Sitting of 12 July 2000

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered on Wednesday 19 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What assessment she has made of the impact of the Government's measures to tackle social exclusion. [128644]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I have held meetings with my ministerial colleagues over the past two months to ensure that the social exclusion unit's past reports are being implemented, and that progress towards the agreed targets is being made. The reports are on truancy and school exclusion, rough sleepers, teenage pregnancy and bridging the gap.
    Mr. Coaker: I consider the unit's work phenomenally important. As my right hon. Friend says, the reports are mostly about young people. When considering young people at the bottom end of society who have severe problems, will she ensure that the Government listen to what they themselves have to say about solutions to their problems? Will she also do all that she can to establish bodies such as youth forums, so we can listen to young people, learn from their experience and thereby make better policy?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I assure my hon. Friend that we do an awful lot of that already. The social exclusion unit's reports are compiled by a committee consisting not just of civil servants but of representatives of the voluntary sector, business and trade unions. Those people have a wide range of experience. There are also a number of forums enabling us to listen to old as well as young people. When we were compiling the recent report on "Bridging the Gap", one suggestion made by young people was the provision of a mentor with whom they
    852
    could work. The report was a direct result of our having listened to young people—but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do so.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the right hon. Lady agree that a significant factor in the tackling of social exclusion must be regeneration of our inner cities? It is more than a year since Lord Rogers's urban taskforce presented its recommendations, and it could reasonably be assumed that the Government would produce a White Paper within a few months of that. As the right hon. Lady is presumably the Minister responsible for joined-up government, can she tell us when the urban White Paper will see the light of day?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I do not have a date, but I know that the White Paper will be published soon. I expect it to appear within the next couple of months. I am afraid that I cannot be more specific.
    The national neighbourhood renewal strategy, however, has now been produced. The strategy, which was created across departments, deals with the regeneration of neighbourhoods—not just in terms of housing, but in terms of employment, health and education. If those factors are not taken into account, neighbourhoods slip again. Ours is an integrated strategy which I am sure will cover some of the aspects of the urban White Paper.

    Countryside
    Helen Jackson: What progress has been made in developing a cross-departmental policy for the countryside. [128645]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The Prime Minister set up a new Cabinet Committee in November 1999 to co-ordinate our policies affecting rural areas, and to help to achieve a fully cross-departmental policy for the countryside. The forthcoming rural White Paper will set out how we are developing a more integrated and effective approach to the countryside.
    Helen Jackson: For people in the rural areas of my constituency, life under the last Administration was one long battle, whether they were defending small schools, defending post offices or defending the smaller hill farmers. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that we now have a Government who are providing support for small schools, an answer to the problems of rural post offices, and a proper countryside management structure. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas the present Government take the countryside seriously, the last Government simply took it for granted? [Interruption.]
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. Let me in turn congratulate the teachers, parents and children who are making the school in her constituency such a success.
    Conservative Members were barracking while my hon. Friend asked her question. They should not forget that under the last Government 30 rural schools were closed each year. We are doing all we can, with a £40 million package, to keep rural schools open, because they are an

    853
    essential part of the community in rural villages. Only one in four parishes had rural transport when the Conservatives were in government. We have turned that around: we have provided 1,800 new routes, and are working hard to provide more.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Having heard all that, I wonder whether the Minister can now explain why there has been such a delay in the publication of the rural White Paper, which we expected to appear this month? Does she recall that, although the last Government produced a large number of warm words and a lot of pretty pictures in their rural White Paper, its publication coincided with a disastrous deterioration in the rural economy and in rural facilities, including the schools to which she has referred? Can she guarantee that her White Paper will not only represent joined-up government, but genuinely face the problems involved in regenerating the rural economy?
    Marjorie Mowlam: One of the reasons why the White Paper has taken time is that we have genuinely worked on it across Departments, and I hope that it will result in what the hon. Gentleman and I desire: a real difference in rural communities. We are looking not just at transport, education and health, but at jobs. We want to work with the private sector on regeneration. We have already put a lot of money into that to help it to work. With the European Union, we have put more than £3.5 billion into support for farmers. We put in another 1.6 billion to get rural development plans up and running. The White Paper is delayed not through lack of trying, but because we want to ensure that it has a real impact.
    Ms Helen Southworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that rural post offices are the hub of the local community; and will she ensure that Government Departments work together to support rural post offices, giving them a vibrant economic future?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The work that has been done on protecting the future of rural post offices will be seen to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants. The performance and innovation unit report, which we are implementing and which the relevant Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry has agreed to, will make, I hope, a big difference.
    Again, let us be clear. We are working to protect and to keep the post offices open. Claimants can continue to receive benefit across the counter. We are working with the Post Office to ensure that post offices are not closed. With the universal banking system, I hope that we will see a real change in the future of post offices. Ours will be a very different record from the Tories' one: when they were in office, 3,000 rural and edge-of-urban-area post offices closed.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister confirm that the reason why the post office network is under threat is that the Department of Social Security proposes to remove a third of the income that post offices receive by cancelling the contract with the Post Office? Can she confirm that the Department of Trade and Industry has failed to put forward any measures that will replace those hundreds of millions of pounds; that the Post Office has revealed that the Horizon project
    854
    will not produce extra revenues—it has written off the whole cost of that project on the ground that it will not cover even its own costs; and that the so-called universal bank will simply duplicate the Girobank, which already operates in the post offices, and will therefore not produce extra revenues?
    Marjorie Mowlam: At least we are not going to privatise the post offices. The benefits are not being taken away completely. Some are being taken away because that will lead to greater efficiency and a more effective service for the people whom we are all here trying to serve, but people who want to continue to collect their benefits from the post office can continue to do so.
    It is not true that the DTI has no strategy. It is working with the recommendations arising from work that it has done, and with the performance and innovation unit to get results.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we want a prosperous countryside, there will need to be more opportunities for people, particularly young people, to work in the countryside, rather than their having to go to the towns? With that in mind, is it not important that we have more small enterprises in the countryside? Does she agree that we need to change some of the planning guidance—I am talking about PPG7 and PPG13—so that those small businesses can grow and hard-pressed farmers can diversify?
    Marjorie Mowlam: We are working to help farmers to diversify. Part of the job of the regional development agencies will be to do what they can. Some of the work is already taking place. For example, the £70 million extra that was given to organic farming will make a difference to farmers who want to make the change. PPG7 and PPG13 are being reviewed by another committee, which is looking at planning across the board—not just for people in rural areas, but for small and big businesses. As we try to decrease unnecessary regulation but protect people's health and safety, the aim is to make things simpler.

    Drugs Counsellors
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What progress has been made in recruiting counsellors for drug prevention and treatment specifically in rural areas. [128646]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): In order to expand treatment capacity, the Government recently ran a major national advertising campaign to recruit drug workers and counsellors. The response was exceptional, with more than 20,000 expressions of interest received. Drug action teams are now working on matching applications to vacancies. The Government's 10-year strategy to tackle drugs is designed to combat drug misuse in all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Winterton: Drug dealers are increasingly targeting young people in rural areas. Not only do young people in those areas have less infrastructure to support them but, at the same time, drug action teams and police

    855
    have fewer resources available in those same areas. Will the forthcoming rural White Paper contain a specific commitment to support drug action teams in rural areas?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I cannot tell the hon. Lady what the rural White Paper will contain, because I do not know. Although I am working on the White Paper, I do not know what it will finally contain. However, I reassure her that Macclesfield, which is the area covering her constituency of Congleton, will have some of the £70 million that we have just provided to central treatment agencies to increase treatment, where necessary, and to achieve even higher goals.
    Education and preventing children from getting into drugs initially are crucial. I am pleased to say that 100 per cent. of Congleton primary schools provide such education. I am sure that both the hon. Lady and I welcome that record.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the pressure on schools is very great. It is clear that smaller children are now being deliberately targeted not only in rural areas, but in rural towns. Will she pay tribute to the work of the voluntary organisations that, in areas such as Cheshire, are doing tremendous work to help educate primary and pre-primary children on the effects of drugs?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am most willing to congratulate the voluntary sector on the work that it does in educating particularly very young people on the dangers of drugs. I hope that we can do further work in partnership with the voluntary sector on what we call positive futures. We are working with the voluntary sector and particularly with various sports groups, whether football clubs or basketball groups. We are trying to get young people, through peer group pressure, to think of things other than drugs as they grow up. That is working in many towns and cities, and I look forward to the development of other projects.
    Mr. David Heath: Given the evidence that, in the prevalence of drug taking and the availability of drugs, there is very little difference between rural areas and urban areas, is there anything that the right hon. Lady can do to reduce the disparity in the provision of youth services between rural areas and urban areas? Youth services could provide very useful counselling and advice services on drugs.
    Marjorie Mowlam: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer now, but if he would like to tell me the specific areas that he is referring to, I shall talk to the Department with responsibility for youth services and see what it can do.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Although rehabilitation units have been established in rural areas, they unfortunately really do lack funding. What help and financial support could be given to the groups that have already been established?
    Marjorie Mowlam: That is exactly what we are in the process of doing. We have just advertised for drug counsellors, and we are beginning training, so that staff are available to work in the centres. We are also putting £70 million extra into drug treatment. As we realise that it is no good starting the centres if we do not have the
    856
    workers, we are working through the matter logically, ensuring that we have both workers and centres. We hope that we will soon see the results of that work. I accept my hon. Friend's point that there are waiting lists in some areas, but not in others.

