributors) is set out in the table:

  Distributing body

  Percentage administration

  Sports Council Scotland

  6.3

  Sports Council Wales

  3.6

  Sports Council Northern Ireland

  6.8

  Sports England

  4.8

  Arts Council England

  9.1

  Scottish Arts Council

  7.9

  Arts Council Northern Ireland

  7.5

  Arts Council Wales

  8.1

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  3.8

  National Lottery Charity Board

  8.0

  New Opportunities Fund

  1.0

  Millennium Commission

  3.2

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Lottery money was awarded to projects in the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency(a) between 1993 and May 1997 and (b) since May 1997; and if he will list the projects which received funding. [128343]

  Kate Hoey
  According to my Department's National Lottery Awards Database, between the start of the Lottery (November 1994) and 30 April 1997, 24 Lottery awards, with a total value of £3,419,980 were made in the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency. From 1 May 1997 to 30 June 2000, the database indicates that 44 awards, with a total value of £2,240,908 were made. I am today placing lists of these projects in the Libraries of the House.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129636]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The only Agency of my Department is the Royal Parks Agency, who do not use any touch tone telephone steering systems for public telephone lines.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129618]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department does not use any touch tone telephone steering systems for public telephone lines.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [128985]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his earlier question on 19 May 2000,Official Report, column 280W.

  The Royal Parks Agency does not operate an approved list of manufacturers for the vehicles it leases. It operates a number of framework agreements which are all obtained within the framework of "The Public Supply Contract Regulations 1995". The contractors chosen are those which offer the most economically advantageous tender in terms of both price and technical considerations. The vehicles are specified by the standards and performance they are required to meet and not by manufacturer.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage of total staff this represents. [129144]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on 6 July 2000,Official Report, column 286W.

  The number of New Dealers within my Department as at 1 April 2000 is 4, or 1 per cent. of total staff. There are currently no New Dealers employed in the Royal Parks Agency.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the correspondence between the Chief Executive of the New 482W
  Millennium Experience Company and the Accounting Officer of the Millennium Commission regarding the request for an additional grant of £38.6 million. [126873]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: On 9 June the National Audit Office wrote to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee enclosing a paper on the circumstances in which an Accounting Officer Direction was given to the Millennium Commission Accounting Officer. The substance of the application for grant is contained within the paper, which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what indemnities have been granted to directors of the New Millennium Experience Company. [126870]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company considers that publication of details of indemnities are commercially in confidence. To reveal details would adversely affect the NMEC's ability to operate in an effective and commercial manner.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the New Millennium Experience Company will produce its annual report. [128484]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) will publish its Annual Report and Financial Statement before the start of Parliamentary recess. Copies of the Report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124119]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pig Farmers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what cash resources he has allocated for an outgoers scheme for pig farmers. [129398]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: In the "Action Plan for Fanning", £26 million was allocated to the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme (PIRS) in its first year. As the outgoers element of the PIRS will operate using a sealed bid system, it is not possible to estimate how much of this initial £26 million will be used on this part of the scheme. However, the aim of using a sealed bid system is to obtain the best value for money, with the expectation that a good proportion of the £26 million, plus the additional funds for which bids have been made, can be available for the ongoers element.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Residences
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will establish an official residence in the County Palatine. [128881]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have no plans to establish an official residence in the County Palatine. The Duchy of Lancaster has an estate office in Lancashire which is sufficient for the Duchy's needs.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many of her Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129625]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  One. The Cabinet Office public inquiry telephone is the only Cabinet Office line that uses a touch tone steering system.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many agencies of her Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129606]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency, which is the only agency of the Cabinet Office, does not normally deal with members of the general public and does not use touch tone telephone steering systems for inquiries.

  The Central Office of Information is a department and executive agency that reports to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. It does not itself employ touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with inquiries that it receives directly from the general public. However, as part of its Direct Marketing services it does contract, on behalf of its government clients, response houses and contact centres that do use touch tone telephone steering systems as a backup to live handling of calls.

  Ministerial Red Boxes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 486W, on ministerial red boxes, on what occasions she has left her ministerial red box unattended on public transport. [125744]

  Mr. Stringer
  I am not aware of any occasions on which any of the Cabinet Office Ministers' red boxes have been left unattended on public transport.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems; [129617]

  (2) how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129635]
  484W
  Angela Eagle
  The Department has three telephone lines which are responded to by touch tone.

  The Benefits Agency's Child Benefit Centre Helpline and the Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance Customer Care Helpline both use this system.

  The Department's Winter Fuel Payments Helpline uses touch-tone technology when all lines are busy. The system give callers a choice between leaving a message or holding to speak to an operator.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what income support benefits are available to British pensioners living in other EU countries other than basic state pension and disability benefits. [129737]

  Angela Eagle
  Most of the contributory benefits, with the exception of contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance are available to pensioners living in other EU countries. However, it is a condition of entitlement to the income related benefits (Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) that a person is resident in Great Britain.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (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; [129154]

  (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. [129169]

  Mr. Darling
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption II of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the period of time during which Housing Benefit claimants may appeal against their benefit decision; and if he will make a statement. [129470]

  Angela Eagle
  As part of our proposals to bring Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit decisions within the scope of the Appeals Service from 1 April 2001 we intend to introduce regulations to mirror the decision-making arrangements for other social security benefits.

  This will mean that Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit claimants will be given a calendar month to dispute a decision. This period may be extended for up to a maximum of 13 months where there are special reasons for delay.
  485W
  We will be consulting with local authority associations and the Council of Tribunals on these changes in due course.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the regulations concerning the backdating of Housing Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [129469]

  Angela Eagle
  We propose to introduce regulations to align the current Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit backdating rules with those for the other income-related benefits from April 2001. This will involve replacing the current 52 week limit which rests on a broad definition of "good cause". Instead, where a claimant delays his claim, that claim can be backdated for up to three months based on a set of prescriptive circumstances.

  The Social Security Advisory Committee are currently consulting on the draft regulations and will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in due course. We also propose to open consultation with the local authority associations this week.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of savings in Housing Benefit arising from reduced house repossessions if a flat rate housing allowance were introduced at(a) £10, (b) £15, (c) £20, (d) £25 and (e) £30 per week and paid to all households in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit. [125411]

  Angela Eagle
  The uncertain behavioural effects that would result from the introduction of such an allowance means that no reliable estimates can be made.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates to be the gross cost to public funds of a flat rate housing allowance payable to recipients of working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit, if such an allowance was paid at the rate of(a) £10 per week, (b) £15 per week, (c) £20 per week, (d) £25 per week and (e) £30 per week. [125409]

  Angela Eagle
  Precise estimates cannot be made because of the uncertain behavioural effects that would result from the introduction of such an allowance. If a flat rate housing allowance of £30 per week were introduced for all recipients of the tax credits, it is estimated that the gross cost would be of the order of £2 billion per year.

  Pensions
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being undertaken to establish the means by which pensioners prefer to have their pensions paid. [129452]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pensioners are routinely asked to specify which method of payment they prefer when making a claim to Retirement Pension from the choices of Post Office or ACT into a bank or building society.

  Currently over 50 per cent. of new pensioners are choosing to have their pension paid into a bank or building society account.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants over the last five years in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Scotland and (c) South West Scotland District have had their Incapacity Benefit withdrawn after an all work test carried out by the Benefits Agency Medical Services; how many of these claimants requested a review; how many went to appeal; and how many of these (i)reviews and (ii) appeals resulted in benefit being re-instated. [129498]

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

  Entitlement to Incapacity Benefit requires the claimant to provide evidence of incapacity. An initial award of benefit is made if there is acceptable medical evidence to support the claim. Subsequently, incapacity is assessed under the relevant medical test: during the first 28 weeks of incapacity, where the claimant has a recent work record, this is the own occupation test; after 28 weeks, or from the start of the claim where the claimant has not recently worked, it is the All Work Test (AWT) which was replaced from 3 April 2000 by the Personal Capability Assessment. If the relevant test is not satisfied, benefit is disallowed from that point. Incapacity is reassessed from time to time to check continuing entitlement.

  Information on disallowances following the All Work Test is in table 1 (Great Britain) and table 2 (Scotland). The national data on benefit disallowances shown in table 1 are derived from a different source, and are collected over a different period from the available data for Scotland in table 2. The two tables are therefore not directly comparable. Disallowances include claimants who have failed to return the All Work Test questionnaire or attend for medical examination.

  Data on appeals are in table 3. The time lag between disallowance, lodging and hearing an appeal means there is no direct relationship between decisions to disallow benefit and appeals made and heard in each year.

  There has never been a requirement in Incapacity Benefit for a person who is dissatisfied with their decision to apply for a review. Since September 1999 a claimant may ask for an unfavourable decision to be reconsidered and revised within a one month time limit.

  Table 1.

  Great Britain

  Total AWT disallowances

  19951

  54,080

  1996

  189,571

  1997

  208,545

  1998

  219,007

  1999

  196,928

  1From the introduction of Incapacity Benefit (IB) on 13 April 1995

  Note:

  Includes credits only disallowances

  Source:

  These figures for All Work Test disallowances are taken from a 100 per cent. count of adjudication decisions from the benefit computer system. Multiple decisions are given where increases for dependants are also claimed
  487W

  Table 2.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Scotland

  Total AWT disallowances

  30,700

  26,020

  20,760

  South West Scotland District

  Total AWT disallowances

  2,840

  2,820

  2,380

  Notes:

  1. The year is taken from 1 March to 28(9) February in each year. Data on disallowances are not available from this source for the period 13 April 1995 (the introduction data of IB) up to and including 31 August 1996. Because of changes to the recording system, terminations due to the All Work Test are unreliable for November 1998.

  2. The Government Office Region figures from February 2000, are derived using the claimant's postcode. Prior to this date the GOR figures were derived using the local office serial number.

  3. Includes credits only disallowances.

  Source:

  Five per cent. scan of the benefit computer system of benefit spells ending and will exclude some clerically held cases. Figures are not directly comparable to those in Table 1.

  Table 3.

  All Work Test appeals

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Great Britain

  Number cleared at hearing

  3,038

  38,473

  51,153

  62,603

  57,151

  Found in favour of the appellant

  1,471

  18,024

  22,162

  25,175

  23,646

  Percentage found in favour

  48.4

  46.8

  43.3

  40.2

  41.4

  Scotland

  Number cleared at hearing

  1,173

  7,313

  7,897

  9,696

  11,321

  Found in favour of the appellant

  598

  3,273

  3,837

  4,555

  5,729

  Percentage found in favour

  51.0

  44.8

  48.6

  47.0

  50.6

  Notes:

  1. Appeals data are in calendar years. Figures for 1999 are up to and including September 1999.

  2. There is no breakdown of South West Scotland available.

  3. Figures are based on cases at the Glasgow office of The Appeals Service, which covers all Scotland.

  Sources:

  1. For figures prior to Autumn 1997, 100 per cent. extract from ITS computerised records.

  2. For figures after Autumn 1997, 100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service GAPS computer system.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-resident parents who have not co-operated with the Child Support Agency have(a) been processed through Child Support Agency enforcement procedures, (b) been made to pay maintenance, (c) had arrest warrants issued against them and (d) been imprisoned. [129249]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write my the hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 10 July 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about enforcement action taken by the Child Support Agency. Mrs. Boardman is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on her behalf.
  The information that I have provided is applicable to England and Wales. Different arrangements apply to Scotland though the underlying principles are similar. The Government believes that
  488W
  non-resident parents should pay maintenance for their children if they can afford to do so and we will continue to pursue non-resident parents who persistently seek to avoid their responsibilities.
  The Agency's policy is that, if necessary, it will use the powers given to it by Parliament to enforce payment of child maintenance. Where normal collection arrangements fail and arrears of child maintenance build up, the Agency will initiate enforcement action if the non-resident parent does not make an acceptable offer to pay. However, each case is considered on its merits and the Agency will take account of the likely effect of enforcement action on the welfare of any children involved.
  The full range of powers available will be considered. Where an uncooperative non-resident parent is employed a deduction from earnings order can be imposed. This is an effective, value for money method of collecting maintenance and arrears without resorting to the court system. It is a criminal offence for an employer to fail to act on a deduction from earnings order. Where an employer does fail to act they may be prosecuted. During 1999–2000 the Agency prosecuted 5 such cases.
  Where a deduction from earnings order cannot be issued, e.g. the non-resident parent is self-employed, and no agreement can be reached to pay maintenance, a Liability Order is made. This means the debt is registered with the Magistrates Court and a County Court Judgement will then be considered making it difficult for a non-resident parent to obtain credit, mortgage, loans etc. During 1999–2000 Liability Orders were granted on 2,169 cases and County Court Judgements sought on 563 cases.
  By taking this action it is hoped that the non-resident parent will start to cooperate, however, if this proves ineffective, Bailiff action is taken to seize goods to the value of the debt or, alternatively, a Garnishee or Charging order is imposed. A Garnishee Order freezes the non-resident parent's bank account. A Charging order freezes the non-resident parent's property that could be sold, for example, a car or house that may be up for sale at the time of the order. During 1999–2000 the Agency applied for 130 Garnishee Orders, 69 Charging Orders and took Bailiff action on 1,916 cases.
  The final sanction is committal to prison, although this does not discharge the debt. During 1999–2000 a total of 22 applications for committal to prison were made. Of these 18 were successful, 11 of which were suspended sentences.
  By making positive telephone or face to face contact with a non-resident parent early on in the assessment process the Agency aims to obtain full compliance and reduce the number of parents who refuse to cooperate. Non-resident parents are encouraged to make regular payments, preferably by direct debt, standing order or a deduction from earnings order.
  The Government believes that child maintenance should not be seen as an optional expense to be paid or not as personal circumstances dictate. New legislation, which will support the Child Support Reforms means that maintenance assessments will be simpler to calculate and easier for both parents to understand. This should encourage more parents to co-operate. It will allow the Agency to use more of its resources to deal with those parents who refuse to pay their assessed liability. Additional penalties such as the removal of driving licences are also being considered, though the Agency's aim will remain to ensure the proper flow of maintenance without the use of penalties.
  I hope this is helpful.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Stations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make public transport stations safer. [128414]

  Mr. Hill
  We have a number of initiatives planned or under way to improve safety at both rail and bus stations. For example, we are encouraging station operators to
  489W
  apply for accreditation under the Secure Stations Scheme that we introduced in April 1998, which is designed to improve and standardise good security practices at all overground and underground stations. 63 stations are currently accredited.

  We are also currently undertaking research designed to improve personal security in bus travel (including at bus stations) and we are piloting a safe transport route in the North West of England.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to address homelessness in the capital. [128415]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The aim of the Government's housing strategy, set out in the Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choices: A decent home for all", is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence. We have increased housing investment programme resources for London local authorities by 54 per cent. in the current financial year and we are supporting the Association of London Government's Housing Partnership Initiative to help alleviate the shortage of social housing in the London area. We are also spending £160 million in London over the three financial years to April 2002 as part of our commitment to reducing the numbers sleeping rough.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of the Regional Development Agencies in the regional economy in Yorkshire and the Humber. [128416]

  Ms Armstrong
  The role of Yorkshire Forward, the Regional Development Agency for Yorkshire and Humber, is to improve the region's competitiveness through the promotion of integrated sustainable economic development and social and physical regeneration. Key to achieving this is working in close partnership with a range of regional and local partners.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress Regional Development Agencies are making in the development of regional economic strategies. [128423]

  Ms Armstrong
  RDAs submitted their Regional Strategies to Ministers in October of last year. The Government responded in January this year giving them a broad welcome. The RDAs have since been implementing their Strategies through the production of a series of Action Plans.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the remuneration of each director of each Regional Development Agency. [129114]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: The annual accounts of the RDAs contain complete information on the remuneration and pension arrangements for senior personnel. The annual accounts for the year ended 31 March are currently with the National Audit Office. When the audit reports on these
  490W
  accounts have been signed they will be laid in the Library of both Houses in line with the Department's usual practice.

  NATS
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from(a) the IPMS and (b) BALPA on National Air Traffic Services Ltd. [128418]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport has had continuing discussions with the IPMS on employees' interests in the proposed public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services, and on their views on safety. We have received no recent representations from BALPA.

  Council Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet Age Concern to discuss the level of Council Tax upon pensioners. [128419]

  Ms Armstrong
  I will be happy to meet Age Concern if they want a meeting.

  Local Authority Housing
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the management of local authority-owned housing. [128420]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Tenants have a right to expect well managed, high quality housing and services. The Housing Green Paper sets out our commitment to achieve a step change in the quality and management of social housing over the next decade.

  We set out in the Green Paper various approaches which we believe will help to achieve this change: stock transfer, arm's-length management companies, and the Private Finance Initiative.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make additional funds available to local authorities for the purpose of providing more road safety traffic calming schemes. [128421]

  Mr. Hill
  Local authorities support road safety schemes from the general resources that we make available for integrated transport in the annual local transport capital settlement. This year these increased by 20 per cent., and we plan to increase them further for 2001–02. In addition, a further £30 million was made available to authorities in the Budget to spend on child safety, safe routes to school and other small scale improvements.

  Song Thrushes
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the declining number of song thrushes in Britain. [128422]
  491W
  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received a number of representations concerning the decline in populations for a number of song birds, including Song Thrushes.

  Railway Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to prevent the British Railways Board from selling former railway land which could in future be returned to railway use. [128424]

  Mr. Hill
  The British Railways Board is now part of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA), which is currently reviewing sites where a potential transport interest has been identified. SSRA is prepared to withhold sites with a potential strategic transport use from the sale process for sufficient time to allow for detailed consideration of the future use and ownership of the site.

  Economic Regeneration (Birmingham)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to promote economic and community regeneration in south-west Birmingham. [128425]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry received the Final Report of the Rover Task Force on 3 July. The report sets out a strategic framework for helping the communities in South West Birmingham and more widely within the West Midlands. The Government are considering the report's recommendations and will work with Advantage West Midlands and other partners to ensure that the local business economy is better able to cope with future changes.

  Civic Forums
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the role of civic forums in promoting participation in local decision-making processes. [128426]

  Ms Armstrong
  In September and October 1998 my Department published a research report and guidance on how local authorities can develop and enhance public participation in local decision making ("Enhancing Public Participation in Local Government—A research report", DETR, September 1998; "Guidance on Enhancing Public Participation", DETR, October 1998). Local organisations such as residents groups and civic amenity societies must always be an important feature of local authorities' consultation and participation strategies.

  Local Deprivation
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the underlying data used to compile the proposed index of local deprivation. [128427]

  Ms Armstrong
  Last December, we published for consultation the information relating to local authority district rankings on five different measures of deprivation. As part of the consultation exercise we also offered each authority information on the ward rankings for their area. The summary report will be published later this year,492W
  along with the deprivation scores and ranks of all wards and districts in England. The report will provide details of where to obtain the underlying raw data.

  Seaside Transport Links
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to improve transport links to seaside towns. [128428]

  Mr. Hill
  We have made more resources available to authorities to implement their integrated transport strategies, with an increase of 20 per cent. over last year. The requirement to produce Local Transport Plans and Regional Transport Strategies will ensure that authorities work together towards meeting transport need such as improving transport links to seaside towns. Investment in the trunk road network, through the Targeted Programme of Improvements, will also in a number of cases improve such links.

  Regional Railways
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on planned subsidies to regional railways. [128429]

  Mr. Hill
  The level of subsidy for each year of the existing rail franchises including those which cover regional railways—is published in the Franchising Director's Annual Report (copies are available in the House Libraries). The Franchising Director has recently announced proposals to change the franchise map of Great Britain (copies of his Press Release are available in the House Libraries). That will lead to some adjustment of contracted subsidies.

  Council Tax Bands
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will increase the number of Council Tax bands. [128430]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on 29 June 2000,Official Report, column 603W.

  Canals
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on prospects for the use of the canal network for(a) urban and (b) rural regeneration. [128431]

  Mr. Hill
  Our policy paper "Waterways for Tomorrow", published on 27 June, describes how our inland waterways can make a significant contribution to tackling social exclusion and deprivation by acting as a catalyst for economic and social renewal. Improving and restoring our waterways, and redeveloping disused and derelict waterside land can help deliver the Government's target for development on brownfield sites as well as creating jobs and business opportunities.

  Fuel Taxation
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of taxes on fuel on the road haulage industry. [128432]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government keep under review the impact of fuel taxation on all sectors of UK industry, including the road haulage industry. Budget 2000 itself contained an important package of measures specifically to further boost the competitiveness of the road haulage industry. These included £45 million of cuts to Vehicle Excise Duty; the introduction of 44-tonne lorries; and tougher enforcement to tackle illegally operating hauliers and protect the competitiveness of legitimate operators. The Road Haulage Forum chaired by Lord Macdonald is also continuing to consider the competitive pressures facing the industry.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the performance of the construction industry. [128433]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Having experienced a recession in the early 1990s, the UK construction industry is now showing clear signs of steady growth. Output has risen by about 2.5 per cent. in real terms between the last two financial years, and that level of growth is forecast to continue at least until 2002.

  Council Housing
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the levels of public investment he plans to make available to improve the council housing stock. [128435]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The level of allocations for housing investment by local authorities for the next three years will be decided in the current spending review, the results of which are due to be announced later this month.

  Development (South-East)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) SERPLAN and (b) councillors from the south-east region concerning development in the south-east. [128436]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received SERPLAN's response and also over 800 other responses, including representations from local authorities. All responses are now being considered.

  Local Government
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from councils concerning the abolition of the committee system in local government. [128437]
  494W
  Ms Armstrong
  We have received a wide range of comments in response to the various consultations we have conducted about councils' executive constitutions, for which the Local Government Bill [Lords], now passed by this House, provides.

  HFCs
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further progress he has made in reducing emissions of HFCs. [128438]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government set out their policy position on HFCs in the draft climate change programme, which was published for consultation earlier this year. This included a series of possible measures which could be taken to reduce emissions of HFCs. The consultation has now ended and we will be developing these measures further taking account of the points raised during the consultation.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's energy policy and its impact on the road haulage industry. [128439]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government are determined to encourage energy conservation and efficiency across all sectors of the economy, as part of our strategy to tackle climate change and improve the competitiveness of UK industry. In the road haulage sector, we are committed to improving the efficiency of freight transport and logistic operations, and set out last year how we would achieve this in our Sustainable Distribution Strategy. The strategy sets out a wide range of measures, including, for instance, the dissemination of advice to hauliers through my Department's Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme about ways of reducing fuel costs.

  VAT (Housing)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in relation to the harmonisation of VAT between new build and repair in connection with the forthcoming urban and rural White Papers. [128417]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Lord Rogers's Urban Taskforce recommended that we should harmonise VAT on new build and repair and maintenance. Our Urban and White Papers will take forward the Government's response to Lord Rogers's recommendations, although final decisions on taxation will be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

  Incinerator Ash
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which UK heat stations other than Byker have used incinerator ash for construction; [126334]

  (2) what data (a) the Government and (b) the Environment Agency hold on levels of dioxin contamination in incinerator ashes. [126335]
  495W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 June 2000]: Data on levels of dioxins in ash sent for disposal are not routinely held by the Agency or my Department.

  The operators of incineration plant are required by section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to provide sufficient information to those managing waste ash to ensure that is it disposed of appropriately, for example chemical and physical information. They are also required to ensure that ashes which contain hazardous substances above certain thresholds are disposed of in accordance with the Special Waste Regulations 1996 (as amended).

  Commercially processed incineration bottom ash is currently supplied to the construction market from the following incinerators: Edmonton, SE London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP), and Tyseley.

  Data from these incinerators indicate that the processed ash entering the construction market has dioxin concentrations of between 20 to 50 ng/kg toxic equivalent, which falls within the range observed in urban soils.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the statutory consultees for the Environment Agency's consultation on the re-authorisation of the radioactive discharges from Aldermaston; and if he will place copies of submissions by(a) statutory consultees and (b) other parties in the Library. [128455]

  Mr. Meacher
  The statutory consultees for the re-authorisation of the Aldermaston discharges are MAFF, HSE (NII), Thames Water, West Berkshire council and Reading borough council. The Environment Agency has provided copies of their responses to my Department and copies are being placed in the Library.

  Approximately 4,000 responses were received by the Agency. These responses are summarised, and some of them are quoted with the consent of the consultees concerned, in the Agency's decision document. I am arranging for copies of that document to be placed in the Library shortly.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what periods of consultation have taken place between the shadow Strategic Rail Authority and interested local parties over the award of(a) new and (b) extended rail franchises. [129390]

  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director is operating an inclusive consultation process for franchise replacement. The Instructions and Guidance given to him by the Deputy Prime Minister require him to consult the Chairman of the British Railways Board, local authorities, Passenger Transport Executives. the Rail Regulator, regional planning bodies, Regional Development Agencies and Rail Passenger Committees. He has consulted widely about the replacement of franchises and there will be further on-going consultation as the process continues. Bidders will be encouraged to consult interested stakeholders, including local authorities and Rail Passengers' Committees, giving them the opportunity to raise issues which they would like to see addressed.
  496W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account the Government and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will take of the record, including safety record, of an existing franchisee and its owner company in the award of(a) new and (b) extended franchises. [129392]

  Mr. Hill
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked the Franchising Director to evaluate bids for replacement franchises against the following criteria: commitment to secure better performance and customer services, the extent to which extra or earlier investment can be secured, the extent to which passengers will be given a greater voice in the level and standard of services, and value for money to the taxpayer. Bidders will be encouraged to consult interested stakeholders, including local authorities and Rail Passengers' Committees, giving them the opportunity to raise issues which they would like to see addressed.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet representatives of Stagecoach to discuss the withdrawal of rural bus services. [129645]

  Mr. Hill
  I meet various representatives of the bus industry from time to time, to discuss a range of relevant issues, which can include rural services.

  Decisions on withdrawal of individual local services are matters for the bus operator concerned and for the relevant local authority, which has the power to provide subsidy for socially necessary services which would otherwise not be provided.

  HGVs
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data he collates on the stopping and thinking distances relating to HGVs. [129644]

  Mr. Hill
  Stopping distances for HGVs are governed by United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation Number 13 and European Council Directive 71/320/EEC as amended by Commission Directive 98/12/EC.

  Provided that the vehicle meets the requirements for stopping distance and deceleration during the Type Approval test there are no further requirements for measuring and collating stopping distances.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information has been supplied to him by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority on its plans for a Scottish office, with particular reference to the number of staff it will employ. [129802]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority, which will be the national strategic rail authority for Great Britain, is currently based in London and has no plans to establish separate offices in Scotland, or any other part of Britain.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many methane explosions have taken place in the past 10 years arising from the operation of landfill sites. [129975]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has no records of any explosions attributable to landfill gas occurring in England and Wales since 1 April 1996. Records for the period prior to this are not held centrally.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment procedures are in place to monitor the spread of toxic leachate from landfill sites; and what remedial measures exist to combat public health threats from such leachate. [129964]

  Mr. Meacher
  Recommended procedures and protocols for monitoring ground and surface waters for evidence of contamination by leachate are set out in the Government's statutory guidance to the Environmet Agency—Waste Management Papers 4 and 26. Operators of landfills must undertake such monitoring and report the results to the Agency on a regular basis. The Agency also undertakes its own monitoring as a check on operator performance. Extensive research has been conducted on landfill leachate and, although potentially polluting, it is not normally classed as toxic.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessments he has made of the increase in(a) heavy vehicle traffic, (b) vermin and (c) noise levels arising from the operation of a landfill site. [129969]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have not made such assessments for individual sites. An assessment of the impact of an individual site is made when a development planning application is made.

  The Government have published two relevant studies. "The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings" was in 1990, and "The Environmental Effects of Traffic Associated with Minerals Working" in 1998. While they refer to surface mineral workings, the contents are applicable to landfilling. The Department issued in May 2000 a consultation draft of Mineral Planning Guidance Note 11, "Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England". This provides guidance on noise, with specific reference to the issue of waste disposal sites.

  Vermin should be controlled by the operator and regulated by suitable conditions in the waste management licence.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many landfill operators were prosecuted for breach of the site licence in the past 10 years; and what were the(a) largest and (b) smallest fines imposed for those found guilty. [129974]

  Mr. Meacher
  Data are only available from April 1999, since when there have been 50 prosecutions relating to waste management licences. The largest total fine since April 1999 was for £87,500, and the smallest was £400.
  498W
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he gives to landfill operators to reduce gas generation from putrescible materials deposited to their site. [129970]

  Mr. Meacher
  None. Guidance from the Secretary of State is directed at controlling emissions of landfill gas. This is in the form of Waste Management Papers which address the issues of site design, engineering and operation. Waste Management Paper 27 relates solely to landfill gas.

  Tolls
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) tunnels and (b) bridges in the UK are subject to tolls. [130100]

  Mr. Hill
  In the United Kingdom the following undertakings are part of a public highway and have their tolls set by statute:

  The Aldwark Bridge, Yorkshire

  The Cleddau Bridge, Wales

  The Clifton Suspension Bridge, Bristol

  The Dartford Thurrock Crossings—Bridge and Tunnels

  The Dunham Bridge, Lincolnshire

  The Erskine Bridge, Scotland

  The Forth Bridge, Scotland

  The Mersey Tunnel

  The Humber Bridge

  The Itchen Bridge, Southampton

  The Rixton and Warburton Bridge, on the Manchester Ship Canal

  The Severn Bridges

  The Shrewsbury (Kingsland) Bridge

  The Skye Bridge, Scotland

  The Swinford Bridge (Oxfordshire)

  The Tamar Bridge

  The Tay Bridge, Scotland

  The Tyne Tunnel

  The Whitchurch Bridge (Oxfordshire)

  The Whitney on Wye Bridge (Hereford and Worcester).

  There are also a number of toll bridges that provide access across private land. Because they do not have their tolls set by a statutory procedure I do not have a complete list.

  Road Traffic Reduction
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason he has abandoned plans to set targets for reductions in national road traffic levels. [128434]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have never promised that they would set a national road traffic reduction target; nor does the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 require us to do so, if we are satisfied that other measures or targets would be better for tackling the adverse effects of traffic. As we set out in "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", our first report under the 1998 Act, published in January, our targets and policies focus on improving the outcomes that matter to people, such as congestion, pollution and road safety, rather than national traffic volume figures.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many internal and external advertisements were placed from 1997 to 2000 for inspector vacancies in the Hull office which stated that Hull was the location for the post; and if he will place copies of such advertisements in the Library. [128792]

  Mr. Meacher
  External recruitment of inspectors is conducted on a national basis and recruitment adverts do not state a particular location for posts. Our records show that no advertisements for Inspectors have stated Hull as the location for a post since 1997.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many educational and promotional visits were made by HSE inspectors to locations in(a) Hull, (b) East Riding, (c) North Lincolnshire and (d) North East Lincolnshire from 1974 to 2000; and in which offices the visiting speakers were based. [128793]

  Mr. Meacher
  The data provided are for 1996 onwards. Data pre 1996 are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Educational and promotional visits made by HSE inspectors

  Year

  Hull

  East Riding

  North Lincolnshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  1996–97

  18

  9

  7

  12

  1997–98

  5

  2

  3

  4

  1998–99

  12

  11

  2

  6

  1999–2000

  13

  10

  0

  9

  HSE does not keep records of visiting speakers. However, our records on FOCUS are able to determine how many educational and promotional visits were made to each of the named locations by Inspectors based in Hull.

  LA Area

  Top Tier

  TT (Gas)

  TT (Exp)

  Lower Tier

  LT (Gas)

  LT (Exp)

  Total

  (a) Hull

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  5

  (b) East Riding

  5

  1

  —

  8

  —

  2

  16

  (c) East Lincolnshire

  10

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  13

  (d) North East Lincolnshire

  10

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  13

  (e) Barnsley

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  3

  (f) Doncaster

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  6

  (g) Sheffield

  3

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  7

  (h) Rotherham

  2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  6

  Totals

  33

  2

  1

  29

  4

  2

  71

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the costing upon which the closure of the Hull HSE office was based took account of future travel and transfer expenses; and what environmental assessment was carried out. [128795]

  Mr. Meacher
  I can confirm that account has been taken of future travel and transfer expenses. Consideration has been made in relation to the issue of environmental considerations, as transferring the two operational inspector posts to Sheffield will incur some additional
  500W

  Educational and promotional visits made by HSE inspectors based in Hull

  Year

  Hull

  East Riding

  North Lincolnshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  1996–97

  11

  6

  2

  3

  1997–98

  4

  2

  1

  2

  1998–99

  7

  9

  0

  5

  1999–2000

  3

  5

  0

  9

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many HSE inspectors within the jurisdiction of the Hazardous Installation Directorate are located in each of the following divisions and how many Control of Major Accident Hazards sites there are by upper and lower tier in(a) Hull, (b) East Riding, (c) East Lincolnshire, (d) North East Lincolnshire, (e) Barnsley, (f) Doncaster, (g) Sheffield and (h) Rotherham. [128794]

  Mr. Meacher
  For the inspection of COMAH sites and other premises storing and manufacturing chemicals in the ares listed the Hazardous Installations Directorate of HSE has six Inspectors based at Sheffield, managed by a Principal Inspector. These Inspectors also cover the rest of Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. COMAH sites operated by BG Transco are inspected by a separate group of five Inspectors, also based at Sheffield, who inspect BG Transco sites throughout the north of England. Explosives sites subject to COMAH are inspected by three HM Explosives Inspectors who cover eastern and south east England.