    Better Regulation Taskforce
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: If she will make a statement on the work of the better regulation taskforce. [128647]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The independent better regulation taskforce was established in 1997. Since then, it has reported 18 times. Some of those have been annual reports, and others have been intermediate reports. Later this year, the taskforce plans to report on alternatives to state regulation and on regulation as it affects vulnerable people. The future work programme has yet to be finalised—although, as part of the Government's action plan for farming, which was announced in March, the taskforce has started a review of environmental regulations, with particular reference to farmers.
    Mrs. Lait: When I was an active member of the Select Committee on Deregulation, I was very impressed by Lord Haskins's commitment to better regulation. In the light of his taskforce's recent stinging criticism of the increasing regulatory burden imposed by this Government, can the Minister tell us whether he even listened to the poor man—or are the Government all mouth and no delivery?
    Mr. Stringer: I agree that Lord Haskins is doing an extremely good job, but otherwise the hon. Lady completely misrepresents the position. If she looks back over reports in which recommendations were made, she will see that the Government have responded to them within the 60 days stated and have agreed to implement the vast majority of those recommendations. If she looks in detail at the report she has cited about the impact of regulation on the hotel and restaurant industry, where one in seven new jobs is created, she will find that Lord Haskins, while recommending changes in some areas of regulation, says that that sector experiences no competitive disadvantages compared with other countries. That contradicts the previous research done by McKinsey.
    Tony Wright: Does my hon. Friend accept that although we have a system to assess the effect of regulation and compliance costs on the private sector, we have no equivalent system for the public sector? However, much of what we do bears heavily on the public sector and carries substantial compliance costs. Could we have a system equivalent to that for the private sector which will assess the compliance costs for the public sector of legislation that we introduce?
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend makes a good point, as ever, and he is 95 per cent. right. The 5 per cent., on which there has been some progress, is within the regulatory impact unit. A public sector team has been set up to consider the impact of regulations on the delivery of public services. Its first report was published in March and it concentrated on the bureaucracy and red tape

    857
    surrounding the police. Its recommendations led to a reduction of 1.2 million in the number of police forms used across the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is good to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office in her place. We missed her during the debate last week. Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the better regulation taskforce said in April that policy makers are ignoring the needs of small businesses when drafting regulations? Does he understand that it is not only the character of regulation but also the quantity that matters to small businesses?
    Let us look at the substance, not the spin. In the three months after the right hon. Lady took office as Minister, how much legislation was introduced that required a regulatory impact assessment and how many deregulation orders were published?
    Mr. Stringer: There is no doubt that regulation impacts disproportionately on small businesses. That has been recognised by the Government and by Lord Haskins in his report, and the Government are considering his recommendations. Over the past three months, no deregulation orders have been passed and that is one of the reasons why we are considering a regulatory reform Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when Neil Hamilton and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) were considering regulation, they promised to burn piles of red tape, but in the three years after the passing of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 they passed only 30-odd deregulation orders. That implies that the process dealt with some regulations that could be improved, but not with the vast majority, which is why we need a regulatory reform Bill.
    Mr. Lansley: We got half an answer—that there were no deregulation orders in the three months in question—but we did not get the other half, which is that there were 59 items of legislation introducing additional costs on business—or one per working day—in that period. Does the Minister understand that 3,000 additional regulations under this Government, costing business £10 billion, are an enormous quantity? The better regulation taskforce has said that it is the "cumulative effect" of all regulations that should be the subject of Government strategy. There is no such strategy, so will the Minister endorse our proposal to cut the burden of regulations as a whole?
    Mr. Stringer: If the hon. Gentleman were to examine the previous Government's record, he would find that, year by year, the previous Government passed 3,000 statutory instruments, which is almost exactly the same number as the present Government have passed. In fact, it is almost invariant. The Government will not apologise for introducing the minimum wage and protection for workers and others who need environmental protection. We need to achieve a balance between the cost of regulations and protecting people.

    Life Education Centres
    Mr. David Taylor: What assessment she has made of the work of life education centres in relation to the drug prevention
    858
    programmes in primary schools; what funding proposals she has in relation to expanding their work; and if she will make a statement. [128649]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is very familiar with the work of life education centres, and officials in his Department remain in close contact with the organisation. The approach to drug education that life education centres offer is one of a number that schools may choose to adopt, but the decision must be made at a local level, in order to address the specific needs and circumstances of the pupils.
    In support of the Government's 10-year anti-drug strategy, the Department for Education and Employment has, through the standards fund, made some £7.5 million available to local education authorities to support drug education in schools. Local education authorities may choose to use some of that money to provide life education centres in mobile classrooms.
    Mr. Taylor: In underfunded education authorities such as Leicestershire, much drug prevention work in the primary sector depends on generous contributions from Rotary clubs and from parents and schools. Is my hon. Friend convinced that £7.5 million for 7.5 million children of school age is adequate support for this crucial work and for organisations such as life education centres? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to boost the core funding of this work so that we can ensure that children make healthy choices and continue to wage an unremitting war against drugs in our country?
    Mr. Stringer: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. That is why, at the last comprehensive spending review, the Government put more than £200 million extra into the fight against drugs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has listened to my hon. Friend's case, and my hon. Friend should listen to what my right hon. Friend has to say next week in his spending review statement.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Seven and a half million pounds is chicken feed compared with the £2 billion a year that the Government are spending on more government. In Lancashire we do rather well for life education centres, but they are supported by groups such as Rotary. I fear that other local authority areas may have no cover from organisations such as life education centres. What encouragement can the Minister give to other charitable groups to buy in life education centres for their areas, or to businesses to sponsor life education centres for primary schools?
    Mr. Stringer: Some areas are not covered by life education centres because it is a matter for the school and the local education authority. Quite simply, the £7.5 million that is going into educating children and getting them to make the critical decision not to accept drugs is £7.5 million more than the previous Government were willing to give.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend visit some of the life education centres and

    859
    see their work? Had he been with me at Bowerham county primary school in Lancaster, he would have witnessed an excellent programme which fully involves very young children and complements the work of that first-class school.
    Mr. Stringer: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has already visited a number of the centres. I am sure that she and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be delighted to visit a number of others to further the fight against drugs.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    The House will no doubt be aware of the sad news of the death of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Runcie. Lord Runcie was a man of great faith and moral courage, who carried the Church of England united through momentous and historic times. He was also a spiritual man of humility and modesty, who will be missed by millions of ordinary people who saw him as their friend, both inside and outside the Anglican Church.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that voters at the next election will make a judgment based on facts in the real world, rather than on the froth that sometimes swirls around this place? In Exeter, those facts include record employment, more doctors and nurses, a refurbished accident and emergency department, a new renal unit, two new health walk-in centres, more teachers and classroom assistants, more school buildings, more bus services, and much more. How much of that will Exeter lose under £16 billion of Conservative spending cuts?
    The Prime Minister: That is right, of course, because a very significant thing happened yesterday. Nine months ago, the Conservatives said:
    Our guarantee on tax is clear. For the very first time, there will be no escape clauses, no fudging. No hiding behind the fine print.
    They also said that they were
    prepared to stake our fate on meeting
    the guarantee.
    The stake was driven through the policy yesterday. Not only did the shadow Chancellor disintegrate the credibility of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on tax, he impaled him—as my hon. Friend said—on a £17 billion cuts guarantee. That is the new guarantee. Every Conservative Member had better realise
    860
    that it adds up to £24 million of cuts—in schools, hospitals, transport and police—in every constituency on the country. Yes, there is a dividing line now.
    Mr. William Hague: May I begin by associating the Opposition with the Prime Minister's remarks about Archbishop Runcie? We will remember him for his integrity and moral leadership, and we entirely join in the Prime Minister's tribute to him.
    On domestic political matters, does the Prime Minister agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary has said about the euro over the past week?
    The Prime Minister: Given the publication of the Conservative party's tax and spending policy, I thought that I might have been asked about that.
    I entirely agree. In principle, we are in favour of membership of the single currency; in practice, the economic tests must be met.
    Mr. Hague: Do we not have an extraordinary situation in a Cabinet, where the Prime Minister cannot give a straight yes as to whether he agrees with his own Foreign Secretary? Are not the Government utterly divided and shambolic? The Prime Minister cannot agree with the Foreign Secretary on a central issue of policy. He wants the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to be Foreign Secretary—no one else does.
    The Foreign Secretary said on Thursday that it was "inevitable" that Britain would join the euro. Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement, yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it absolutely clear that, in principle, we are in favour of joining the euro and that, in practice, the economic tests have got to be met. The difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party is clear. The right hon. Gentleman has another guarantee—his sterling guarantee that he is going to keep the pound. Will he keep the pound for just one Parliament, or more?
    Mr. Hague: The Foreign Secretary is now pursuing his own private policy on the euro—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order—I cannot hear.
    Mr. Hague: The Foreign Secretary, who has mysteriously disappeared this afternoon, is pursuing his own private policy on the euro. The Prime Minister is too weak to get a grip on the Cabinet. He said last week—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like to hear the truth about the Government. He said last week that he would sack anyone briefing against Ministers, since when a friend of the Chancellor—that narrows down the lists of suspects dramatically—has said, "Tony and Gordon have both agreed to rubbish Cook."
    The Prime Minister goes on about his five economic tests on the euro, but the test that really matters is of leadership on the euro, and he has failed it. Is it not time

    861
    that he changed the policy or changed the Foreign Secretary, or that we change to a Prime Minister who will keep the pound?
    The Prime Minister: Oh, so the right hon. Gentleman is going to keep the pound now. Tell me—is that a guarantee or just something that he intends doing? Have we got another guarantee there?
    I think that it is the right hon. Gentleman who wishes that he had disappeared this afternoon. The fact is that we have the right policy—in principle in favour and in practice the economic tests must be met. At the next election, on many other areas of policy as well as the euro, there are clear dividing lines. We do not rule it out—we will give the people a choice in a referendum. On public spending, we want to invest in the country's future, and on the national health service, we want to rebuild it, not privatise it. That is the real test—the policies for the future of this country, or a Leader of the Opposition who jumps up at one party conference and says that he has five guarantees, and nine months later not a single one of them stands.
    Mr. Hague: Today the Prime Minister has attempted the third relaunch of his Government in a single month under the inspiring slogan of "We're getting there"—a slogan last used by British Rail when it was not getting anywhere. Is not what is really behind that the desperation of Ministers to conceal next week's crime figures and their utter failure on crime? The Government obviously have the figures, so will the Prime Minister now come clean and tell the House the figures for the rise in crime?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is the one in need of a relaunch. Let me just tell him about the policy. What is important with rising crime is that we are now able to make the investment in extra numbers of police officers. Let us have a little discussion about this. It is correct that for the past six years—three years under the previous Government, three years under ours—police numbers have fallen. Now, as a result of the additional money, they will rise. We know, however, from the spending policy adopted yesterday, that the right hon. Gentleman is due to cut the numbers. Every person concerned about crime and every police officer in the country knows that if the right hon. Gentleman comes to power, he will cut police numbers further.
    Mr. Hague: So the relaunch did not extend to giving a straight answer to a question. If the right hon. Gentleman will not tell the House the figures, I will, because although the Prime Minister will not give a straight answer, the police force does. Taking 33 out of 43 police forces, there were 183,000 more crimes committed in the past year than in the year before. Under this Government, is it not the burglars who have had a relaunch, the muggers who are fighting back, and the violent criminals who have a new deal? Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm the figures of the police that show that at least 183,000 more crimes were committed in the past year?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is true that in the past year there has been a 3 to 4 per cent. rise in crime, as we know. Over the period of this Government, there has been a fall in crime. What we also remember, however, is that when the right hon. Gentleman was in
    862
    office crime doubled. The question is: what do we do? We now have proposals on youth justice; with three strikes and you are out for burglary—that is why burglary figures are falling; on drugs and crime through the new criminal justice measures; and there is investment in the police and in their equipment.
    Let us get to the difference between the two of us. I believe that the priority is to make that investment in schools, hospitals, transport and the police. Does the right hon. Gentleman stand by the cuts guarantee on spending made yesterday by himself and the shadow Chancellor, or does he not? If he does, anything he says on police numbers has no credibility whatever.
    Mr. Hague: This morning, the right hon. Gentleman stood up in Downing street and said "We're getting there"; but millions of people throughout Britain know that this Government are getting nowhere. What does it say to people who are more likely to be victims of violent crime when the Prime Minister says "We're getting there."? What does it say to people waiting longer to see a hospital consultant when he says, "We're getting there."? What does it say to people whose teenage children are in larger classes? What does it say to people persecuted by the Chancellor every time they drive their car when he says, "We're getting there."? It says to those people that this Government are complacent and incompetent and that they have lost touch with the people they were elected to serve.
    The Prime Minister: On the subject of incompetence, let us look at the right hon. Gentleman's national health service guarantee. Nine months ago, he said that every patient would have a guaranteed waiting time in the NHS under the Conservatives. It took two questions on BBC's "Question Time" for him to say, "Of course, we couldn't say that everyone was going to get a guaranteed waiting time." That is my definition of incompetence.
    It is true that we have raised public spending; it is correct that class sizes are down for five, six and seven-year-olds; and there is extra money for school buildings, but it is true that we still have a long way to go on schools. Yes, the in-patient lists are coming down, but we still have far more to do in the health service. It is also true that we need to make additional investments in our police and transport. However, we now know that all those investments would be cut by the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever he says about public services, the one thing that everyone in the country now knows is that if they vote Tory at the next election, there will be fewer nurses, fewer teachers, fewer police officers and fewer hospitals.
    Mr. Paul Truswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern of the people of Yorkshire at the plans of Kelda plc to offload Yorkshire Water on to its customers now that it has exploited the easy pickings of water privatisation? Does he agree that that cannot be allowed to proceed without fuller and further consultation with Yorkshire people, including a ballot of every Yorkshire Water customer?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposals raise important issues. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is meeting the regulator today to discuss those issues.

    863
    The Government want to ensure that any reorganisation will direct long and lasting benefits to customers, and that companies comply with their public health and environmental obligations. I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns; a meeting with the regulator is taking place; and I hope that the matter can be resolved satisfactorily.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute that the Prime Minister so properly paid to the late Lord Runcie, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
    Whatever view the Conservatives may express on the euro, the Liberal Democrats, in acknowledging that it is both inevitable and desirable, certainly agree with the Foreign Secretary—very happily so.
    On the other issue raised by the Leader of the Conservative party, if, next week, the Home Office figures show that violent crime has gone up yet again—as widely anticipated—whom will the Prime Minister blame for that?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely accept our responsibility to do the very best we can to change that situation. What is happening is that crime is not rising in every police area; in many it is still falling. It is correct that the number of burglary and car crimes are falling; the rise is in violent crime. We need to tackle that—both by extra investment, as I have already indicated, and by measures in the criminal justice system. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will support the measures such as those to ensure that, before those who are tested positive for drugs are given bail, they agree to take treatment for their drug condition. I think that such measures in the criminal justice system are an important part of turning the tide back.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is it not the case that, rather than appointing a part-time Lord Birt to look at the issue, the public want more full-time police on the streets and in the community? Is not the sad fact of the matter that, having spent years in opposition quite rightly criticising the Tories for their lamentable record and for the decline in police numbers, the Government in office have presided over exactly the same story?
    The Prime Minister: I have been open about the first three years of the Government and the position on police numbers, but I have also said that we now have the ability to make the investment. As a result of the measures that we have taken with more people in work, welfare bills falling and interest payments on the debt falling, we are able to get more investment into the police. What we have said all the way through—I say it again today—is that by the end of the year police numbers again should be rising. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that is one part of what we have to do, but we can do it only if we are prepared to make the commitment to invest.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Three years ago, the Government announced a £1.4 billion injection into the science budget and last week we heard that an additional £1 billion would go into that budget. That money is desperately needed and is welcomed by the vast majority of scientists and engineers working in this country. Under the previous Administration, that potential
    864
    was ignored. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that that funding will be put to good use and that it will enable us to realise our potential? Will he also take the time to reassure me that he will look with special interest on the north-west, because I remain deeply concerned that we need to realise our potential there? I hope that this funding will enable us to do so.
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend should know that the Conservatives are shouting at her because they do not want to hear the facts about what they intend to do to the science and education budgets. I am afraid that the science and education budgets would also be cut under the Conservative party were it to come back to power. The £1 billion announcement on science is very important and the reason for the investment is that stability in the economy is important. More jobs are obviously important, but we also have to make that critical investment in the nation's prosperity. Unless we also make the investment in education, skills, technology, science and the transport infrastructure, we will not be able to guarantee—if I can use that word—prosperity and opportunity for people in the future.
    Mr. James Gray: Will the Prime Minister give careful consideration to the recommendation by Lord Norton that Prime Minister's Question Time should return to twice a week? Does the Prime Minister agree that, if that were to happen, it would provide greater accountability from him to this place and might give him the opportunity to reduce the spin, the rhetoric, the waffle and the general rambling that has characterised his performance to date?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we heard rather more waffle today from the Leader of the Opposition than from me I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about Prime Minister's questions. In fact, if I can give him the figures, compared to the previous Prime Minister, I have spent more time answering questions in the House and more time giving statements.
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, because he was the person who famously said after the election that employers would
    lay off workers the morning after he—
    me, that is—
    brings in the minimum wage.—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 710.]
    I am delighted to tell him that the fall in youth unemployment in his constituency since the general election is 79 per cent. There is some substance for him.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have seen the reports on the international AIDS conference in Durban this week. Although he might share my disquiet that President Mbeki appears to have given some support to people who would deny the scientific evidence on the links between HIV and AIDS, does my right hon. Friend agree that President Mbeki was absolutely right to point to the problems of drug pricing, poverty and the lack of access to basic education and health? Will my right hon. Friend use the next opportunities that he has, through the G7 or the European Union, to press for a substantial increase in support to the countries that are suffering the worst from

    865
    this epidemic, so that the rich countries of the world start to make a contribution that begins to match up at last to the size of the problem?
    The Prime Minister: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Of course we shall raise the issue of AIDS in the developing world and the problem of debt at the summit in Japan in the next couple of weeks. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to link in action on poverty in the developing world. In addition, we have put special investment into South Africa to tackle the serious HIV-AIDS problem, which is significantly reducing life expectancy in many countries in Africa when, throughout the rest of the world, people are looking forward to increased longevity. That is an important part of the strategy of the Department for International Development.
    Mr. Tom Brake: Since the election, the number of police officers in London has fallen by 800, and the number of officers in Sutton has fallen by 21 in the past couple of months. Retention is still a problem in the service, which is the view that Sir John Stevens expressed a couple of days ago, after the Home Secretary's welcome announcement on pay for the Metropolitan police. Can the Prime Minister give my constituents a guarantee that Sutton police will have the resources that they need to make Sutton not the second safest borough in London, but the safest? Can he guarantee my constituents that the number of police officers will not fall below the 25,600 which Sir John Stevens believes is necessary?
    The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that, as a result of housing costs and other issues that we are trying to address, there are particular problems in London with retention and recruitment. However, it is important that we start to bring in investment, which can help to increase police numbers. That should be happening in the Metropolitan police area and elsewhere by the end of the year.
    I accept the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. When we first came to office, we had to make difficult decisions on public spending and I very much hope that, when the comprehensive spending review is published next week, the hon. Gentleman's party will join ours in saying that the country really needs those investments to secure its future.
    Liz Blackman: John Reddington, a former child migrant, will shortly return to my constituency from Australia, not having seen his home for 50 years. That was a shameful policy practised by both countries in the post-war years. Will my right hon. Friend press the Federal Australian Government to make funding available, as this Government have, to ensure that more migrants can be reunited with their families? Does he agree that some kind of joint responsibility for that atrocity is essential?
    The Prime Minister: I discussed that matter with the Australian Prime Minister when he was here. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that is important that we make sure that we try to at least alleviate the pain so far as we can for people who had an immensely traumatic experience when young.
    866
    If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will write to her on the issue of funding. I do not know the up-to-date position vis-a-vis the Australian Government. From our point of view, we have made some funding available, and I hope that we can do more.

    Prime Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Martin Bell: What plans he has to visit the Tatton constituency.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Bell: My constituents will be deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister is unable to experience the spirit of Tatton for himself. I know that they would be interested in his answer to a question that I know concerns them, having recently had an Adjournment debate on the issue, namely the verdict of gross negligence on the two pilots of the RAF Chinook that crashed in the Mull of Kintyre six years ago. Will the Prime Minister give that personal attention as a question of natural justice?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to give the issue my personal attention. I know that, with other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman has run a significant campaign for some time on this tragic incident and that he secured an Adjournment debate on it. The RAF investigation into the crash was painstaking and exhaustive. All possible causes were examined, but no evidence of technical malfunctioning was found. The RAF board of inquiry established that the Chinook was flying too fast and too low in bad weather.
    We have consistently said that we are ready to consider new evidence, but without new evidence it is difficult for us to justify reopening the inquiry. However, I will of course look into the matter personally as a result of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I will be in touch with him about it.

    Engagements
    Mr. Steve Webb: Does the Prime Minister now regret putting just 75p on the pension this April.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, 75p is not all the money that has gone to pensioners. We had to decide whether to put everything on to the basic state pension, and we believed that it was better to give specific sums, such as the £150 winter allowance, the free television licences for the over-75s and free eye tests, which are very important; more and more pensioners are taking them up.
    The other choice that we had to make was which pensioners to help first. Many people do not understand that there are 500,000 pensioners in this country who do not even receive the basic state pension because their contributions and those of their husbands were not enough. Those people have existed solely on income support. Through the minimum income guarantee we have boosted their income very substantially indeed—sometimes by between £15 and £20 a week. Of course,

    867
    we now want to do more for other groups of pensioners, but overall in this Parliament we will have given an extra £6.5 billion to pensioners.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman, whom I know had something to do with this policy before the last election, that the Liberal Democrat policy was, in effect, the minimum income guarantee. His party did not pledge to restore the link with earnings, but said rather that it would keep the link with prices. On both policy areas, we have done exactly what the Liberal Democrats wanted. The fact that they have now changed their minds does not surprise me.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Eric Gates, the head teacher of Chantry school in Gravesend, who recently received a south-east teaching award for his work with parents and the local community? Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Mr. Gates took over the school three years ago, it was in special measures, the roof and the windows were leaking and the school could boast only 40 books in total?
    Has my right hon. Friend considered abandoning the education policies that have helped excellent teachers such as Mr. Gates create excellent schools such as Chantry and adopting instead a policy of severe cuts in education spending and the abolition of the effect of local education authorities? If he did so, how long does he think it would be before we returned to falling school standards, leaking roofs and 40 books for each primary school? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: Conservative Members definitely do not like it at all. I am afraid that a £17 billion spending cut has to be paid for, and if the Tories are re-elected it will be paid for by cuts in the schools budget. However, it is worse than that because the Conservatives' education policy also means taking £1 billion out of special educational needs. Not only do I think that that policy would be chaotic and wrong; I think that it is cruel, and no political party should have such a policy.
    Mr. Robert Walter: The post office at Winterbourne Stickland in my constituency
    868
    has been in the same family since 1877. When I visited the post office last week and met four generations of the Sprackling family and about 60 villagers, they were still unconvinced that the Government's proposals on village post offices will see their post office survive 2003. They asked me what will happen to those who, for reasons of poor credit or bankruptcy, are unable to get bank accounts, and which bank will give them an account. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Winterbourne Stickland will have a post office in 2003?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is asking me for guarantees. This lot have guarantees on the brain. We have set out our proposals on the post offices and measures such as the universal bank, and we are working closely with rural and other sub-postmasters and mistresses to try to make them work. In addition, we have been prepared to commit a sum for investment in post offices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman said to the family that he met yesterday, "Well, of course, if we Conservatives comes back to power, we will cut spending." That would have been an honest thing to say, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman did not say that. I am afraid that it is only just dawning on Conservative Members that they are going to have a lot of explaining to do between now and election day.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Somebody is confused and it is not me. To clear up the confusion, will the Government revisit mineral planning guidance note 3, in respect of opencast mining, to make it clear beyond any doubt that there will be no acceptance of applications when they are opposed on environmental grounds, community grounds and by the community itself? Unfortunately, that matter needs to be cleared up for Derbyshire county council, which has just decided to accept RJB Mining's planning application in my constituency. Obviously, action must be taken to ensure that the council knows exactly where it is supposed to stand.
    The Prime Minister: Unfortunately, planning guidance note 3 was, by some extraordinary event, omitted from my box last night, but I shall ensure that that is remedied tonight and write to my hon. Friend.

Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: It has been a great honour to serve the House as its Speaker for more than eight years. As hon. Members will recall, I have undertaken on several occasions that the House would be the first to know when I decided to retire. I now wish to inform the House of my intention to relinquish the office of Speaker immediately before the House returns from the summer recess.
As recommended by the Procedure Committee in 1972, I believe that there is clear advantage in a new Speaker being elected during the course of a Parliament. In particular, it ensures that all Members are familiar with the qualities of potential successors. My decision will give my successor a run-in before the general election.
My statement today also gives notice to my constituents in West Bromwich, West that, at the same time as relinquishing the office of Speaker, it is my intention to retire as their Member of Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Be happy for me! [Applause.]
I have one more thing to say. The summer recess will allow me to carry out official duties to which I am already heavily committed, and it will give me an opportunity to see my many friends in the black country who have given me loyal support for 27 years and sustained me through the ups and downs of parliamentary life.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Madam Speaker, the House has already made it plain that it has heard your statement with deep regret. As a House, we have taken pride and pleasure in your speakership. The whole House will wish to pay tribute to you for the services that you have rendered the House and the nation, but today is not the occasion for that. It might assist the House if I indicate the sequence of events that will now be set in train.
I understand that, following precedent, you wish to make a substantive valedictory statement to the House a few days before we rise for the summer recess, on Wednesday 26 July. On that day, immediately after your statement, the House will pay its tribute to you, on the basis of a motion that the Government will table. You will remain in office throughout the recess, representing the House at international conferences in New York, presiding over the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association annual conference in London and Edinburgh, and making official visits to the Ukraine and the Baltic states. Your retirement will come into effect immediately before the House returns from the recess.
On the first day back after the recess, 23 October, there will be no Question Time and the only business before the House will be the election of your successor. That will take place under the chairmanship of the Father of the House, as provided in Standing Order No. 1.
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mrs. Beckett. We now proceed to our normal business.

Business of the House
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I would like to make a short business statement.
The House will recall that I made it plain on Thursday last that, dependent on discussions through the usual channels, the House might be asked to sit on Friday this week. I can now tell the House that it is proposed that the business for Thursday 13 July will now be an Opposition day, the 17th allotted day, followed by the Second Reading of the Football (Disorder) Bill, and that the House will not be sitting on Friday 14 July.
The House may also like to know that a further text of the Bill, as revised, following the recent discussions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, will be made available from the Vote Office later today.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her statement. We have no objection to sitting after normal hours to deal with important business such as the Football (Disorder) Bill. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Government will not be tabling a guillotine motion to cover tomorrow's proceedings? Will she tell the House when we shall be taking the remaining stages of this important piece of legislation? Finally, as the House will now be dealing with additional business, does she plan to postpone the date of the recess or abandon some Government business to make up for the extra business?
Mrs. Beckett: It is not intended to do anything tomorrow other than take the business that I have described. I will be making the ordinary business statement tomorrow, and that will lay plain the course of further discussions. As for the notion that we should change the dates of the recess or abandon some Government business, I was under the impression that I heard co-operation being offered from the Opposition Benches. It does not sound much like it to me.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I must say, Madam Speaker, that you have taken our breath away.
We, too, are willing to co-operate with the legislation that is coming forward. However, will the Leader of the House assure us that everything will be done to avoid the mistakes of previous legislation that was brought forward at short notice and with limited time to discuss it? Whether it is guns, dogs or yobs, we quite often make a mess of it.
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that tomorrow's debate will be without limit and will allow proper time for discussion? Will she undertake that any further programming of the Bill will be on the basis of co-operation across the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman knows that we always seek co-operation on these matters. Although the proposed legislation is new, he will know also that many of the proposals within it have been discussed extensively over a substantial period. There have been considerable discussions already and some changes proposed as a result

871
of them over recent days. The Government are doing their best in somewhat unusual circumstances to meet all the concerns that might be raised.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Leader of the House understand that there is considerable concern that we do not know when the Bill will be considered in Committee? Will the right hon. Lady please tell us whether consideration in Committee will take place on the Floor of the House or along the Committee Corridor, and when we will learn of the date? Does she understand that many hon. Members would bitterly resent a guillotine motion?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when we last discussed this matter, he pressed me not to take all stages of the Bill's consideration in one day. Of course, the Government will not be doing so. I anticipate being able to give a little more news when Members have had an opportunity to read the further proposals later today. I hope to be able to say something during the ordinary business statement tomorrow.
Mr. John Redwood: As the Leader of the House is re-examining business for the next few days, will she make sure that there is time and opportunity available to cross-examine the relevant Minister on the fly-on-the-wall documentary about to be shown on Mr. Alastair Campbell, and how—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a limited business statement. I have the statement in front of me, and it is extremely narrow. It concerns only the business for Thursday 13 July. If the right hon. Gentleman can put his question within the terms of the statement, I will take it. It cannot go wider than the business statement.
Mr. Redwood: I quite understand. The important point is that this event will take place on 13 July, and many people outside the House will want to be reassured that, within the crammed day that the Leader of the House is now suggesting, there will be an opportunity to raise the issue of how a man can be both politically committed and a career civil servant, which is a matter of great interest to the press and the wider audience—
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not require the Leader of the House to respond to an unrelated question.
Mr. Eric Forth: As the Bill, certainly in its present draft form, and presumably even in the form that we hope to see later today, may well, and almost certainly will, involve a possible encroachment on traditional civil liberties and a significant increase in police powers, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that there will be a proper interval between Second Reading and Committee, and between Committee and Report, not only to allow hon. Members time to consider their approach to the Bill, but, as importantly, for hon. Members to listen to what people outside the House have to say about the Bill as it may change between Second Reading, Committee and Report? The Leader of the House, respecting, as I know she does, the proceedings of the House, surely does not assume that the
872
Bill will somehow sail through in its original form without necessarily being changed between Second Reading, Committee and Report.
Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has held a number of open meetings and remains available to discuss the Bill with hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I remind him, and all those on the Opposition Benches, that the Opposition called for such a measure and undertook to co-operate with it. Of course the Government are doing their utmost within the time constraints to provide as much time and as measured an examination as is possible. Either the Opposition wish to see such legislation facilitated, or they do not. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but those on the Opposition Front Bench say something different.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be more than three hours' debate on the Bill tomorrow, which will mean that it will go beyond 10 o'clock? Will she also confirm that, had the Bill been taken under the proposals put forward by the Modernisation Committee, there would not be a vote tomorrow at midnight, as I suspect will happen, but a vote next Wednesday, when we would simply have to sign our book in one of the Division Lobbies? The Leader of the House smiles, but I suspect that she does so because the Bill effectively demonstrates the nonsense of the Modernisation Committee's proposals.
Mrs. Beckett: No, I fear that it demonstrates the hon. Gentleman's ignorance of them. No change is proposed in the handling of Second Reading.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, that, when the previous Government were in office, there were occasions when we had more accelerated business than we will have under the timetable that she has announced for tomorrow?
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly confirm that. There were many precedents under the previous Government, hut, as we have noticed, it is a matter not of do as we did, but do as we now say.
Mr. John Bercow: Despite the right hon. Lady's desire to expedite the Bill's passage, will she confirm that the Government Whips will not be encouraged to hand-pick Government Back Benchers to sit on the Standing Committee, and that there is a remote prospect that the Government will show some glasnost on the matter?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has always made it plain that he strongly believes in glasnost.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Leader of the House clarify from what date we shall be able to table amendments?
Mrs. Beckett: From tomorrow.