  All these Inspectors are able to call on the advice and assistance of other HSE inspectors to provide support on a range of specialist topics.

  The enforcement of COMAH is undertaken by the Competent Authority (HSE and the Environment Agency). Therefore, Environment Agency Inspectors are also involved in the inspect of COMAH sites.

  The number of premises subject to COMAH in the following local authority areas are:

  mileage. It is difficult to be specific about the actual extra mileage as it will depend on where the inspectors choose to live and the operational need for visits to Humberside.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he held before deciding to close the HSE office in Hull with(a) local employers, (b) trade unions and (c) local authorities; over what length of time such consultations took place; and what the opinions were of those who were consulted. [128796]
  501W
  Mr. Meacher
  On this occasion at the request of the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill Callaghan, Chair, Health and Safety Commission and Chris Willby, Director, HSE Yorkshire and North East have met with trade unions to discuss with them how HSE' s role in the current and future issues of Hull is properly preserved.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many inspectors of Band 2 or equivalent and below were in(a) Health and Safety Executive offices and (b) operational inspection groups in each year between 1974 and 2000 in(i)Newcastle, (ii) Leeds, (iii) Sheffield, (iv) Hull and (v)North Allerton. [128845]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information is provided from 1995. Information prior to that date could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (a) Total inspectors at Band 2 and below in all HSE offices

  Date as at 1 April

  Band 2

  Band 3

  Band 4

  Total

  1995

  449

  892

  143

  1,484

  1996

  471

  916

  80

  1,467

  1997

  462

  890

  105

  1,457

  1998

  460

  895

  105

  1,460

  1999

  448

  925

  157

  1,530

  2000

  476

  915

  140

  1,531

  (b) Total inspectors at Band 2 and below in Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull and North Allerton

  Band

  Newcastle

  Leeds

  Sheffield

  Hull

  North Allerton

  1 April 1995:

  2

  10

  16

  6

  2

  1

  3

  24

  33

  19

  4

  1

  4

  6

  9

  6

  2

  1

  Total

  40

  58

  31

  8

  3

  1 April 1996:

  2

  7

  15

  5

  2

  1

  3

  29

  40

  22

  5

  2

  4

  2

  2

  6

  —

  —

  Total

  38

  57

  33

  7

  3

  1 April 1997:

  2

  7

  15

  5

  2

  1

  3

  28

  37

  17

  4

  2

  4

  3

  3

  5

  —

  —

  Total

  38

  55

  27

  6

  3

  1 April 1998:

  2

  6

  14

  6

  2

  —

  3

  32

  35

  20

  3

  —

  4

  3

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Total

  41

  54

  31

  5

  0

  1 April 1999:

  2

  6

  14

  5

  2

  —

  3

  35

  36

  25

  3

  —

  4

  5

  8

  8

  —

  —

  Total

  46

  58

  38

  5

  0

  1 April 2000:

  2

  6

  15

  5

  2

  —

  3

  34

  38

  28

  4

  —

  4

  8

  8

  7

  —

  —

  Total

  48

  61

  40

  6

  0

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many premises, for which the HSE had inspection responsibility,502W
  were registered on HSE databases for Areas 14, 15 and 19 in each year from 1974 to 1995; and how many open incumbent records there were for each of these areas for the years 1996 to 2000. [128846]

  Mr. Meacher
  The question asks for data from 1974 to 2000. The Field Operations Directorate of HSE currently uses a computer data system introduced in 1996. The previous data system was in use from 1980 to 1995. The information requested is not kept in a format which allows the question to be answered. FOCUS is a dynamic record of clients and locations with which HSE has had recent and/or continuing contact. The following table gives the current number of open incumbent records categorised by role, e.g. employer, self-employed, sub-contractor etc.

  Open incumbents by 'incumbent role' in FOCUS databases for areas 14, 15 and 19 on 3 July 2000

  Area 14

  Area 15

  Area 19

  Employer

  21,738

  32,260

  23,958

  Self-employed

  626

  1,631

  1,061

  Partner

  112

  284

  173

  Responsible officer

  17

  37

  9

  Employee

  54

  49

  25

  Principal contractor

  2,118

  3,146

  1,324

  Sub-contractor

  1,561

  1,660

  860

  Plant hirer

  48

  98

  27

  Product supplier

  81

  188

  74

  Importer

  9

  11

  5

  Installer

  360

  291

  276

  Quarry owner

  29

  54

  3

  Competent person

  18

  13

  12

  Professional adviser

  100

  62

  38

  Vehicle operator

  113

  29

  37

  Landlord

  312

  616

  383

  Managing agent

  37

  81

  47

  Trainer

  75

  35

  24

  Employment agency

  11

  21

  3

  Others

  349

  466

  515

  Client

  186

  269

  113

  Designer

  36

  96

  54

  Planning supervisor

  164

  303

  100

  Intermediary

  4

  6

  6

  Source:

  FOCUS live database as at 3 July 2000

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many site visits and contacts of all types were made by HSE inspectors in each of Areas 14, 15 and 19 in each year from 1974 to 2000. [128844]

  Meacher
  The following data are provided 1996 onwards. Data pre-1996 are available only at disproportionate cost.

  FOCUS recorded contacts 1996–97 to 1999–2000 for databases 14, 15 and 19 by contact location

  Contact location

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Area 14

  Elsewhere1

  583

  394

  252

  256

  Head office2

  176

  105

  56

  45

  HSE office3

  1,017

  1,290

  1,596

  1,586

  Site4

  7,446

  4,996

  4,582

  5,535

  Area 15

  Elsewhere1

  736

  534

  517

  457

  Head office2

  300

  224

  163

  140

  HSE office3

  2,390

  1,605

  1,756

  1,665

  Site4

  8,054

  7,713

  7,763

  6,542

  503W

  FOCUS recorded contacts 1996–97 to 1999–2000 for databases 14,15 and 19 by contact location

  Contact location

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Area 19

  Elsewhere1

  524

  464

  324

  441

  Head office2

  199

  165

  93

  95

  HSE office3

  622

  824

  1,389

  954

  Site4

  7,619

  6,508

  6,954

  7,538

  1Used when an activity/topic is dealt with at a location other than site, office or head office.

  2Used when an activity/topic is dealt with at the head office of any client.

  3Used when an activity/topic is dealt with at an HSE office or any other place regarded as an HSE office.

  4Used when an activity/topic is dealt with at an incumbent's location.

  Source:

  FOCUS live database as at 3 July 2000

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) site visits and (b) incumbent contacts were made to premises in Humberside County Commission area in each year from 1974 to 2000 (i)by HSE inspectors based in Hull and (ii) by all inspectors. [128847]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following data cover the period from 1996 onwards.

  Site visits and incumbent contacts made to premises in Humberside County Commission by HSE inspectors based in Hull

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Site visits

  1,366

  905

  657

  520

  Incumbent contacts

  1,718

  1,243

  883

  638

  Site visits and incumbent contacts made to premises in Humberside County Commission by all HSE inspectors (including those based in Hull)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Site visits

  3,481

  2,205

  2,193

  2,235

  Incumbent contacts

  4,377

  3,045

  3,022

  2,823

  The question asks for data from 1974 to 2000. The Field Operations Directorate of HSE currently uses a computer data system introduced in 1996. The previous data system was in use from 1980 to 1995. It is no longer practicable to search in this database for the details requested. There was no database prior to 1980. Data pre-1996 are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Freightliner
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to continue funding the track access grants for Freightliner. [130193]

  Mr. Hill
  In December 1999, Freightliner Ltd. lodged an application with the Department's Freight Grants Unit for track access and freight facilities grants, to take effect on the expiry of the existing grant arrangements in May 2001. PricewaterhouseCoopers were appointed jointly by the Department and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to advise on the application, and their report was received 504W
  at the end of May. The Secretary of State is currently considering the application in the light of advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers and officials.

  Gas Installers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about his plans to replace the CORGI registration system for gas installers. [130051]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are no such plans. The Health and Safety Commission is currently carrying out a review of the gas safety regime, and is likely to report to Ministers within the next few months with its conclusions and recommendations. One of the issues being examined in the review is whether the statutory registration scheme for gas installation businesses is still appropriate. The Commission has not yet formed a view on that question.

  Cornelis Johanna
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the compensation claim submitted to his Department by Mr. Paul Reeman, of Beverly Court, Upton, Manor Road, Brixham, following the report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration dated 10 August 1999, regarding the certificate of seaworthiness for the fishing vessel 'Cornelis Johanna'. [130116]

  Mr. Hill
  A significant interim payment was made to Mr. P. Reeman by the Department in November 1999, prior to the submission of a fully substantiated claim. The Treasury Solicitors' Department is considering carefully the detailed claim submitted by Mr. Reeman's solicitors on 22 May 2000, and will be responding to them very shortly.

  A30
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the latest noise tests on the A30 Exeter to Honiton Road; and if he will make a statement. [130363]

  Mr. Hill
  I have published today the results of the tests. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of both House. The report shows that noise levels are somewhat higher than expected. Our 10-year Transport Strategy which will be published shortly will include further proposals for dealing with road noise. One result will be that this stretch of the A30 will be resurfaced with a lower noise surface.

  Park Homes
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the report of the Park Homes Working Party. [130364]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am pleased to announce today the publication of the report of the Park Homes Working Party, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. I would like to thank the members of the Working Party for the work they have done over the last two years to consider the operation of the control regime applying to the residential park homes
  505W
  sector. The Working Party has produced a large number of wide-ranging recommendations for changes to this regime.

  The recommendations will need careful consideration, and it would be helpful therefore to have comments on them from interested bodies or individuals who have not already had a change to contribute to the report. I am requesting that any such comments are sent to my Department by 31 October. I will announce my conclusions on the recommendations in due course after that date.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council how many of her Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129626]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department has no touch tone telephone steering systems.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the President of the Council how many employees of her Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff. [129090]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department has recruited one employee from the New Deal, who started work on 3 April 2000. The Department is small, with low recruitment requirements, and this represents 3 per cent. of the total staff.

TREASURY

  Internet Access
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2000,Official Report, column 540W, on the knowledge economy, (1) what is the maximum distance or travelling time a member of the public can reside from a public internet access point under the definition of having access to the internet; and if he will make a statement; [129216]

  (2) what is the maximum distance that a person can live from a point of public access to the internet and still be considered to have access; what is the maximum cost that a provider of a point of public access to the internet can charge with access still being considered to be available; and if he will make a statement. [130074]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not so defined; the Government are considering the steps to improve access, bearing in mind the need for a practical approach, the underlying objective of convenient, affordable access to the internet, and taking into account a wide range of factors, including the developing market.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2000,Official Report, column 178W, if he will list his Department's
  506W
  targets for answering (a) named day questions, (b) ordinary written questions and (c) written questions tabled in the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement. [130026]

  Mr. Timms
  The targets are to answer(a) 50 per cent. of named day questions on the nominated day; (b) 70 per cent. of ordinary written questions within a working week of tabling; and (c) 80 per cent. of House of Lords written questions within a fortnight of tabling.

  Public Sector (Ill-health Retirement)
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of ill-health retirement in the public sector. [130362]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The report of the review is being published today. A copy is being placed in the House library.

  The review has confirmed that ill-health retirement should be available to employees who are genuinely unable to remain in employment for health reasons. But it has found that the present levels of ill-health retirement in the public sector are higher than necessary and higher than in the private sector. Variations in rates between individual sectors, and between employers in the same sector, are also significant indicating that there is scope to bring rates down.

  The review concluded that the rules and procedures governing the granting of ill-health retirements need to be tightened in a number of cases, and that action is needed to prevent its misuse and to expose the cost involved. It also concluded that many employers can help to reduce the number of such retirements by adopting best practice on workplace health.

  The report sets out 36 recommendations for reducing the incidence of ill-health retirement across the public sector. Departments will draw up action plans for each sector implementing these recommendations. Targets will be set challenging individual employers with the highest rates to reduce these to match those of the best in their sector by 2005.

  VAT (Fuels)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what VAT revenue from petrol and diesel sales was anticipated for 2000–01 at the time of the Budget; and what his current forecast is of the yield. [129273]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: The forecasts of total VAT are published each year in the Financial Statement and Budget report. No forecasts are made of VAT on individual goods and services.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new National Insurance numbers were awarded to(a) children and (b) adults in each year since 1990, broken down into geographical regions. [128936]
  507W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: New NI numbers were no allocated to children until May 1992. The numbers allocated since that date are as follows:

  Calendar year

  Numbers allocated

  1992 (from May)

  8,424,054

  1993

  2,909,215

  1994

  797,372

  1995

  759,368

  1996

  732,072

  1997

  720,541

  1998

  712,643

  1999

  702,221

  2000 (to June)

  347,497

  As numbers are allocated centrally, it is not possible to break the number down geographically.

  Bank Access (Wales)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many bank branches closed in Wales(a) between 1990 and 1997 and (b) since 1997. [129735]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Wales do not have a bank account. [129734]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Results from the 1998–99 Family Resources Survey suggest that around 300,000 adults in Wales do not have a bank or building society account.

  Euro
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what costs have so far been incurred by(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in preparing for a possible changeover to the euro. [129593]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Expenditure on changeover planning was set out in the second Outline National Changeover Plan, published on 9 March.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the procedures involved in relation to the working families tax credit when a company becomes insolvent; and what targets the Inland Revenue has for resolving cases which arise in this area within a particular time. [129405]

  Dawn Primarolo
  When a company that is paying tax credits to one or more of its employees becomes insolvent, the Inland Revenue will pay the tax credits direct to the employee for the remainder of the tax credit award period. The system is designed to ensure that employees of the insolvent company continue to receive their tax credit payments on time.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many stipendiary magistrates, including deputy and acting stipendiary magistrates, sit in the courts of each region of England and Wales. [130194]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table lists the stipendiary and acting stipendiary magistrates sitting in each commission area in England and Wales. Some acting stipendiary magistrates sit in more than one commission area. All commission areas can request stipendiary cover when the need arises.

  Commission area

  Stipendiary magistrate

  Acting stipendiaries

  Avon

  1

  2

  Cheshire

  1

  4

  Derbyshire

  2

  2

  Devon

  1

  7

  Dorset

  1

  0

  Essex

  1

  3

  Greater Manchester

  4

  9

  Hampshire

  2

  4

  Outer London

  4

  3

  Norfolk

  1

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  6

  Shropshire

  1

  2

  South Yorkshire

  5

  17

  Humberside

  11

  5

  Leicestershire

  2

  5

  Merseyside

  3

  6

  Lancashire

  1

  0

  South Wales

  3

  4

  Staffordshire

  1

  6

  East & West Sussex

  2

  6

  West Midlands

  7

  15

  West Yorkshire

  4

  11

  Inner London

  47

  39

  1vacant at present

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2000 to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor),Official Report, column 168W, if he will estimate the number of trials heard in magistrates courts by (a) lay benches and (b) stipendiary magistrates, including acting and deputy stipendiaries, for each of the last five years. [130196]

  Jane Kennedy
  A breakdown of trials heard in magistrates courts(a) by lay benches and (b) by stipendiary magistrates, including acting and deputy stipendiaries, is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Case Guidance
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance his Department provides as to the nature of the cases which should be heard by(a) lay magistrates and (b) stipendiary magistrates. [130195]
  509W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department provides no guidance as to the nature of the cases which should be heard by(a) lay magistrates and (b) stipendiary magistrates.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129639]

  Jane Kennedy
  Both of the Department's agencies, the Court Service and Public Trust Office, make use of touch tone telephone steering systems for some of their public inquiries. These systems are also used in the Land Registry and Public Record Office, which are Departments responsible to the Lord Chancellor and run on agency lines.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129621]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's Headquarters makes use of touch tone telephone steering on one inquiry line; the Public Trust Office uses it on its Mental Health Customer Service inquiry line; the Public Record Office uses it on its Family Record centre inquiry line. The Court Service and the Land Registry both make some use of touch tone telephone steering systems but the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Solicitors' Negligence Cases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases legal aid has been granted over the last five years in solicitors' negligence cases to(a) solicitors and (b) complainants. [129451]

  Mr. Lock
  Under the system in place until 31 March 2000, solicitors were unlikely to obtain legal aid to defend negligence cases as they would not usually be financially eligible. Generally they would also have the benefit of professional indemnity insurance.

  In the last five years for which figures are available, the number of certificates issued to claimants in actions for legal professional negligence was:

  Number

  1993–94

  3,342

  1994–95

  3,509

  1995–96

  3,717

  1996–97

  2,959

  1997–98

  2,365

  Figures from 1998–99 onwards are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [129483]

  Jane Kennedy
  This reply covers the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department (with Associated Offices), the Court Service and the Public Trust Office. CSL Managed Services, who provide the payroll service for this Department, write each year to staff who have been identified as making reduced rate NI contributions to determine whether these contributions continue to be appropriate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the publication of crime statistics to assist comparison of performance at a local level. [130291]

  Mr. Straw
  The next publication of crime statistics is due on July 18. As in January, an Annexe to the publication will give crime and detection figures for police Basic Command Units for six types of crime which are of particular public concern. But, for the first time, my Department will be publishing these crime figures in relation to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. The partnership data will be published in 13 groups, or 'families', of partnerships. The families draw together areas with similar policing and crime reduction characteristics to assist comparison between the areas. There are 376 partnerships. The Home Office will today publish a Policing and Reducing Crime Unit Briefing Note to provide a description of how the family groups have been devised, which includes the list of the family groups. I have placed a copy of this briefing note in the Library.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i)goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130034]

  Mr. Straw
  Owing to disproportionate cost, I am unable to provide information on bills paid by my Department in the format the hon. Member requires. However, I am able to provide information on the percentage of bills paid within 30 days of a valid invoice as given in the table.

  Percentage

  Year

  Valid invoices

  1998–99

  96.6

  1999–2000

  96.3

  Coroners Courts
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department is supporting into the work and efficiency of coroners courts. [130010]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are currently funding research at the University of Reading into the way in which information is provided to the bereaved by Coroners. The results of this work are expected to become available in the second half of 2001.

  Kosovan Refugees
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if his Department will reimburse local authorities for costs incurred after 25 June in respect of Kosovans evacuated to the United Kingdom under humanitarian and medical evacuation programmes; [130111]

  (2) what is his policy on the provision of accommodation and support to Kosovans who came to the United Kingdom under humanitarian or medical evacuation programmes and who remained here after 25 June. [130110]

  Mrs. Roche
  Kosovan Albanians who were evacuated to the United Kingdom on the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme between 25 April and 25 June 1999 or who were later evacuated on the medical evacuation programme were granted a maximum of 12 months leave to enter. They were eligible to claim social security benefits or to take employment during this period. They will continue to qualify for support (including accommodation) if they made an application for further exceptional leave before their original leave expired until 28 days after the decision to refuse their application. They are also eligible to work until an appeal has been dealt with. If they are granted further leave to remain they will be eligible for support during that extended period of leave.

  The special grants we propose to pay to certain local authorities in England, towards expenditure incurred in 2000–01, are specified in Special Grant Report (No. 68) which was laid before the House on 6 July.

  Under the terms of the Report, Kosovans evacuated under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme ceased to be eligible for support when their initial period of exceptional leave to enter the UK expired (25 June 2000 at the latest). However, local authorities will be able to claim for costs associated with the closure of certain vacated reception and return centres up to 25 July.

  Expenditure on support for evacuees who arrived on authorised medical evacuation flights will continue until their initial period of exceptional leave to enter ends: up to 31 March 2001 (in some cases).

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each local authority which claimed grants from his Department for supporting asylum seekers between 6 December 1999 and 31 March 2000, giving in each case(a) the actual expenditure by the local authority and (b) the grant-eligible expenditure of the local authority. [130112]
  512W
  Mrs. Roche
  The information is as follows:

  Asylum seekers support grant 6 December to 31 March 1999–2000 Local authority claims

  £

  Local authority

  Gross expenditure net of housing benefit

  Grand total grant paid

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,864,101.00

  3,864,101.00

  Barnet

  2,413,926.09

  2,353,366.79

  Barnsley

  162,069.00

  139,960.00

  Bath and North East Somerset

  15,073.37

  15,073.37

  Bedford

  641,600.00

  619,240.00

  Bexley

  401,225.00

  401,225.00

  Birmingham

  1,085,835.20

  1,085,835.20

  Blackburn with Darwen

  39,449.00

  25,300.00

  Blackpool

  25,573.00

  25,573.00

  Blaenau Gwent County

  0.00

  0.00

  Bolton Metro

  115,368.00

  112,580.00

  Bournemouth

  139,270.00

  134,480.00

  Bracknell Forest

  12,185.71

  8,600.00

  Bradford

  70,703.68

  70,703.68

  Brent

  3,632,880.13

  2,918,720.00

  Bridgend County

  3,750.00

  3,524.00

  Brighton and Hove

  316,776.12

  316,776.12

  Bristol City

  409,448.47

  409,448.47

  Bromley

  845,307.00

  736,452.00

  Buckinghamshire

  65,557.53

  51,276.00

  Bury

  183,300.00

  79,190.00

  Caerphilly County

  8,816.63

  8,816.63

  Calderdale

  37,773.00

  37,773.00

  Cambridgeshire

  464,662.00

  464,662.00

  Camden

  3,454,298.00

  2,576,460.00

  Cardiff

  189,947.00

  189,947.00

  Carmarthenshire

  166.00

  166.00

  Ceredigion CC

  0.00

  0.00

  Cheshire

  70,295.00

  68,320.00

  City of Newcastle

  376,906.63

  376,906.63

  Conwy CBC

  0.00

  0.00

  Cornwall

  713.00

  713.00

  Corporation of London

  450,900.00

  301,000.00

  Coventry

  218,670.00

  180,123.00

  Croydon

  901,954.00

  901,954.00

  Cumbria

  350.00

  350.00

  Darlington

  2,745.00

  2,745.00

  Denbighshire County

  1,260.00

  1,300.00

  Derby

  158,420.00

  120,680.00

  Derbyshire

  23,786.00

  21,420.00

  Devon

  18,265.93

  18,265.93

  Doncaster

  47,139.63

  47,139.63

  Dorset

  12,378.00

  10,460.00

  Dudley

  73,759.00

  60,820.00

  Durham

  2,717.97

  2,717.97

  Ealing

  2,239,147.00

  2,029,940.00

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  19,664.00

  19,664.00

  East Sussex

  240,435.00

  232,048.00

  Enfield

  3,144,896.00

  3,040,122.00

  Essex

  576,145.99

  518,360.00

  Flintshire

  1,750.00

  1,750.00

  Gateshead

  54,327.00

  54,327.00

  Gloucestershire

  164,791.00

  164,791.00

  Greenwich

  1,953,404.00

  1,953,404.00

  Gwynedd

  0.00

  0.00

  Hackney

  3,713,649.86

  3,687,443.58

  Halton

  0.00

  0.00

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4,587,902.00

  3,428,220.00

  Hampshire

  114,017.53

  107,034.29

  Haringey

  6,376,251.00

  6,376,251.00

  Harrow

  1,242,218.00

  1,016,220.00

  Hartlepool

  0.00

  0.00

  Havering

  1,093,419.00

  831,961.00

  Herefordshire

  11,568.32

  11,568.32

  Hertfordshire

  1,230,238.61

  1,230,238.61

  Hillingdon

  3,646,464.00

  2,918,320.00

  513W

  Asylum seekers support grant 6 December to 31 March 1999–2000 Local authority claims

  £

  Local authority

  Gross expenditure net of housing benefit

  Grand total grant paid

  Hounslow

  1,754,462.00

  1,632,380.00

  Isle of Anglesey CC

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  2,050.00

  2,050.00

  Isles of Scilly

  0.00

  0.00

  Islington

  6,894,840.00

  6,894,840.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,464,507.00

  2,883,580.00

  Kent

  7,522,422.00

  7,522,422.00

  Kingston upon Hull

  215,008.00

  199,160.00

  Kingston upon Thames

  433,750.00

  360,520.00

  Kirklees

  266,883.00

  207,393.00

  Knowsley

  84,778.00

  55,648.00

  Lambeth

  4,333,762.00

  4,333,762.00

  Lancashire

  39,725.85

  39,725.85

  Leeds

  117,718.24

  117,718.24

  Leicester

  417,329.00

  412,785.00

  Leicestershire

  214,732.63

  210,954.06

  Lewisham

  3,012,011.00

  3,012,011.00

  Lincolnshire

  117,746.36

  117,746.36

  Liverpool

  603,857.02

  412,171.44

  Luton

  1,126,123.00

  1,126,123.00

  Manchester

  1,629,507.00

  1,607,460.00

  Medway

  60,710.07

  60,710.07

  Merthyr Tydfil County

  1,220.65

  1,220.65

  Merton

  1,383,158.00

  1,282,060.00

  Middlesbrough

  87,506.00

  87,506.00

  Milton Keynes

  481,624.90

  481,624.90

  Monmouthshire County

  6,425.24

  4,480.00

  Neath Port Talbot

  1,685.81

  1,685.81

  Newham

  6,521,596.00

  6,521,596.00

  Newport County (South Wales)

  29,608.82

  25,111.00

  Norfolk

  145,520.00

  145,520.00

  North East Lincolnshire

  63,051.95

  63,051.95

  North Lincolnshire

  6,853.21

  6,853.21

  North Somerset

  33,078.00

  27,140.00

  North Tyneside

  57,923.50

  32,079.83

  North Yorkshire

  8,854.09

  8,854.09

  Northamptonshire

  4,123,033.00

  4,123,033.00

  Northumberland

  1,700.00

  1,700.00

  Nottingham

  127,131.60

  127,131.60

  Nottinghamshire

  82,792.69

  71,153.98

  Oldham

  54,718.00

  54,718.00

  Oxfordshire

  2,184,757.00

  1,988,200.00

  Pembrokeshire

  6,953.32

  6,953.32

  Peterborough

  103,003.00

  103,003.00

  Plymouth

  42,449.00

  42,449.00

  Poole

  19,620.00

  19,620.00

  Portsmouth

  358,836.00

  354,680.00

  Powys CC

  0.00

  0.00

  Reading

  656,471.00

  650,562.00

  Redbridge

  2,911,757.00

  2,911,757.00

  Redcar and Cleveland

  69,265.25

  69,125.79

  Rhondda Cynon Taff County

  15,595.82

  14,160.00

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,624,087.00

  1,063,492.00

  Rochdale

  86,817.00

  78,664.00

  Rotherham

  100,318.88

  55,609.00

  Rutland

  13,994.90

  13,994.90

  Salford

  115,872.00

  115,872.00

  Sandwell

  246,195.00

  246,120.00

  Date

  Monday 24 July

  London in-country cases

  Monday 31 July

  North East, Yorkshire and Humberside and Wales in-country cases

  Monday 14 August

  In-country cases in North West, East Midlands, Eastern, South West and South Central

  Tuesday 29 August

  In-country cases in West Midlands and Sussex

  Monday 25 September

  All disbenefited cases in England and Wales

  514W

  Asylum seekers support grant 6 December to 31 March 1999–2000 Local authority claims

  £

  Local authority

  Gross expenditure net of housing benefit

  Grand total grant paid

  Sefton

  17,393.12

  17,393.12

  Sheffield

  1,163,310.00

  1,163,310.00

  Shropshire

  6,706.00

  6,706.00

  Slough

  2,557,110.00

  2,512,480.00

  Solihull

  18,243.00

  18,243.00

  Somerset

  21,859.72

  19,256.00

  South Gloucestershire

  68,514.74

  57,748.37

  South Tyneside

  80,674.00

  26,360.00

  Southampton

  405,027.78

  397,660.00

  Southend on Sea

  428,857.00

  428,857.00

  Southwark

  5,453,538.00

  4,826,420.00

  St. Helens

  560.00

  560.00

  Staffordshire

  194,055.00

  182,338.00

  Stockport

  99,134.25

  81,880.00

  Stockton on Tees

  8,340.42

  8,340.42

  Stoke on Trent

  86,624.48

  81,860.00

  Suffolk

  56,063.00

  53,281.00

  Sunderland

  84,259.03

  64,040.00

  Surrey

  570,664.00

  508,892.00

  Sutton

  1,156,266.00

  970,680.00

  Swansea City and County

  6,973.15

  6,973.15

  Swindon

  146,469.00

  146,469.00

  Tameside

  44,388.00

  37,320.00

  Telford and Wrekin

  22,813.00

  18,800.00

  Thurrock

  485,941.00

  485,941.00

  Torbay

  0.00

  0.00

  Torfaen CBC

  0.00

  0.00

  Tower Hamlets

  1,241,061.00

  998,480.00

  Trafford

  64,238.68

  64,238.68

  Vale of Glamorgan

  17,380.00

  13,320.00

  Wakefield

  236,803.98

  217,340.00

  Walsall

  75,676.00

  64,048.00

  Waltham Forest

  3,066,246.00

  3,066,246.00

  Wandsworth

  1,625,791.14

  1,280,492.52

  Warrington

  19,800.00

  16,660.00

  Warwickshire

  178,821.00

  178,821.00

  West Berkshire

  12,157.61

  12,157.61

  West Sussex

  269,666.85

  229,710.00

  Westminster

  5,373,888.00

  3,477,920.00

  Wigan

  111,399.00

  63,380.00

  Wiltshire

  78,762.00

  76,220.00

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  24,920.63

  20,060.00

  Wirral

  2,046.66

  2,046.66

  Wokingham

  41,140.00

  41,140.00

  Wolverhampton

  47,966.58

  47,966.58

  Worcestershire

  152,531.00

  152,531.00

  Wrexham

  0.00

  0.00

  York

  4,127.63

  4,127.63

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the National Asylum Support Service to assume responsibility for all in-country asylum applicants. [130118]

  Mrs. Roche
  I propose to extend the new support arrangements for asylum seekers in England and Wales as set out in Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 according to the following timetable:
  515W
  The arrangements which take effect between 24 July and 29 August will apply to all new asylum seekers in England and Wales who claim asylum on, or after, the relevant dates set out in the table (in-country applications in Scotland and Northern Ireland are already covered by the new arrangements). All asylum seekers who are currently being supported by local authority social services departments under the interim arrangements in Schedule 9 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will continue to be so supported.

  "Disbenefited cases" are those asylum seekers who, prior to 3 April 2000, were in receipt of social security benefits, but who on or after 25 September 2000 receive a first negative decision, who are thus no longer eligible for social security benefits, who go on to appeal and who continue to be eligible for support.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have(a) been offered, (b) accepted and (c) refused an offer of accommodation by him under the support arrangements introduced on and after 1 April. [130108]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service began on 3 April 2000. The available information is that as at 3 July 2000 there had been 5,100 claims for support from asylum seekers. Not all claims for support will involve a request for accommodation. Of these claims, 2,190 were offered accommodation.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the state of contract negotiations between the National Asylum Support Service and each of the regional consortiums. [130113]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of 10 July, contracts have been exchanged with Scotland and the North-East. Negotiations with other consortia are ongoing and we hope that a number of areas will be signing up over the coming months. I am not prepared to give information about the current state of any of these negotiations, since to do so could harm the outcome of these negotiations.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may children of school age are(a) asylum seekers and (b) dependants of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom; how many of those children have been dispersed outside London and the South-East; and if he will make a statement. [130109]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1999, the United Kingdom received 3,349 applications for asylum from unaccompanied minors (aged under 18).

  Information on the age of asylum seeker dependants in the United Kingdom is not currently available.

  Information on dispersal of asylum seekers by age is not held centrally.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will delay the placement of additional asylum seekers in Plymouth until proper facilities and support services are in place which are fully funded by his Department. [130120]

  Mrs. Roche
  London and the South-East have had to manage a disproportionate number of asylum seekers and there is a recognised need to disperse asylum seekers to suitable areas throughout the United Kingdom. National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has acquired some 516W
  accommodation in Plymouth through the private sector who are contracted to provide various services, apart from accommodation. There is a "one stop shop" located in Plymouth. We are satisfied that adequate facilities and support infrastructure are available for asylum seekers in Plymouth and that there is no need to delay further placements.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the negotiations to place asylum seekers in Plymouth and the extent to which he consulted the South West Consortium of local authorities. [130119]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have made clear our intention to disperse asylum seekers throughout the United Kingdom. The placing of asylum seekers in Plymouth is part of that dispersal programme. As of 10 July, ten asylum seekers have been dispersed to Plymouth by the National Asylum Support Service. There is an established consultation process between NASS and the regional consortiums regarding dispersal and siting of cluster areas. NASS last wrote to the South West Consortium confirming that Plymouth remained a cluster area on 8 June. The consortium is also fully aware of the contractors within the area.

  The Director of NASS has written to the Chief Executive of South Gloucestershire explaining the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of property in Plymouth and expressing regret that we were unable to consult in advance.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to put dispersed asylum seekers in contact with immigration and advisory services which offer free advice. [129473]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Legal Services Commission provides funding, through contracts with quality-assured suppliers of legal services, for the provision of free legal advice and representation to those who are eligible. In addition, the voluntary sector is establishing "one stop shops" in each of the cluster areas where asylum seekers can obtain advice.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply immigration and advisory services that provide free advice with the names and addresses of dispersed asylum seekers. [129472]

  Mrs. Roche
  No. The routine disclosure of personal details of asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Service to third parties would not be compatible with data protection legislation or our duty to confidentiality to asylum seekers.