Age Equality Commission
3.43 pm
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people.
In moving this ten-minute Bill on such an historic day as today, Madam Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to say that I hope that the age discrimination faced by many in Britain today will not affect you in your long and happy retirement.
Since arriving in the House in May 1997, my weekly constituency surgeries have introduced me to the experiences of hundreds of constituents who feel that they have met the barriers of age in their daily lives. It is my judgment from those interviews that age discrimination is a persistent and disturbing problem which faces far too many in our community.
Like many of our finest seaside communities, my constituency has a higher than average proportion of older citizens. I am grateful for recent research undertaken at the university of Sheffield by Professor Paul Whiteley, who ranked Scarborough and Whitby 37th out of all English and Welsh constituencies in terms of population over the age of 40.
With one in four of my local community of formal pensionable age, compared to a national average of around two out of 11, and seven out of 10 adults in Scarborough and Whitby aged over 40, it is perhaps not surprising that many of my constituents bring their concerns about ageism to my offices in Whitby and Scarborough.
The important work undertaken by Professor Whiteley was commissioned by Age Concern England and published on 4 July this year. It amplifies the demographic patterns that will frame policy-making decisions in the House, and serves as a useful statistical benchmark for the anecdotal evidence presented to many right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, by thousands of ordinary British people who imagined that they had every right to expect a fair deal as they got older. I also commend the excellent work co-ordinated by Age Concern and its partners throughout last year, which is appropriately entitled "The Debate of the Age."
The experiences of people in Scarborough and Whitby have given me the opportunity to work alongside local members of ARPO50—the Association of Retired Persons over Fifty. Through that dialogue, which rapidly developed a national dimension, the principles behind my proposed legislation became focused on the need for urgent action. My Bill therefore seeks to encourage and support the Government in their fight against age discrimination.
Every hon. Member has first-hand experience or anecdotal evidence of discrimination in the workplace, but the evidence presented to me is more wide-ranging and covers almost every aspect of modern life, such as access to financial services, the national health service, educational opportunity, the voluntary sector, and even everyday occurrences such as attempting to hire a motor car.
874
A well-known bank has a policy of not lending to people over the age of 65. The reason is the unspoken fear of having to fight the estate if the person dies before the loan is repaid. A certain well-known bank has an age restriction of 65 for telephone banking. The justification is that people over 65 have a problem remembering their PIN number, which is essential for all telephone banking procedures. I could cite many other examples from the financial sector.
A national survey on age discrimination in 1998 found that almost 8 million people had experienced discrimination in employment, and 33 per cent. of over-50s say that they have experienced age discrimination. Studies suggest that the age at which discrimination is experienced is falling. Age discrimination is perceived to start at 42, according to a survey conducted in 1998.
Back in 1975, 95 per cent. of men aged 55 to 65 were in employment. The proportion is now closer to 60 per cent. It is estimated that only one in three people over 40 will be working by the end of this year. A man made redundant in his 50s is 50 per cent. more likely than a working man to die within five years of stopping work.
Age Concern's on-going health campaign has gathered evidence from 2,000 people and their families which shows that, across the board, older people experience discrimination in the NHS. A survey earlier this year found that one in 20 people over 65 feel that they have been refused treatment in the NHS. Almost 2 million—one in 10—say that they have received different treatment since their 50th birthday. I could give much more anecdotal information, but in proposing the Bill, I want to go beyond the anecdotal and the objective by offering a more analytical approach to inform the Government and policy makers of the problems that face every community in the land.
Last weekend, I attended a community fair in Whitby where I was surprised by further first-hand experience of age discrimination. The local scouting group displayed its excellent range of youth activities, but was attempting to recruit a new adult leader. The current leader thanked me for the action that I intended to take today and for raising the issue. When he turns 65 in a few months time, he will be forced to retire from the scouting movement. He is fit, motivated and enthusiastic about working with the younger generation. Seeing him forced out of his voluntary position in a respected, people-focused organisation has left me wondering why that organisation is practising such discrimination, which I am sure the House would wish to reject.
I want the commission to deal with such issues as it attempts to influence policy makers and voluntary organisations. Discrimination in any form disfigures and blights our society. With an increasing number of people approaching the formal age of retirement, it is essential that the size of the problem should be measured so that appropriate community-inspired solutions can be introduced to limit its effects.
My proposal has received wide support across the House. That mirrors feeling across the nation. I hope that my proposal finds favour with the House as it exemplifies what this place should be all about—offering solutions to problems rather than simply presiding over them.
3.52 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), and I pay tribute to him for his passion and eloquence. His command of the statistics showed how thoroughly he had researched the matter.
That said, I must disagree with him. I do not favour commissions of the sort that he wants to create. They would divide our people into competing interest groups, often antithetical to one another. Logically extended, his proposal would leave us with commissions for fat people or for any number of other groups. It is fundamental that the House should act as guardian of the interests and rights of our people. It is for us to advise the Government and hold them to account. We should not set up commissions to take on our role.
The bare-faced cheek of the hon. Gentleman's proposal astounds me. The Government's record on age is breathtakingly at odds with his views. Our nation has, through its institutions, acquired a dignity of age over many centuries, but the Prime Minister has characterised the land as a young country. What sort of message was that supposed to convey? The Government's own supporters have eloquently pointed to their failure in these matters. I draw to the House's attention the words of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the address and reply debate that opened this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman said:
As this is confession time, I admit that I went away shortly after the election… I came back to find that I am indeed part of an excluded generation—the rising-60s. To paraphrase Wordsworth in "The Prelude": "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive—but to be old was something of a disadvantage." That is the situation in which I find myself.—[Official Report, 16 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 304–05.]
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke eloquently for that generation of Labour Members who were beyond the opportunities afforded by those on the Treasury Bench. However, those on the Treasury Bench throughout this Parliament have not acquired the dignity and wisdom of age; they are entirely bereft of it. If the hon. Gentleman's Bill, and the case for it, were to have any credibility, the Government should set an example themselves. Perhaps Labour Members have become so desperate about there being any Government action on the issue that they have had to resort to the motion. The House should deny them the opportunity.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 7.

Division No. 264]

[3.56 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Allan, Richard

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Berry, Roger

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Best, Harold

Ashton, Joe

Blizzard, Bob

Atherton, Ms Candy

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Atkins, Charlotte

Brake, Tom

Baker, Norman

Brand, Dr Peter

Ballard, Jackie

Breed, Colin

Barnes, Harry

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Barron, Kevin

Burnett, John

Beard, Nigel

Burstow, Paul

Begg, Miss Anne

Butler, Mrs Christine

876

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Laxton, Bob

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cann, Jamie

Love, Andrew

Casale, Roger

McFall, John

Caton, Martin

McIsaac, Shona

Cawsey, Ian

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Chisholm, Malcolm

MacShane, Denis

Clapham, Michael

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Mallaber, Judy

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Clwyd, Ann

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Coaker, Vernon

Martlew, Eric

Coleman, Iain

Meale, Alan

Connarty, Michael

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Corbett, Robin

Moran, Ms Margaret

Cotter, Brian

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Crausby, David

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Mudie, George

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Dalyell, Tam

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Darvill, Keith

Norris, Dan

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Olner, Bill

Davidson, Ian

Öpik, Lembit

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

Organ, Mrs Diana

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Dawson, Hilton

Perham, Ms Linda

Dismore, Andrew

Pickthall, Colin

Dobbin, Jim

Pike, Peter L

Donohoe, Brian H

Plaskitt, James

Doran, Frank

Pond, Chris

Drew, David

Pound, Stephen

Edwards, Huw

Powell, Sir Raymond

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Fabricant, Michael

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Prosser, Gwyn

Flynn, Paul

Purchase, Ken

Foster, Don (Bath)

Quinn, Lawrie

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Rapson, Syd

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Fyfe, Maria

Rendel, David

Galloway, George

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Ruane, Chris

Gibson, Dr Ian

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Salmond, Alex

Gorrie, Donald

Salter, Martin

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Sanders, Adrian

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Sawford, Phil

Gunnell, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Hancock, Mike

Shaw, Jonathan

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hepburn, Stephen

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Hood, Jimmy

Skinner, Dennis

Hope, Phil

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Hoyle, Lindsay

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

Hurst, Alan

Squire, Ms Rachel

Illsley, Eric

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Jenkins, Brian

Steinberg, Gerry

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Stevenson, George

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Stoate, Dr Howard

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Khabra, Piara S

Tonge, Dr Jenny

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Trickett, Jon

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

877

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Winnick, David

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tynan, Bill

Woolas, Phil

Vis, Dr Rudi

Wray, James

Ward, Ms Claire

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Watts, David

Wyatt, Derek

Webb, Steve

Welsh, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

White, Brian

Mr. Andrew Stunell and

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Mr. John McDonnell.

NOES

Blunt, Crispin

Nicholls, Patrick

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Robertson, Laurence

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Gray, James

Tellers for the Noes:

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Mr. Eric Forth and

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Mr. Desmond Swayne.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Jim Murphy, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Lorna Fitzsimons, Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson, Mr. John Grogan, Mr. Douglas Alexander, Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Stephen Twigg, Ms Claire Ward and Mr. Andrew Reed.

AGE EQUALITY COMMISSION
Mr. Lawrie Quinn accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people: 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 159].
Orders of the Day
  Care Standards Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered
  Care Standards Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 16

      GENERAL POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
      '. The Commission may at any time give advice to the Secretary of State on—

      (a) any changes which the Commission thinks should be made, for the purpose of securing improvement in the quality of services provided by local authorities in England in the exercise of relevant functions, in the standards set out in statements under section 48; and

      (b) any other matter connected with the exercise by local authorities in England of relevant functions.'—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.6 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 53.
      Amendment No. 31, in clause 31, page 17, line 6, after "functions", insert "of regulation and inspection".
      Amendment No. 96, in clause 44, page 22, line 40, at end insert—
      '(1A) The description of premises referred to in paragraph (1)(b) does not extend to the private dwelling-house of a foster parent'.
      Amendment No. 3, in schedule 1, page 84, line 3, at end insert—'Committees and Directorates—
      6A. The Commission shall establish—

      (a) an Independent Healthcare Committee chaired by a Commissioner who shall have specific responsibility for the Commission's functions in respect of independent hospitals; and

      (b) a Nursing and Care Homes Committee chaired by a Commissioner who shall have specific responsibility for the Commission's functions in respect of nursing and care homes.

      6B. The Commission shall establish—

      (a) a Directorate of Independent Healthcare under a Director of Independent Healthcare, who shall report to the Independent Healthcare Committee; and

      (b) a Directorate of Nursing and Care Homes under a Director of Nursing and Care Homes, who shall report to the Nursing and Care Homes Committee.

      6C. The Secretary of State may by regulations define the respective responsibilities of the Committees established in accordance with paragraph 6A.'.
      Amendment No. 32, in page 84, line 3, at end insert:—'Healthcare Committee—
      6A. The Commission shall establish a Healthcare Committee chaired by a Commissioner who shall have specific responsibility for the Commission's functions in respect of independent hospitals.
      6B. The Secretary of state shall appoint a Deputy Chairman of the Healthcare Committee from the staff of the Commission for Health Improvement ("CHI"), and the Deputy Chairman shall have