  Europol
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has sent to the request of the Presidency of the European Union (7369/00) for approval of a draft recommendation for rules relating to requests from Europol to member states to initiate investigations on its behalf, with particular reference to the proposal that member states should inform Europol of their reasons for not agreeing to such requests. [130055]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The draft Council Recommendation relating to the possibility of Europol asking member states to initiate investigations (7369/00
  517W
  now 7369/1/00) is under discussion in the Europol Working Group. The Government's position is set out in an explanatory memorandum deposited with the scrutiny committees on 2 June, copies of which have been placed in the Library. We are negotiating the draft Recommendation on the basis that it is broadly acceptable. The Recommendation does not impose any obligations on the member states. Competent authorities in the United Kingdom would in general already adhere to the principles in the Recommendation in dealing with requests from Europol through the Europol National Unit. We consider that, while it will not always be appropriate for member states to inform Europol of the reasons for not agreeing to their request to conduct an investigation, it is good practice to do so wherever possible.

  Edwards Report
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Edwards Report. [128509]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 262W.

  The Islands have continued to implement the Edwards Report. Developments since 16 March include:
  Guernsey: on 31 May, the Guernsey States approved the "policy letter" for new legislation on regulating director services, which will address the "Sark Lark", among other things. This step paves the way for drafting the legislation and presentation to the states in the autumn.
  Isle of Man: the Corporate Services Providers Bill has been making legislative process in the Isle of Man.
  Jersey: the Financial Services (Extension) (Jersey) Law has been referred to the Home Office for Royal Assent. It extends supervision to providers of services in connection with companies and trusts.

  Police Training
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the respondents to Police Training: A Consultation Document, published in November 1999. [129589]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A full list of respondents to Police Training: A Consultation Document, published in November 1999, is as follows:

  A. Police staff associations

  1. Police Federation of England and Wales

  2. Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales

  B. ACPO and individual forces

  3. Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  4. Metropolitan Police

  5. Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  6. Bedfordshire Police

  7. Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  8. Cleveland Constabulary

  9. Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  10. Essex Police

  11. Gloucestershire Constabulary

  12. Greater Manchester Police

  518W

  13. Hertfordshire Constabulary

  14. Humberside Police

  15. Gwent Police

  16. Kent County Constabulary

  17. Leicestershire Constabulary

  18. Merseyside Police

  19. Norfolk Constabulary

  20. Northamptonshire Police

  21. North Wales Police

  22. North Yorkshire Police

  23. Suffolk Constabulary

  24. Thames Valley Police

  25. West Midlands Police

  26. West Yorkshire Police

  27. Wiltshire Constabulary

  C. APA and individual police authorities

  28. Association of Police Authorities

  29. Durham Police Authority

  30. Humberside Police Authority

  31. Kent Police Authority

  32. Lincolnshire Police Authority

  33. Northumbria Police Authority

  34. Nottinghamshire Police Authority

  35. Thames Valley Police Authority

  D. Others

  36. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary

  37. National Police Training

  38. British Transport Police

  39. Sir John Wheeler, Chairman of NCIS and NCS Service Authorities

  40. Ian Johnston QPM, Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police

  41. DC Debbie Carson, Metropolitan Police

  42. Training Unit, Northumbria Police

  43. Inspector Karl Burns, Specialist Skills Section, Northumbria Police

  44. Management Training Team, Nottinghamshire Police

  45. No. 5 Region, ACPO Training Practitioners Group

  46. Ian Symonds, ACPO Competency Framework project

  47. Steve Trimmins, Crime Reduction College

  48. NTO Division, Department for Education and Employment

  49. Metropolitan Police Committee

  50. Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary

  51. Cheshire Special Constabulary

  52. City of London Special Constabulary

  53. Cumbria Special Constabulary

  54. Warwickshire Special Constabulary

  55. Examinations and Assessment, National Police Training

  56. National Training Centre for Scientific Support to Crime Investigation

  57. Police Complaints Authority

  58. Improvement and Development Agency

  59. Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)

  60. Institution of Professionals, Managers and Scientists (IPMS)

  61. Unison

  62. First Division Association

  63. Community Justice NTO

  64. Justices' Clerks' Society

  65. Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  519W

  66. National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders

  67. Commission for Racial Equality

  68. National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  69. Crime Concern

  70. Victim Support

  71. National Neighbourhood Watch Association

  72. University of Portsmouth Institute of Criminal Justice Studies

  73. The Police Foundation

  74. Edexcel

  75. The Newspaper Society

  76. Geoff Swaithe

  77. Nick Ross

  78. Gareth Hadley, Director of Personnel, Prison Service

  79. Crown Prosecution Service

  80. Donald Bligh.

  Glen Howard
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take following the inquest into the death of Glen Howard; and if he will make a statement. [129588]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Crown Prosecution Service have now received a transcript of the inquest into the death of Glenn Howard. They will be reconsidering the case in light of all the evidence that was presented there and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specific details at this stage. However, the use of restraint tactics when dealing with mentally disordered persons is a matter which I understand the police are reviewing as part of the continual process of evaluating and improving training.

  CS Spray
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Association of Chief Police Officers' decision to make its guidance on the use of CS spray available to interested parties; and if he will make a statement. [129584]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I welcome it.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that the planned research into the interaction of CS spray and anti-psychotic medication used in the treatment of schizophrenia will involve wide consultation with relevant service users, carers and voluntary organisations. [129586]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am not aware of any research planned specifically on the interaction of CS spray and anti-psychotic medication, although the research we shall be carrying out at the recommendation of the Committee on Toxicity on the longer-term effects of CS spray may provide information on this subject.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Association of Chief Police Officers' decision on local protocols with health and social services departments about the use of CS spray on people known to have a severe mental illness; and if he will make a statement. [129585]
  520W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I agree with the Association of Chief Police Officer's (ACPO) recommendation that chief officers should consider drawing up local protocols with health authorities and social services departments on this matter.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers from the Metropolitan police left the service in the last 12 months; and what were the reasons given for leaving. [129507]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Figures provided by the Metropolitan police show that in the 12 months from April 1999 to March 2000, 1,504 people ceased to serve as Metropolitan police officers. This equates to a turnover rate of 5.66 per cent.

  Out of the total 554 officers retired on ordinary police pensions, 361 resigned, 285 were medically retired and 243 transferred to other forces. A further 61 officers left for other reasons, including dismissal and death in service.

  I understand that concerns about quality of life and the costs associated with living in London have been reasons historically given by those resigning and transferring to other forces for their decisions. A new exit poll introduced by the Metropolitan police in April 2000 will give more detailed information for future years.

  Police Force Areas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police force areas fall within which parliamentary constituencies. [129458]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out as follows for each police force area in England and Wales.

  Parliamentary constituencies by police force area

  Avon and Somerset constabulary

  Bath

  Bristol:

  East

  North-West

  South

  West

  Kingswood

  Northavon

  Wansdyke

  Weston-Super-Mare

  Woodspring

  Bridgwater

  Somerton and Frome

  Taunton

  Wells

  Yeovil

  Bedfordshire police

  Bedford

  Mid-Bedfordshire

  North-East Bedfordshire

  South-West Bedfordshire

  Luton, North

  Luton, South

  521W
  Cambridgeshire constabulary

  Cambridge

  North-East Cambridgeshire

  Nort-West Cambridgeshire

  South, Cambridgeshire

  South-East Cambridgeshire

  Huntingdon

  Peterborough

  Cheshire constabulary

  City of Chester

  Congleton

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Eddisbury

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Halton

  Macclesfield

  Tatton

  Weaver Vale

  Warrington, North

  Warrington, South

  Cleveland police

  Hartlepool

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East

  Redcar

  Stockton, North

  Stockton, South

  Cumbria constabulary

  Barrow and Furness

  Carlisle

  Copeland

  Penrith and The Border

  Westmorland and Lonsdale

  Workington

  Derbyshire constabulary

  Amber Valley

  Bolsover

  Chesterfield

  Derby, North

  Derby, South

  North-East Derbyshire

  South Derbyshire

  West Derbyshire

  Erewash

  High Peak

  Devon and Cornwall constabulary

  Exeter

  East Devon

  North Devon

  South-West Devon

  Torridge and West Devon

  522W

  Plymouth, Sutton

  Plymouth, Devonport

  Teignbridge

  Tiverton and Honiton

  Torbay

  Totnes

  North Cornwall

  South-East Cornwall

  Falmouth and Camborne

  St. Ives

  Truro and St. Austell

  Dorset police

  Bournemouth, East

  Bournemouth, West

  Christchurh

  Mid-Dorset and North Poole

  North Dorset

  South Dorset

  West Dorset

  Poole

  Durham constabulary

  Bishop Auckland

  City of Durham

  Darlington

  North Durham

  North-West Durham

  Easington

  Sedgefield

  Dyfed-Powys police

  West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire

  East Carmarthen and Dinefwr

  Ceredigion

  Llanelli

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  Montgomeryshire

  Essex police

  Billericay

  Basildon

  Braintree

  Brentwood and Ongar

  Castle Point

  West Chelmsford

  Colchester

  Epping Forest

  North Essex

  Harwich

  Harlow

  Maldon and East Chelmsford

  Saffron Walden

  Rayleigh

  Rochford and Southend, East

  Southend, West

  Thurrock

  523W
  Gloucestershire constabulary

  Cheltenham

  Cotswold

  Forest of Dean

  Gloucester

  Stroud

  Tewkesbury

  Greater Manchester police

  Altrincham and Sale, West

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  Bolton, North-East

  Bolton, South-East

  Bolton, West

  Bury, North

  Bury, South

  Cheadle

  Denton and Reddish

  Eccles

  Hazel Grove

  Heywood and Middleton

  Leigh

  Makerfield

  Manchester:

  Central

  Blackley

  Gorton

  Withington

  Oldham, East and Saddleworth

  Oldham, West and Royton

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  Stockport

  Stretford and Urmston

  Wigan

  Worsley

  Wythenshawe and Sale, East

  Gwent constabulary

  Blaenau Gwent

  Islwyn

  Monmouth

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  Newport, East

  Newport, West

  Torfaen

  Hampshire constabulary

  Aldershot

  Basingstoke

  Eastleigh

  Fareham

  Gosport

  East Hampshire

  North-East Hampshire

  524W

  North-West Hampshire

  Havant

  Isle of Wight

  New Forest, East

  New Forest, West

  Portsmouth, North

  Portsmouth, South

  Romsey

  Southampton, Itchen

  Southampton, Test

  Winchester

  Hertfordshire constabulary

  Broxbourne

  Hemel Hempstead

  Hertford and Stortford

  North-East Hertfordshire

  South-West Hertfordshire

  Hertsmere

  Hitchin and Harpenden

  St. Albans

  Stevenage

  Watford

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Humberside police

  Beverley and Holderness

  Brigg and Goole

  Cleethorpes

  Great Grimsby

  Haltemprice and Howden

  Hull, East

  Hull, North

  Hull, West and Hessle

  Scunthorpe

  East Yorkshire

  Kent county constabulary

  Ashford

  Canterbury

  Chatham and Aylesford

  Dartford

  Faversham and Mid-Kent

  Folkestone and Hythe

  Gillingham

  Gravesham

  Maidstone and The Weald

  Medway

  Sevenoaks

  Sittingbourne and Sheppey

  North Thanet

  South Thanet

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Tunbridge Wells

  525W
  Lancashire constabulary

  Blackburn

  Blackpool, North and Fleetwood

  Blackpool, South

  Burnley

  Chorley

  Fylde

  Hyndburn

  West Lancashire

  Lancaster and Wyre

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  Pendle

  Preston

  South Ribble

  Ribble Valley

  Rossendale and Darwen

  Leicestershire constabulary

  Blaby

  Bosworth

  Charnwood

  Harborough

  Leicester, East

  Leicester, South

  Leicester, West

  North-West Leicestershire

  Loughborough

  Rutland and Melton

  Lincolnshire police

  Boston and Skegness

  Gainsborough

  Grantham and Stamford

  Lincoln

  Louth and Horncastle

  Sleaford and North Hykeham

  South Holland and The Deepings

  Merseyside police

  Birkenhead

  Bootle

  Crosby

  Knowsley, North and Sefton East

  Knowsley, South

  Liverpool:

  Garston

  Riverside

  Wavertree

  Walton

  West Derby

  Southport

  St. Helens, North

  St. Helens, South

  Wallasey

  Wirral, South

  Wirral, West

  526W
  Norfolk constabulary

  Great Yarmouth

  Mid-Norfolk

  North Norfolk

  North-West Norfolk

  South Norfolk

  South-West Norfolk

  Norwich, North

  Norwich, South

  Northamptonshire police

  Corby

  Daventry

  Kettering

  Northampton, North

  Northampton, South

  Wellingborough

  Northumbria police

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Blyth Valley

  Hexham

  Wansbeck

  Blaydon

  Gateshead, East and Washington, West

  Houghton and Washington, East

  Jarrow

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne:

  Central

  East and Wallsend

  North

  South Shields

  Sunderland, North

  Sunderland, South

  Tyne Bridge

  Tynemouth

  Tyneside, North

  North Wales police

  Caernarfon

  Conwy

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  Ynys Mon

  Alyn and Deeside

  Clwyd, South

  Clwyd, West

  Delyn

  Vale of Clwyd

  Wrexham

  North Yorkshire police

  City of York

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  Richmond

  Ryedale

  Scarborough and Whitby

  Selby

  Skipton and Ripon

  Vale of York

  527W
  Nottinghamshire police

  Ashfield

  Bassetlaw

  Broxtowe

  Gedling

  Mansfield

  Newark

  Nottingham, East

  Nottingham, North

  Nottingham, South

  Rushcliffe

  Sherwood

  South Wales police

  Bridgend

  Caerphilly

  Cynon Valley

  Ogmore

  Pontypridd

  Rhondda

  Cardiff:

  Central

  North

  South and Penarth

  West

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Aberavon

  Gower

  Neath

  Swansea, East

  Swansea, West

  South Yorkshire police

  Barnsley, Central

  Barnsley, East and Mexborough

  Barnsley, West and Penistone

  Don Valley

  Doncaster, Central

  Doncaster, North

  Rotherham

  Rother Valley

  Sheffield:

  Central

  Attercliffe

  Brightside

  Hallam

  Heeley

  Hillsborough

  Wentworth

  Staffordshire police

  Burton

  Cannock Chase

  Lichfield

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Stafford

  Staffordshire, Moorland

  South Staffordshire

  Stoke on Trent, Central

  Stoke on Trent, North

  Stoke on Trent, South

  Stone

  Tamworth

  528W
  Suffolk constabulary

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North

  Suffolk, Coastal

  South Suffolk

  West Suffolk

  Waveney

  Surrey police

  Epsom and Ewell

  Esher and Walton

  Guildford

  Mole Valley

  Reigate

  Runnymede and Weybridge

  Spelthorne

  East Surrey

  Surrey Heath

  South-West Surrey

  Woking

  Sussex police

  Arundel and South Downs

  Bexhill and Battle

  Bognor Regis and Littlehampton

  Brighton, Kemptown

  Brighton, Pavilion

  Chichester

  Crawley

  Eastbourne

  Hastings and Rye

  Horsham

  Hove

  Lewes

  Mid-Sussex

  Wealden

  East Worthing and Shoreham

  Worthing, West

  Thames Valley police

  Bracknell

  Maidenhead

  Newbury

  Reading, East

  Reading, West

  Slough

  Windsor

  Wokingham

  Banbury

  Henley

  Oxford, East

  Oxford, West and Abingdon

  Wantage

  Witney

  Aylesbury

  Beaconsfield

  Buckingham

  Milton Keynes, North-East

  Milton Keynes, South-West

  Wycombe

  529W
  Warwickshire constabulary

  Nuneaton

  Rugby and Kenilworth

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  Warwick and Leamington

  North Warwickshire

  West Mercia constabulary

  Bromsgrove

  Hereford

  Leominster

  Redditch

  Worcester

  Mid-Worcestershire

  West Worcestershire

  Wyre Forest

  Ludlow

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  North Shropshire

  Telford

  The Wrekin

  West Midlands police

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  Birmingham:

  Sparkbrook and Small Heath

  Edgbaston

  Erdington

  Hall Green

  Hodge Hill

  Ladywood

  Northfield

  Perry Barr

  Selly Oak

  Yardley

  Coventry, North-East

  Coventry, North-West

  Coventry, South

  Dudley, North

  Dudley, South

  Halesowen and Rowley Regis

  Meriden

  Solihull

  Stourbridge

  Sutton Coldfield

  Warley

  West Bromwich, East

  West Bromwich, West

  Walsall, North

  Walsall, South

  Wolverhampton, North-East

  Wolverhampton, South-East

  Wolverhampton, South-West

  530W
  West Yorkshire police

  Batley and Spen

  Bradford, North

  Bradford, South

  Bradford, West

  Calder Valley

  Colne Valley

  Elmet

  Dewsbury

  Halifax

  Hemsworth

  Huddersfield

  Keighley

  Leeds:

  Central

  East

  North-East

  North-West

  West

  Morley and Rothwell

  Normanton

  Pontefract and Castleford

  Pudsey

  Shipley

  Wakefield

  Wiltshire constabulary

  Devizes

  Salisbury

  Swindon, North

  Swindon, South

  Westbury

  North Wiltshire

  Metropolitan police

  Barking

  Battersea

  Beckenham

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  Bexleyheath and Crayford

  Brent, East

  Brent, North

  Brent, South

  Brentford and Isleworth

  Bromley and Chislehurst

  Camberwell and Peckham

  Carshalton and Wallington

  Chingford and Woodford Green

  Chipping Barnet

  Cities of London and Westminster

  Croydon, Central

  Croydon, North

  Croydon, South

  Dagenham

  Dulwich and West Norwood

  531W

  Ealing, North

  Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush

  Ealing, Southall

  East Ham

  Edmonton

  Eltham

  Enfield, North

  Enfield, Southgate

  Erith and Thamesmead

  Feltham and Heston

  Finchley and Golders Green

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  Hackney, North and Stoke Newington

  Hackney, South and Shoreditch

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hampstead and Highgate

  Harrow, East

  Harrow, West

  Hayes and Harlington

  Hendon

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  Hornchurch

  Hornsey and Wood Green

  Ilford, North

  Ilford, South

  Islington, North

  Islington, South and Finsbury

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kingston and Surbiton

  Lewisham, East

  Lewisham, West

  Lewisham Deptford

  Leyton and Wanstead

  Mitcham and Morden

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  Orpington

  Poplar and Canning Town

  Putney

  Regent's Park and Kensington, North

  Richmond Park

  Romford

  Ruislip-Northwood

  Southwark, North and Bermondsey

  Streatham

  Sutton and Cheam

  Tooting

  Tottenham

  Twickenham

  Upminster

  Vauxhall

  Walthamstow

  West Ham

  Wimbledon

  City of London police

  Cities of London and Westminster.

  Police Complaints
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time was the Police Complaints Authority took to deal with complaints in the last 12 months; and what the PCA guidelines stipulate this should be. [129464]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) agreed targets for the completion of each stage of the complaints process in a joint statement of intent with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 1992. The PCA's performance against these targets is set out in its annual report.

  In 1998–99, the last year for which figures are available, 63 per cent. of PCA supervised investigations were completed within the agreed target of 120 days. The PCA took an average of 47 days to complete its discipline review of completed investigations, against an agreed target of 28 days.

  Judicial Decisions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under which European Union or Community instrument Her Majesty's Government(a) have agreed and (b) plan to agree the mutual recognition of court judgments among EU member states; if he will list each such document and when it (i)was published, (ii) was considered in Parliament and (iii) came into or is expected to come into force; and which bodies or persons the Government consulted before reaching such decisions. [129753]

  Mrs. Roche
  Action to follow up the conclusions of the Tampere European Council on mutual recognition of judicial decisions has not yet reached the stage of European Union or Community legislation. The French Presidency has however tabled a document in the Article 36 Committee, dated 26 June, (reference 9737/00) which outlines a programme of legislative measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. The document has been deposited for scrutiny in both Houses. The Government intend to support work on the programme of measures, and will consult appropriate United Kingdom bodies including those concerned in implementing the proposals, before any legislation is adopted.

  Immigration
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 June 2000,Official Report, column 626W, on immigration, if he will list those parts of European treaties coming into force subsequent to the passage of the Immigration Act 1971 which permit questioning, searching and detention on grounds of public policy through derogation from treaty provisions concerning freedom of movement and absence of internal frontiers within the European Union and Community. [129754]

  Mrs. Roche
  Under the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union is subject to derogations on grounds of public policy, public security and public health. These limitations on the Treaty freedoms are allowed by Article 39(3) (as regards freedom of movement for workers), Article 46 (as regards
  533W
  the right of establishment) and Article 55 (as regards the provision of services), and are also recognised by Article 18 (inserted by the Treaty on European Union).

  The same limitations can be found in the secondary Community legislation on freedom of movement, including Directives 68/360/EEC, 73/148/EEC and 75/34/EEC. The use by member states of these derogations is subject to Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on the grounds of public policy, public security, or public health, extended by Directives 72/194/EEC and 75/35/EEC.

  In order for Immigrations Officers to decide whether a person should be excluded on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health, Article 20(2)(e)of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 applies the powers to question, search and detain contained in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 to EEA nationals.

  In the case of the United Kingdom, the question of derogation from provision concerning the absence of internal frontiers within the EU does not arise, having regard to our special position on the maintenance of internal frontier controls.

  Citizenship Applicants (Language Difficulties)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for UK citizenship in each year since 1990 were turned down because they had an inadequate grasp of English. [129614]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information is not available in the form requested for the years 1990–94.

  The number of applications refused for an insufficient knowledge of English between 1995 and June 2000 (the latest month for which information is available) are shown in the table.

  Year

  Total

  1995

  23

  1996

  27

  1997

  46

  1998

  53

  1999

  27

  20001

  12

  1As of 30 June

  Firearms
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish his response to the Second report of the Home Affairs Committee for Session 1999–2000 on Controls over Firearms (HC95). [129505]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are currently considering the Select Committee's report and hopes to publish their response by way of a Command Paper shortly.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collates on the amount of time which is taken by each constabulary to 534W
  come to a decision on applications for shotgun licences in the last five years; and what were the longest and shortest waiting times. [129506]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government do not collect statistics routinely on the time taken by individual police forces to grant or renew shotgun certificates.

  Children's Homes
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans exist for a co-ordinated police response in relation to(a) child abuse in care, (b) disappearances from children's homes and (c) child deaths in children's homes. [129769]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)/Local Government Association jointly issued a set of guidelines, "Missing from Care: Procedures and Practices in Caring for Missing Children" (1988), underlining the importance of close co-operation between police and social services when children go missing from care.

  "Working Together to Safeguard Children" is a Department of Health document which has been prepared and issued jointly by the DOH, the Home Office and the Department of Education and Employment. It is addressed to those who work in the health and education services, the police, social services, the probation service, and those whose work brings them into contact with children and families. It is intended to provide a national framework within which agencies at a local level draw up and agree detailed ways of working together to promote children's welfare and to protect them from abuse and neglect and, in the most extreme cases, death.

  Following publication of "Learning the Lessons—the Government's response to the Waterhouse Report", there is to be an inter-agency review of best practice in conducting complex abuse investigations. A Review Group is being established to take forward this work, bringing together representatives from the Home Office, Department of Health, Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Child Detainees
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many girls aged 15,16 and 17 years were received into custody during 1999(a) under sentence, (b) convicted unsentenced and (c) unconvicted. [129697]

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

  Receptions1 into prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales of females aged 15, 16 and 17, by type of custody in 19992

  Type of custody

  Age 15

  Age 16

  Age 17

  Untried

  —

  —

  219

  Convicted Unsentenced

  —

  —

  162

  Sentenced

  59

  110

  185

  1Total receptions cannot be calculated by adding together receptions in each category because there is double counting.

  2Provisional figures

  535W
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of sentence was, by type of offence, for girls aged under 18 years received into custody in each year from 1994 to 1999. [129698]

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

  Average sentence length1 for females aged under 18 received into prisons and young offender establishments in England and Wales, by type of offence, 1994–99

  Average sentence length—months

  Year of sentenced reception

  Offence group

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Violence against the person

  7.5

  8.5

  7.6

  6.5

  7.1

  6.4

  Sexual offences

  —

  23.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  10.3

  6.4

  6.9

  10.2

  10.0

  9.0

  Robbery

  8.2

  17.6

  11.5

  13.5

  9.6

  15.3

  Theft and handling

  6.2

  6.1

  5.7

  5.2

  4.4

  5.0

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  5.0

  —

  5.7

  4.8

  Drugs offences

  20.0

  10.0

  22.5

  20.3

  7.6

  16.5

  Other offences

  10.9

  10.7

  6.1

  12.3

  6.6

  5.6

  Offence not recorded

  10.6

  6.8

  10.2

  15.9

  10.7

  6.8

  All females under 18

  8.2

  10.0

  8.3

  9.6

  7.6

  7.1

  1Excludes those sentenced to life

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the haulage companies charged under the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000 have been charged on more than one occasion. [129793]

  Mrs. Roche
  Four.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the haulage companies charged under the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000 were registered in Scotland. [129792]

  Mrs. Roche
  Of a total of 233 penalties raised by 6 July 2000, 59 had been raised against British registered companies. Records relating specifically to Scottish registered companies are not kept separately.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness and (b) the effect upon the haulage industry of the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000. [129797]

  Mrs. Roche
  The civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 were introduced as recently as 3 April 2000. Provisional figures indicate that the number of illegal entrants detected in Kent since the introduction of the provisions has fallen by 25 per cent., and that the number detected nationally has fallen by about 22 per cent. Total penalties imposed up to 6 July 2000 amount to £2,530,000.

  There is now an obligation on lorry drivers to search their vehicles before they embark for the United Kingdom. A code of practice established in consultation with the industry protects drivers from the imposition of a civil penalty if they can show that they have complied with its terms.
  536W
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hauliers convicted of transporting clandestine entrants into the United Kingdom since the implementation of the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000 have been fined, for each particular incident(a) £2,000, (b) £4,000, (c) £6,000, (d) £8,000, (e) £10,000, (f) £12,000, (g) £14,000, (h) £16,000, (i) £18,000, (j) £20,000, (k) £22,000, (l) £24,000, (m) £26,000, (n) £28,000, (o) £30,000, (p) £32,000, (q) £34,000, (r) £36,000, (s) £38,000, (t) £40,000, (u) £42,000, (v) £44,000, (w) £46,000, (x) £48,000, (y) £50,000 and (z) £52,000 and over. [129956]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Civil penalty is set at £2,000 for each clandestine illegal entrant found concealed in a transporter. Penalties imposed thus far have been as follows. Fourteen charges of £2,000; 31 charges of £4,000; 49 charges of £6,000; 37 charges of £8,000; 27 charges of £10,000; 18 charges of £12,000; 15 charges of £14,000; eight charges of £16,000; 10 charges of £18,000; five charges of £20,000; seven charges of £22,000; one charge of £24,000; two charges of £26,000; one charge of £28,000; one charge of £32,000; one charge of £36,000; two charges of £38,000; one charge of £42,000; one charge of £44,000; one charge of £46,000; one charge of £50,000; and one charge of £100,000.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many primates have been used in the years since 1995 in research involving pig kidneys and pig hearts being transplanted into primates; and what percentage of these primates have rejected the transplanted organs. [129961]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number used in xenotransplantation research in each of the last four years for which information is available is as follows:

  1996–60

  1997–83

  1998–81

  1999–49.

  The majority of the primates were euthanased once they began to show clinical or biochemical evidence of terminal organ failure or when their clinical condition began to give rise for concern.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to extend the age range covered by child curfew orders; [129243]

  (2) what guidance he has issued regarding child curfew orders; [129239]

  (3) how many (a) child curfew orders and (b) antisocial behaviour orders have been granted; and if he will break down the number granted in each (i)local authority and (ii) parliamentary constituency. [129265]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government issued detailed guidance to local authorities and the police in September 1998 on the provisions for local child curfew schemes under sections 14 and 15 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. A copy is in the Library. No applications have yet
  537W
  been received from local authorities to establish such a scheme. Following consultation with local authorities and the police, the Government are considering what improvements might be made to the provisions, including extending the age range, to ensure that they are able to contribute effectively to local partnership efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  Information on the number of anti-social behaviour orders granted by the courts is being collected centrally with effect from 1 June 2000. Following a trawl of police forces we are aware that at least 80 such orders were made between 1 April 1999 and 31 May 2000, the latest date for which figures are available. We know that anti-social behaviour orders have been granted in the following police force areas, although the list is not exhaustive:

  Avon and Somerset;

  Thames Valley;

  Cambridgeshire;

  West Mercia;

  Cleveland;

  West Midlands;

  Cumbria;

  West Yorkshire;

  Derbyshire;

  Devon and Cornwall;

  Greater Manchester;

  Hampshire;

  Hertfordshire;

  Lancashire;

  Leicestershire;

  Metropolitan;

  Merseyside;

  538W

  Norfolk;

  North Yorkshire;

  Northumbria;

  Nottinghamshire;

  South Yorkshire;

  Suffolk; and

  Sussex.

  Internet Service Providers (Defamation Law)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the operation of the law of defamation as it relates to the liability of internet service providers. [129407]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.

  A consultation paper on perceived abuses of defamation procedures is currently being prepared by my Department. This will be issued within the next few weeks. It will cover, among other things, defamation on the internet and the subsequent liability of internet service providers.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has held with internet service providers on the law of defamation. [129406]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.

  No formal consultation has yet been held. However, my Department will shortly be issuing a consultation paper on perceived abuses of defamation procedures which will cover the issue of defamation on the internet. Comments will be invited from the Internet Service Providers Association.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Lord Cobbold
David Antony Fromanteel Lord Cobbold, having received a Writ of Summons following the death of the Baroness Wharton in accordance with Standing Order 9(7)(Hereditary Peers), took the oath.
2.37 p.m.

Nuclear Waste: Consultation Paper
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will publish the consultation paper on nuclear waste which was promised in their response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Management of Nuclear Waste (3rd Report, Session 1998–99, HL Paper 41).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I had indicated that we aimed to publish the consultation paper on the management of radioactive waste in the spring of this year. However, drafting has proved more complicated than expected. The paper will be published as soon as possible.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The noble Lord will recall that in response to the same Question in March of this year he said:
"we are talking about the spring, and spring it will be".—[Official Report. 16/3/00; col. 1680.]
Spring it manifestly is not, whatever the weather may suggest. Having failed on one promise, I hope that the Minister can be a little more specific today. I look forward to a more definitive date. Is the Minister aware that it is now 16 months since the Select Committee published its report and no action has been taken by the Government, other than a rather flimsy response? Is the noble Lord also aware that 16 months was the time taken by the Select Committee, with its meagre resources, to take oral and written evidence, to visit installations and to consider, write and publish its report? Is that not an unflattering comparison with government activity over the same period? Finally, does the Minister, on behalf of the Government, endorse the following comment in the report:
"The long time-scales involved might be thought to be a reason for postponing decisions. The contrary is the case"?
124
We went on to spell out the reasons why the contrary was the case.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the fact that we need to take decisions which affect the long term is the reason why the Government must get the consultation paper right in the first instance. One of the matters to which the Select Committee draws attention is the need to ensure that there is public support for whatever policy we adopt. Clearly, the consultation paper is part of the strategy to gain public support for whatever solution to this very serious problem eventually emerges. The Government have taken significantly longer than they intended. As I indicated last time the matter was before the House, that underlines the complexity of the issue. I am afraid that I cannot give a definitive date. Spring has indeed gone, and we doubt whether summer is far behind. Nevertheless, we shall take a little more time before we produce the consultation paper. I have made a mistake before and I do not intend to repeat it. This has proved to be a very complex task. I hope that the noble Lord and other members of the Select Committee who carried out this work accept that the Government are making their best efforts in this matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the Minister appears to give a very thin reply to the reasonable Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. Is it too much to hope that the army of draftsmen who are employed in producing loads and loads of rubbish from government sources could be better employed simply responding slightly more quickly than has proved possible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government did respond to the report of the Select Committee, albeit the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, believes that that response was not entirely adequate. It is, therefore, not a question of discourtesy to the Select Committee. The next stage is consultation with the public and the interests involved on what is a very serious issue. Decisions taken today in this matter will affect the position 50 years ahead and beyond.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Select Committee over which the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, presided made a number of very specific recommendations. Some of those recommendations will require further consideration; others could, I believe, be acted upon by the Government quite quickly. Can the Minister indicate the reaction of the Government to the view of the Select Committee that the present management of nuclear waste is fragmented and should be better coordinated? Can that not be done before publication of the considered opinion of the Government on the longer-term treatment of this problem?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we noted and took into account the comments on the structure of the management of nuclear waste in this country. We did not entirely agree with the Select Committee's solution. We now consider that that issue, together with the other policy issue, should be covered in the consultation document. We shall discuss those issues in that context.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the production of less nuclear waste one fairly simply solution? I should like to think that it is not excluded from discussions.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly significant decisions have to be made on the future of the nuclear industry and the role nuclear power plays in meeting our energy requirements and those of the rest of the world. However, the fact remains that were there to be no further nuclear generation there is already substantial waste which will continue to require management and storage. Even were my noble friend's policy to be adopted, we should still require an effective waste management policy.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, did not Mr Meacher himself say shortly after the last election that it would be irresponsible to leave this problem to be dealt with by future generations? How much longer shall we have to wait before his welcome statement will be implemented? Alternatively, has the Prime Minister come to the conclusion that there are no votes in the matter and it will have to wait until after the next election?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is too serious an issue for remarks like that to be made in this House. The Government take the issue seriously. To refer to decisions by future generations when we are talking about taking a few months to get the first stage of the process right is not appropriate.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister elaborate on the complexities to which he referred? Are they of a technical nature? Can he give the House some hint about what they consist of?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the report covers a significant number of different aspects of the management of waste: the structure of management—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to that—the future of plutonium, policy on different levels of waste; treatment of military wastes; waste substitution; and a number of other issues all of which have substantial degrees of complexity. I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord will have to await the consultation paper.

HIV/AIDS in Africa
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the spread of HIV/AIDS in some African countries, what warnings, if any, they offer to men and women from the United Kingdom about to visit Africa.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government produce two important resources for the general population travelling abroad. Health Advice for Travellers contains essential information about avoiding health risks, including HIV/AIDS, anywhere in the world. Travel Safe provides specific advice on how to avoid HIV infection. The sexual health and HIV strategy currently being developed is reviewing HIV/AIDS health promotion information needs.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Does she agree that in the United Kingdom people are largely unaware of the extent of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa? Therefore the forthcoming international conference should be widely publicised.
Does the noble Baroness also agree that since drug treatment is not affordable in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception, I think, of Uganda, international fund-raising measures along the lines of famine relief should be started and public awareness raised?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is a lack of awareness of the extent of the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. There have been recent programmes on television and radio. Those may be associated with the fact that the international conference on HIV/AIDS is taking place now in Durban. We have to ensure that that interest is sustained. I have been surprised that press coverage refers to the HIV/AIDS epidemic as though we have only just learnt about it. It has been continuing for a considerable time. It is important to ensure that the press do not lose interest.
Affordability is only one issue with regard to drugs treatment particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to ensure that the health systems are in place which will assist with that treatment being used in the appropriate way.
Raising money in the way that we do with respect to famine relief is led by NGOs. I am sure that NGOs which wish to start such a campaign would be widely supported.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the work done by her department, especially as regards research on a vaccine against the AIDS virus.
Does the noble Baroness agree that AIDS is now on a scale comparable only with the great plague in the Middle Ages? It is wiping out up to one in four adults

127
in many African countries, including South Africa and Zimbabwe. Will the Minister consider whether the matter is now so serious that it should be raised at the highest international levels, such as the G7 and the Commonwealth Ministers Meeting, so that a strategy can be devised in which pharmaceutical companies, governments and the Churches can all take part in an effective strategy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness. Conflict and AIDS are the two issues which have the biggest negative impact in sub-Saharan Africa. The Department for International Development has allocated £l4 million towards the international AIDS vaccine. We cannot be specific about when there might be a breakthrough but we hope that there will be a breakthrough of some kind in the next live years or so. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to ensure that there is a coordinated international response to this matter. It is important that it is raised and discussed and that some kind of implementation strategy is agreed at the highest levels.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that UNICEF has just announced that over 11 million children in Africa and 13 million world-wide are orphaned as a result of AIDS? Indeed, there will be many more. Can she tell the House whether there are any plans for us to help with that terrible situation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, that the number of children orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS is growing, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. We have ensured that AIDS-related issues, including that of orphans, are integral to the work being done in our development programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. We are also looking at ways of working particularly with women and young people with a view to preventing infection in the first place.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some government Ministers and many taxi drivers in those African countries deny the presence of HIV and AIDS and that that is a dangerous situation for tourists? Can something be done through diplomatic lines with the Ministers and Prime Ministers of those countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is a great deal of denial across the world with regard to the whole area of HIV/AIDS. That is why it is important that we invest money in raising awareness of the subject among populations across the world. We are trying to deal with some of the, as they are termed, "cultural factors" which prevent AIDS programmes being put in place. In countries which have tackled HIV/AIDS successfully, such as Uganda, Senegal and Thailand,
128
we have seen leadership coming from the very top of society. It is important that we encourage that leadership in sub-Saharan Africa and in South Asia.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are represented at the international conference on AIDS which is taking place currently, or perhaps has just finished, in Durban in Kwazulu-Natal? If the Government are not represented, what support are they giving to those who are in attendance?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government, are represented. The senior health adviser at the Department for International Development is heading the UK delegation and there are also representatives from the Department of Health.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if it is not already included in the advice which the Minister mentioned, will she include advice to people to take a small safety pack of syringes and medicament which they may require for treatment, because even the most basic items may be unavailable in Africa?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the advice that we give is extremely comprehensive. Indeed, we ensure that those with HIV/AIDS who travel abroad know that they should take their own medicines with them.

Tobacco Smuggling
2.53 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to combat tobacco smuggling.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Paymaster General announced on 22nd March the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy and a £209 million investment to implement it. That strategy is designed to reverse the trend of tobacco smuggling within three years and reduce it to below current levels in the longer term.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is he aware that, if current smoking trends continue, tobacco will kill 1 billion people in the 21st century, which is 10 times more than in the whole of the 20th century? Of those, three-quarters will be in developing countries. Is he familiar with the report of the Health Select Committee in another place which describes how companies such as BAT, Gallaher and Philip Morris are targeting the Third World and also contains serious allegations that BAT has been involved in smuggling? Is he yet in a position to announce

129
whether the Government accept the committee's recommendation that BAT should be subject to a Companies Act investigation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are certainly well aware of the serious health implications throughout the world, and particularly in developing countries, of continuing and rising levels of tobacco smoking. So far as concerns the Health Select Committee, we are considering its recommendations and shall respond in full in due course. It would not be right for me to respond to a specific recommendation before the full response has been prepared and submitted to the committee. Customs and Excise has not received evidence that UK tobacco manufacturers have committed criminal acts relating to tobacco smuggling into the UK. However, if any evidence is produced, Customs and Excise will of course investigate fully.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in view of the fact that, so far as concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the loss of revenue since 1997 has tripled, surely that must point to the fact that the draconian tax on tobacco smoking is detrimental to our revenue? Will he say whether the Taylor report will be published and whether it recommends that VAT or tobacco duty should be reduced? When will the Government stop saying that taxation under this Government has been reduced? If one takes into account direct and indirect taxation, it has increased enormously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly not underestimate the cost to this country of tobacco smuggling. We estimate that that cost now runs at approximately £2.5 billion, which is 25 per cent of tobacco revenue. As to the Taylor report, that was a private report to government and we do not intend to publish it. However, the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling White Paper, which we published in March and which I referred to in my first Answer, implements many of the recommendations which Mr Taylor made to us.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, so long as a wide and unharmonised gap exists between the price of tobacco products in this country and in our neighbouring EU states, there will be a temptation and incentive to smuggle and such crime will continue? Do the Government appreciate that that means that many young people will have access to less expensive tobacco or cigarettes outside the normal and lawful system which governs the retailing of those products, and that, in addition to the burdens and loss faced by the Treasury, the effect on the retail trade is serious?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is common ground that too many people smoke and too many people smoke smuggled cigarettes. That is damaging both to health and to taxation. However, there are two ways of approaching that as a problem.
130
One is the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, to reduce excise duties. That might help in one sense but certainly would not help from the health point of view. The other is the course that we are taking: to crack down on smuggling itself. The strategy which we published involves disruption of the supply chain, improved intelligence at ports and inland distribution points, confiscation of assets, and more and better human and, indeed, technological resources to catch those who carry out the smuggling.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, perhaps I should say that I am definitely not a non-smoker. Can the Minister confirm that, after drug smuggling, tobacco smuggling is the second biggest criminal activity in the UK, far exceeding the level of benefit fraud identified in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, on the informal economy? That being so, how does the Government's spending on the problem compare with the resources that they commit to deal with benefit fraud?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are prepared to spend what is necessary to tackle tobacco smuggling. I have outlined some of the things that we are going to do. Our proposals involve considerable extra expenditure, including nearly 1,000 additional staff for Customs and Excise. If we found it necessary or appropriate to spend more money, I am sure that we would do so. Given that we are losing £2.5 billion a year, the programme is not constrained by cash.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the policy of raising excise duty at a rate higher than inflation was introduced by the previous Conservative government? That was very much to the credit of the then Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and we strongly supported that policy at the time, when we were in opposition. Would my noble friend be impressed if the Conservatives occasionally supported the Government in pursuit of a policy that is very beneficial to the nation—and also happens to help the Treasury?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I noticed that the opposition to excise duties on tobacco came from the noble Lord, Lord Clark, on the Conservative Back Benches. He was not supported by his Front Bench. It would be helpful if the Conservatives supported us now as we supported them then.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, is the Taylor report available to the Comptroller and Auditor General?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that it is a financial report, so it does not come within the scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General's responsibilities. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.

Public Transport: Concessionary Fares
3.2 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any further consideration has been given to the starting time for the proposed minimum half-fare concession for pensioners on public transport.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, as some noble Lords may recall, the issue was addressed on two occasions yesterday during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill. To repeat what I said then, the Bill provides that the starting time for the statutory minimum concession is 9.30 a.m. That reflects representations from local government. It is open to local authorities to set an earlier time if they think it appropriate. If they already have an earlier start time, there is no need for them to change it because of anything in the Transport Bill.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, although the introduction of concessionary fares in the Transport Bill is welcome, it is a very restricted measure. Even the 9.30 a.m. start is unacceptable to pensioners' organisations and the disabled. They are particularly concerned about getting to hospital appointments. Does the Minister also accept that the 9 a.m. start has operated in London for many years, where free passes are available? Why not at least make the 9 a.m. start uniform throughout the country? That would be welcomed as fair by pensioners and the disabled.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in the other place, we introduced a free bus pass. In your Lordships' House, we extended the concessions to the disabled. We accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment in Committee in the other place to change the morning start time from 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. The passenger transport executive group had called for that later starting time because considerable numbers of school and college journeys are undertaken between 9 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and in larger cities transport operators have to recover from the congestion of the morning peak during that time. It is also true that 9.30 a.m. is the usual starting time for concessionary fares and for off-peak season tickets. I stress that local authorities are free to provide a scheme that is better than the statutory minimum.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 108 as first printed for the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 7, page 4, line 19, leave out from ("partnership") to end of line 21 and insert—
  ("(3) But subsection (2) does not affect any right to receive an amount from the limited liability partnership in that event.")
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
  The aim of the amendment is to prevent difficulties that we foresaw might arise from the interpretation of the phrase
  "may receive from the LLP any amount to which the former member, or member, would have been entitled but for that event".
  There is a risk that the phrase could be interpreted to mean that the only entitlement was to what the former member had been receiving before that event—the event being the circumstances set out in subsection (1)(a) to (d), such as death or bankruptcy.
  In many cases, the former member or his representative would not want to receive a continuing entitlement, which the phrase implies, but would wish to have his share in the firm bought out. That may also be favoured by the limited liability partnership, which would otherwise face a continuing liability. The amendment replaces the problematic phrase with a new subsection that refers to the right to receive an amount to ensure that any buyout provision in the member's agreement is not hindered by the clause.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I welcome the amendment in principle. I have one technical question on it. It is understandable and correct to leave out the words that follow "partnership" in line 19, but I am not sure why it is necessary to insert a new subsection (3). Subsections (1) and (2) say that a retired member

  133
  or personal representatives of the deceased may not appear in the management or administration of the business. Nothing in that would affect the right to receive a payment from the limited liability partnership by reason of retirement or death. I merely wonder why the new subsection is thought necessary.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said. The amendment may not be necessary, but I was pleased to see that it has been added to the Bill, because it clarifies a point as regards which the original drafting of the Bill was hard to understand.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that support—one and a half times—for the amendment. Subsection (3) is there more for the avoidance of doubt than because it adds anything positive. However, it ensures certainty of rights for third parties, which is not stated anywhere else in the clause. Clause 7 is intended to ensure that third parties have no right to interfere in the activities of the limited liability partnership—both opposition parties have supported that—but it is desirable to say explicitly that their rights for repayment or for a continuing interest are ensured.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  2 Clause 17, page 11 line 4, after ("in") insert ("or made under")
  3 Page 11, line 7, after ("in") insert ("or made under")
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
  We were concerned that the references in subsection (5)(a) and (b) to "provisions contained in" the Insolvency Act 1986 or the specified parts of the Companies Act 1985 might be interpreted too narrowly. In either case, some of the provisions may trigger subordinate legislation. It would be peculiar—and unintentional—if the affirmative procedure were triggered in that way. The intention of the amendments is to make the position more certain by changing the wording to read:
  "provisions contained in or made under".
  That covers primary and secondary legislation.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Clause 19, page 12, line 18, leave out subsection (6)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. The amendment removes the privilege clause.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  5 In the schedule, page 15, line 15, leave out ("incorporated as a limited liability partnership with that name.") and insert ("a limited liability partnership or oversea limited liability partnership.")
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. When the Trade and Industry Select Committee of the other place undertook its review of the limited liability partnership legislation, we told the committee that it was our intention that company legislation which requires that oversea companies prominently display the company's name and country in which it is incorporated would also be applied to oversea-registered limited liability partnerships by regulation, and that that would include the requirement to display that information on letterheads and all notices and other official publications of the limited liability partnership. That remains our intention.
  Therefore, it was queried with us why we were additionally planning to prevent the use of the phrase "limited liability partnership" at the end of the title of an oversea registered LLP. That would cause particular difficulties for existing oversea LLPs, many of whom are required, by the legislation of the jurisdiction in which they are registered, to include exactly those words.
  We concluded, as a result, that it was unnecessary and unreasonable both to restrict the use of the words "limited liability partnership" in the title of oversea LLPs and to require that they display their place of registration on all their publications. The latter should prove wholly sufficient to notify clients that they are dealing with an oversea entity.
  On a related point, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will remember that at an early stage of the Bill I undertook that we should amend the application in regulations of Section 351(a) and 351(b) of the Companies Act 1985 to limited liability partnerships so as to require firms that use the abbreviation "LLP" after their names to mention on their business letters and order forms that they are limited liability partnerships. That will show clearly to those who are unfamiliar with the acronym "LLP" that they are dealing with a limited liability entity.

  135
  Clearly, the existing wording in paragraph 4 would not actually prevent the use of the words "limited liability partnership" in the title or name of an oversea-registered LLP. It would merely prevent those being the last words in the title. The regulatory requirement to display the place of registration will be far more effective to alert clients to the fact that the firm with which they are dealing is registered oversea.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Utilities Bill
3.12 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Annual and other reports of the Authority]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 27, after ("year;") insert—
("( ) a statement of accounts giving a true and fair view of the state of affairs and the income and expenditure of the Authority for the year;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 relates to Clause 5 of the Utilities Bill and would require the authority to include a statement of accounts in its annual report. As the cost of regulation is borne by licence holders and ultimately the consumer, it is important that information about the financial performance of the authority is in the public domain.
A similar amendment was tabled in Committee and discussed alongside other proposed changes to the reporting obligations of the authority. The Minister said:
"I have sympathy, in principle, with the amendment. It would ensure that readers have in one document an account of the authority's activities alongside a statement of the resources used in delivering those activities. That would be a good thing".
He went on to reject the amendment by saying:
"I do not believe that we should make it a statutory requirement … I accept the general principle but should prefer not to be tied down in the way provided in the amendment".—[Official Report, 13/6/00: col. 1545.]
We believe that it is right to press the Government on this point, or at least to ask the Government to give an undertaking that the authority will publish accounts at or near the same time as publication of its annual report. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, this sounds a reasonable amendment to make to the provision relating to the annual report of the new authority. The annual report to the Secretary of State should include a statement of accounts. However, if the reference in the amendment to,
"a true and fair view",
means that they are audited accounts, it is likely that there will be some delay in the publication of the annual report due to the time needed by the National Audit Office to sign off the accounts.
Your Lordships may consider that there is an analogy between the requirement in Clause 5 and the requirement in the Fair Trading Act 1973 which requires an annual report of the work of the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading, but there is no requirement that the annual accounts should be included in the same document. Although, as is wholly desirable, the accounts of the Office of Fair Trading are published and are in the public domain, they are simply not required to be published together with the annual report.
Only this morning I made inquiries about the annual report of the Office of Fair Trading for 1999. It has just been published, but I have not yet received a copy. As with many public authorities, one has to wait quite a long time after the end of the year before one can obtain the annual report. I would not like such reports to be delayed even further, as may be the case if the annual report has to be accompanied by audited accounts.
As I understand it, the accounts of the gas and electricity markets authority have to be presented each year to Parliament—technically the annual report is presented to the Secretary of State—under the new Government Resources and Accounts Bill. Therefore, it seems that this amendment would not only create the possible difficulty that I mentioned earlier of the annual report being delayed but would also create an unnecessary duplication. I would advise the House not to accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with part of what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said and all of what my noble friend Lord Borrie said. Indeed, in Committee, in responding to a similar amendment, I said that I had sympathy in principle with the intention underlying it. Readers of annual reports would have in one document an account of the authority's activities alongside a statement of the resources used in delivering those activities. I agree with the noble Baroness that that would be helpful.
I also agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie that the reference in the amendment to giving,
"a true and fair view",
of the state of affairs implies that the accounts about which we are talking are the audited accounts. The effect of the amendment would be to require the authority to publish its annual audited statement of accounts as part of its annual report.
The Bill already makes it easier to publish the authority's audited accounts with the annual report because the respective reporting periods have been aligned. The Bill now requires the authority to prepare its annual report on a financial year basis, whereas the preceding regulator has been required to produce his annual report on a calendar year basis.
I do not believe that we should make it a statutory requirement to include audited accounts, exactly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Borrie because the publication timetable would be tied to the audit timetable. That is too inflexible. There is a risk

137
that in some years publication of the annual report would be significantly delayed if the audit took longer than usual to complete.
It may be helpful if I were to illustrate the potential difficulty. The Government Resources and Accounts Bill which will apply, subject to Royal Assent, from the start of the financial year 2001 to 2002, sets out the requirements on government departments relating to the preparation and the audit of resource accounts. Those accounts have to be submitted by departments to the National Audit Office no later than 30th November each year. The Comptroller and Auditor General has to send the audited accounts to the Treasury no later than 15th January the following year and the accounts are to be laid before the House of Commons by 31st January. Those are final deadlines and, in practice, the accounts are likely to be audited before then. However, at worst, an annual report ready for publication in July or August could be delayed until the end of January in the following year if it were to include the audited account.
As a general principle, I agree that the report and accounts should be published together and as quickly as possible. Where the audited accounts are not available, I believe that the authority should, as Ofgem currently does, include basic unaudited information about income and expenditure and staffing levels in the report. But if there is a significant delay with the audited accounts, I do not think the annual report should be held back.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that we do not intend this to be a delaying tactic. Rather, we are looking for proper accountability of the workings of the authority. That is why we said we would look to the Government for an undertaking that the authority would publish accounts at or near the same time as publication of the annual report.
I am pleased that the Minister stated today that audited accounts should be published as quickly as possible. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Objectives and duties under 1986 Act]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 26, at end insert
("(c) to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in debating Amendment No. 2, I suggest that we discuss also Amendment No. 3. I am delighted to note the Liberal Democrat names added to the amendment.
I make no apology for returning to this issue, which was covered extensively in earlier debates. I want to make two introductory remarks. With regard to the offshore oil and gas industry, about which I spoke at earlier stages, I understand that the day after Report stage last week there was a fruitful meeting between
138
that industry and the DTI—its regulator—at which the industry made it clear that it supported the Government's Vision for Gas to 2010 scheme. Part of the presentation included discussion of some of the perceived obstacles to the vision and the industry raised its concerns about regulation by Ofgem (or GEMA, as we now call it).
The important point that emerged from that meeting was that the DTI has now agreed to facilitate tripartite meetings with the regulator at which the industry can highlight its concerns. That is a welcome development and meets many of the points which I and others made in earlier debates in relation to the difference between the onshore regulation by GEMA and the offshore regulation by the DTI.
My only other point is that I am sorry I was unable to be present for the Report stage debates. I was not able to be in London but I did read them in Hansard. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Byford for the way in which she moved the amendments which, had I been here, I would have been happy to move. I saw from the debates that a number of useful government concessions were made to points raised from these Benches.
However, we are still left with an unsatisfactory omission from Clauses 9 and 13 of any reference to the need to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply. I accept that at each stage the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made valiant efforts to try to convince the House that it is right that that omission should apply. In the debate on 5th July he said,
"I am sorry that I do not seem to have convinced the House that security of supply is properly dealt with in the framework of the Bill as it currently stands".
I read the rest of his speech and have to say that I remain totally unconvinced. I detected four arguments in his speech at that time. One referred to the fact that Clauses 9 and 13,
"are amendments to the Gas Act and Electricity Act, they are in the context of the Long Title of those Acts".
With respect to the Minister, I cannot see what that has to do with the matter. It is a question of whether or not the regulator will have regard to the overall obligation to secure diverse and viable supplies.
His second argument was that,
"security of supply is indeed the responsibility of government as a whole".
And nobody would quarrel with that. But we are here setting up an instrument of government—a regulator—and it is perverse that in the course of that regulator's duties there should not be a duty to have regard to diversity and viability of supply. After all, the regulator is enjoined in these two clauses to have regard to many other things and it seems to me to go to the heart of the argument.
The Minister's third reason was that,
"The bulk of these issues falls far outside the scope of utilities legislation".
I wondered whether that should be "regulation". But the Minister shakes his head and therefore I do not understand that point. It is at the heart of utilities legislation that there should be built in a clear

139
obligation on the part of all concerned, including the regulator, to have regard to the long-term diversity and viability of supply. I therefore find it difficult to accept that argument.
Finally, the Minister said that,
"it follows that amendments such as this are a distraction and would serve to confuse rather than enhance the framework of obligations and duties under the legislation".—[Official Report, 5/7/00; col. 1497.]
I find it difficult to take that argument seriously. The holders of those offices will be men and women of immense ability. Part of their task will be to balance the various demands which will be made upon them, expressly in the interests of consumers, but also in regard to the environment and so forth. I cannot see why it should be a distraction for them to have to have regard to the question of long-term diversity and viability.
I say with regret to the Minister that I do not find those arguments any more convincing than his earlier attempts to persuade the House that these amendments should be excluded. The Minister took some comfort from the fact that the word "consumers" was defined to mean "future consumers" and that therefore it must imply long-term diversity and viability. But that is to build a substantial structure on a slender foundation. I find it unconvincing. I still believe that the words of the amendment should appear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his amendment. I, too, am extremely puzzled why the Government have persistently, in earlier stages of our consideration of this Bill, refused to insert the words of the amendment even though the Minister has stated repeatedly that it is an objective of government.
So far the Government have not introduced any legislation setting out their energy policy. This is the nearest we have got to it. Therefore such an important statement of intent should be included. The regulator must surely bear in mind that this is a major intention of government in regard to energy policy. There are a number of likely changes in energy development in the years ahead. For example, we in Britain will see the phasing out of nuclear power. It started with the Magnox stations and it will go on to the AGRs. In due course the PWR reactors will be phased out. The question will then arise as to how this capacity is to be replaced.
There is also the issue of gas supply. At present we are well supplied from the North Sea, but that is a limited resource. In due course we shall have to depend on supplies from more distant places which are not entirely reliable. There is the role that coal may have to play, assuming that we can progress the use of clean coal technology. These are all issues which bear directly on the future regulation of the gas and electricity industries. Therefore, it is very difficult to see why the Government persist, on what appear to be purely technical grounds, in leaving this important
140
element of their energy policy out of account on the face of the Bill. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise for being a minute or two late arriving in the Chamber. I support both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It is perplexing that the Government say that they have a commitment to make sure that we have a diverse supply of energy but cannot accept this amendment. It seems very contrary. I cannot understand why the Government are taking that tack. Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
I hope that I am not out of order. I thank the Minister for responding to my Amendment No. 54 tabled at Report stage. However, I did not receive the reply until this morning, which was too late for me to do anything with it. I have contacted the other people concerned with the amendment. They appreciate the Minister's reply and accept what he says. In principle it is possible to have renewable resources, but I am told that commercially it is still unlikely to happen, as it would have been if my amendment had been accepted. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will he able to respond. I support both noble Lords.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords. I also support this amendment. My name is attached to it. In the debates both in Committee and on Report we discussed at length the issue of whether security of supply was necessary. The Minister conceded that the market will not always provide. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned, security of supply is a matter of government policy. If that is so, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, this is an obvious place where the Government devolve that responsibility to the regulator. It is natural that the Government should do that.
The amendment takes up three other issues which were of concern to us during the debates. One of them is diversity of supply. We have spoken about the offshore gas and oil industry and later we shall be talking about renewables. The advantage of writing these provisions into the terms and objectives of the regulator is that it would write the diversity of renewables into the heart of the regulator's objectives.
We also talked at some length about clean coal technology. Coal is a fossil fuel where the United Kingdom is best endowed. It is vitally important that we do not lose the technology completely. As my noble friend Lord Ezra made clear at both Committee and Report stages, we were at the leading edge of the technology, but we have allowed it to lag and for other countries to take over. If we write such a provision into the heart of the objectives of the regulator, it would provide at least a little chink through which we could get something more done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, began by saying that he made no apology for raising again at Third Reading a matter dealt with both at Committee and Report stages and,

141
indeed, at Second Reading. I do not know whether that means that I should make an apology for the fact that I have very little new to say on a matter which has been debated on several occasions in very similar terms with very similar arguments to those put before. Some people would say that it is an abuse of Third Reading to deal with the matter in this way. I do not express any view on that, but if the House finds it helpful I shall be happy to repeat what I have already said.
The essence of our position is that where the Bill involves issues of security of supply, the current provisions in the Bill are already sufficient and the amendments add nothing. The authority and the Secretary of State are already given a principal objective to protect the interests of consumers. Clauses 9 and 13 of the Bill make clear that that includes future as well as existing consumers. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, does not seem to believe that that is important. Everyone else to whom I have spoken seems to believe that it is enormously important. If we were concerned only with existing consumers, it could be argued that short-term considerations were paramount. However, the needs of future generations of energy consumers are clearly set out in the objectives of the Bill. To me that is a very fundamental sign of dedication to security of supply in the longer term.
Of course, consumers have a fundamental interest in securing that reasonable demands for gas and electricity are met. That is what the clauses are intended to achieve. But it is the Government's responsibility—and I stress that—and not just that of the regulator for ensuring supply, which involves the exercise of a whole range of policy instruments, most of which raise issues or concern matters which fall far outside the scope of utilities regulation. I indicated by a nod of the head to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, when he asked whether I meant legislation or regulation, that I meant utilities regulation. That is what this Bill is about: it is a utilities regulation Bill. As I said, to the extent to which the Bill can play a part in ensuring security of supply the provisions of Clauses 9 and 13 already achieve that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, believe that if one has an energy policy one needs legislation to set it out. It does not follow from having a government policy that one has to have legislation to enforce it. Anyone who has been in government will recognise that one does not introduce legislation unless one has to. Legislation is not introduced giving government powers if they already exist or if they can, by their own free will, so to speak, adopt, for example, the climate change levy objectives. One does not need legislation for that as such but only to implement certain parts of it. Where legislation is required, it has been, and is being, introduced.
Perhaps I may illustrate the range of policy issues which contribute to the maintenance of security of supply. Quite apart from the issues raised by the Bill, they include the management of the UK Continental Shelf and such matters as securing stability and access to overseas sources of energy. All issues which are
142
relevant to the offshore energy industry not covered by this legislation need not necessarily be covered exclusively by legislation anywhere. The Government can have effective policies on those issues. Many of them are far outside the scope of the utilities regulation. To the extent that this legislation for utilities regulation is appropriate, the Bill makes appropriate provision.
But the Bill is not the whole picture. The Government are working to ensure security of supply. On a day-to-day basis the markets will ensure that energy supplies are maintained. Diversity of approach and the ability to change quickly, which are provided by competitive markets, ensure the sort of responsive system needed to underpin security and diversity. The Government will use their ability to set the framework in which the energy markets will achieve this.
The Bill makes provision for the new electricity trading arrangements. These will increase the incentive on generators and suppliers to ensure that adequate generation is available to meet demand. Generators and suppliers will face commercial penalties, which could be large, if they do not meet their contractual obligations. This will be an important further contribution for security of supply. The new electricity trading arrangements will also ensure that the appropriate price signals are given to bring forward new investment when this is needed and for customers to manage their demand to the benefit of energy security.
The existing framework of legislation provides for tough service standards on transmission and distribution companies. These are monitored by Ofgem, the industry regulator, and include guaranteed standards whereby the distributor must pay the customer if the service levels laid down are not met. There are also licence conditions that apply to gas suppliers and transporters which lay down quantified standards of security of supply in relation to meeting demand. These are enforced by Ofgem. The measures are backed up by wide-ranging emergency powers under the Energy Act 1976. These permit the Secretary of State to make orders regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and acquisition of fuels to ensure security of supply.
The Electricity Act also includes powers to give directions on the level of stocks and the use of generating stations. Further measures are set out in the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, which provide for the continuity and safety of electricity supply. These require electricity supplies to be constant, except in certain circumstances.
It is obvious that we are continuing to keep the strategic issues that relate to diversity and security of supply under review. Future energy policy will increasingly be conducted in the context of global and European markets. We have been working actively with the European Commission and other member states to help to build a single European market. This will not only help to promote free trade and energy but should also assist in improving the security of supply across Europe.

143
The hierarchy of duties in the Bill already contains all the duties that are relevant for the purposes of this legislation and which are necessary for the security of supply. As I said in Committee, it follows that amendments such as these are a distraction and would serve to confuse rather than enhance the framework of obligations and duties under the legislation.
I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for not having referred earlier to her point about access by renewables generators to the network under NETA, which was the focus of her previous Amendment No. 54 on Report. As I said in my letter to her, we are seeking to resolve this point in the context of the balancing and settlement codes rather than on the face of the Bill. Amendments to the Bill would not make matters any better. They would not make anything worse; but they would not make things any better. This is another example of not seeking to do everything by means of primary legislation.
I believe that it is a well-established fact—in this House at any rate—that the volume of legislation is increasing and ought to be diminished. I suggest that noble Lords should not seek to make legislation the only source of expression for government policy.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who expressed their support for this amendment. Perhaps I may point out to the Minister that I did not argue that it is only the regulator—I believe I remember his words correctly—who should have regard to security and diversity. Of course that is not so: it is all those who are concerned with the future of energy supplies in this country who should have that responsibility. In a Bill that sets up a new regulator of our two major energy industries—namely, electricity and gas—all we are asking is that that body should also have this obligation placed upon it as one of the matters to which it must have regard and that that should be written into the legislation.
The Minister concluded by saying that we should not have unnecessary legislation. I was a member of the special Select Committee on renewable development chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, which sat about four years ago. I have the clearest recollection of the time when we were looking at complaints about the Energy Saving Trust. The trust was supposed to be financed by a very modest levy on the gas and electricity industries, which would provide the necessary resources to enable it to help people with insulation and other energy-saving measures. The electricity regulator complied with that obligation and that industry was allowed to make a contribution. However, the gas regulator said very firmly that there was nothing in her terms of reference or in her legislation that obliged her to make such a contribution to the trust. She was extremely robust about it—indeed, she is a very robust lady—and said that she was not going to do so. Therefore, the gas industry never made its contribution. Why? It was simply because that obligation was not in the legislation.
144
We believe that GEMA should have regard to diversity and a long-term energy supply and that that obligation should be placed on the face of the Bill It should not be able to say what its predecessor, Clare Spottiswoode said; namely, that because it was not in the legislation she was not going to do it. I believe this to be a sufficiently important matter to test the opinion of the House.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Haslam, L.

Addington, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Alderdice, L.

Henley. L.[Teller]

Astor of Hever, L.

Higgins, L.

Attlee, E.

Howell of Guildford. L

Avebury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barker, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Biffen, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blaker, L.

Jopling, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Kingsland, L.

Boardman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lang of Monk ton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Liverpool, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

McConnell, L.

Byford, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chadlington, L.

Monson, L.

Chalfont, L.

Montrose, D.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Moynihan, L.

Coe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Northover, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Onslow, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Palmer, L.

Denham, L.

Peel, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Razzall, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Flather, B.

Rennard, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Roberts of Convey, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Saatchi, L.

Glentoran, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Goodhart, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Selborne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selsdon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sharman, L.

145

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Tordoff, L,

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Trumpington, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Vinson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Waddington, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Walmsley, B.

Strange, B.

Warnock, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Swinfen, L.

Weatherill, L.

Taverne, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Healey, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Andrews, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ash ton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Barnett, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Berkeley, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Islwyn, L.

Billingham, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Blease, L.

Borrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Bragg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brookman, L.

Laird, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Layard, L.

Burlison, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Lipsey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Christopher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

[Teller]

Currie of Marylebone, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Davies of Oldham, L.