      879
      specific responsibility for ensuring that the system of inspection of independent hospitals is common and comparable to the system used to inspect NHS hospitals.
      6C. The Secretary of State may by regulation define further specific responsibilities of the Committee established in accordance with paragraph 6A.'.
      Government amendment No. 82.
      Mr. Hutton: In Committee, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) tabled a similar amendment, which would have allowed the commission to advise the Secretary of State on national minimum standards and other matters relating to part III services. I accepted the principle of the amendment but was unable to accept the wording. I am happy to put this more suitably worded new clause before the House.
      The new clause is similar in effect to clause 7(5), which gives the commission the power to provide the Secretary of State with any information that it thinks would improve the quality of part III services, as defined in the Bill. The clause allows the commission, in the course of fulfilling its inspection role, to report to the Secretary of State if changes need to be made to the national minimum standards to secure improvements to local authority fostering and adoption services, and on any other matter connected with the exercise of these functions.
      Through its inspection of local authority fostering and adoption services, the commission will be able to make a judgment on how effective the standards are. It is important that it should be able to pass on advice that would improve the quality of these services to the Secretary of State. This will ensure the continuing improvement of standards across the country. The Government are strongly committed to that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, as that will be an important function for the commission.
      On amendment No. 53, the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment in Committee that would have had the effect of requiring Ministers to publish the reports of all inquiries held under clause 10. As I made clear to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, we certainly intend to publish the inquiry reports. It is crucial for the public to have confidence in the commission and in the services that it is regulating. It is clearly desirable for failings in those services, or in the regulatory system, to be open to public scrutiny, so that lessons can be learned for the future.
      The amendment makes it absolutely clear that all inquiry reports will normally be published, but allows the Government to withhold publication in exceptional circumstances only. As hon. Members will appreciate, there could conceivably be rare instances in which it would not be appropriate to publish a report—if, for example, it included unproven allegations against an individual that could possibly be interpreted as being defamatory. I hope, however, that that will never happen, and that it will be possible to publish all reports.
      Let me now deal with amendment No. 82. The Government have made it clear throughout that they intend the commission and the councils to employ their own staff, and intend their functions normally to be carried out by members of their staff. On occasion, however, they may need to sub-contract work to outside people and organisations. For example, the commission may on occasion need to contract some of its inspections to self-employed inspectors if its own inspectorate is
      880
      reduced owing to illness or a sudden surge of vacancies, although I hope that such problems will not occur. More important, however, the commission may want to contract specialist expertise to help it in its inspection function. It may, for instance, want to contract an NHS trust to provide specialist pharmaceutical advice. Similarly, the councils may wish to contract an outside organisation to provide them with specialist advice.
      The purpose of this amendment to paragraph 13 of schedule 1 is simply to ensure that the commission and the councils have the power to sub-contract work, in an entirely sensible and pragmatic fashion.
      Mr. Philip Hammond: It is perhaps fitting for us to start with a Government new clause that reflects our constructive discussion in Committee. On a number of occasions the Opposition tabled amendments that the Government could not accept—sometimes for drafting reasons, sometimes because they were not entirely happy with the precise way in which the Opposition had sought to amend the Bill—although they were willing to accept the principle.
      Although, in the true traditions of this place, we had heated discussions on some issues, by and large the Committee engaged in constructive consideration, which has led to significant changes. I believe that some 37 of the Government amendments and new clauses with which we shall deal today respond to issues raised by Opposition parties in Committee. The Government have reshaped those ideas into a form acceptable to them, and we appreciate that.
      New clause 16 gives the National Care Standards Commission a role in relation to the functions of local authorities which mirrors the role that the Bill gives it in clause 7(5) in relation to what it describes as part II services. The clause allows the commission to act as the Secretary of State's eyes and ears—to advise him on changes that might be required to national minimum standards in order to secure improvements in the delivery of services.
      As the Minister has acknowledged, we proposed such a measure in Committee. We referred to part III services, thinking that that would nicely reflect the reference to part II services in what is now clause 7. Sadly, however, while part II services are defined, part III services are not. The Minister therefore rightly described our proposal as defective, but, following consideration, has presented a way of achieving the objective within the confines of the definitions in the Bill. "Relevant functions" in relation to local authorities is defined in clause 43.
      4.15 pm
      During discussions in Committee on the role of the National Care Standards Commission, particularly in providing information and advice to the Secretary of State, we expressed the view that it would be good if the commission could be a watchdog out and about among providers and users of services, and if it were able to flag up issues to the Secretary of State, quite apart from any areas where the Secretary of State might specifically require it—as he has the power to do—to investigate a matter and to report back. In other words, it might instigate such investigations itself.
      To give that role of watchdog, it would be necessary for that information to be published and widely known, so that people outside were aware of the concerns that the

      881
      commission had identified and had reported back to the Secretary of State. We would have preferred a provision that required publication of the advice given to the Secretary of State in order to stimulate public debate.
      The Government were not prepared to concede that point. We had that argument and lost it. That somewhat limits the power of the care standards commissioner to flag up problems effectively for public scrutiny. Nevertheless, new clause 16 is a worthwhile extension to the powers and capabilities of the commission and we welcome it. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time and trouble to redraft what we originally tabled and to bring it forward for inclusion in the Bill.
      Government amendment No. 53 deals with a slightly different issue that touches on some of the same concerns. I mentioned in relation to new clause 16 our preference for advice that was given to the Secretary of State to be published, so that it was available for public scrutiny. The amendment addresses a concern raised in Committee about the publication of inquiry reports. It makes it clear, as the Minister has said, that the norm will be that such inquiry reports will be published in a manner determined by the Minister. He has reserved for himself the power in exceptional circumstances not to proceed with publication.
      Again, in Committee, we sought to change that arrangement, so that it would be the person conducting the inquiry who determined whether the report should be published and, indeed, the mode of publication. The Minister was not able to agree with us on that point, but he acknowledged then that he expected the norm to be publication and that publication would be withheld only in exceptional circumstances.
      The amendment meets the Government's commitment in Committee to provide for that point on Report. The Minister gave us one example of what he might consider to be an exceptional circumstance: a situation where the contents of a report might be considered libellous. I had thought that he probably had in mind a situation where criminal proceedings might be contemplated and the material in the report might prejudice those proceedings and, thus, be inappropriate for publication at that time. I hope that he will acknowledge that in a case where, for example, criminal proceedings are contemplated, there is an argument for delaying publication of an inquiry report in order to allow those criminal proceedings to continue uncompromised by publication of the report. However, I suggest that, in those circumstances, it would be in the public interest that the report was published eventually.
      I can think of very few circumstances beyond the one that the Minister mentioned in which it would be appropriate not ever to publish. Even the circumstances that the Minister mentioned might be an argument only for delay, until the matters giving rise to the possible libel had been resolved.
      I should be grateful if, later in the debate, the Minister will say whether the libel situation that he intimated and the possibility of criminal prosecution are the only situations in which he envisages immediate publication not being possible, and also whether he agrees that, in the case of pending criminal proceedings, it would be possible for the report to be published eventually, at an appropriate time.
      882
      The Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 31, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), seeks to tighten the commission's power to require disclosure of any information that it considers to be "necessary or expedient"—I emphasise those words—
      for the purposes of its functions.
      The amendment would tighten that power by making it clear that subpoenas can be used only in relation to material that is "necessary or expedient" for the purposes of the commission's functions of regulation or inspection.
      I expressed a concern in Committee that I am sure Liberal Democrat Members share—amendment No. 31 expresses a similar concern—but I am not sure that their amendment, albeit well meaning, really deals with the mischief that concerns us. The real concern that we expressed was that the Bill enables the care standards commission to conduct fishing expeditions—to seek information from registered persons without necessarily having to indicate a specific reason why it needs that information, and perhaps even to trawl widely in the hope of finding something that might incriminate the person or persons in question, leading ultimately to the deregistration of those people or that establishment.
      In this debate, it is important for us to explore with the Minister how he intends to prevent the commission from undertaking that type of fishing expedition. Perhaps he will be able to reassure us that he can use the extensive regulation-making power that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to prevent that type of activity.
      Mr. John Bercow: I think that my hon. Friend will recall that on Second Reading I inquired about the nature of the regulations that will be introduced attendant upon the Bill. Is he satisfied that any regulations on this subject will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and therefore open to hon. Members to debate?
      Mr. Hammond: Regulations made in relation to this aspect of the Bill, and to the great majority of the Bill, will be subject to the negative procedure.[Interruption.] While I understand that my hon. Friend is quite naturally disappointed about that, I have to tell him that it gets worse.
      In the next group of amendments, we shall be examining a subject on which significant material will be introduced by Ministers, not in the form of regulation subject to either the affirmative or the negative procedure, but in the form of documents that will not be subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that my hon. Friend will be in the Chamber for that debate, when he will be able to explore that issue a little more fully.
      In Committee, concerns were raised about the powers that the National Care Standards Commission will have to obtain information from a registered person. The Bill does not appear to include any exclusion for information that a registered person is gathering in contemplation of an appeal against a decision to deregister under the procedures in the Bill. I raised that issue with the Minister who, to paraphrase his response, agreed that it would not be acceptable for the commission to seek to sequester the evidence that an individual intended to produce to an appeal tribunal merely because it would be expedient for the commission to do so. Of course it would always be expedient to have sight of an opponent's intended evidence in any proceedings.

      883
      The Minister made it clear that he did not contemplate such wide-ranging use of the power, but nothing in the Bill would prevent such action. Perhaps the Minister will prevent it through regulation, but I am certain that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) had such issues in mind when he framed his amendment. I am sure that he will wish to pursue the argument further, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Amendment No. 96, tabled by myself, addresses clause 44, which deals with the power of entry of inspectors. The issue at stake depends on the interpretation of the term in the clause about
      premises which are used…by a local authority in its discharge of relevant functions.
      Relevant functions are defined as functions of fostering and adoption and the clause gives powers of entry to premises that are used in that connection. If that means a power of entry to the town hall to have a look in the filing cabinet, at any time of the day or night and without notice—although we might have practical issues to raise—nobody would have a problem in principle with inspectors inspecting the premises of a public authority to ensure that records are in order. However, the advice that we received before the Committee debate on the subject was that it is not clear from the Bill's wording that the term does not include the private dwelling house of a foster parent who fosters a child for the local authority. Fostering is a relevant function and the local authority is procuring the discharge of that function. It is at least arguable that the private dwelling house of the foster carer is a premises being used in the discharge of that relevant function. I return to the issue today because the Minister sought to deal with the concerns during the debate.
      Dr. Peter Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that no powers of entry should be granted for the private dwellings of foster parents? Under existing arrangements and for the purpose of child protection, surely it is important that inspections can be made.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right. As he says, inspections can be made under existing legislation and will continue to be possible. If he will bear with me for a moment, I shall come to that point.
      Let me quote from an exchange in Standing Committee. I said to the Minister:
      My reading of the Bill was that the reference in subsection (1)(b) to premises used by a local authority in the discharge of its relevant functions would include the private home of a foster carer, where a child is being fostered as part of the discharge of the local authority's functions. Will the Minister say whether that is correct?
      The Minister replied:
      Other amendments are coming up that will allow us to discuss that. There will be an opportunity for National Care Standards Commission inspectors to have access to the homes of private foster carers, because that is entirely appropriate.
      884
      I then asked the Minister the same question again:
      Will the Minister answer my specific question? Does the reference in subsection (1)(b) to premises used by a local authority for the discharge of its relevant functions include a private home in which a child is fostered?
      The Minister answered
      My advice is that it does not include the private homes of foster carers.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 June 2000; c. 428–29.]
      I have got to know the Minister quite well during the progress of this Bill and others. When he prefaces a remark by saying, "My advice is", that suggests that he has just a little doubt in his own mind, as when he is quite clear about something he is usually robust in saying so. Apparently, there is something of a contradiction between those two statements. The Minister said that there would be an opportunity for National Care Standards Commission inspectors to have access, but clearly that opportunity will not occur under clause 44. We need to hear from the Minister where it is stated in the Bill that National Care Standards Commission inspectors will have access to the private dwellings of foster parents.
      To answer the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), of course local authorities, as part of their contracting process, may require access to the private dwellings of foster carers. They may want to secure that access for National Care Standards Commission inspectors. I have no problem with that as it would be a contractual matter, and issues such as time of access and how much notice needs to be given could be agreed between the parties to the contract. That is quite distinct from a statutory power of entry.
      The amendment seeks to clarify what I think the Minister told me in Committee—that a private dwelling is specifically excluded from the definition of premises used by a local authority in its discharge of relevant functions. We believe that there is an important distinction to be drawn between the domestic dwelling of a private individual and premises such as the offices of a local authority.
      In addition, again referring to what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, there will still be powers of entry in certain circumstances—for example, to protect the safety of children under the Children Act 1989, although that power would probably not be exercisable by National Care Standards Commission staff. So, both through contracting and through the existing legislation for the protection of children, there would be access, but I am still baffled by the Minister's reference in Committee to the right of National Care Standards Commission inspectors to have access to private dwellings, and I look forward to some clarification on that point.
      Amendment No. 3, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), deals with the inspection of independent acute health care provision. This matter considerably exercised my noble Friends and others when the Bill was being considered in another place. I cannot speak for my noble Friends and other noble Lords as to how they might proceed when the Bill returns to them stripped of the provisions that they inserted on inspection of the independent acute health care sector.
      The Bill originally contained provisions that would have made the Commission for Health Improvement responsible for inspection, registration and regulation

      885
      of the independent health care sector and the NHS. The Government have advanced some persuasive and largely pragmatic arguments why the commission would not be appropriate for the task. They said that it was designed with a different purpose in mind, and to work in the context of a managed service—the NHS—rather than in an independent system that requires arm's-length regulation.
      The debates on the matter have caused much rethinking on the issue by hon. Members of all parties. However, it is clear that the Government oppose the use of the Commission for Health Improvement as a single regulatory body for both independent and NHS provision. When Conservative peers pressed for that, they were keen to draw attention to the advantages—a level playing field and a clear and even-handed regulatory system that would ensure that patients were treated in accordance with appropriate and properly policed standards. That would be the case wherever they were treated and whoever was paying for the treatment.
      It is becoming increasingly ludicrous to distinguish between the private and NHS sectors. The Government have made clear their intention to use private-sector providers more regularly and widely in the provision of care to NHS patients. The Government tabled a new clause in Committee to allow cross-contracting between the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission, to avoid the absurdity of double inspection, under which beds are inspected separately according to whether they contain NHS or private patients.
      One anomaly remains, however. Many private beds remain in the NHS, and they will still be inspected by the Commission for Health Improvement, rather than by the National Care Standards Commission. The independent acute provision sector will be regulated and registered, but its largest competitor—the NHS pay beds service—will not.
      Our preference would be for a single regulatory mechanism covering all sectors, but the Government will not countenance that. The independent sector and other observers have described the problems that they foresee, and we propose that two separate committees and directorates should be established in the National Care Standards Commission. Each would be led by a dedicated commissioner, who would be the figurehead responsible for, respectively, independent acute health care and for nursing and care homes. That recognition would give clear status to the importance of those two strands.
      The commission is a multi-functional body. We are dealing with two areas in which, by definition and by circumstance, large elements of the total provision come from the independent sector.
      Mr. Tim Collins: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for amendment No. 3. Could he, for my benefit, and possibly that of other right hon. and hon. Members, clarify whether the commissioners who would have those specific tasks would be appointed by the Secretary of State or the chairman of the commission? Would they be appointed to the commission with a view to having a specific
      886
      responsibility, and does my hon. Friend therefore envisage that people with a specific background would be appointed?
      Mr. Hammond: I believe that the Bill provides that the Secretary of State will appoint the commissioners. Interestingly, amendment No. 32, tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, addresses my hon. Friend's point by suggesting that a member of the Commission for Health Improvement staff should be the deputy director of the independent health care directorate of the National Care Standards Commission. That issue is likely to be debated shortly.
      Why is it necessary to establish a separate entity within the commission to address the needs and concerns of the independent acute health sector? A couple of general points have come to light, as well as a couple of specific points. First, which staff in the commission will carry out the inspections and the registration function? We believe, from what the Minister has told us, that many of them are carrying out inspection functions within health or local authorities, and will move across to the National Care Standards Commission.
      In some areas—I emphasise "some"—there are historic tensions that do not bode well for a good working relationship. The old role of inspectors working within local or health authorities is different from the working relationships that the Government hope to inspire by this new model, in which people will work for an independent care standards commission. There is a concern in the independent sector that the same people will be wearing different hats—and probably earning higher salaries—after the move from one employer to another.
      There are specific questions about the nature of inspection and the regulation of private hospitals. The term "independent hospitals" encompasses a wide range of entities. Sophisticated hospitals in central London and other large cities have sophisticated equipment, fully-fledged intensive care beds and the capability to carry out almost any procedure that can be done in the national health service. At the other end of the scale we have smaller, low-tech institutions. The smaller ones are often run by voluntary or charitable organisations; they may perform a general service to the community or to a particular group or community.
      There is a wide range of competence and ambition between private hospitals. We must ensure that the regulation and inspection regime is sensitive to those differences, and that small hospitals seeking only to carry out relatively minor procedures are not rendered non-viable by a requirement to comply with regulations designed for hospitals that have loftier ambitions.
      We agree with the industry that identifying a unit within the National Care Standards Commission that will address itself exclusively and specifically to these issues, will give a greater chance of achieving an appropriate, light-touch regime that will ensure proper delivery of consistent quality standards and proper compliance with appropriate levels of regulations without becoming oppressive. That is why we propose the establishment of the health care committee, and an associated commissioner.
      I turn to the arguments for the nursing and care homes committee. In some cases, history does not offer much help when we consider working relationships in

      887
      that sector. Local authorities have been providers of accommodation themselves, as well as purchasers of accommodation and services from the private sector and regulators of that sector. They have experienced considerable conflicts of interest, because they are asked to regulate homes that are in competition with those that they provide. There are many stories from many parts of the country about practices that we certainly should not accept. I know that the Minister would not accept them; that is, in large part, why the Government want to change the regime and to establish a level playing field.
      4.45 pm
      The Bill will separate the role of regulator from that of provider. For the first time, it will require local authorities that provide care home or nursing home accommodation to be regulated in the same way as their private sector competitors. We acknowledge that the establishment of that regime is an important element of the measure, and we welcome it.
      People who are active in the sector are anxious about the fact that those with whom they have, with difficulty, built relationships on specific issues locally will arrive on their doorsteps as the inspectors for the National Care Standards Commission. Although everyone might be working on the new level playing field that the Government are creating, we all know that it is easier to change a title than to deal with deep-rooted, long-established personality differences that have grown up over a long time.
      As the Minister acknowledged in Standing Committee, in some cases there will be real difficulties in ensuring that there are constructive working relationships between the commission inspectors and the providers of residential accommodation. Much confidence building and tender loving care will be needed to convince all the providers that the new regime genuinely represents a break with the past and with a system that many people feel is discredited. A dedicated commissioner and committee would send the right signals—a positive message to encourage all parties to build constructive relationships in the future.
      The aims of the Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 32 are closely linked to those of amendment No. 3. An interesting twist in amendment No. 32 is that it provides for the appointment of a deputy chairman from the staff of the Commission for Health Improvement. I realise that the provision was designed to ensure that the committee includes a member with expertise in acute health care—indeed, that it is led from the top, or near the top, by such a person. That would address the fear expressed by those in the independent acute sector that their needs might be swamped by the broader responsibilities of the National Care Standards Commission for registering and regulating care homes. I anticipate that there will be certain practical problems with the Liberal Democrats' proposals, but I look forward to hearing the detailed reasoning for their approach to a problem that we have both identified. Their amendment deals with concerns that we share.
      The Government have embarked on the creation of a level playing field for care home regulation and registration. In Committee they made a minor concession in relation to boarding schools, and made it clear that they did not want a distinction between independent and local
      888
      authority schools. That was another step in the right direction, but we have come to a deeper philosophical divide in relation to acute hospitals.
      The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), said openly in Committee that the Government were committed to the managed system of health care and to the Commission for Health Improvement, which has no power of deregistration. If it finds a problem in the national health service acute sector, all that it can do is report the problem to the management—which may be responsible for the problem in the first place. It will have to rely on the Secretary of State's powers for direction and central management of the national health service to try to deal with the problem. In the independent care sector, the National Care Standards Commission will have real teeth, because it will be able to deregister someone who is in breach of the standards or who has not behaved properly in any other way.
      Our amendment and the Liberal Democrats' amendment seek to address the real concerns of the independent health care sector and to make the level playing field a reality. The amendments recognise that both sectors—the independent sector and the national health service—can learn from each other. There is not a monopoly of wisdom on either side, and no one thinks that there is.
      The amendments will help to ensure—there is no guarantee—that independent sector providers are not saddled with inappropriate registration or inspection regimes, and that the many different functions of independent hospitals are properly recognised. The industry believes that there would be safety in having a dedicated commissioner, and amendment No. 3 seeks to provide for one. The Liberal Democrats have a similar aim in amendment No. 32.
      In a letter to me dealing with outstanding matters from the Committee, the Minister described Government amendment No. 82 as a drafting amendment. However, as he said in his opening remarks, it addresses the question of how the National Care Standards Commission will operate. Will it mainly employ its own staff, or contract its functions out? In other words, will it follow the local authority or the Ofsted model? Will the initial position be enshrined in any way or may it change over time? Does the Minister envisage the position evolving once the initial cohort of staff, who will transfer from local authorities and health authorities, is replaced by other people? Members on both sides of the House will wish to explore that issue a little so that they can understand the significance of the change that the amendment will make to schedule 1.
      This interesting and diverse group of amendments and new clauses will significantly improve the Bill—and I include the Government new clause and amendment in that description. I look forward to hearing in due course the Minister's answers to my questions.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: I look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that he looked forward to the Minister's response in due course, and it remains to be seen how long, and how detailed, that turns out to be, as I know that some Members are minded to engage in a detailed dialogue on these matters.