Marsh, L.

Dixon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dubs, L.

Molloy, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Parekh, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Filkin, L.

Paul, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Peston, L.

Gale, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goudie, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Grabiner, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Greengross, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harrison, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Sewel, L.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

146

Simon, V.

Tomlinson, L.

Slim, V.

Uddin, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Varley, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Stallard, L.

Whitaker, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitty, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Thornton, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.55 p.m.
Clause 13 [Objectives and duties under 1989 Act]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 37, at end insert ("and
(c) to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Transfer of electricity licences]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 42, line 4, leave out ("two months") and insert ("28 days").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 41 inserts a new Section 7A into the Electricity Act 1989 which sets out the arrangements for the transfer of electricity licences granted under that Act. Subsection (9) of new Section 7A requires the authority to publish a notice setting out the reasons for its consenting to a transfer and allowing not less than two months for representations or objections to be made.
Generally in that Act the standard notice period is 28 days and a minimum period of two months may impose an unnecessary delay where the transfer is by mutual consent and no objections are likely to arise. This amendment would reduce the minimum period from two months to 28 days but—this is important—would leave the authority the discretion to prescribe a longer period on a case-by-case basis where it considered it necessary. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that the proposed consultation period is unlikely to be contested. It is important to recognise the nature of the transaction we are talking about. Transferring a licence will involve changes to a large number of contracts with third parties. It is the kind of deal that by its own nature will take time to work through. In these circumstances it does not seem excessive to allow for a minimum period of two months to accommodate the possible breadth of consultation.
I acknowledge that in practice the proposal would not make much difference because the period for consultation, whether it is two months or 28 days as proposed, is a minimum period. However, the draft Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office proposes that there should be a general minimum of eight weeks for public consultation. In my experience, governments are generally criticised for permitting too short a period of

147
consultation rather than too long a period. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are doing the right thing.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Like the Electricity Association and other representatives we have consulted, we feel that a period of 28 days would make sense because in many cases we are talking about house transfers and simple realignments. The utilities industry wishes to get on the job and carry it out as expediently and as quickly as possible. That is why we have tabled the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister has not reduced the period but we accept what he has had to say on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 62 [Obligation in connection with electricity front renewable sources]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 65, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the provisions of an order will provide a suitable environment for investment in generating capacity for electricity from diverse renewable resources in order to meet the targets for production of electricity from renewable resources set by him.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Byford, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. The amendments are slightly different but they are clearly linked.
We come now to the question of the renewables obligation. I remind the House that a new scheme will be set up under this Bill to replace the non-fossil fuel obligation, which has existed for a number of years and has produced the present level of renewables.
Perhaps if I mention a preliminary point now, the Minister may be able to acquire the necessary knowledge to reply to it. I am not entirely clear why hydroelectric power—particularly when there has been a substantial improvement in this field—is not included in renewables. I learnt this fact only recently—I was not aware of it before—and it seems to me to be a fairly strange situation. If ever there is a renewable source of energy, it is hydroelectric—of which, of course, there is a great deal more in Scotland and Wales than in England.
Turning to the issue generally, there was much debate at earlier stages of the Bill on how the new provisions to promote renewable sources of energy will work and whether they will meet the Government's targets—which, frankly, at present seem ambitious. Our present level of renewables is about 2.5 per cent; the Government are aiming at 5 per cent by 2003 and 10 per cent by 2010. The House will be aware that the recent report of the Royal Commission regarded that as quite inadequate. It certainly does not meet the likely changes in other sources—the Minister mentioned nuclear power earlier—and the Royal Commission has recommended that it should be much higher.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting representatives of those who are concerned with the provision of renewables. I shall return to that in a moment. Parts of what the Minister said in the meeting was of some reassurance, but they still remain quite unconvinced that the new scheme will produce the additional sources of electricity from renewable supplies that the Government are aiming at. Clearly this stage of the Bill is not the moment to rehearse all the anxieties of those who are concerned in trying to meet these targets; suffice it to say that, as of today, they do not think the scheme will work.
The existence of a price cap, which was put in, clearly, because of the Government's overriding obligation to protect consumers; the refusal of the Government to write into the legislation the long-term contracts which alone will provide the necessary basis for raising loans to finance investment; the refusal so far to recognise in the Bill that different sources which are in different stages of development inevitably involve different levels of cost, and that this should be recognised by different levels of capping, all militate in the eyes of the generators of renewables—particularly the smaller ones—against the viability of the scheme.
These amendments suggest two ways in which the Bill may be improved and may possibly marginally help to achieve the renewables target. Amendment No. 5 seeks to impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that the provisions of the order that he makes provide,
"a suitable environment for investment in generating capacity for electricity from diverse renewable resources".
Therefore, as well as considering the views of the generators, he will have to take account of what the bankers and the investment world have to say about the kind of contracts they will be asked to finance. Any sensible banker will want a renewables obligation that lasts longer than the term of his loan in order to ensure that the loan will be repaid. So Amendment No. 5 simply spells out an obligation that, in making the order, the Government must have regard to a suitable environment for investment.
As to Amendment No. 6, the House will be aware that the clause provides a list of those who must be consulted—the Minister has been clear that there will be very firm consultation—but, curiously enough, it does not include the generators of electricity from renewable sources. Here I come to the interesting point of the meeting that we had with the Minister. On my side of the table were representatives of two trade associations—one representing the people interested in biomass and other non-food crops as a source of energy, and the other the Association of Electricity Producers. On the whole, they represent the very small operators who produce electricity from quite a wide variety of renewable resources.
There came a moment when the Minister and his advisers were saying that they had consulted the generators and that the generators were quite happy with the provisions in the Bill. I said, "But on this side of the table you have a lot of generators who are not happy and who do not feel that they are yet being properly consulted". The situation may have changed

149
in the past week, but they were quite clear. The smaller generators and the Association of Electricity Producers—which is not a large trade association; it is run on very slender resources and represents, as I said, very small firms (some of them only family firms) that have small sources of electricity generation—want to be quite sure that the Bill places an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult them before making the order.
We have argued this case before and I have had rather unsatisfactory answers. It seems to me that both creating an environment for investment and consulting the generators from renewable supplies will go at least part of the way to allay the concerns that have been voiced. I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I hope that I may be excused, perhaps before the end of the debate, because there is a Joint Select Committee meeting upstairs and I would not wish your Lordships' component of that committee to be inquorate.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend to consider seriously a point I have made before, both in Committee and on Report. I believe that the Government are right to set a target; they are also right to ensure diversity. What worries me—and I am still anxious despite the earlier debates—is that the quickest way of meeting the target will be from onshore windpower. I am not at all satisfied that that would be the wisest or most acceptable course. Certainly other forms of generation need to be encouraged to avoid an excessive proliferation of windmills over every prominent, and perhaps beautiful, part of our landscape—a landscape which needs to be treasured.
Can my noble friend give an assurance that, if it looks as though the Government may not meet their target, they will not be tempted to lean on local authorities and urge them to give planning permission for such projects? I say that because I have a vivid memory of the period when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was Secretary of State for the Environment and, under successive governments, many of his colleagues sustained the position of the Department of the Environment leaning on planning authorities very firmly indeed to ensure that planning permission was given for open-cast mining development—a development which soured, injured and inconvenienced local communities, perhaps for many years. Indeed, in my part of South Yorkshire, 40 years after open-cast mining farmers cannot grow root crops.
I am not suggesting that there should not be windpower—perhaps offshore windpower is desirable—but I do not want to see a situation in which we are compelled to have a vast number of onshore windmills in order to meet the very tight targets the Government have set. I have made the point before and I await my noble friend's response, perhaps by
150
letter. To avoid that disfigurement of our heritage it is essential to ensure adequate consideration is given to promoting diversity.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I appreciate the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. I shall not rehearse the excellent presentation with which my noble friend Lord Jenkin moved the amendment. But I would point out that on an earlier amendment the Minister referred to "the short-term solution". Obviously short-term solutions are important. But for very small producers of power, if there is no long term, there is no short term. I add my voice in support of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will reconsider our arguments on this issue.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The amendments support the Government's intent, which is to secure the renewable sources targets. The two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, deal with the environment within which renewable sources should be promoted and orders made for the renewable obligation. The second amendment deals with an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the generators of electricity from renewable sources. When this second issue was debated at Report stage, the Minister stated that there was an omnibus subsection that would enable him to consult,
"such other persons, if any, as he considers appropriate".—[Official Report, 5/7/00; col. 1545.]
I regard that as weak and dismissive. He might well say that there are none. The whole clause deals with generation from renewable sources. Therefore, consultation with generators of electricity from renewable sources should be made an obligation on the Secretary of State. The two amendments support the Government's intent. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's response.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief comment on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. In doing so, I declare a direct interest as chairman of an electricity company which has substantial hydroelectric resources. I do not wish to argue a point directly related to that company, but it would be helpful if the Minister could comment on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Do the Government wish to encourage investment in hydro resources? It is not a matter to be put on the face of the Bill itself. It is more a matter of attitude.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I support the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. My name is attached to Amendment No. 6. I do not need to reiterate the arguments. I endorse them entirely. I should like to mention an excellent report last year from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. The committee looked at the issue of renewable targets and underlined the need for long-term investment.

151
Much of the investment, particularly in some of the more speculative renewable areas, such as photovoltaics, needs the surety of the environment to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. It is very important that we consider meeting the renewables target. At present we are at just over 2 per cent of the renewables target. The target is 10 per cent by 2010. We stand little chance of meeting that target unless there is long-term investment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall deal with each of the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 5 seeks to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that the terms of any renewables order that he makes are, if I may paraphrase, sufficient to ensure that there are enough investment incentives to achieve the long-term objectives that he has set. I cannot say that I disagree that this should be uppermost in the Secretary of State's mind when setting an order. But I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, this question. Can he imagine a Secretary of State making an order when he does not believe that it will bring about the objectives which he himself has set? I think the answer is obvious. On reflection I think he will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 6 would introduce a statutory obligation to consult the generators of electricity from renewable sources before making a renewables order. Again, I have no quibble with the underlying thought. Of course those who generate renewables energy should be consulted about the terms of an order. But then so should those who have ideas about how possible new renewable sources can be tapped. Academics and pressure groups will have views. They should be consulted. The general public too have a right to express their views and have them heard. We could make a long list. We have heard differing views on the effect of particular renewables sources on the local environment. But the Bill provides for all of these to be consulted in new Section 32(7)(d), which provides that the Secretary of State must consult,
"such … persons … as he considers appropriate".
It is not necessary to pick out one group for special treatment. Indeed, there are those who argue that it is dangerous to pick out one group for special treatment. However, I am a reasonable person and I am always willing to listen to arguments. The amendment will not work. The amendment refers to,
"the generators of electricity from renewable sources".
Strictly speaking, that means every generator of energy from renewable sources. It means that if a single one were to be left out, including a very small generator of energy from electricity sources, there could be a risk of ultra tires challenge in the courts. I am prepared to let the amendment go on the basis that when it goes back to the Commons we will have to reword it to avoid the risk I have indicated but still achieve the objective of noble Lords who propose it. With those provisos I shall not oppose Amendment No. 6.
152
Before I sit down, perhaps I may say a few words about hydro power and wind power. Hydro power is included in the definition of "renewables". We certainly do not want to use the powers to support large-scale commercial hydro power which is already commercially established and does not need any help. Regarding wind power, to which my noble friend Lord Hardy referred, there is no question of our leaning on councils to grant planning permission for wind farms. We have made clear that the strategy is market-based and we shall not be picking technologies. I hope that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 5 and will accept that Amendment No. 6 can be accepted only subject to subsequent amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we seem to have scored a second victory today. I am grateful that the Minister has agreed to accept Amendment No. 6; otherwise we might have been tempted to press it to a Division. We shall not. We look forward to seeing what comes back from another place. I take the point about drafting. We shall deal with that when we reach it.
On Amendment No. 5, the noble Lord asked a rhetorical question. He asked whether I could imagine any Secretary of State who would not want to create a climate favourable to investment, with the right incentives and so on. If I was dealing with reasonable people, that might well be the case. But I suspect that some of us could think of names where that might come rather low in their order of priorities. That is why we thought that the provision should appear on the face of the Bill. However, as the Minister has met us on Amendment No. 6 and made a good case against including Amendment No. 5 in the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 65, line 40, after ("apply;") insert—
("( ) the generators of electricity from renewable sources;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Orders under section 32: supplementary]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 67, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of electricity from biomass, or from such other renewable sources as the Secretary of State shall specify, any such order shall specify a minimum contract term of not less than 15 years for the delivery of the specified amount of electricity from renewable sources by the designated electricity supplier, and that the terms of any contract made between the electricity supplier and the provider of the renewable resources pursuant to such an order shall be in a form approved by the Secretary of State and shall provide that—

(a) it shall run for not less than 15 years from the start of generation,

(b) the price paid by the supplier to such supplier shall be subject to an annual price adjustment to reflect the effects of inflation, and

(c) the contract must be in a form capable of being used as security for a loan or loans to such provider.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the potential producers of electricity from biomass have argued most insistently that there need to be long-term contracts. Those firms will require substantial investment. In many cases they are quite small firms—perhaps family firms—and they will need to borrow from the bank in order to be able to finance their investment. There is a special case to be made in this respect. Perhaps the Minister will be prepared to recognise on the face of the Bill that there should be a requirement for long-term contracts.
We have argued this point before and the Minister has explained clearly why the matter should be left to the market. The problem is that the renewables obligation is of itself an interference with the market. If there were no renewables obligation, and if the non-fossil fuel obligation had not been introduced by the previous government, does anyone seriously believe that we would have had as much investment in renewables as there has in fact been? I do not believe so because the market would not have moved anything like as quickly in that direction. It is perfectly proper for government to insert a requirement of this kind based on long-term environmental objectives—from before Rio and afterwards—to increase the share of the power market supplied from renewable sources.
Having decided to do that, having decided to manipulate or guide the market in a particular direction, I do not find it in the least offensive to say that that must be accompanied by other regulatory changes to ensure that it actually happens. The potential producers of electricity from biomass are assuredly not confident that without some clear steer on the need for long-term contracts they will be able to negotiate contracts with the suppliers which will enable them to meet the requirement.
We have added the words,
"or from such other renewable sources as the Secretary of State shall specify".
It is left entirely to the Secretary of State to decide whether other people in this category could well argue for the protection of long-term contracts. Contracts are at the heart of this matter. That was stated in a government publication, which I shall not quote again because I quoted it on the second day of Committee stage. Having decided to go down this road, I am unclear why the Government are not prepared to recognise that long-term contracts are the best way of securing their renewables objectives. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. At various stages of the Bill's passage through the House we have discussed the whole future of renewables—particularly biomass and the adaptation of non-food crops. I do not believe that the Minister disagrees with us. I think he accepts that it is not a short-term job and that it needs long-term planning and investment. The people working in this field with whom I have had conversations feel strongly that they would like to have more government support. If the Minister does not accept the logic
154
behind the amendment, perhaps he will explain to the House how, without such commitments, he sees the development of renewables in the future.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the amendment has the support of the Liberal Democrats. It picks up the arguments which I put forward in respect of the previous amendment. I refer to the need for long-term planning and long-term contracts. I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have said on that issue. In relation to biomass, we should also bear in mind that agriculture is going through a major crisis and that it is looking for areas into which it can diversify. Biomass is an important area into which it can diversify.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear that this amendment runs into exactly the same objections as did similar amendments which we debated in Committee and on Report. We do not accept that we should retain a feature of the old non-fossil fuel obligation mechanism—government-mandated long-term renewable supply contracts. That runs contrary to the entire thrust of the Government's market-based policy for the new renewables obligation.
I have to point out that the amendment is unworkable and could be perverse in its effects. No order can ensure that contracts entered into are suitable for use as security for a loan. Requiring indexation of the price paid runs directly counter to the objective of bringing down the price of renewables energy in real terms, so that it is genuinely competitive with energy from other sources. After all the debate we have had on renewable energy, I am astonished that any noble Lord opposite could think that it is possible to have a renewables policy which relies on indexation of the price of renewable energy. Surely, the only way practically that we shall get an increase in the amount of renewables used is by bringing down the price. I am astonished to find the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, proposing government interference in the terms of contracts between consenting parties. I am sure that the noble Lord's Front Bench cannot possibly agree with that part of the amendment.
Perhaps I may repeat our position on the underlying issue, which is whether the new obligations as planned by the Government will in fact deliver sufficient investment in renewables to meet the Government's renewables targets. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, addressed that point. The Government consulted last year on the kinds of support mechanisms which should be used to promote the development of renewable energy. Among a number of diverse views in the responses to that consultation there was considerable support for an obligation on suppliers. So the Government are putting in place a long-term obligation on suppliers, which will last until 2025. That will determine from the outset the profile of the obligation on suppliers, the eligible renewables, the buy-out mechanism and the mechanism for recycling of buy-out receipts.

155
Renewable energy resources are limited. They are not always available to meet potential demand. The rate at which they can be deployed is limited. The Government are confident that such a long-term obligation, and the premium price which renewables will attract, will enable suppliers and generators to bring forward renewables capacity in the confidence that there will be a market for the product at prices that will attract appropriate levels of investment capital.
If we are moving to a market-based approach, the matter of individual contracts and the choice of technologies to meet the supply obligation are surely matters properly left for negotiation between generators and suppliers. I should not have to say that—to the Conservative Party at any rate. Having said that, I would repeat that the obligation on suppliers will be a long-term obligation. Any supplier with any sense, facing a long-term obligation, will negotiate a long-term contract to fulfil it. There is no need, even if it were a practical option, which it is not, to make the kind of provisions included in the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, I believe that the Minister has done rather better in his response to this amendment. The arguments he has deployed seem to have some force. However, without wishing to repeat myself, the fact is that the entire system is essentially an interference with the market and so it is not unreasonable to suggest that that interference might be extended.
However, the Minister has made a strong case and I take entirely his point as regards the indexation clause. It would be wrong to press the amendment to a Division. Given that, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have supported it.
The Minister's speech will be studied with interest by all those who are involved in this area. I hope that it will provide them with some reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 65 [Alternative way of discharging renewables obligation. Payments]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 68, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall have regard both to the costs of production of differing sources of renewable electricity and to the implications for fulfilment of the renewables target when setting the differing sums which are to be regarded as discharging the renewables obligation under this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We tabled a similar amendment at an earlier stage. The amendment seeks to reflect the undoubted fact that different sources of renewable electricity are at different stages of development. Some will require a great deal more development expenditure than others and therefore the costs involved may well be substantially
156
differential as between well-established sources such as gas from waste and some forms of biomass. However, other sources, such as offshore wind power, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, will require a great deal more development before they become truly viable.
This subject was covered at some length in the report of the Royal Commission. The report contains an interesting table detailing the DTI's own classification of the likely timescales over which new and renewable energy technologies will become available. In the medium term, certain biomass residues, offshore wind and energy crops will be developed. In the longer term, technologies such as fuel cells, photovoltaics and wave power will come on stream. In the very long term we shall see technologies such as tidal barrages.
However, the Bill does not recognise differing scales of development at all. The cap on the buy-out price is to be a flat rate cap on everything. The Royal Commission very properly voiced the anxieties of what will be the effects. In paragraph 7.112, after welcoming the introduction of the scheme to replace the NFFO and supporting the general approach of the Government, it stated:
"We are concerned however that, because ail generating plants using renewable energy will be competing against each other on price, there will not necessarily be sufficient support for those technologies which have the greatest long-term potential but may be more expensive at present. The experience under NFFO illustrates what we see as the danger".
By suggesting that a differential price cap should be introduced on the buy-out price, the intention behind the amendment is to reflect that proposition. As we have discussed previously, the price cap is there primarily to protect consumers. However, as one renewables generator recently commented rather sharply to me, "The Government has got to make up its mind. Does it want to protect consumers or does it want renewable energy? The chances are that it probably cannot have both".
If the Government are putting the protection of consumers at the top of their priorities in this part of the Bill, they may well find that they will not meet their renewables targets. The amendment seeks to give them the opportunity to put that right. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the arguments put forward by my noble friend in moving this amendment. I believe that the targets on renewable energy sources are a matter of great concern to Members on all sides of the House rather than only those on these Benches. If we do not take care, those targets will not be met. Whatever can be done in the Bill to help to achieve those aims will be greatly appreciated by many, both within and outside of this House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the short answer to the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is that consumers have an interest in renewable energy sources because those consumers are both present and future consumers. Unless real progress is made towards the achievement of our targets on

157
renewable energy sources, then security of supply and all the other factors for which we are providing in this Bill will not be gained.
I must repeat what I have said at earlier stages of the Bill: this amendment is unnecessary. The fact that the Secretary of State was contemplating setting different buy-out prices for different technologies would imply of necessity that he was having regard to different costs of different technologies. It cannot mean anything else. By the same token, it is not conceivable that the Secretary of State would set different prices without regard to the implications for the levels of renewables generation likely to be achieved as a result. Again, the Bill as drafted cannot mean anything else. Furthermore, it will not benefit the Bill to have an amendment of this kind added to it.
Unless there should be any doubt about this matter, perhaps I may set out again our thinking on how our support for the new technologies is going to work. I believe that it is generally agreed that as electricity suppliers move towards the 10 per cent target they are likely to find that the supply of cheaper renewables may run out or will not be available in sufficient quantities to achieve the more demanding targets. The suppliers will look increasingly towards more expensive sources of renewable energy—for example, offshore wind and energy crops—to meet their obligations. Those energy sources cannot be brought in overnight. In their own interests, it would be prudent and sensible for electricity suppliers to look ahead now to ensure that such technologies will be brought forward on a timescale and in sufficient quantities to meet their needs. The suggestion behind the amendment is that price bands should be used to achieve that. I should point out that the legislation does not rule out the use of price bands. However, we have no current intention to put them to use. If we did, then we could use the existing provisions of the Bill without having to make further provision along the lines suggested in the amendment.
I am not unsympathetic to the intentions that lie behind the amendment, but the Bill very adequately provides the basis on which electricity suppliers themselves will be urged and, if necessary, even forced towards the objectives so eagerly sought by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and indeed by the Government.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I listened with care to the Minister. Once again he made a fairly strong case. If indeed it is already within the power of the Bill to implement differential buy-out prices, it strikes me that difficulties will be encountered with the single flat rate cap. This may be something that the Government need to examine more closely. At an earlier stage we argued that a cap should be triggered only if it was clear that excessive prices were being charged to consumers. However, the Government did not like that. As they see it, the cap forms an integral part of the process.
However, if the power is in place to use differential prices, at this stage perhaps we should rely on that. I welcome also the thought that was given to the
158
response to meet the intentions that lie behind the amendment. I believe that we all seek the same objective in this area, and perhaps the amendment is not the right way forward. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 [Uniform prices etc. in certain areas of Scotland]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 75, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 72 of the Bill ensures that powers will continue to be available to ensure that the prices charged by electricity transmission or distribution licence holders for use of their systems in a specified area of Scotland will not differ for reasons of geography between different parts of the area. This obligation benefits the remote communities of the north and west of Scotland.
The minor drafting amendment clarifies the intention that the requirement for uniform prices is intended to apply to holders of either transmission or distribution licences within the specified area, regardless of whether such licensees also carry out the other function within the area. The amendment thus ensures that possible future changes in the ownership structure of the industry will not narrow the scope of this provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Financial penalties]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved amendment No. 10:
Page 100, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall not impose a penalty on a licence holder under subsection (1) where it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. Amendments Nos. 10, 23 and 24 are all consequential amendments to changes to the financial penalties provisions which the Government accepted on Report.
Amendment No. 10 is identical to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on Report and accepted by the Government, except that their amendment applied to the electricity sector and this applies to gas.
The amendment was intended to insert a protection against double jeopardy in relation to financial penalties imposed under the Utilities Bill and the Competition Act 1998. It was intended to mirror the provisions already in place in the Gas and Electricity Acts in relation to enforcement orders and double jeopardy under the Competition Act 1998. The amendment is necessary in order to ensure consistency in the Bill's provisions as they apply to the electricity and gas sectors.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are consequential on amendments to Clauses 59 and 95 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Currie, and accepted by the Government on Report. The amendments

159
imposed a cap on financial penalties of 10 per cent of the turnover of the licence holder concerned, with detailed provisions to be made in an order by the Secretary of State.
The amendments we are tabling today simply have the effect that any order made under Section 27A(8) of the Electricity Act 1989 or Section 30A(7) of the Gas Act 1986, for the purposes of specifying provisions in relation to the cap—such as the definition of turnover—will be excluded from the generic provisions under the Acts that orders shall be subject to negative resolution, and will therefore allow it to be subject to affirmative resolution as specified by the financial penalties clauses. The provision for affirmative resolution mirrors the arrangements under the Competition Act 1998. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we are delighted that the Government have introduced this provision, which mirrors the amendment that we tabled on Report, and which is now Clause 59(2) of the Bill. We are particularly delighted that the drafting is as ours.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106 [Interpretation]:
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 118, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The definitions in sections 48 and 66 of the 1986 Act shall, as regards matters relating to gas, apply to this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.")
("( ) The definitions in sections 64 and 111 of the 1989 Act shall, as regards matters relating to electricity, apply to this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I do so in order to have the opportunity to explain the genesis of the four amendments which stand in my name, and also to have the opportunity to express my thanks to the Minister for his co-operation in meeting the problems which I thought arose in the drafting of subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 106. These subsections are to be found on page 118 of the Bill beginning at line 14.
My problem with the subsections was that they placed on the reader the burden of scanning the whole of Part I of the Gas Act 1986, some 48 pages, and Part I of the Electricity Act 1989, which is of a similar length, in order to discover the definitions which are to be carried forward into the Utilities Bill. There is no reference in those subsections as drafted to the relevant sections of the two parts.
Furthermore, the subsections suggest that only Part I of each of the Acts need be looked at in order to discover the definitions. In fact, the reader must refer also to Part III of each Act for definitions which have to be carried forward into the Utilities Bill. A person of a critical turn of mind might be tempted to describe subsections (2) and (3) as drafted as both obscure and misleading.
As a result of discussions with the Minister yesterday, I drafted Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 15 in order to meet the situation. However, the noble Lord has tabled Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 with the same purpose in view. I am more than content to
160
accept his amendments, and I am grateful to him for his patience in listening to me and providing the answer to the problem. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, perhaps I should put the amendment to the House.first! The amendment is at page 118, line 13, at end insert the words as printed.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt that graceful minuet. I should merely like to express my satisfaction and, I believe, the gratitude of many other Members of this House for the noble and learned Lord's careful scrutiny of so much of our legislation. His ability, which few if any others of us possess, lies in persuading the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen that what he proposes is better than what they propose. In this case, they have managed to propose something nearly as good, and we are very pleased. But it is notable, the way in which the noble and learned Lord on occasion comes in and disperses the fog that has obscured matters. I merely want to say thank you to him.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said nearly all of it, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said most of the rest—although I have to say that I bridle at the phrase "nearly as good". Of course, it is marvellous that the noble and learned Lord should, as he so often does, pursue his intention of making the drafting of this Bill and other measures more transparent and more accessible to laymen. He has a point and he has argued it. He is right. However, our drafting is better, as I think the noble and learned Lord will admit!
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I think I may have been premature in asking leave to withdraw the amendment!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 118, line 14, leave out ("and in Part I of the 1986") and insert ("which are defined in section 48 or 66 of the 1986 Act or used in Part I of that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 118, line 18, leave out ("and in Part I of the 1989") and insert ("which are defined in section 64 or 111 of the 1989 Act or used in Part I of that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 118, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Section 46 of the 1986 Act (service of notices, etc.) shall apply to any document authorised or required by virtue of any provision of this Act to be served on or given to any person as if it were authorised or required to be served or given by virtue of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment inserts into Clause 106 (the interpretation clause) a new subsection with the effect that Section 46 of the Gas Act 1986, which is concerned with service of notices, etc, applies to the Utilities Bill. The provision is required because the Bill does not contain any provisions analogous to Section 46 as to the manner of such service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 120, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Before making any appointments to the Authority, the Secretary of State shall seek and take account of the opinion of the Trade and Industry Select Committee of the House of Commons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek and take account of the opinion of the Trade and Industry Select Committee in another place before appointing the chairman or other members of the gas and electricity markets authority.
An amendment moved in Committee which would have required formal confirmation of such appointments by the Select Committee was rejected by the Government. But the Minister commented that,
"perhaps at some time in the future—if, for example, I can persuade my party to put the matter into a manifesto—it may be desirable for there to be confirmatory hearings".—[Official Report. 13/6/00; col. 1532.]
The amendment would require consultation rather than confirmation, and therefore provides a compromise solution which would go a long way to fulfilling the Minister's ambitions. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place will have a most important role in scrutinising and checking the work of the new gas and electricity markets authority, just as it has an important role in checking the work of other governmental bodies and executive bodies of very different kinds but within the general area of trade and industry. I think it is important that the job should be done by a body which is completely independent of the gas and electricity markets authority. If the legislature is to be a proper check on the executive, it is important that it should not have a hand in the appointment of the people who are to constitute an executive body.
If the Select Committee has a role in choosing members of the gas and electricity markets authority, and if the choices favoured by it are approved by the Government, possibly it would be a little less than robust in the work that it did. If, on the other hand, the Trade and Industry Select Committee was looking into
162
the work of a body whose members it did not suggest, or indeed did not believe to be appropriate, the attitude might be one of determined opposition and it might be so robust as to be unreasonable.
That may sound a little exaggerated but, if it is, it is only to make my point that I am not sure that the same body which is to do the checking of the executive should have a hand, albeit a consultative hand, in the choice of members of that executive body. I believe that there may be a case—and this needs to be argued over a broad field and not just in connection with this particular authority—for Parliament, through a Select Committee, to have some kind of consultative role in the appointment of members of governmental and public bodies. However, I very much doubt whether the same Select Committee should have a role in the choice of members of an executive or public authority and also be an effective check on that authority's work. I think that a much broader parliamentary role for public appointments needs a much broader study than we can give on this occasion. Indeed the same argument would have applied to earlier discussions of the Bill. Confining ourselves, as we must under this Bill, to one particular authority, that would be an interesting innovation and one well worth debating, but it would not be an appropriate innovation to introduce in respect of this Bill, and certainly not at this stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seems to think that this amendment is a compromise on the amendment which he moved at an earlier stage, which was in effect a confirmatory amendment. Of course it is not really a compromise, because it requires the Secretary of State not just to seek the opinion of the Trade and Industry Select Committee before appointing members of the new authority but to take account of their views. That immediately puts us into the dilemma described by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.
Speaking, if I may, as a human being and as a rank-and-file member of the Labour Party, I think the whole issue of the relationship between Select Committees in another place and public bodies would deserve broader discussion. That is why I would hope to persuade my party that this might be included in a future manifesto. It may well be, although I have not discussed this with my colleague Ministers, that many people hold a view which is strongly opposed to that. But whatever view they may have, the issue of whether you start to involve Select Committees of the House of Commons in whatever way—whether by way of having their views taken account of or by needing formal consultation—would be a complete innovation in our constitution. It certainly would deserve a great deal more public discussion than we can achieve in the House of Lords examining the Utilities Bill at Third Reading.
There was some confusion at an earlier stage about the position of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and it was suggested that there was something comparable to confirmatory hearings by the Treasury Select Committee. Of course the

163
Treasury Select Committee can call members of the Monetary Policy Committee to appear before it and it has the right to pass any judgment it sees fit. However, it does not have a statutory role in regard to appointments. As was made clear in respect of a recent appointment, that decision lies entirely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that this is not the place for constitutional innovation. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would like to make a name for himself as a great constitutional innovator, but I think he might find a better occasion to do it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I do not know what gave the noble Lord the Minister the idea that I want to make a name for myself in any sphere of political activity, let alone the constitution.
I must say that I am disappointed by the reaction of the noble Lord and indeed that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. In my submission, the innovation by the Government in introducing a power for the Treasury Committee to interview members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England was a wholly admirable one. Indeed, I would not have thought that the Government would have introduced it unless they thought it was admirable.
I understand that the Government, in general terms, support the strengthening of Parliament in relation to the executive. Here we are not even talking about the executive as Ministers but about the executive as members of regulatory authorities. Surely it is desirable for parliamentary committees to examine the policies of members of regulatory committees before they take office and to ask what targets they seek to reach so that, if they fail to meet them, they can be taken to task. That is what the role of parliamentary committees is supposed to be.
Certainly many other countries, notably the United States of America, are far ahead of us in this respect. Indeed, such is my disappointment with the reaction of the noble Lord the Minister that I wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
4.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 184.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Byford, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Caithness, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chadlington, L.

Biffen, L.

Coe, L.

Blaker, L.

Colwyn, L.

Blatch, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Boardman. L.

Courtown, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Cranborne, V.

brougham and Vaux, L.

Crathorne, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Buscombe, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

164

Denham, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Elles, B.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Flather, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Fookes, B.

Palmer, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Geddes, L.

Plumb, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlings, B.

Goschen, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Higgins, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hogg, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jopling, L.

Selborne, E.

Kelvedon, L.

Selsdon, L.

Kingsland, L.

Sharpies, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stewartby. L.

Luke, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McConnell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vivian, L.

Marlesford, L.

Waddington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Warnock, B.

Montrose, D.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Crawley, B.

Addington, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Ahmed, L.

David, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Davies of Coity, L.

Amos, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Andrews, B.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Diamond, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dixon, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Donoughue, L.

Bach, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Barker, B.

Dubs, L.

Bamett, L.

Elder, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Billingham, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ezra, L.

Blease, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Borrie, L.

Falkland, V.

Bradshaw, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bragg, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brett, L.

Filkin, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Brookman, L.

Gale, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Geraint, L.

Burlison, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Gilbert, L.

Christopher, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Goodhart, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Goudie, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Grabiner, L.

165

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Grcgson, L.

Paul, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Harrison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Haskel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskins, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Havman, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Healey, L.

Razzall, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rea, L.

Hogg of Cumbcrnauld, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hollick, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rolloflpsden, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Russell, E.

Hoyle, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sewel, L.

Sharman. L.

Islwyn, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Judd, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkhill. L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Laird, L.

Taverne, L.

Layard, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McCarthy, L.

Thornton, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tomlinson, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Varley, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Maddock, B.

Walmsley. B.

Marsh, L.

Warner, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Masscy of Darwen, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Molloy, L.

Weatherill, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Whitty, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wilkins, B.

Newby, L.

Williams of Crosbv, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L

Northover, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Parekh, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Schedule 2 [The Gas and Electricity Consumer Council]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 122, line 39, leave out ("publish") and insert ("include").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 19 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 sets out the annual reporting obligations of the Consumer Council. The report is made to the Secretary of State, who subsequently lays it before Parliament. The council is responsible for wider publication. Consistent with the disclosure provisions in other parts of the Bill, the paragraph prevents the council from publishing certain types of information as part of the annual report unless certain conditions are met. The impression that the current wording gives, however, is that there may be a difference between the report as it is made to the Secretary of State and the report which is eventually published, which is not the intention. They are one and the same. The report which is made to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament is itself a public document. The issue is one of excluding certain types of information from the report in the first place rather than removing information subsequently prior to publication; in other words, we do not want power to doctor the council's report. These amendments clarify the position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 122, line 43, leave out from ("be") to end of line 44 and insert ("included in the report if—
(a) that individual or body has consented to its inclusion:").
Page 123, line 1, leave out ("disclose") and insert ("include").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Schedule to be substituted for Schedule 6 to the 1989 Act]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 130, line 13, leave out ("to which lie is maintaining a connection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was requested by the electricity industry for safety reasons. The request was made only recently, just before Report stage, and the amendment was not therefore ready to be brought before the House at that stage. Noble Lords may recall that on Report I announced the Government's intention to bring forward an amendment in this area, and that is the amendment I should now like to discuss.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow licensed distributors access to any premises where they have line or plant which requires replacement, repair or alteration of some kind. This mirrors rights presently held by the public electricity suppliers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 135, line 1, after ("23,") insert ("30A.").
Page 138, line 31, leave out ("section 32, section") and insert ("27A. 32,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 25:
Page 140, line 33, leave out from ("effect") to ("as") in line 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 26. These minor drafting amendments relate to the timing of transfer and licensing schemes coming into effect. They make clear that it will be possible for both licensing and transfer schemes in relation to different suppliers to come into effect on different dates, thus achieving flexibility in implementation, which has been a key objective in developing these technical provisions.
That is what we intended, but following discussion with the electricity industry, we have agreed that the current drafting could be improved to clarify this, which is what these amendments do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 141, line 8, leave out from ("that") to end of line 9.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Postal Services Bill
5.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Postal Services Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Provision of a universal postal service: meaning]:
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 11 and 15 to 19. These are drafting amendments intended to tidy up or clarify the Bill. Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment to the definition of a universal postal service. It is intended to clarify that Clause 4(1)(b) is a separate obligation which goes wider than Clause 4(1)(a). The effect of the amendment is that a
168
universal postal provider is to provide a postal service for all relevant postal packets, including cross-border mail.
Amendment No. 3 is a drafting amendment to the exceptions from Clause 13(6) contained in subsection (7). Subsection (6) provides that, subject to subsection (7), no action shall lie or in Scotland be competent in respect of a contravention by a licence holder of a condition of his licence. Subsection (7) sets out exceptions to this. The Government's intention with these provisions is to prevent any action for breach of a condition (other than by enforcement notice or financial penalty under the provisions of this part of the Bill) but without prejudice to any other right of action which could arise under general law in relation to the underlying act or omission. Amendment No. 3 amends the wording of the exception at subsection (1)(a) to ensure that these other rights of action remain available where there is an act or omission which takes place in the course of doing anything to which the condition relates. Depending on the terms of the licence, this could go beyond the provision of letters or a universal postal service.
Amendment No. 11 is a simple drafting amendment correcting an error in the existing text by replacing the reference to "any other" with "a" foreign administration.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 together clarify the definition of a "letter" for the purposes of this Bill. First, they put beyond any doubt that "letter" does not include an electronic communication. Amendment No. 18 provides that the reference to a letter being conveyed and delivered "otherwise than electronically" (itself inserted by Amendment No. 15 into the definition of "letter" in Clause 125(1)) is a reference to a communication to be conveyed and delivered otherwise than by means of a telecommunications system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984) or by other means while in electronic form. This means that a letter on a disk sent by post will be a postal packet for the purposes of this Bill but will not be a letter. Secondly, they spell out that a postal packet containing a letter is a letter. Thirdly, they allow a communication to satisfy the definition of letter even where the communication is addressed to a person and not an address.
As intended in the existing definition of a letter, hybrid mail services remain caught within the definition of a letter only when the communication is not being conveyed or delivered electronically. Postal operators will, of course, remain free to offer hybrid mail services so long as they operate either outside the licensed area or, if they are operating within the licensed area, they have a licence to do so for that part of the service where communications are conveyed or delivered otherwise than electronically.
Amendment No. 19 is a minor consequential amendment to the list of expressions in Clause 126. It extends the reference to the meaning of letter to include the new provisions on the meaning of

169
conveyed and delivered otherwise than electronically (the subject of Amendment No. 18). I beg to move that these amendments be accepted.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we thank the Minister for the change from "the" to "a" which we believe meets in some way the amendment we tabled on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
("(3A) If no-one falls within subsection (3) because there is no Community obligation to notify the European Commission of the identity of a person providing a universal postal service or a part of such a service in the United Kingdom, references in this Act to a universal service provider shall be construed as references to any person who is treated by the Secretary of State as a universal service provider for the purposes of this Act and on whom the Secretary of State has served a notice informing him of that fact.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 20.
These are technical amendments. The effect of Amendment No. 2 is to ensure that it will be possible to identify a universal service provider or providers in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Bill in the event that the current requirement to notify the Commission of their identity under the Postal Services Directive lapses.
Article 4 of the directive requires each member state to notify the European Commission of the identity of its universal service postal provider or providers. Clause 4 of the Bill is drafted in this context. Subsection (3) of Clause 4 sets out the meaning of a universal service provider for the purposes of the Bill. It provides that any person whose identity is notified by the Secretary of State to the European Commission as a person providing a universal service (or part of a universal service) within the UK (in accordance with Article 4 of the Postal Services Directive) and who has been served with a notice of that fact by the Secretary of State is to be taken to be a universal service provider for the purposes of the Bill.
We see no problem with this construction for the foreseeable future. However, Article 27 of the directive provides that the provisions of the directive (with the exception of Article 26) shall apply only until December 2004 unless otherwise decided in accordance with Article 7(3). Article 7(3) concerns further provisions for the completion of the internal market of postal services. There is, therefore, the possibility that Article 4 of the directive could lapse.
We expect that it is unlikely that this provision of the directive would lapse without being replaced by some further Community provision. But we cannot rule it out entirely. Given the importance attached in the Bill to the concept of a universal service provider, we consider that it is sensible to provide on its face for a universal service provider to be capable of being identified in the unlikely event that the relevant provisions of the directive lapse.
Amendment No. 20 is a minor consequential amendment to the list of expressions in Clause 126. It extends the reference to universal service provider to include the new provisions at Clause 4, identifying a universal service provider in the event of the lapse of an EU directive—the subject of Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. However, I am slightly confused about some of the words in new subsection (3A). The fourth line from the bottom of Amendment No. 2 refers to,
"any person"—
I underline the next words—
"who is treated by the Secretary of State as a universal service provider".
Surely he either is or is not a universal service provider. Why should he be "treated" by the Secretary of State as such?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that it is simply because previously a "universal service provider" was defined by the fact that the provider was notified to the EU. In this case, the provider has been designated as a person by the Secretary of State. I believe that in this context it amounts to the same thing. Clearly there are regulations which refer to the Secretary of State's ability to designate someone, but in this case the basis is that the provider has already been designated.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, but I am still confused. To be designated is one thing. But that becomes a fact—he is a universal service provider. Surely to be treated by the Secretary of State as a universal service provider is something else. However, I shall not waste the time of the House now. Perhaps the noble Lord would again be very generous and write one of his copious letters to me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Licences: conditions and other provisions]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 31, leave out from ("of") to end of line and insert ("the provision of any postal services or the doing of anything else to which the condition relates").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Financial penalties]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2I, line 12, at end insert—
("(1A) No such penalty shall exceed 10 per cent. of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with provisions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14. These amendments will place a cap on the financial penalties which can be imposed on licence holders for a contravention of a licence condition. Such a penalty will be limited to a

171
maximum of 10 per cent of the turnover of the licence holder, determined in accordance with provisions to be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
Under Clause 30 as currently drafted, there is no specific limit on penalties for breaches of licence conditions, although there is a requirement that they must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. We have previously argued, and continue to believe, that the requirement that the fines should be reasonable would ensure that any fines are proportionate and not excessive in the circumstances of a particular case. However, we have reflected on the concerns expressed in Committee about the concept of unlimited fines and also in relation to similar provisions in the Utilities Bill.
Following that consideration, the Government have decided that it would be appropriate to amend the Bill so as to limit financial penalties to 10 per cent of the turnover of the licence holder on whom the penalty is imposed, with detailed provisions for determining that turnover to be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State. That will bring the provisions of the Postal Services Bill into line with those of the Competition Act 1998 and with those now included in the Utilities Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we have no difficulty in accepting this amendment. We argued for it quite strongly either in Committee or on Report. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, supported it because we did not like the fact that the Minister said that it would be "reasonable". We would then have needed a discussion as to what is "reasonable". Therefore, we thank the Minister for bringing it back in this form.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on a very reasonable amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Annual and other reports: the Commission]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 29, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) a report as to the manner in which the Commission has complied with its obligations under the Postal Services Directive,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will require the Postal Services Commission to include in its annual report each year a report on the manner in which it has complied with its obligations under the Postal Services Directive.
The Government are bringing forward this amendment in response to concerns expressed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. In the debate on a proposed amendment to Clause 13, I agreed to consider further whether the Bill should include an express reference to the duty of the Postal Services Commission to comply with the current and any future European directive on postal services.
As I said before, the European Postal Services Directive has direct effect, and bodies treated as carrying out functions of the state, such as the Postal Services Commission, are therefore obliged to comply with its requirements. That is reinforced by the explicit provisions in Article 22 of the directive which provide that the national regulatory authority—in this country, the Postal Services Commission—shall, as a particular task, ensure compliance with the obligations which arise from that directive.
The commission's responsibilities are quite clear and would not be made clearer by imposing through the Bill a general duty on the commission to comply with the directive. To do so would be unnecessary and unprecedented. However, in recognition of the noble Baroness's concerns, we have considered ways, other than a general duty, of highlighting in the Bill the commission's role in ensuring compliance with obligations arising from the directive. We believe that the best way to achieve that is to require the commission to include in its annual report each year a report on the manner in which it has complied with its obligations under the Postal Services Directive.
An annual report required under Clause 45 will be laid before Parliament and published by the Secretary of State. It will therefore be possible for Parliament and any other interested parties to see and comment on how the commission is carrying out its duties in relation to the obligations under the directive.
With this amendment the commission will be under a duty not only to ensure compliance of universal service providers with the directive, but it will also be required to report on how it has done so, year on year. Exactly how it ensures compliance will be a matter for the commission. It may be through licence conditions, but we believe that we should not rule out other ways of ensuring compliance. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it looks like three out of three so far. I am extremely grateful to the Minister, particularly because I remember feeling most embarrassed during the Report stage that, according to the Minister, I moved so many detective amendments. It now seems that the amendments that I moved that were not defective have found a sympathetic ear.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Exercise of functions: general]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 35, line 4, at end insert ("and
(iv) at least one committee for England.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 go together, and Amendment No. 8 is the Government's formulation of exactly the same thing. Throughout the various stages of the Bill concern has been expressed as to whether a committee for England would be established under Clause 54. Ultimately, the Minister accepted that there should be one. Therefore, the question now is: which formulation is better? I only speak now, rather than not move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, in order to give the Minister the opportunity to say whether, in the eyes of his department and the

173
draftsmen, his own amendment is better than mine. I suspect that he will say that it is, in which case, obviously, I shall withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, after the detailed debates about principle that we have had throughout the Bill, I am delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and other Members of the House eventually have succeeded in persuading the Minister that, if the Bill were left unamended, the tragic consequence could arise of England having no committee. Personally, I prefer my noble friend's drafting on the grounds that it is shorter. The words "at least" would tend to imply to most people that there could be more. Therefore, with those reservations, I prefer my noble friend's drafting. However, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Minister wholeheartedly on his approach to the moving of his slightly longer amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister. This is the third time that this amendment has been discussed in your Lordships' House: first in Committee, when I think that I added my name to it, then on Report, and now today. I would not dream of saying whether the Minister's amendment was better drafted than that of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, but it would be right for me to say, as my noble friend Lord Goschen did, that we prefer the wording of our noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. We are, however, grateful to the Minister.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall respond to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 and speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 22 to 28. I do not want to spend too much time on the issue, but it is important that we get it right.
When I first saw Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, I thought that they were better because they were short, elegant and simple. However, having looked at the issue in detail, there are good reasons for preferring our wording. The draftsman fulfils a useful function in such circumstances.
I shall try to explain why I hope to convince the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to withdraw his amendment and to accept the government amendments. On Report, in response to an amendment he had tabled, I agreed to consider whether the Government should table an amendment to place a duty on the new consumer council to establish, at the very least, a committee in England to help it have regard to the needs of users in England. Amendment No. 8 does that, providing that the council must establish at least one committee in England. That duty can be met by establishing either a committee for the whole of England or one for an area within England. The amendment will not prevent the council from doing both. The Government anticipate that if the council decides not to establish a committee
174
for the whole of England it will seek to establish a number of area committees covering the whole of England.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 28 are, for the most part. consequential amendments to Schedule 2. The intention is to ensure that the rules governing the establishment of any committee for England are consistent with those applying to the committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that the rules relating to any committee for any area of England will be consistent with those for any committees for areas within Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The government amendments fulfil what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, seeks. However, his amendments would have some unwanted consequences. First, they appear to permit more than one committee for England as a whole while removing the express power for the council to set up committees for areas within England. Secondly, they would require each chairman of the committees for England to be a member of the council by virtue of Schedule 2(1)(b). Neither of us would want either of those situations to arise. In view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that, with the help of the draftsman, we have been able to fulfil his intentions even better than his amendments would and that he will therefore withdraw Amendment No. 6.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to the Minister. I thought at one moment that he was going to break out into his old method of speaking and describe my amendments—or even his own Amendment No. 8—as unnecessary. However, he resisted that temptation and I am sure that the House is grateful. I repeat my gratitude to the Minister and his department. I shall not move Amendment No. 7, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 6.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 35, line 7, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) shall establish at least one committee, and may establish other committees, in relation to England (whether a committee for England or a committee for an area within England).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—

Postal Services Bill

  NOTIFIABLE TRANSACTIONS
  (" .—(1) Where the Post Office company or any relevant subsidiary enters into a notifiable transaction it must, as soon as practicable after the terms of that transaction have been agreed, issue a disclosure notice in accordance with this section.
  (2) For the purposes of' this section "notifiable transaction" means any acquisition or disposal of any undertaking or interest in any undertaking by the Post Office company or any relevant subsidiary which, if the acquisition or disposal was made by a

  175
  listed company, would be a transaction in respect of which that company would need to give notification or make an announcement in accordance with the listing rules.
  (3) A disclosure notice must include the same information regarding the transaction to which it relates as any notification or announcement under the listing rules would be required to include if the transaction was an acquisition or disposal which had been made by a listed company.
  (4) A disclosure notice shall—

  (a) he published in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the Belfast Gazette; and

  b) he published or disseminated in any other manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

  (5) In this section—

  "listed company" means a company any class of whose securities have been admitted to the official list: and

  "listing rules" and "official list" have the same meaning as in Part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment similar in principle to this one but different in wording. The Minister rejected it on the ground that, as he claimed, it would put the Post Office company,
  "at a considerable commercial disadvantage compared with its commercial competitors".
  He added:
  "Publicly listed companies are merely required, in certain circumstances, to announce acquisitions, once the terms of the transaction have been agreed".—[Official Report, 8/6/00; col. 1358.]
  I am afraid that I believe that the Minister is mistaken in that assertion. Every day we can read in the press of bids, deals and negotiations in progress. Shareholders are entitled to know a fact that could affect the value of the shares that they are considering buying or selling. Relevant details should be published as soon as it is reasonable to do so. If the Post Office were in negotiations with a publicly quoted company, that company would be required at some suitable stage to make an announcement, whereas the Post Office would be entitled to remain silent, thereby confusing the market. That would be preposterous.
  There was some criticism of the wording of the amendment I proposed in Committee. Although I divided the House, due to an insufficient number of your Lordships voting the House was counted out. In accordance with the rules, on 15th June I had a second bite at the same cherry. On that occasion, I told your Lordships that on the previous day I had received certain information that I had privately imparted to the Minister and that that information had suggested there was a cogent reason why the Government should have introduced a similar amendment. As I had not had a chance to verify the information, I did not repeat it to your Lordships at that time. The Government again rejected the amendment, which I withdrew in order to give them an opportunity to reconsider their attitude in the light of the information that I had given to the Minister. They did not do so.
  On Report, I brought back my amendment in a revised form—the same form in which it appears today. I am afraid that it is necessary for me to quote from what I said on that occasion. I said:
  "I wish to turn now to another serious and major point. I am informed from a very reliable source … that"—
  the National Audit Office—
  "had reported to the Government advising that the disclosure regime for the Post Office should he the same as the one I am now proposing".—[Official Report, 29/6/00; col. 1115.]
  I asked the Minister five specific questions: whether there was such a report; whether I was correct in saying what it recommended; whether the Government agreed with the report; if not, why not; and finally, if they agreed, whether they would undertake to bring forward a similar amendment on Third Reading. The Minister did not answer those questions. He merely said, at col. 1116:
  "The National Audit Office intends to produce a report, but the publication date is for the NAO to decide".
  I remember saying that I would not ask when it would be published because I thought that that was not very tactful. Note the Minister's words,
  "intends to produce a report",
  as though it were not already in the hands of the department at the time of the debate. I shall come back to that in a moment.
  The Minister rejected my amendment yet again on the same specious and unacceptable grounds as before—grounds that, I was given to understand, are in contradiction of the recommendations of the National Audit Office.
  In a later letter to me, the Minister said that he wanted to secure the same objective as I did but that he felt it would be achieved by provisions in the articles of association of the new Post Office company, which are still under discussion. He also said that on Report.
  That is not correct procedure. Every company has certain obligations of disclosure to its shareholders. In some cases, companies are required to obtain shareholders' approval before acquisitions or disposals, particularly those entailing issues of shares or loan stock. I am not seeking to make the Post Office report to its one and only shareholder; I want disclosure to Parliament. Parliament should make the rules of disclosure, not some cosy group of lawyers or accountants currently working in the public service.
  The Minister's letter also confirmed the existence of the National Audit Office report. It said that,
  "the report has not yet been finalised and I am sure you ill appreciate that I cannot go into detail of what is being recommended while the report is still in draft".
  I do not appreciate that. Whether or not the report has been finalised, there has come into my hands an extract of what the Minister says is still only a draft. I believe, although I am not sure, that the extract is from the second draft. From some of the text it is clear that the

  177
  report had been discussed between the National Audit Office and the department of the Minister and accepted by that department. The relevant passages call for,
  "the disclosure to Parliament of analogous information to that which would have been required had the state-owned business been quoted on the London Stock Exchange. This would, where relevant, include information on the price paid … and the effect of the transaction on the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the purchaser".
  The report continues:
  "The Department has told us that it accepts our argument that there is a case for the Post Office and other similar public bodies to accept analogous rules".
  That could not be clearer. Whether or not the report has been published and whether or not the Minister was previously aware of it, once I had alerted him of it on 15th June there was plenty of time for him to find out what it said. Whatever alterations there may be in the final wording, there is no possibility that the National Audit Office would perform a complete somersault and reverse its key recommendation.
  More importantly, when the Minister glossed over the report while speaking on this amendment previously, I believe he should have known that his department had already accepted the principle. Therefore, I find somewhat surprising the Minister's failure to answer my questions on Report and his casually dismissive and absolutely minimalist reference to the report as though it were not relevant.
  The report is even more emphatic than the short extract I have quoted. In a section headed,
  "What lessons of good practice can he learned from this transaction?"—
  that is the German parcel office deal—it calls for detailed information on deals to be given to the board, which I would have thought went without saying, and a procedure to monitor acquisitions that preserves accountability and avoids second-guessing. Most important of all, it says that the department should consider the Stock Exchange requirements on listed companies.
  Item (iv) states:
  "the provision of transparent information to Parliament on the transaction as if the acquisition were subject to the London Stock Exchange disclosure requirements".
  In Figure 13, the report even contains a checklist to illustrate the information to be provided for public sector acquisitions.
  The Government claim to be in favour of open government. On the three previous occasions that we have debated this issue, the Minister's speeches have been peppered with references to "transparency", a buzz word currently in high favour with the Government. But here they refuse to accept, in the face of clear advice from a most influential independent source, that once the Post Office is launched into the ordinary commercial world it should conform to the same rules—not more—as other public companies. The Government argue that it should be less open to public scrutiny in its dealings.
  On Report the Minister's response was that the National Audit Office intends to produce a report. That suggests that he did not know the contents or, at the lowest, that he had not investigated the information that I had given to him some two weeks earlier. I believe that the Minister should tell the House what he knew of the contents of the National Audit Office report on 29th June, the date of the previous stage of this Bill.
  Assuming that he has acquainted himself with those contents that I had discussed with him, we also need to know why the Government persisted in pursuing their negative attitude to this amendment, contrary to the independent and authoritative advice they had not only received but had accepted. Is the Minister telling the House that, despite my alerting him to the report, he was unaware of its contents when he last addressed your Lordships on this topic and found all sorts of irrelevant reasons for refusing to accept an amendment that carries the recommendation of the report into effect? Or is he saying that despite his department having told the Audit Commission that it accepted the recommendations, in fact it had no intention of doing so?
  The Government have been dismissive of Parliament on more than one occasion. It seems as though they are also dismissive of an important, independent, supervisory body such as the National Audit Office. Who told the Audit Commission that the recommendations were accepted? Was it the Minister? If he did not, why was he not aware of his own department's policy? The House would also like to know whether the Government will take this opportunity to follow the advice fully and so ensure that a public company, of which the Government will be the sole shareholder, conforms to the same high standards of disclosure to which other companies are required to conform. Why does the DTI say one thing to the Audit Commission and do another in Parliament? I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Razzall: My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness touches on the point she has nobly struggled through at every stage of this Bill and which I raised initially at Second Reading. On this occasion I do not require the normal mandatory plaudits that she has given to me in relation to that. I assume she is aware of what I am about to say.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the first time I mentioned this amendment I gave all credit to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. He knows very well that I congratulate him on having brought the matter to the attention of the House.
  Lord Razzall: My Lords, noble Lords who have followed the progress of this Bill will realise that I can never resist teasing the noble Baroness.
  At Second Reading I was concerned about "transparency", the point that the noble Baroness has raised at every stage of the Bill. I agree with her, as do other noble Lords on these Benches—I understand the

  179
  Minister also agrees—that it is essential that under its new guise the Post Office complies with the degree of transparency that would be normal for a public company of this nature.
  Far be it from me to lecture her or the Minister, considering his previous guise, about the way that listed companies work in the public company arena. However, I fear that the point made by the noble Baroness does not work because, as the Minister has said previously, to attempt to incorporate the listings into the legislation as applicable to the Post Office ignores the fact that the listing rules, by and large, are there to protect the interests of shareholders. As the noble Baroness rightly says, if a significant transaction takes place in the market that can affect the price at which shares are dealt in, the companies involved have to make an announcement. That is right and proper. Of course, in relation to the Post Office, that cannot happen because there are no shareholders who can buy or sell shares in the Post Office.
  Secondly, if under the listings rules the acquisition is a significant one, approval has to be sought from company shareholders and documents under the listings rules have to be published with details of the transaction requiring the approval of the company shareholders. Again, that does not apply to the Post Office. Despite this lengthy report from which she has quoted endlessly and which noble Lords have not had an opportunity to see, the noble Baroness is left with the third obligation under the listings rules, namely, that an announcement has to be made by the company after a certain transaction has taken place.
  The Government appear to be saying that the listing rules do not apply to the Post Office and that to attempt to make them do so simply will not work. Therefore they are trying to take the principle of the listing rules—that is, that transactions of a certain size have to be notified to the public at large and to Parliament—and put that requirement into the articles of association of the Post Office. In so doing they will comply with the recommendation of the National Audit Office that, to the extent that it is practicable, the principles of the listing rules should be applied to the Post Office.
  It is not a difference of principle between the noble Baroness, myself and the Government; it is simply an argument as to how in practice we can insert the substance of the listing requirements. The only one which can apply to the Post Office is the requirement to notify a significant transaction after the event. That is why, despite the fact that I support the principle of what the noble Baroness is trying to do, I do not believe the mechanism she chooses can possibly work and why, as long as the Minister repeats the undertaking he gave on Report that this requirement will be entrenched in the Post Office's articles, from these Benches we will support the Government.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course this is an issue of transparency. But I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. For example, Parcel Force, which is a Post Office entity, may bid for and secure International Carriers Limited (ICL). On its side,
  180
  because of the listing rules and because it has shareholders, ICL would have to admit that such an approach had been made. But the Post Office would not and we would be left with a rather nasty hybrid situation.
  I believe that, since we all seem to he agreed with the principle of the intentions of the amendment—that is, to have transparency on the face of the Bill rather than in the memorandum and articles of association—the Bill is where it ought to go. Our difficulty is that we are now at Third Reading of the Bill. But if the principle that this matter should go on the face of the Bill is accepted, then it is up to another place to change the details of that principle in order to fit in with the wishes both of another place and of your Lordships' House. Therefore I say to my noble friend, "More power to your elbow".
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, when we discussed this same amendment at Report stage, the noble Baroness asked me a number of questions about whether the National Audit Office had made similar recommendations regarding the disclosure of information on acquisitions and disposals. She asked me to write in response to those questions before Third Reading. For the benefit of the House, perhaps I can repeat the points I made in my reply.
  The National Audit Office has been examining the DTI's role in approving the Post Office's acquisition of German Parcel. But I repeat that the report has not yet been finalised and therefore has not been seen by Ministers, formally replied to or had consents given to it.
  However, that is not the issue here. We accept the principle that, if the noble Baroness is correct, the report recommends; namely, that there should be transparency about this issue. I wish to reinforce the point of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that, while we accept the principle of transparency, it must be said clearly that this is not a public company in the sense of having shareholders on the Stock Exchange who have to be kept informed because of the implications and possible impact of that information on the market-place.
  I turn to the substantive issue of the disclosure of information about major acquisitions and other significant deals.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the Minister does that, perhaps he will give way. I have been observing this debate almost from afar, and my noble friend has been keeping me informed. The Minister is almost dancing on the head of a pin in relation to the National Audit Office report, saying that the department does not know anything about it.
  If I read the extract correctly, the department clearly told the National Audit Office that it accepts its argument that there is a case for the Post Office and similar public bodies to accept analogous roles. Therefore the department must know the view of the NAO, otherwise it would not be able to make the response that the NAO intends to publish. I suspect

  181
  the Minister has been caught because this report has not yet been published. Perhaps it ought to have been, or perhaps the Bill ought not to have had its final stages until it was published.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought I was clear on this point. I did not say that the department did not know of the report. I said that the report had not been finalised; that no Ministers had seen the report and that no agreements to its contents had been given by Ministers. That is the substantive point in this case. Clearly officials in the department would know of the report; it would be inconceivable that they would not.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The line in the report says,
  "The Department has told us that it accepts our argument".
  I asked who it was in the department who told the National Audit Office that. I understand the Minister to be saying that his department knew about the report but no Minister had seen it. If so, how can anybody say that they accept the principle behind it?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot comment on what is presumably a quotation from internal documents of the National Audit Office. All I can say is that, when one refers to the department giving authority to the report, that must mean Ministers. I can assure the House that Ministers did not give authority for the statements being made. I cannot say any more than that. The noble Baroness obviously has access to an internal memorandum from the National Audit Office, which I have not. The substantive point is that Ministers have not agreed to this.
  I turn to the question of how we handle this issue. The Government made clear that we are proposing to formalise the requirement for the Post Office company to disclose information by making provision for disclosure in the Post Office company's articles of association. I said that we are currently discussing the draft memorandum and articles of association for the Post Office company with the Post Office. We shall be discussing the inclusion of an article which requires the disclosure to the Secretary of State of information about major acquisitions and disposals relating to transactions involving 10 per cent or more of consolidated profits, turnover or gross assets. The provision will require disclosure within a specified period of business days after the transaction in question has been agreed and will also require the Post Office company to issue a press announcement giving certain prescribed information.
  During Report stage I explained at some length why we did not agree that the noble Baroness's amendment was the best way of securing transparency for the Post Office company and so I shall not repeat that argument. But I stress that we wish to achieve the same objective as the noble Baroness, without subjecting the Post Office company to an unnecessarily onerous and
  182
  inflexible regime which is designed to serve a very different purpose. The Post Office changed its approach to disclosing information about acquisitions in the light of the concerns expressed following the acquisition of German Parcel. Our proposals will ensure that the current policy of openness is enforceable by the shareholder.
  The noble Baroness asked me during the Report stage whether the Government would be bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading to the same effect as her own. But I can only repeat the comments I made on Report. We consider that our proposals achieve the transparency the noble Baroness desires, but without inflexibly shackling the Post Office company to a regime which is intended for another purpose entirely and to which no competitor would be bound in the same way. And perhaps I can reiterate that the difference here is that other companies have the possibility of going to the authorities and discussing the need for specific disclosures to be made. That would not be possible if this were simply a legal requirement on the Post Office.
  In addition, our proposals better reflect the requirements that are placed on other companies. No competitor would be required by law to disclose the information demanded by this amendment about transactions undertaken by its subsidiaries unless they were material in the context of the group as a whole. Again, this amendment goes far beyond what would be required if the Post Office was a quoted company. I am all in favour of ensuring a level playing field, but the noble Baroness's amendment would tilt the balance too far against the Post Office company. I urge Members of this House not to contemplate shackling the Post Office company in that way with an amendment which in fact would make its task more difficult than that of a public company.
  I very much hope that the noble Baroness is now persuaded that our proposal is the best means of securing the transparency that she seeks while at the same time being fair to the Post Office company. We want both a fair and level playing field. I believe that our proposal for securing that off the face of the Bill will achieve our joint objective. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I know the Minister has said that he believes that he, I and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, are seeking to achieve the same thing. We believe that articles of association are all very well, but they are not as good as having a provision on the face of the Bill. That would be far better.
  The Minister may have called it an internal document of some kind. My explanation came in a brown envelope. It is the second draft of the National Audit Office report on the German takeover. If the final printed and published report contains the assertion that,
  "The department has told us that it accepts our argument that there is a case for the Post Office"

  183
  I believe that the Minister may have to eat some words. So much for the Government's pledge for freedom of information. In the circumstances I must seek the opinion of the House.
  6.1 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 190.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Liverpool, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Luke, L.

  Barber, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Biffen, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

  Bridgeman, V.

  Marlesford, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Buscombe, B.

  Montrose, D.

  Byford, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Caithness, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Norfolk, D.

  Chadlington, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Coe, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Courtown, E.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Pike, B.

  Elles, B.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Prior, L.

  Elton, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Feldman, L.

  Rees, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Renton, L.

  Flather, B.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Trefgarne, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Holderness, L.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Kelvedon, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Wolfson, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Amos, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B

  184

  Avebury, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Bach, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Barker, B.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Berkeley, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jacobs, L.

  Blease, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Borrie, L

  Bragg, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Brennan, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Brett, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Judd, L.

  Brookman, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Layard, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Lipsey, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Longford, E.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Dahrendorf, L.

  David, B.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Dearing, L.

  McNally, L.

  Desai, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Diamond, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Elder, L.

  Monson, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Newby, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Parekh, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Patel, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Paul, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Peston, L.

  Gale, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Razzall, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Rea, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Gregson, L

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Richard, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Russell, E.

  Harrison, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Haskel, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Healey, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Sewel, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Sharman, L.

  Hollick, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Simon, V.

  185

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Warner, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Winston, L.