      889
      The Government amendments are wholly welcome and useful additions to the Bill, and rightly respond to concerns that were raised by Members on both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge broadly welcomed amendment No. 31, which we tabled and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) will speak in some detail. When he does so, we shall see whether the amendment involves the degree of paranoia that was suggested might underpin it. My hon. Friend and I wish to ensure that the Minister addresses concerns on that matter.
      I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 32 and shall comment in passing on amendment No. 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Both amendments deal with the same issue, as the hon. Gentleman and I, as well as many other Members, are trying to find a route by which we can create a common architecture for establishing a sensible regime of standard setting across the health sector, regardless of whether services are public or independent. Our discussion is part of a long-running debate—indeed, I suspect that the Minister sometimes thinks that it has been running for far too long—which started with consideration of the Health Act 1999, when we had detailed discussion in Committee and on the Floor of the House about the role of the Commission for Health Improvement, and which continued with the progress of the Bill through all its stages in the Lords and in this place.
      It has begun to feel a bit like trench warfare, as there are two clearly defined positions, one on whether it is possible to establish a common framework in which health care standards are set and assured and the other on whether we have to have two parallel or separate structures to do that. To be fair, the Government have moved quite a long way from the position originally taken by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the former Secretary of State. When the Select Committee on Health conducted an inquiry into the regulation and inspection of the private health care sector, the former Secretary of State responded to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight by saying that it was not the role of Government to provide a stamp of approval for the private sector.
      Clearly, things have moved on, and the Government recognise that there is a legitimate role for Government in providing a mechanism to give the public assurances and guarantees of standards wherever they receive health care. We welcome that movement, which has continued with the passage of the Bill through this place and the House of Lords. When the Bill was published, it was plain that the National Care Standards Commission would have a role in private health care, but that that would be clearly separate from the NHS. CHIMP was not to have a role in private health care because, as several Ministers said, CHIMP is a tailor-made institution, geared to dealing with the specific circumstances of the NHS, which is a managed service. By contrast, they said that private health care services needed to be brought into a regulatory framework. Somehow, those two things were completely different and could not be brought together in a single structure.
      890
      Since then, however, in the other place, a majority of their lordships decided that the Bill was defective and a clause was added which would have given CHIMP a specific role in providing, on behalf of the NCSC, inspection and registration of the independent sector. That new clause was subsequently removed in Committee, much to the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, myself and many people outside the House.
      5 pm
      We are particularly concerned that the Bill remains silent on the question of a duty of quality that will apply across the board, and not only to the NHS, in respect of which we have debated the rightful need for such a duty to exist. A similar, comparable standard should be applied to the private sector. The Government should now make further moves on that, and even if we cannot affect their actions in this debate, I hope that when the Bill returns to the other place, their lordships will closely examine our debates in Committee and on Report and give the Government an opportunity, by way of an amendment, to think again about how they can provide a consistent framework.
      There is no difference between a medical intervention in the private sector and one in the NHS—how can there be? I do not understand how clinical governance can be relevant in the NHS but irrelevant in the private sector. We were told that clinical governance was irrelevant in the private sector because it was defined only in regulations and not in a Bill. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to find a mechanism to provide such a definition so that there is clarity about what clinical governance means in the private sector. It should mean exactly the same as it does in the NHS.
      The same applies to clinical management of patients. Surely that also requires common standards. That would be common sense, and we still do not understand why the Government are not prepared to put in place the mechanisms that will guarantee those common standards for everyone in this country.
      As I said, the Government's case is that the NHS is a managed service, but the private sector is not and has to be regulated in some form. However, the NCSC will be regulating managed services provided by the public sector, such as boarding schools and colleges, and care homes run by local authorities. Why is it that those institutions, which are provided for and managed by the public sector, have to be regulated and inspected, but the NHS, which is also provided for and managed by the public sector, is not to be regulated and inspected in the same way? What is the difference? Is it simply that the Government are not prepared to trust local government in this respect? What is the difficulty that means that the Government want to twist the logic of the case for a seamless system and have a two-tier system instead?
      The Minister has not explained that, and in Committee his colleagues did not adequately address that conundrum, which is at the heart of the Bill. Amendment No. 32, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, is intended to provide a vehicle for debate about that and to give the Government a chance to reflect further on what mechanisms could be put in place to use the skills and resources that will be at the disposal of the

      891
      Commission for Health Improvement to ensure that we are monitoring and driving up standards in the private sector.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge did an admirable job of explaining the purpose of that amendment, so I will not say much more about it. I am grateful for his broad support. Amendment No. 3 in his name takes a similar approach in trying, albeit by a very different route, to provide a structure that would bring together the two sectors.
      Ideally, the Commission for Health Improvement should be an arm of the NCSC. That would be logical and it would provide a better fit if we are to have a system that covers the independent sector and the public sector. When one considers that there are more than 200 hospitals in the private sector with more than 10,000 beds, and that last year, there were some 800,000 treatments in that sector, it makes no sense to exclude those treatments from a regime that guarantees standards. That is why we think that one regime with one set of standards and a common understanding of clinical governance would be far better than two separate regimes. In a sense, our amendment is about establishing a vehicle through the NCSC that will achieve that—albeit by dint of setting up a committee. Committees might not be the best vehicle, but they are a means of persuading the Government to consider the matter further.
      If we have two separate regimes, as we will under the Bill as drafted, there is immense potential for grey areas to engulf the issues of who has responsibility for the inspection of services, where the line should be drawn between acute and chronic care, and which body has responsibility for the public and the private sector. What if an NHS patient is taken into the private independent sector? Does the inspection regime follow the patient, or does it depend on which bed they occupy when receiving treatment?
      Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's introduction into the Bill of clause 7, which allows cross co-operation between the Commission for Health Improvement and the NCSC, averts some of the more bizarre possible outcomes while doing nothing to address the fundamental issue?
      Mr. Burstow: I agree absolutely. The hon. Gentleman allows me to acknowledge that, to some extent, the Government have changed their mind and addressed the concerns raised by Opposition Members and Cross-Benchers in the Lords. It is right to establish a mechanism whereby cross-contracting can take place. However, we want to go further—hence our amendment and our argument that, instead of allowing the possibility of contracting to take place between the two agencies, the Government should recognise the necessity of doing so, or—better still—make CHIMP part of the NCSC.
      Barring a miracle, it is unlikely that we shall be able to gather enough votes today to persuade the Government to accept either amendment No. 3 or amendment No. 32, but there is a possibility of our doing so in the other place. I hope that, when their lordships give the Bill further consideration, they will agree with Opposition Members that the matter is one that should not be left as it stands, with the Government amendments made in Committee, and that there is a long way to go before the public can
      892
      be guaranteed common standards of care wherever they happen to be treated, whether in the independent health care sector or the NHS.
      That is what the public now want. When told that there are to be two separate regimes governing the quality and standards of care that they receive, the public are horrified. They want guarantees, continuity and standards that can be assured throughout the health sector. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve. I hope that the Government will accept it, but, if they do not, we hope that the Lords will do more.
      Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I welcome new clause 16. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to advise me whether one of the matters that the commission may consider is private fostering. In Committee, I tabled an amendment requiring those individuals who carry out private fostering to be registered with the commission. I did so not only because of my personal experience, but because Sir William Utting referred to the matter in his report, as did former social services inspector Lord Laming during the Lords consideration of the Bill, and the social services inspectorate in 1994: all called for those who privately foster children to be regulated. However, because the arrangement is a private one, under the provisions of the Children Act 1989, such individuals merely have to notify the local authority that they are looking after children. Many eminent reports have stated that that does not meet the safeguards that we would want for particular children. We do not know how many children are privately fostered, often for a small amount of money. There will be far tighter regulations for day care, where children go home at some part of the day, than for children who may be with private foster carers for weeks, months or years.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said that he took the matter seriously. He repeated the response of my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath that the social services inspectorate was also be taking the matter seriously and would be requiring local authorities to have greater regard to the responsibility to ensure that private foster carers notify local authorities so that they can be inspected. It has been repeated that there will be a national publicity campaign to ensure that people are aware of their responsibilities.
      Suppose that, following the national publicity campaign and the requirement on local authorities, the NCSC, perhaps in consultation with the social services inspectorate, was more rigorous in ascertaining how many children were in private foster care and whether they were being cared for to a standard that we would expect. Would the sharing of that information, if the NCSC raised concerns with my hon. Friend, lead him to introduce legislation of the sort suggested in my amendment, which has been recommended by distinguished Members of the other place who have long experience in these matters? Would my hon. Friend be able to make changes to the foster regulations under the Children Act 1989, or would he have to introduce primary legislation?
      Mr. Eric Forth: Those of us who did not have the honour and privilege of considering the Bill in Committee now have the chance to express our thoughts about the Bill, including the matters immediately before us. I make a preliminary observation. My heart sinks whenever I see a Bill like this one and

      893
      whenever I hear the dialogue that has already taken place, which is a sort of throat clearing for the main business that is to come.
      I am not surprised that we are already in something of a tangle with this group of amendments. I shall say a few words and ask a few questions about each one. We are in a world in which both the Government and the official Opposition claim repeatedly to be deregulatory, to believe in a free society and to wish to dismantle red tape and bureaucracy—I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats sign up to that—yet we are confronted with a Bill that will have precisely the opposite effect.
      I accept that on Second Reading and in Committee, it was agreed that there was a need to adopt the approach that is set out in the Bill. I do not intend to challenge that for the moment. That is also a preliminary observation. It is no surprise to me, however, that Members then become hopelessly bogged down when considering the minutiae of what the bureaucracy that we are now setting up will do. One would have thought that its aims were clear enough, but what will it do in detail? The new clauses and amendments that have already been touched on illustrate well how one can set up a well-meaning bureaucracy, but get into difficulty in defining not necessarily its aims, which can usually be pretty well defined, but the way in which the aims will be fulfilled.
      5.15 pm
      New clause 16 is pretty opaque to say the least, certainly to the layman coming to it for the first time. On the face of it, it should be relatively straightforward. It refers to section 48, but if one goes to clause 48 for guidance and clarity, one is surprised to see that it refers to section 23. Clause 23(1) states:
      The appropriate Minister may prepare and publish statements of national minimum standards applicable to establishments or agencies.
      That is clear enough. Subsection (2) states:
      The appropriate Minister shall keep the standards set out in the statements under review and may publish amended statements.
      Subsection (3) states that
      the appropriate Minister shall consult any persons he considers appropriate.
      The Minister will undoubtedly be able to help us later, but given that the Minister
      shall keep the standards…under review
      and
      shall consult any persons he considers appropriate—
      not our old friend may, but shall, which is strong and prescriptive—I should have thought that, without any doubt, that means that the Minister will involve the commission in the review of national minimum standards.
      Yet new clause 16 states:
      The Commission may at any time give advice to the Secretary of State on…any changes which the Commission thinks should be made.
      I shall come in a moment to consider the commission's terms of reference—to look, as it were, through the other end of the telescope—but any reasonable person would be satisfied that, given clauses 48 and 23, the Minister
      894
      would be most unlikely to discharge those elements of his responsibilities without fully taking the commission's views into account.
      Therefore, because of the obligation that I am assuming, the first question that arises is whether new clause 16 is otiose. The Minister may tell me later that I am wrong in that presumption, but, for the moment, I think that a reasonable person would want to take that view.
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend may not yet have had a chance to look ahead to new clause 4 in the next group of amendments, but, if he does, he will see that it puts precisely that obligation on the Secretary of State, before bringing forward any new standards under what will be a replacement for clause 23—that he must consult and seek certain information from the commission.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am a slow reader, so I have not quite reached that point yet. I shall want to look at it and listen to what he says at the appropriate time.
      I am even more puzzled because in clause 7, entitled "General duties of the Commission", subsection (5) states:
      The Commission may at any time give advice to the Secretary of State on—

      (a) any changes which the Commission thinks should be made…and

      (b) any other matter connected.

      I should have thought that that gives an extraordinarily wide—almost certainly rightly wide—remit to the commission to give advice to the Secretary of State. Yet new clause 16 seems to be in the business of gilding lilies, saying:
      The Commission may at any time give advice…under section 48.
      We need some clarification. I fear—this is my suspicion about this group of amendments, as I suspect it will be about the next group when I catch up with the reading that my hon. Friend has set me—that when we get into this, we will begin to see that we are wading not just knee deep, but waist deep in a mass of verbiage which, if we are not careful, will obscure the objectives, with which everyone appears to agree, of the new bureaucracy.
      That is, of course, the danger. Bureaucracies are bad enough as they are, and rarely achieve the ends that are set. Goodness knows, one can point to any number of examples in other walks of life where there are bureaucracies, commissions and regulatory regimes that hopelessly