  Varley, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.12 p.m.
  Clause 75 [Dissolution of the Post Office]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 47, line 18, at end insert ("or an order made under this Act").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment aimed at ensuring that the Post Office is not dissolved while there are any outstanding issues relating to the old Post Office. The transfer provisions in Clause 62 ensure that all the property, rights and liabilities of the current Post Office corporation transfer to the Post Office company on the appointed day. There should thus be no outstanding issues, apart from the vesting of foreign property rights (which may not be transferred simply by the UK statute) as provided for in Schedule 3.
  However, there may be transitional issues that we may need to lay on the Post Office under the powers provided in Clause 129. An example could relate to the way in which the final accounts of the Post Office are drawn up, in accordance with Clause 73(1)(b). We may need to make a transitional order to determine the handling of this. We would not want the Post Office to be dissolved until duties under such an order had been discharged. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that everything had been completed before making the dissolution order. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 105 [Application of customs and excise enactments to certain postal packets]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 63, line 35, leave out ("any other") and insert ("a").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 63, line 47, at end insert—
  ("(6) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
  186
  (7) No regulations shall be made under this section unless—

  (a) a draft of the regulations has been laid before the House of Commons together with a reasoned statement from the Treasury confirming that, in its opinion, the regulations, if made, would not distort competition in the provision of postal services; and

  (b) the draft regulations are approved by resolution of that House.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that this is the third time that we have debated this issue. I hope that that will show the Minister the seriousness that we attach to the amendment. When the clause was debated for the first time in Committee, I pointed out that the commercial courier services would be at a severe disadvantage vis-à-vis the Post Office because of new procedures being imposed by Customs and Excise regarding the clearance of packages to and from this country.
  I shall not trouble your Lordships this evening by repeating the details, but at the very least the commercial concerns will be forced to do their pickups for goods consigned abroad at a much earlier time in the evening which will adversely affect their highly competitive, next-day delivery round the world. The extra paperwork will cost millions of pounds over a period to implement, aside from creating the problem of recruiting and training staff to do all the computer input.
  Four major express operators have ascertained that it will cost them £5 million every year to implement these new procedures and to no object from the point of view of either security or increasing the tax revenue. As far as can be seen, it is simply to facilitate the Customs and Excise administration. The Minister previously told the House that this was an international issue and that a study was being conducted by the World Customs Organisation, the Universal Postal Union and the International Express Carriers Conference. Unfortunately, he could not tell my noble friend Lord Caithness when those deliberations would reach a conclusion. I am far from hopeful of an early decision.
  It took the best part of a generation for the Universal Postal Union to establish itself and for the respective countries to enact the necessary legislation. We have to deal with the matter for the benefit of our own carrier industry here and now. If the international negotiations eventually reach a conclusion, then, as with any other form of treaty, the Government can introduce the necessary legislation to implement it. The other parties to the negotiations are not currently enacting the postal services legislation, so they will have to create their own new legislation in due course.
  In his reply to my amendment, the Minister also said—presumably with the authority of Customs and Excise—that they had no wish to impose undue financial or administrative burdens on anyone or to distort competition. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for those fine words. But as they have been told in the course of the vigorous representations that the industry has made to them, that is precisely the effect that their current proposals will have. It is not too late for them to reconsider, because imposing these

  187
  procedures on everyone, except the Post Office, will distort competition. It is certainly not a level playing field.
  The other matter I wish to raise is the information that is required. Again, I also raised the issue on Report, when the Minister commented:
  "Customs are clear that the information called for will in no way exceed that provided at present".—[Official Report, 29/6/00; col. 1136.]
  I faxed a letter to the noble Lord on 5th July to inform him that I had been advised by the express operators that that does not appear to be the case. Of course, I shall not go into a detailed breakdown at this point, but my letter also gave details regarding what Customs are now requiring under the so-called "simplified procedures", which do not look much more simplified to me.
  However, the question as to whether Customs require more information cannot, I suggest, be relevant to the central issue. The core issue is, as the Minister himself stated, that there are two types of traffic that partly reflect the difference in the Customs' treatment. But from the figures that the Minister supplied in a Written Answer on 29th June and from the Parcelforce advertisement—as well as from a cursory look at its Internet site, as I informed the Minister—it appears that the company actively sells rapid guaranteed deliveries around the world. It clearly competes head to head with the express industry.
  I can do no better than to quote my noble friend Lord Freeman, who summarised the situation so well in our debate on Report when he said that,
  "if there is no distortion in competition, as the Government have argued, there can be no problems in ensuring that Parcelforce and the public sector abide by and are governed by exactly the same Customs and Excise regulations and new procedures as is the private sector".—[Official Report, 29/6/00; col. 1135.]
  I received a fax this afternoon from the Minister containing three points, which no doubt the noble Lord will remake in his reply. The first is that this provision only brings the Customs and Excise powers up to date to reflect the modern postal services required. But why does that not apply to the Post Office? Why not adopt a minimalist approach to help to reduce red tape?
  Secondly, the Minister stated that the matters are under discussion with the trade association and cannot be settled before 3rd August, which is too late for the Bill. All we want is an assurance from the Minister that the independent carriers will not be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the Post Office. If the matter is not settled before the Bill is passed, the independents will not have a leg to stand on.
  Thirdly, the Minister stated that the date required is mandatory under the EC agreement. Will the Minister confirm that that applies to the state-owned Post Office as well as to the express companies?
  The amendment that I propose simply ensures that regulations made under the clause should be scrutinised by the other place before they come into effect, as I believe should be the case as they involve
  188
  fiscal issues. That would give the other place the opportunity to ensure that the Treasury, in seeking such approval, was not distorting the competition in postal services or imposing undue financial burdens, both consequences having been disclaimed by the noble Lord on behalf of Customs and Excise. I am afraid that those who advise me do not think that is the position. I beg to move.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I stated in the fax, the provisions contained in the Postal Services Bill that apply Customs legislation to postal packets do not give Customs greater powers than they have at present. Clause 105 merely re-enacts and updates the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Post Office Act 1953. It gives the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, the power to make regulations specifying how the legislation should apply. This power has been amended only in so far as it is necessary to reflect the changing market conditions by changing references to the Post Office to postal operator. It is intended only to maintain the powers that Customs and Excise currently enjoy and operate.
  The regulation-making power contained in Clause 105 was included in the Department of Trade and Industry's memorandum to the Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, dated 2nd May. The committee, in its seventeenth report, dated 24th May, did not find it necessary to comment on the use of the negative resolution procedure in the case of this power. In fact, it considered that no amendment was necessary to either the delegated powers in the Bill or to the parliamentary control provided by those powers.
  I now turn to two distinct issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has raised. The first concerns whether there is unfair treatment by Customs of express courier companies and the supposed advantages enjoyed by the Post Office. However, the different treatment of the two groups reflects the different arrangements that are put in place by the two different international bodies that govern these arrangements. The differing arrangements arise because the legal bases are different. The arrangements for postal traffic are based on international agreements, made under the auspices of the Universal Postal Union and the World Customs Organisation. These provide standard Customs declaration forms for postal traffic which serve as both the exporter's declaration and the import declaration in the country of arrival. EC agreements confirm that these are the only declarations required for the vast majority of postal packages.
  The arrangements for express carrier traffic, on the other hand, follow the EC provisions for general import and export trade—specifically the EC Customs Code and its implementing regulation. These provide for a different form of Customs declaration. We have little room to act alone—changes can come only with international agreement. As I said before, the World Customs Organisation, Universal Postal Union and

  189
  the International Express Carriers Conference are jointly undertaking a study to compare Customs procedures for postal and express carrier traffic. Recommendations will be considered by the WCO and UPU and decisions will be incorporated into international agreements. I cannot give a time when that will occur because no time limit has been set. I share the pessimism of the noble Baroness that this will not occur quickly.
  Fair competition between the postal service and express carriers is also an issue in the USA. There, too, the express industry has made representations that there should be a level playing field with the same Customs requirements being imposed on both kinds of traffic. The House of Representatives sub-committee on Postal Services commissioned a fact-finding report on competitive concerns with particular reference to Global Package Link, an international parcel post service. The report of June 1998 did not contain recommendations but recognised that the post and express carriers faced different Customs requirements and obligations, both in the USA itself and in other countries which formed part of the study, including Canada, Japan and the UK. The report recognised the international dimension of the problem and noted that legal changes in the USA alone, even if permitted by international agreements, would be of limited benefit.
  The noble Baroness referred to the new export system. This is required to enhance the effectiveness of Customs controls. The existing export system is largely manual with exporters or carriers presenting Customs with paper declarations. These arrangements are becoming increasingly ineffective as trade and the amount of paperwork increase year by year. If the system is not modernised, either the service delivered by Customs will deteriorate or exports will be subject to delay. Maintaining dual manual and electronic systems will be a burden on both the trade and Customs and will require more resources. Electronic processing will provide positive benefits for the majority of exporters and is in line with the Government's commitment to keep pace with developments in electronic commerce.
  Customs are currently in discussion with the Association of International Courier and Express Services (AICES) about features of the system which they claim to be unduly onerous. These discussions are making good progress and there is every prospect that solutions can be found which will be acceptable both to express carriers and to others involved in exporting.
  The noble Baroness wrote to me on the information requirements and provided me with examples of the current system and the future one. I have looked into the matter in great detail. The lists of requirements are not comparable. The first list of the noble Baroness omits some requirements; the second list deals with a situation which allows for local clearance and aggregation. That concession has been made by Customs to the express carriers and there is a longer list of requirements in those different circumstances.
  190
  Customs have assured me that the information called for will not materially exceed that provided at present and is the minimum required under EC agreements. For low value (that is, less than £600) non-sensitive goods or those which are of no statistical significance, Customs are asking only for a single summary declaration per aircraft, for each of these two categories, which will include the total value and number of items covered by the declaration. This will cover several hundreds of consignments. There will be no need for individual eight-digit tariff codes to be supplied. This accounts for between 70 and 80 per cent of exports by express carriers.
  As I indicated earlier, discussions are already taking place with AICES. However, I note the concerns which the noble Baroness has so eloquently presented and I therefore propose that they be the subject of an urgent meeting between AICES and senior officials in Customs and DTI, where there is every prospect that further acceptable solutions can be found. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have learnt a very salutary lesson from the Minister today—that is, that it is a big mistake to bring something back at the third attempt, when there is no chance to study the Minister's reply and to come hack at yet another stage. As I was listening to the Minister I came to the conclusion "That wasn't such a good point", "That wasn't a bad point"—and then, all of a sudden, he went on to something completely different and I shall not have the benefit of reading what he said before making a decision as to what to do.
  As regards the question of the paper and electronic mandates, the point I was trying to make is that it would be an unfair playing field if one group of companies—that is, the express postal operators—had to switch to the electronic system and the Post Office did not. From what I can recall—I said it in my speech—the core issue is that the Minister said that there were two different types of postage: one was electronic express and one was not. The point that I was trying to make from the Written Answers to the Written Questions that I tabled some time ago deliberately to tease this out, is that I think they will meet head-on with each other in competition. I do not see where they are so very different.
  Perhaps I may ask the Minister to explain again that issue to me. It is absolutely core as to whether or not the Post Office should be exempt from the burdens under which other express postal operators have to work.
  The Minister suggested that he is willing to call an urgent meeting with his department and people from AICES and so on to deal with this matter. I said that if he could give me some kind of assurance—I am trying to find where I said it so that I can quote the exact words, but I cannot—that the express postal operators will not be at a disadvantage, I would feel much better about the situation. Unless he can clarify

  191
  for me that there are two different kinds of post and that the other express postal operators will not be disadvantaged—as they have assured me on numerous occasions that they feel they are—I may have to take a different approach from the one the noble Lord has asked me to take in regard to withdrawing the amendment. As I shall not have another chance to come back on this issue, I must feel relatively content about it—although I could not go through the whole of that speech again; it went in one ear and by the end it had gone out of the other, I regret to say.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know whether I can make the noble Baroness content. Perhaps I may explain the problem. We have two different systems, which are controlled by two different pieces of legislation; therefore one cannot simply take a unilateral decision as a country that one will treat them in the same way.
  Obviously there are cases where the express operators are competing for the same business. That is why this is an issue for them; they feel that they are competing for the same business but are being treated differently. But the fact is that, under international legislation, they are treated differently and there are different systems.
  The second point I would make is that while it may often he felt that a new, modern electronic system for handling information is a backward move—it causes more work and involves more investment and so on—the electronic system is not being imposed as a penalty on people; it is an attempt to deal with a rising amount of extra business and to make certain that it is handled in an efficient and effective way. Clearly there is some disagreement about how it should be done in reaching that point, but the aim of the new electronic system is to improve business, not to make it materially worse. There are a whole series of benefits that should flow to companies by handling it on an electronic basis.
  I do not think that I can give an assurance that the two situations will he treated in the same way; they are covered by different pieces of legislation. However, I know that it is the aim of the Customs that, as far as possible, they will treat everyone on a fair basis. Of course, it is not simply those two bodies involved in this matter; the whole of the rest of the freight industry has to be considered and treated on a fair and common basis.
  With that assurance and the fact that we shall arrange a meeting as soon as possible to see whether these misunderstandings can be ironed out, I again ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if I understand correctly what the Minister said on that occasion, even though the Post Office or Parcelforce or whatever will compete head-on with these express postal services, there is no way that the electronic system—I forget whether or not private companies want it—would apply to Parcelforce and the Post
  192
  Office because they are different systems under different international agreements? Am I correct in saying that?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I understand it, they are different systems and therefore will be computerised on a different time-scale. I believe that it is not a situation where there will not be computerisation applied to the postal side, which I believe they wish to have.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have tried very hard on this. It is a very difficult situation. But I am prepared to accept that there will be a meeting as soon as possible, as the Minister said. I hope that this will provide some comfort to the express postal service. I do not think that I can take the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 122 [Orders and regulations]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 72, line 43, leave out ("laid before an").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for the late tabling of this amendment, but a potential deficiency in the drafting of the Bill was not spotted until yesterday.
  This is a technical drafting amendment which removes an uncertainty that might otherwise arise from the interaction between subsection (10) of Clause 122 of the Bill and Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. One of the purposes behind subsection (10) is to enable provisions which can, by themselves, be made under the negative resolution procedure to be included in an order with provisions that have to be approved by the affirmative procedure. Such a "combined order" is then subject to the affirmative procedure.
  That remains our intention, but we have realised that the words that this amendment seeks to remove are unnecessary and could have, on one interpretation, the unintended and unwanted effect of requiring orders under the Bill following the negative procedure to be laid in draft for 40 days before being made. This was not our intention and, as the subsection otherwise makes clear, such orders were intended to be subject to the normal negative procedure. This amendment removes this uncertainty and clarifies the position. I beg to move.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I questioned this matter—in part anyway—towards the end of the Report stage. As I understand it, subsection (10) provides that the powers to make orders under the clauses specified can be subject to the negative procedure. However, the subsection also allows these powers to be exercised in affirmative orders, so allowing negative procedure powers to be used in combination with affirmative procedure orders under this or previous legislation. As the noble Lord said, a working definition of this may be "combined orders".

  193
  I must admit that these are a new animal to me—I assume they are to most of your Lordships—but none the less I would be the first to agree that they are a convenience to Parliament in circumstances where the Government may want to exercise powers subject to both the affirmative and negative procedures together in relation to a related subject. Without this power it would be necessary to make two sets of orders using different routes. That seems to me to be a total nonsense.
  In a very useful letter, for which I thank the Minister, he told me that the Government intended the combined orders to be affirmative orders and follow the normal route for affirmative orders in both Houses of Parliament. However, when I asked a totally off-the-cuff question about the penultimate group of amendments at Report stage, in particular Amendment No. 55, I was told that the powers did not permit the,
  "affirmative procedure powers to be exercised using the negative procedure, nor for negative procedure powers to be used to amend provisions which can only be made following the affirmative procedure".
  The Minister was quite right; that was exactly what I was concerned about. However, it may or may not have been due to my questioning of subsection (10) and Clause 122 altogether that the draftsman looked at the matter once again and concluded that the words in subsection (10) are, to say the least, somewhat opaque and could be construed as not having the effect of making these combined orders subject to the affirmative resolution. Since I want them to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, I hope that this time the Bill is word perfect. I congratulate all involved on the amendment. I hope that the Minister, his department and my reading of the situation coincide and we will not have this back again when the Bill is returned from another place.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord's reading entirely agrees with ours. We would jointly hope that this does not come back as an issue.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 73, line 10, after ("9,") insert ("30(1A),").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 125 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 18.
  Page 74, line 10, after ("delivered") insert ("otherwise than electronically").
  Page 74, line 10, after ("the") insert ("person or").
  Page 74, line 12, at end insert ("; and includes a postal packet containing any such communication,").
  194
  Page 75, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(1A) For the purposes of the definition of "letter" in subsection (1) the reference to a communication to be conveyed and delivered otherwise than electronically shall be construed as a reference to a communication to be conveyed and delivered otherwise than—

  (a) by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984), or

  (b) by other means but while in electronic form.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 126 [Index of defined expressions]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
  Page 76, line 18, column 2, at end insert ("and (1A)").
  Page 76, line 43, column 2, at end insert ("and (3A)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [The Consumer Council for Postal Services]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 28.
  Page 81, line 7, after (" 54(4)(a)") insert ("and the chairman of any committee for England established under section 54(4)(c)").
  Page 81, line 10, after ("chairman") insert ("of the Council").
  Page 81, line 18, after (" 54(4)(a)") insert ("and any committee for England established under section 54(4)(c)").
  Page 81, line 23, leave out ("or (c)") and insert ("and a regional committee (other than a committee for England) established under section 54(4)(c)").
  Page 81, line 32, at end insert ("(other than a committee for England)").
  Page 82, line 13, after (" 54(4)(a)") insert (", the chairman of any committee for England established under section 54(4)(c)").
  Page 82, line 17, after (" 54(4)(a)") insert (", chairman of any committee for England established under section 54(4)(c)").
  Page 82, line 22, after (" 54(4)(a)") insert (" or of any committee for England established under section 54(4)(c)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Acquisition of Land]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
  Page 90, line 6, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Secretary of State shall consult the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland before exercising his power to make an order under this paragraph in respect of land which—

  (a) is the property of any public body which has power under any enactment to acquire land compulsorily, or

  (b) is declared by or under any enactment to be inalienable,

  where representations objecting to the proposal for making the order have been duly made by the owner of the land and not withdrawn.").
  Page 90, line 13, at end insert (", and
  "public body" means a body established by or under any enactment.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 relates to the compulsory acquisition provisions in Schedule 5 to the Bill. It inserts into the Bill a requirement requested by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland for the Secretary of State to consult them when a universal service provider, in connection with the provision of the universal postal service, wishes compulsorily to

  195
  acquire land in Northern Ireland that is owned by a public body which also has the power to acquire land compulsorily.
  In Northern Ireland there is no corresponding legislation to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 which protects land acquired by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking. A different approach is taken in Northern Ireland legislation and, where this legislation provides for the establishment of a statutory body with powers of compulsory acquisition, it generally includes a provision requiring a vesting order to be approved by the Assembly where objections have been made by the owner of the land. Recent examples of such orders are Schedule 3 to the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 and Schedule 2 to the Gas (Northern Ireland) Act 1996.
  The Government consider that the amendment is appropriate as it would ensure that the protections that currently exist for land owned by certain public bodies in Northern Ireland are reflected in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 30, which is consequential to Amendment No. 29, defines "public body" as a body established by or under any enactment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government have given way on certain matters. I should like the Minister to know that we are most grateful to him. We had hoped that the Government might have given way on more. Despite misgivings on certain matters we were unable to persuade them. We wish the new Post Office company, and indeed all the other postal services providers which will be allowed to compete in the market, every possible success. I thank all my noble friends and all noble Lords who have supported our amendments. I feel sure that all noble Lords will join me in hoping that the new regime provides a good service to the public and to business. Perhaps a more prosperous and efficient postal service will add to the prosperity of Great Britain plc.
  Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, as one who during the passage of the Bill has spoken in critical terms of the Government's proposals to turn the Post Office into a plc, I want to say that I am still of that opinion. I think that the Government have got it wrong. The purpose of taking up noble Lords' time today is to say that, as a relatively new boy in your Lordships' House, I have been impressed with the way the various stages of the passage of the Bill have taken place and the courtesy which has been shown. It also gives me the opportunity to thank noble Lords who have spoken so highly of Post Office workers.
  Many noble Lords know of my interest in this matter. It is gratifying to know that this House is alive and well in tackling the future of the Post Office. Like
  196
  other noble Lords, I wish it well in whatever form it ends up, but I hope that it maintains its traditions as it has done for centuries. I should like to place on record my thanks to the Minister for his courtesy in dealing with some of my barbed comments over the past few months. I wish the Bill well. I hope that it has a clear passage now and that the Post Office and its staff can carry on doing the job they do so well.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debates on the Bill and who have contributed to what I believe is an effective scrutiny of the Bill. I thank them for that contribution. The debates have shown the strong feelings the British public have for the Post Office, its role and the major contribution it makes to our public life. I believe that the Bill will make a major contribution to the continuing life of this country and also to great commercial success in the future.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
  6.47 p.m.
  Report received.
  Clause 4 [Qualification or authorisation of nominees and supervisors]:
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 13, 14, 17, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 34A and 37. In proposing these amendments in Committee we made the point that an authorised person created by subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 4 should not be a licensed insolvency practitioner and should be able to act only as a nominee or supervisor. He would be likely, therefore, to recommend a voluntary arrangement rather than some other insolvency procedure. The Minister attempted to answer that point, but, with great respect, I fear that he missed our point. A debtor, be it a company or an individual, in financial difficulties, will usually seek the advice of some professional person.
  In many instances he will seek the advice of a mere authorised person. That advice will probably be given free, just as at the moment similar advice is given free by licensed insolvency practitioners. That advice is given free in the hope and expectation that the person giving that advice will be appointed as nominee, supervisor, administrator or liquidator in due course and will be remunerated for doing so. That remuneration will more than make up for the free advice given earlier. That is how the system works today with licensed insolvency practitioners and we can think of no reason why that will not be how the system works with authorised persons in the future if these provisions are enacted.
  A number of these authorised persons will be tempted by the hope and expectation of earning remuneration as nominee or supervisor in due course. We believe that they will want to recommend a moratorium and a voluntary arrangement because they will then get paid. If they recommend some other insolvency procedure, such as bankruptcy, administration or liquidation, they will probably not be paid. The temptation is therefore very great.
  Some of these authorised persons will succumb to that temptation. That is an inevitable consequence of human nature. We believe that in a considerable number of cases an authorised person will wrongly advise the debtor to propose a voluntary arrangement because that is the only way the authorised person will be paid. Indeed, it happens now with licensed insolvency practitioners, who may recommend one insolvency procedure instead of another because they are more likely to be paid in due course. It is more likely to happen with authorised practitioners, who will certainly not be paid at all if they recommend insolvency procedures for which they are not qualified.
  I am not saying that this will happen in every case. Indeed, it may happen in only a few cases. But we must stop even that, because debtors are particularly vulnerable. These are people or companies who are in financial difficulties and are clutching at any straws. We must therefore ensure that the risk of that happening is minimised. The amendments will do that. If the professional who can act as nominee and supervisor is also able to act in other insolvency procedures, he is less likely to advise a voluntary arrangement where other insolvency procedures are more appropriate. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have listened carefully to what has been said in debate about Clause 4 of the Bill. We have listened at Second Reading, in Committee and again today. We have struggled—we still do struggle—to understand why there is such strong opposition to the proposals in the clause.
  There seems to be a suggestion behind all this opposition that there is a hidden agenda. There is no hidden agenda. Clause 4 introduces new Section 389A in the Insolvency Act. It enables the Secretary of State, if certain conditions are met, to recognise bodies whose members will be able to act as nominees or supervisors in relation to voluntary arrangements under the Insolvency Act. I realise that my comments during the Committee stage on that point were not as clear as they might have been. As a result, I wrote on 21st June to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to make it plain that nominees and supervisors authorised under new Section 389A will be able to act in relation to voluntary arrangements generally and not just in moratorium cases.
  The conditions under which a body can be recognised are that it,
  "it maintains and enforces rules for securing that its members—

  (a) are fit and proper persons to act as nominees or supervisors, and

  198

  (b) meet acceptable requirements as to education and practical training and experience".

  Those are important conditions. It would be strange to suggest that the Secretary of State would regard this measure as a means of "dumbing down" on standards. If an authorised body does not perform to acceptable standards, the Secretary of State can revoke its recognition.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has today taken a slightly different tack. She has suggested that persons authorised pursuant to the power in new Section 389A would be likely to advise a voluntary arrangement as the most appropriate course because they could act only in that area. I hope I have made it abundantly clear that a nominee or supervisor does not have an advisory role. If I have not made it clear, I do so now. The nominee's and supervisor's duties are set out in the legislation and it is those duties—and only those duties—that they are authorised to perform.
  The proposition that only a licensed insolvency practitioner will ever have the skills necessary to act as a nominee or supervisor is untenable. There are areas of, say, a supervisor's role, such as collecting in regular payments and distributing them in accordance with the terms of an agreed voluntary arrangement, where it would be rather absurd to claim that the particular skills of an insolvency practitioner are always needed. As I have said before, membership of the insolvency profession's trade association—formerly the Society of Practitioners of Insolvency and now the Association of Business Recovery Professionals: is there not here a message for those who oppose Clause 4?—is now open to those with expertise in financial rescues who are not licensed insolvency practitioners.
  The skills—we are in no doubt that they are substantial skills—those people have may prove very useful in achieving rescues by way of voluntary arrangements under the Insolvency Act. So, if an organisation exists, or comes into being, which satisfies the requirements of the new Section 389A, we see no good reason why its members should be prevented from playing a part in the rescue process by effectively maintaining an unjustifiable monopoly.
  The Government are in the business of promoting rescues—not protecting vested interests. But I cannot overemphasise that the only reason for taking this power is to ensure that we can harness skills—regulated and professional skills—which, but for Clause 4, would not be available to those attempting a rescue.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. There was certainly no suggestion on our part of a hidden agenda. We are seeking clarification. It has been our understanding from the outset that an authorised person would not be able to carry out other insolvency procedures. I do not refer to giving advice. We believe that anyone can advise. We have never strayed from that point. Advice can be given by any professional at any stage. However, in terms of acting, we are seeking confirmation, given the Minister's response, that an authorised person will be

  199
  able to recommend some other insolvency procedure, or w ill be likely to recommend it where it makes sense, such as bankruptcy, administration or liquidation. They will be able to act in those procedures. If that is the case, we shall be content. Our concern has been that the new animal—the authorised person—will be able to act only in cases where there is a voluntary arrangement but will not be able to act where it would make sense, say, to recommend instead bankruptcy, administration or liquidation. The authorised person would not be able to be involved in those processes as supervisor.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if anything, the boot is on the other foot. The present situation is that all kinds of people may advise a company in difficulties. There have been accusations—they have been made known to the Insolvency Service—that if insolvency practitioners provide the advice as authorised persons, they are more likely to recommend insolvency procedures where they can make money. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is the responsibility of those companies that are in difficulties to seek objective advice. They must take into account the possibility that those who are advising them might receive fees through one course of action rather than through another course of action. I am sure that they will.
  It is rather similar to the position of those making investments. It is the responsibility of those making investments to be informed about—that, in turn, is government's responsibility—the reasons why investment advisers might give particular advice rather than other advice. If that reason is that the commission is better, someone ought to know about it. But I do not think that the Bill introduces anything new that might give rise to the danger feared by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister, but I should tell him that we have considered this point carefully. Having read through the debates held in Grand Committee, where we felt that we perceived this matter in a different light was on the question of advice as opposed to action. We hold to the view that anyone can offer advice, but that people are less likely to suggest a certain course of action if they personally will not be able to be involved in that course of action and thus subsequently be paid. That is the point which I am trying to emphasise. I may not have stressed it clearly enough in Grand Committee.
  We are concerned that the proposed "authorised persons" will choose a course of action with which they can then become actively involved and therefore receive payment. If the Minister is now reassuring me that those persons will be able to act in ways other than in a voluntary arrangement—namely, they will be able to act as the supervisor in a bankruptcy, or in administration or liquidation, in which case they would be paid for the job they undertake—then I am satisfied.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am saying something much
  200
  simpler here. I simply wish to state that the Bill does not seek to regulate the provision of advice. That applies whether or not the "authorised persons" are insolvency practitioners.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. However, the principal point that I wish to make concerns the services people are able and qualified to offer as "authorised persons" rather than advice. If they can offer services, they can then charge a fee for supervising a particular course of action. It is on that point where differences he between us.
  In any event, I shall read with care what the Minister has said and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  7 p.m.
  Schedule 1 [Moratorium where directors propose voluntary arrangement]:
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No 3:
  Page 12, line 16, after ("arrangement") insert ("(with or without modifications)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord has already conceded that the Bill makes provision for the nominee to consider the proposed voluntary arrangement as amended by any modification notified to him by the directors. However, the noble Lord rejected proposals to notify amendments from other sources because of the unreasonable burden which would be placed on nominees to take into account other modifications.
  Therefore, the position is that a nominee, in considering a proposed voluntary arrangement, can take into account any modification noted to him by the directors. However, he cannot take into account any other modifications. Accordingly, if the nominee finds the proposed voluntary arrangement acceptable, except in one or two minor respects, he must nevertheless reject it, even if he is convinced that one of the creditors will propose a modification which will subsequently be acceptable to and capable of approval by the meetings of members and creditors. In those circumstances, even though the nominee is entirely satisfied that the proposed voluntary arrangement has a reasonable prospect of being approved and implemented if a minor modification is considered by the members and creditors, a moratorium will still never come into existence.
  In Committee, the Minister said that the directors might never be prepared to agree to further modifications, in which case the meetings would be unlikely to approve and implement the voluntary arrangement. However, it does not follow at all that, merely because the directors might not agree to further modifications, the meetings would be unlikely to approve and implement the voluntary arrangement. It is the meetings themselves which would propose the

  201
  modifications. If they proposed them, they would be likely to approve and implement the voluntary arrangement as modified. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope very much that we are not talking at cross-purposes here. As I said during our debates in Committee, we consider that nominees should look at the proposed individual or proposed company voluntary arrangement as he understands it will be put to the creditors and, if applicable, to the shareholders. As drafted, the Bill already makes provision for the nominee to consider the proposal as amended by any modification notified to him by the directors. We would not want him to consider it as it might conceivably be modified, either in his own mind or on the basis of one or more—possibly conflicting—proposed modifications by creditors.
  As I understand them, the amendments could mean that we would encounter a situation where the nominee has to speculate on all conceivable permutations of possible modifications (proposed or not) and decide whether a voluntary arrangement is likely to be approved and implemented on the basis of those possibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested the position where a nominee might think that the proposed moratorium would have a reasonable chance of success—I am not using quite the right words in terms of the Bill. However, unless the directors were prepared to agree the modifications, they would not put them to the meeting and the moratorium would not come into being. In that case, the voluntary arrangement is unlikely to be approved and implemented.
  We would not want the company to be able to obtain a moratorium, or for it to continue. In such circumstances it would be entirely inappropriate because no approved voluntary arrangement would be likely to ensue. The amendments would also place an unreasonable burden on the nominees. They should not be obliged to make decisions on the basis of conjecture. Nominees need certainty in these circumstances and that can be provided only if they are required to consider the proposal as the directors intend it to be put to the meetings.
  We therefore consider it essential that the nominee is required to form a view only in relation to the voluntary arrangement proposal at the various points in time that he is actually considering it for one or other of the various purposes he is required so to do under the Bill, such as considering whether the proposed arrangement has a reasonable prospect of being approved and implemented prior to the directors obtaining a moratorium, or for the purposes of monitoring and considering whether he should withdraw his consent to act during the moratorium.
  I should also say that the nominee would have to withdraw his consent to act if it became apparent to him that valid concerns about the proposal were being raised by creditors which the directors were not prepared to accommodate by way of modifications to their proposal and it appeared to him, in the light of
  202
  those concerns, that the proposal no longer had a reasonable prospect of being approved or implemented.
  As I said earlier, I hope that we are not talking at cross-purposes and that I have not completely misunderstood what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has been saying. However, I think it is important to stress that the nominee should be required to consider only realistic proposals.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The concern we are seeking to meet here is a situation in which the directors have proposed certain modifications which would not be acceptable to the creditors and the members. In those circumstances, the members and creditors might be able to suggest to the nominee certain solutions which the nominee could then put to the directors in order to achieve a proposal which would ultimately be acceptable. That is the issue that we are seeking to confront in our amendments.
  I can see a look of astonishment passing across the face of the Minister. Perhaps he would like to articulate his response.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I still remain a little puzzled here. If all that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seeks to achieve with his amendments is to say that the nominee is a channel of communication between the creditors and the directors and that if a matter arises from the creditors that he should suggest to the directors, nothing in the Bill would create any difficulty in that capacity. The difficulty lies in the range of modifications proposed in the amendments.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the amendments seek to do formally what the Minister says there is no difficulty in doing informally. We believe that it is important that this opportunity for the members and creditors appears on the face of the Bill. The Minister does not agree—hence his opposition to the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 13, line 12, leave out ("either of those meetings") and insert ("the meeting of creditors").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee we proposed the need for this amendment carefully, in terms which we felt were clearly understood by the Minister. The Minister appeared to be entirely happy with the idea of the moratorium coming to an end simply because the members of the company did not bother turning up to their meeting.
  However, it is equally clear that the Minister was perhaps under the impression that the directors would all be members of the company; or, dare I say it, that all the members of the company were directors. He went on to say that the nominee could not continue with the moratorium or have any confidence that it had a reasonable prospect of success if the directors of

  203
  the company had not had a meeting and responded. That possibly indicates a misapprehension of what a director is and what a member or shareholder is. The Minister will know that, quite often, directors are not members and that not all members are directors.
  It may well be that all the directors are keen that the voluntary arrangements should be approved and implemented and that the moratorium should continue. Indeed, it is inherently likely that they will be, because the structure of the Bill involves their active participation. On the other hand, the company is insolvent and there is little or no prospect of any money going to the members of the company. They are unlikely to have any incentive to turn up to the meeting of members because there is nothing in it for them. It is worse than that; it may well be the case that the creditors and directors are extremely keen for the moratorium to continue and that the members appreciate that, if they do not turn up to the meeting, the moratorium will come to an end. An astute member will extract a price for turning up at the meeting. Is that what the Minister intends? If so, it seems to us that the procedure here is fundamentally flawed.
  Again, I believe that the Minister's comments are based on a false premise. He said in Committee that if the extension of the moratorium was not agreed by the company, for whatever reason—either by it not having a meeting or not turning up to one—it should not be extended. He said it should not be continued on the opinion only of the creditors, because that would make no sense. He went on to say that the nominee could not continue with the moratorium or have any confidence that it had a reasonable prospect of success if the directors of the company had not had a meeting and responded. With respect, that premise is misconceived. Why on earth would it make no sense that the moratorium should not continue on the opinion only of the creditors? That statement is plainly wrong. One can test it by asking the question: should the moratorium come to an end merely because the members have no interest whatever in turning up?
  As I said, the Minister seems to be confusing directors with members. The directors of the company do not have a meeting; it is the members of the company who have a meeting—and they may not be directors. The members are in a very different position from that of the directors and the creditors. When a company is insolvent, the members have no interest in the company. The directors may have an interest and the creditors may have an interest. Why should someone with no interest be able to prevent the creditors extending the moratorium when it is their sole interest to do so? That makes no sense. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think I owe the noble Baroness an apology. I thought—and she has quoted my words in Committee—that what she sought to do was to disenfranchise the shareholders. I have thought again about what she said and have
  204
  concluded that that was not her purpose. Indeed, she has confirmed that today—although it could be the effect of the amendment.
  We can now see that the Bill as drafted could lead to a curious outcome. If the creditors' meeting met and decided to extend the moratorium and the company meeting met but decided not to, the result would be that the moratorium would be extended—that is, against the express wish of the shareholders (the members), unless, of course, the court ordered otherwise under paragraph 35.
  But if, instead, the company meeting had not met, the result would be that the moratorium would come to an end. In other words, the creditors would not have their wish, even though no one had even turned up for the company meeting. That is clearly a perverse outcome. We shall therefore bring forward amendments to address the issue raised by the noble Baroness, taking into account, although not necessarily following, the arguments that she has used today. She has raised some new points which we shall have to consider. We shall not be able to do this in time for Third Reading, but we shall do it when the Bill goes to the House of Commons. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his apology. I am pleased to learn that he will be bringing forward amendments. I am sorry that our amendments do not fit the bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 14, leave out line 19.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we on this side of the House are still very troubled by the provisions in the Bill which will prevent a debenture holder from appointing an administrative receiver when entitled to do so. We debated this point at some length in Committee and, although the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, appeared to grasp thoroughly the points that I made, he indicated that the proposed amendments were not acceptable to the Government. However, I urge him to reconsider his position. I do not propose to repeat all the arguments—indeed, any of the arguments—that I made in Committee. The noble Lord understood them and rejected them. Therefore, I shall approach the issue in a different way.
  The Bill, when enacted, will affect the rights of debenture holders even where the debenture has been granted before the Act comes into force. Existing rights will be changed without any agreement with the party prejudiced. All debenture holders will be deprived of the opportunity of appointing an administrative receiver as provided in the debenture when an authorised person says so. In other words, the Government are re-writing the bargain between the debenture holder and the company. In so doing they are depriving themselves of the services of an individual who can manage the company's business

  205
  and sell it as a going concern. Businesses will be preserved, along with all the jobs necessary to run them. That is good for the economy and, therefore, good for the country.
  In responding to my criticisms in Committee, the Minister was concerned that the appointment of an administrative receiver during the moratorium would almost certainly be disastrous for any rescue attempt. With great respect, I suggest that the noble Lord is mistaken. The appointment of an administrative receiver would not be disastrous for any rescue attempt. Indeed, the contrary is the case because administrative receivers are appointed with a view to receiving the company's assets and administering them in order to realise the company's assets and its business for the best possible price. The receiver's role usually involves preserving both the business and jobs. With the greatest possible respect, the Minister's approach is misconceived.
  If the Bill as drafted is enacted, the decision of an insolvency practitioner will prevent a debenture holder appointing an administrative receiver who may preserve the business and jobs in seeking to realise a company's assets. Instead, the directors of the company, who quite freely accepted the debenture holder's money and may well be responsible for the company's poor trading, will be left in control until the moratorium comes to an end.
  If past performance is any indication of future performance, the company's financial position will probably deteriorate further and the debenture holder will lose more money. He will still be able to appoint an administrative receiver but only after the moratorium has come to an end. It is quite possible that, in those circumstances, there will be little left for the administrative receiver either to administer or to receive. Debenture holders will therefore be severely prejudiced if these amendments tabled by the Opposition are not accepted. And for what benefit? To gain a short breathing space. The company will not be able to prevent the debenture holder subsequently appointing an administrative receiver. The benefit is insignificant in comparison to the prejudice.
  The noble Lord the Minister did not express much concern for the rights of existing debenture holders. What about future debenture holders? They are plainly going to be deterred from lending money to companies which qualify for this new procedure. These are often small companies, and from small companies great businesses grow. Without these companies we would not be the economic power that we are today. We must encourage small companies and encourage debenture holders to lend money to them.
  However, with these new procedures which prevent a debenture holder from appointing an administrative receiver when it is considered appropriate to do so, lenders will think very carefully about the terms of any loan and, in many instances, about whether to lend any money at all. A serious economic effect will flow from these new provisions. Small companies will find it
  206
  harder to borrow money and that will inevitably have an effect on the future prosperity of this country. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for not repeating what he said in Committee but I am going to have to repeat something of what I said then, because it is still true. These are wrecking amendments. I am serious: if they were carried there would be no point in our proceeding with the Bill at all.
  The first two amendments would mean that there would be nothing to stop a floating charge holder—which is what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, calls a debenture holder—from appointing an administrative receiver during the moratorium. In our view, the appointment of an administrative receiver would probably be disastrous for any rescue attempt, as in most cases—and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, recognised this—it is likely that the receiver would assume control of all the company's assets. He would then proceed to dispose of them with a view to repaying the moneys due to the floating charge holder. The primary purpose of receivership is to recover the money for the charge holder and not to achieve a rescue.
  Of course we accept that receivership can result in rescues, but it is not usually the company which is rescued. The directors lose control and the whole purpose of the moratorium that we are looking to is not the replacement of an administrative receivership—that can still carry on—but an alternative to administrative receivership for a very short period, initially 28 days, in which the directors retain control and it is thought there is a possibility of preserving the company. So administrative receivership during a moratorium simply kills the moratorium and makes it impossible to sustain.
  The third amendment would mean that during a moratorium a floating charge could crystallise or restrictions could be imposed on the disposal of the company's assets. Either way, that would result in virtual paralysis for the company and it would make any rescue attempt very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
  We simply do not see any reason why a floating charge holder should be the only creditor whose action should not be stayed by the moratorium. If we are serious about giving the directors the necessary short breathing space to put in place a rescue plan for all their company's creditors, these amendments must be rejected. If not, we would be legislating for a dead letter.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made much of the floating charge holder's ability effectively to veto an administration order, but if he looks back at the history he will see that the Court Committee, whose review of insolvency law preceded the Insolvency Act 1985, recognised that the process of receivership could rescue businesses. However, it also saw that possible business rescues were lost when there was no floating charge holder to appoint a receiver to effect the rescue.

  207
  So the Government then brought into place the administration procedure, but left in place the right to appoint a receiver wherever possible. Recent research has shown that in some 50 per cent of administrations a floating charge was in existence; yet the administration was agreed to, or not vetoed, by the floating charge holder. That suggests that what in the past appeared to he an automatic preference of secured creditors for an administrative receivership over administration has diminished.
  What we must not lose sight of is that both these procedures, while offering the potential for a rescue of the business, means that the directors lose control and the company itself is rarely saved. As a consequence, directors may be reluctant to let their company enter either procedure. The prospect of being able to remain in control of a company while a rescue goes ahead, we think, will mean that directors are more willing to attempt a rescue, and perhaps at an earlier stage. And of course the earlier a rescue is attempted, the more likely it is to succeed.
  We think that there are enough safeguards in place to protect the position of a floating charge holder during the moratorium. After all, his existing rights are not being changed; they are only being stayed for the rather short period of the moratorium itself. We have provided that the company is only able to obtain a moratorium if the nominee is of the view, among other things, that the directors' proposal for a voluntary arrangement has a reasonable prospect of being approved and implemented.
  Any company which obtains a moratorium should stand a reasonable prospect of being able to agree and implement a rescue plan with its creditors. In any case the moratorium is only initially for a maximum period of 28 days, which is a much shorter period than most administrations. We intend to allow secured creditors, including the floating charge holder, to vote for the full amount of the claims on any proposal for an extension of the moratorium beyond the initial period and so they will be able to have a say on whether or not the moratorium should be extended by up to a further two months.
  I would say that if any creditor—that includes a creditor who holds a floating charge—felt that a rescue by moratorium would not work for some reason, it would be open to him to express his concern to the nominee. The purpose of that would be to persuade the nominee that he must withdraw his consent to act and bring the moratorium to an end. A floating charge holder may perhaps make it plain that he fully intends to appoint an administrative receiver the moment the moratorium comes to an end. That act itself may have an impact on the viability of the voluntary arrangement, which may in turn cause the nominee to conclude that he should withdraw his consent to act. That would end the moratorium.
  We would expect any floating charge holder who viewed a moratorium as pointless, because he fully intends to appoint an administrative receiver, to approach the nominee to make that point and because of the floating charge holder's potential ability to
  208
  wreck the implementation of an approved voluntary arrangement it may well be that the nominee will feel the need to approach the charge holders at an early stage to sound out their views on a proposed rescue attempt.
  So plenty of defences for floating charge holders are provided in the Bill, but to allow them to appoint an administrative receiver during the moratorium period would simply mean that the moratorium could not work, and the Bill would have no point.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am shocked by the Minister's suggestion that this is a wrecking amendment. It is nothing of the kind. As the noble Lord well recalls, at Committee stage I carefully explained why the Opposition believed that a debenture holder was a proper exception to the general rule as to the options available to creditors during a moratorium. I accept that there is a clear difference of approach between us. I shall reflect carefully upon this matter between now and Third Reading before deciding whether it is appropriate to re-table this amendment and perhaps press it to a vote. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 15, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—
  ("14.—(1) Any security granted by the company at a time when a moratorium is in force in relation to the company is invalid except for the extent of the aggregate of—

  (a) the amount of any money paid, or the value of goods or services supplied, to the company at the same time as, or after, the security is granted and which is, and is intended to be, secured by the security, and

  (b) the amount of such interest (if any) as is payable on the amount falling within paragraph (a) in pursuance of any agreement under which the money was so paid or the goods or services were so supplied.

  (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) the value of any goods or services supplied is the amount in money which at the time they were supplied could reasonably have been expected to be obtained for supplying the goods or services in the ordinary course of business and on the same terms (apart from the consideration) as those on which they were supplied to the company.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the Minister made it clear that the intended effect of what is now paragraph 14 of Schedule A1 was to place the onus on the creditor to satisfy himself, before taking security, that he would be able to enforce it if it became necessary to do so. That was to ensure that no one would lend on the basis of security unless there was a clear benefit to the company. Implicit in that statement was that the onus was on the creditor to satisfy himself that the security would benefit the company.
  The Opposition still believe that this approach is unacceptable. It is not for a creditor to satisfy himself that security is for the benefit of the debtor. Why should the creditor concern himself with the benefit to the debtor when there is a nominee acting who should be as experienced and knowledgeable in moratoria as

  209
  a licensed insolvency practitioner? In the case of a company, there are directors whose duty it is to ensure that that is the case. It is not clear what duties the nominee will perform during the moratorium; but if it is thought that the directors are incapable of ensuring that their acts are for the benefit of the company, surely that would be a useful task for the nominee. To give that task to the creditor who will act in his own best interests is quite wrong. The creditor is the last candidate for this task; indeed, his interests are in direct conflict with it.
  We are also puzzled as to what the creditor must do to discharge this onus. Simply to ask the directors is not sufficient. If he is told a pack of lies by the directors his security may be unenforceable. Any creditor must, therefore, go further and make independent inquiries to ensure that the security is for the benefit of the company. I remind the Minister that, in response to another amendment tabled at Committee stage, he said that a nominee should be entitled to rely on information given to him by the directors and not be obliged to establish or verify the information for himself because of the cost of so doing. If a nominee is entitled to rely on information given to him by the directors, why should a lender not be entitled to rely on such information but, instead, be put to the expense of making independent inquiries to make certain that the security is for the benefit of the company?
  The cost of any investigation may be prohibitive. If that cost is recoverable from the company, as it inevitably will be, almost certainly it will mean that the security is not for the benefit of the company. The cost will be prohibitive, particularly when the company is in financial difficulties. Instead, any potential lender will simply not bother to lend money. It will be difficult enough for a company in financial difficulties to borrow money; but to impose this extra burden will deter all but the most foolhardy lenders. The inevitable result is that it will prove to be extremely difficult to fund the continued trading of the company.
  Instead, the Opposition propose a provision based in part on Section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986. That section is workable in practice. The enforceability of any security will be a simple matter of mathematics that is easily within the capability of the new type of insolvency practitioner envisaged elsewhere in the Bill. The company, its directors, the nominee and the creditor can all see at once the extent to which the security is enforceable. As your Lordship would expect, the amendment is simple, straightforward and workable and is based on a previous provision in the legislation which has stood the test of time. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the most significant facet of this amendment is not what it inserts into the Bill but what it removes from it. The amendment deletes paragraph 14 of Schedule A1. The key point about that provision is that,
  "Security granted by a company at a time when a moratorium is in force … may only be enforced if, at that time, there were reasonable grounds for believing that it would benefit the company".
  210
  That benefit test is removed by the amendment and is not replaced by the proposed wording.
  We do not believe that this will happen in most cases because before entering the moratorium the nominee must give his opinion that the company is likely to have sufficient funds to enable it to carry on its business during the moratorium. However, it is possible that to secure future essential supplies during the moratorium the giving of security for an existing debt is necessary. This would not be covered by the amendment, but it would be for the benefit of the company.
  The amendment would also not ensure that the security could be enforceable only if there were reasonable grounds for believing at the time the security was taken that it would benefit the company. The position of the company's other creditors should not be prejudiced by the company giving new security over its assets to a supplier of new credit where no benefit will flow, as it is likely to reduce the amount of money available for all of them. If that was not the case the company's "free" assets which would otherwise be available to pay its unsecured creditors might be depleted to no advantage. That is why we have provided that security can be enforced only if when it was granted there were reasonable grounds for believing that it would benefit the company.
  We appreciate that this throws the onus onto the creditor to satisfy himself, before taking security, that he will be able to enforce it if it is necessary to do so—we understand the thrust of the noble Lord's speech—but this should ensure the desired effect, as no one is likely to lend on the basis of security unless there is a clear benefit to the company. This is a matter of business judgment. Decisions of this kind are taken all the time in business. Creditors must act as business people, and that is what they are being asked to do here.
  We can see how the amendment may enable the company to obtain funding during a moratorium, but in certain circumstances we do not consider that what is proposed is appropriate for the reasons already given. We believe it is vital that security should be enforceable only where a benefit will flow to the company. We remain of the view that we need to consult fully on the issue of funding before we can find an effective solution to this complex and difficult problem. Where security is unenforceable the lender will be an unsecured creditor. We cannot accept this amendment.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his full reply, upon which I shall reflect carefully before Third Reading. If these particular provisions in the Bill are to be effective this is an important matter to consider. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 16, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(4) A disposal of the company's property to any person other than a person who is connected with the company shall not be avoided only on the ground that sub-paragraph (1) was not satisfied.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee we proposed a similar amendment with slightly different wording which brought rare praise from the Minister. However, that praise was qualified by one or two criticisms. We have considered those criticisms with care, and the result is an amendment with slightly different wording which we believe should now merit unqualified praise from the Minister. We were concerned that it was not clear whether a disposal by the company would be avoided if it should turn out that the grounds for believing the disposal would benefit the company were not reasonable. The Minister agreed that the position was doubtful and should be clarified.
  This amendment makes it clear that such a disposal will not be avoided, nor will there be any cause of action against the other party, if it should turn out that the grounds for believing the disposal would benefit the company were not reasonable or if a disposal was made not in the ordinary way of the company's business. Those are matters which are best decided upon by the directors and the nominee, if he is to have any duties, rather than the third party dealing with the company, who may not have sufficient knowledge to form any view about those two matters. We hope that the amendment will meet with the Minister's approval. I beg to move.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness is right. We recognised that similar amendments proposed in Committee had a valid point. We can see that it would be damaging to rescue attempts if third parties were reluctant to deal with a company which is in a moratorium because of doubts about whether the contracts would be enforceable against the company. We agree that this issue must be addressed in the Bill. However, I am sorry to say that the amendment does not fully achieve what is required.
  The amendment would still leave a third party needing to satisfy himself as to whether the proposed transaction is in the ordinary course of the company's business; and, if not, whether the appropriate consent has been obtained from the nominee or committee under paragraph 18(1)(b). These difficulties may still make third parties wary of dealing with the company. In my view, this proposed amendment would not fully deal with the issue which concerns us all regarding the effect of paragraph 18 on third parties. However, we shall bring forward amendments as soon as we can—I am afraid that again that means in the Commons and not at Third Reading—to make it clear that contracts entered into in breach of paragraph 18 will be enforceable by third parties against the company.
  While on the subject of proposed government amendments, I should like to say what else will or may be needed by way of amendment to the Bill during its
  212
  passage through Parliament. A number of points arose at Second Reading or in Committee. Both the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Sharman, expressed concern about the possible effect of Clause 11 which relates to deceased insolvents. As I indicated in Committee, we recognise those concerns and will be bringing forward amendments to address them. We would not want an arm's length disposal of a property by a surviving partner to be made unnecessarily difficult because prospective purchasers are concerned that they might find they do not have good title because a deceased's estate is insolvent.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made the point in Committee that he thought there should be a time limit on the ability of the member of a company to go to the court if the decision of a creditors' meeting which takes effect under paragraph 35 of Schedule Al differs from that made by the company meeting. We think that the issue will be largely self-regulating. However, we can see that there is an advantage in having a cut-off point beyond which such applications cannot be made and we shall amend the Bill for that purpose.
  We have also concluded that the offence in paragraph 22 of Schedule Al (disposal of charged property contrary to paragraph 20) needs amendment to set out in clearer terms that the offence in paragraph 22 is committed where a company makes a disposal which it has no power to make, and so we shall bring forward an amendment to do that.
  The current legislation governing companies and the financial markets provides for authorities to take regulatory action, for instance to protect investors' funds and investigate companies. It is possible that in certain instances the moratorium would prevent such action unless leave of the court was obtained first. Clearly that would be inappropriate. We are considering this further and, if this is the case, we shall bring forward amendments to make it clear that such action is not to be stayed by the moratorium provided in Schedule Al.
  There have been many changes and concessions. We have also concluded that the conflict between Section 347 and Section 252(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act in the way we intend it to be amended by way of Schedule 3 paragraph 2 of the Bill needs to be dealt with by express provision in the Bill. We shall bring forward an amendment to deal with that.
  The period of consultation on whether landlords should be able to exercise the right of peaceable reentry during a statutory moratorium has literally just finished and clearly we must consider the responses before we do anything. But we intend that the issue will be determined in the context of the passage of this Bill through Parliament.
  Finally, following the successful passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act through Parliament, we shall need to consider whether that has any implications for this Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will not pursue her amendment.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am sorry that he does not find it

  213
  acceptable in its current form. However, I am pleased to note that the Government intend to bring forward during the Bill's passage through Parliament a similar, although slightly different, amendment.
  I am also pleased that the Minister has been able to tell us of a number of additional changes and concessions. We note that there has been consultation in relation to forfeiture of leases. We look forward to hearing the results of that consultation process.
  I thank the Minister. I am glad that we have made progress. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 23, leave out line 10 and insert—
  ("(ii) could have been so entitled (but was not present or represented at it) but did not have notice of it.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we were concerned about what is now paragraph 36 of the new Schedule Al which deals with the effect of the approval of a voluntary arrangement. Sub-paragraph (2) provides that a voluntary arrangement binds those who are entitled to vote at the creditors' meetings and those who would have been so entitled if they had had notice of it. I made the point that a creditor would still be entitled to vote at a creditors' meeting even if he had not had notice of it. Sub-paragraph (2)(b)(ii) has no effect because no creditor would have been entitled to vote if he had had notice of the creditors' meeting. Notice is irrelevant for the purposes of entitlement to vote.
  The Minister took me somewhat to task and referred me to Rule 1.17, which provides that every creditor who was given notice of the creditors' meeting is entitled to vote at that meeting. That rule does not say that a creditor who was not given notice of the creditors' meeting is not entitled to vote at that meeting. Indeed a creditor who was not given notice of the creditors' meeting is entitled to vote at that meeting, and I refer the Minister to the case of Re Debtors. The noble Lord's criticism of my comments is, therefore, if I may say so with all due respect, misconceived. I assert that my original comments stand. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I can give the noble Lord some comfort, although not in the context of this Bill but of the insolvency rules.
  The noble Lord's amendments still have the unfortunate effect of an unknown creditor—one who had not had notice of the meeting to consider the voluntary arrangement proposal—being bound by the arrangement when he should not be. We want a voluntary arrangement to bind only those who would have been entitled to vote at a meeting if they had had notice of it. We do not want a creditor who could have been entitled to vote to be bound by a voluntary
  214
  arrangement in the event that he would not have been so entitled had he been present at the meeting and the chairman had determined his vote.
  We intend to make provision in the insolvency rules to define the circumstances in which an unknown creditor would have been entitled to vote at the creditors' meeting if he had had notice of it. I believe that that is the crux of the point addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. That will make it possible to say with certainty whether an unknown creditor would have been entitled to vote and therefore whether or not he is bound by the arrangement.
  Without such a provision, those concerned would be left trying to second guess how the chairman of the meeting would have dealt with the claim of an unknown creditor under Rule 1.17 if he had had that claim before him at the time of the meeting. That would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Therefore, we propose to amend the Insolvency Rules 1986 to make clear the circumstances in which an unknown creditor would have been entitled to vote at the creditors' meeting if he had received notice of it.
  In relation to company voluntary arrangements in England and Wales, Rule 1.17(3) of the insolvency rules currently provides that:
  "A creditor shall not vote in respect of a debt for an unliquidated amount, or any debt whose value is not ascertained, except where the chairman agrees to put upon the debt an estimated minimum value for the purpose of entitlement to vote".
  Such a creditor whose debt is unliquidated or not ascertained could therefore be entitled to vote, but only if the chairman of the meeting first agreed to put a value on the debt. Where he did not do so, that creditor would not be able to vote and would not be bound by the voluntary agreement.
  In addition, any creditor can appeal to the court under Rule 1.17(5) in relation to the chairman's decision on a creditor's entitlement to vote. Where the chairman has allowed or refused a creditor the right to vote, that decision could be reversed by the court. That, too, introduces an element of doubt in that it may transpire that some creditors who possibly would be allowed to vote in the event cannot in fact do so. The point is that a creditor with a claim could vote if the chairman of the meeting agreed but would not be able to vote if the chairman did not agree the claim. We consider that only those who would be entitled to vote should be bound by a voluntary arrangement; hence, the proposed change to the rules.
  We do not believe that the proposed amendments would address this issue and they could mean that an unknown creditor would be bound by a voluntary arrangement when he would not have been entitled to vote. I do not know whether the noble Lord ever studied symbolic logic as part of philosophy, but this is one of the most severe tests of syllogistic thinking to which I have ever been subjected. I am not certain that I have passed the test, but I believe that fundamentally

  215
  the amendments are misconceived. However, we do have a solution for the problem which lies behind the amendments.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I found the Minister's reply both courteous and comprehensive. I should like time to reflect on whether or not I am pleased with what he said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 26, line 36, leave out ("(c), (d) and (e)") and insert ("(a) to (f)").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, paragraph 40 of Schedule 1 does not prevent an officer of a company or a debtor being privy to another person concealing, fraudulently removing or pawning any of the company's or the debtor's property. When we moved this amendment in Grand Committee, the Minister justified the paragraph by relying on its long history dating back to the Debtors Act 1869. With great respect, we feel that that is not good enough.
  The provisions of the Bill give a company or a debtor the right to obtain a moratorium on the say-so of a mere authorised person. During that moratorium, all the rights of all the creditors are suspended and the directors have an almost entirely free hand as to their conduct of the company's business. The nominee has no real duties to perform and will be totally powerless to prevent anyone concealing, fraudulently removing or pawning any of the company's or the debtor's property.
  That was not the position when the Debtors Act 1869 was enacted. It was not the position when the Bankruptcy Act 1914 was enacted. It was not the position when the Companies Act 1929 was enacted. It was also not the position when the Companies Act 1948 was enacted and it was not the position when the Companies Act 1985 was enacted. It will be the position if this Bill is enacted.
  The company's or the debtor's property will be totally unprotected. The creditors will be powerless. They will have to rely on the directors or the debtor to ensure that no one can conceal, fraudulently remove or pawn any of the company's or the debtor's property. If the directors or the debtor are privy to anyone doing that, it must be clear that they run the risk of being prosecuted. There is no other protection. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on climbing painfully up the reverse history tree which I gave to her in Committee. She found her way back from 1869 to 1985 with consummate skill. However, I believe that she is exaggerating the risks which are involved in the Bill as it is at present proposed.
  As currently drafted, among other things, subparagraph (3) provides that during a moratorium an officer of the company is guilty of an offence if he was
  216
  privy to another doing any of the following: concealing, destroying, mutilating or falsifying any book or paper affecting to relate to the company's property or affairs; making a false entry in any book or paper affecting or relating to the company's property or affairs; or fraudulently parting with, altering or making an omission in any document relating to the company's affairs. The amendment would add to the list of offences: concealing a part of the company's property to the value of £500 or more; fraudulently removing any part of the company's property; or pawning, pledging or disposing of the property.
  All the above apply now and have applied throughout the complicated history of these provisions. None of the other sections provides for an officer or a debtor to be guilty of an offence if they are privy to another concealing, fraudulently removing or pawning any of the company's or debtor's property. This does not present a difficulty because existing legislation allows for the prosecution of directors who are privy to others dealing with the company's property in a way which causes an offence under Section 206 and paragraph 40 of Schedule A1. Officers might be prosecuted under, for example, the Accessories and Abetters Act 1861 in England and Wales and under equivalent laws in Scotland.
  I believe that our difficulty comes hack to the issue which did not convince the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I said in Committee—and this is a real concern—that if the paragraph was to be amended as proposed, it could cast doubt on the meaning of the existing provisions on which it was modelled and also on the use of other legislation to prosecute those officers who are privy to offences by others in relation to company assets. That is why we cannot accept the amendment.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I have listened with care to what the Minister has said and I am sorry that he cannot accept the amendment. I believe that there clearly remains a difference of opinion in relation to the interpretation of the Bill. We believe that the nominee has no real duties to perform and, as I have already said, will be totally powerless to prevent anyone concealing, fraudulently removing or pawning any of the company's or the debtor's property.
  We feel that the position is different from those Acts which I mentioned. I believe that we should consider with care the Minister's response. However, this is something about which we feel quite strongly and therefore we may be pressed to divide upon it at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 26, line 39, leave out ("to the value of £500 or more").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22. The same arguments apply to these amendments as applied to

  217
  the previous amendments to which I have just spoken. I entirely accept, as the Minister said in Grand Committee, that there have been minimum limits at least since the Bankruptcy Act 1914. Those minimum limits may have been appropriate in the past, when an independent insolvency practitioner had been appointed and the directors were no longer running the company, but they will not be appropriate if the Bill is enacted in its present form.
  There will be no licensed insolvency practitioner managing the company. The directors will be managing the company and all the rights of the creditors will be suspended. In those circumstances, the previous financial limits are unacceptable. Surely it must be a criminal offence for an officer of the company to conceal any part of the company's property, conceal any debt due to or from the company or remove fraudulently any part of the company's property during the moratorium, regardless of value. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have much to add to what I said in Committee. The provisions have existed in legislation since the Bankruptcy Act 1914, when the figure involved was £10. I said in Committee that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The response of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was that it is broke, but she has not shown us how. I have not heard any evidence that this provision—which already exists and is not being introduced for the first time by the Bill—has caused any of the difficulties that she fears since it was first enacted.
  If the £500 minimum is a problem and we find that we cannot prosecute individuals in cases when we think that we should, we shall review it. Schedule 1(10) gives the Secretary of State the power to do that. We would have no hesitation in reviewing the level if we thought that it would be appropriate to do so. However, experience in relation to Sections 206 and 354 suggests that £500 is the right cut-off and it seems reasonable to assume that it will be appropriate in this case.
  On Amendment No. 22, the removal of the power to amend or repeal the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 could frustrate the ability to extend the scope of the moratorium to different categories of company, such as large companies or banks. We might wish to
  218
  amend Schedule Al to allow the use of the new regime by large companies, but if we did that we might also wish to amend the Act to extend the period of the moratorium for large companies only. Without this provision, we would be unable to do that. As a consequence, we would be faced with the prospect of either keeping the moratorium short, which could restrict the ability of large companies to use it, or lengthening the period for all companies when we would not want smaller companies to have such a long moratorium. Neither outcome would be desirable, so I oppose Amendment No. 22 as well.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. In summing up, I shall repeat what I have already said. The minimum limits may have been appropriate in the past—although not entirely moral from a criminal standpoint—because in the past an independent insolvency practitioner would have been appointed and the directors would no longer be running the company. However, those limits will not be appropriate if the Bill is enacted in its present form, because there will be no licensed insolvency practitioner running the company. The directors will be managing the company and all the rights of the creditors will be suspended. Also, as I think that I said in Grand Committee, theft is theft, whatever the price and we have an opportunity to change the law.
  We have pressed the point. I shall read the Minister's response with great care. We feel strongly on this point from a moral standpoint and because we feel that the Bill has changed the circumstances, so we may feel pressed to move the amendment on Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
  Schedule 2 [Company voluntary arrangements]:
  [Amendments Nos. 23 to 29 not moved.]
  Schedule 3 [Individual voluntary arrangements]:
  [Amendments Nos. 30 to 37 not moved.]

  Terrorism Bill
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at seven minutes past eight o'clock.

  Firearms Act and Violent Crime Involving Handguns
  Firearms Act and Violent Crime Involving Handguns
  Young Offender Institutions: Self-harm by Inmates
  Young Offender Institutions: Self-harm by Inmates
  Brixton Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Emergency Calls: Police Response Time
  Emergency Calls: Police Response Time
  Crime Statistics and Comparison of Police Detection Performance
  Crime Statistics and Comparison of Police Detection Performance
  Telegram from HM Ambassador to Japan
  Telegram from HM Ambassador to Japan
  Tobacco-related Taxes
  Tobacco-related Taxes
  Mull of Kintyre Helicopter Crash
  Mull of Kintyre Helicopter Crash
  Transport of Military Equipment
  Transport of Military Equipment
  Smoking-related Illnesses: Cost to NHS
  Smoking-related Illnesses: Cost to NHS
  Smoking in Public Places
  Smoking in Public Places
  Tobacco Advertising and Marketing
  Tobacco Advertising and Marketing
  "Do Not Resuscitate" Instructions: Monitoring
  "Do Not Resuscitate" Instructions: Monitoring
  Nurse Recruitment
  Nurse Recruitment
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Historic Ships
  Historic Ships
  UK Dog Owners in Germany
  UK Dog Owners in Germany
  Joint Committee on Human Rights
  Joint Committee on Human Rights
  Legislative Programme
  Legislative Programme
  Council of Europe and WEU: Changes in Composition of Delegation
  Council of Europe and WEU: Changes in Composition of Delegation
  NMEC: Advice of Accounting Officer
  NMEC: Advice of Accounting Officer
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Millennium Dome: Distribution of Sale Proceeds
  Millennium Dome: Distribution of Sale Proceeds
  Welsh Assembly: Draft Protocol on Primary Legislation
  Welsh Assembly: Draft Protocol on Primary Legislation
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars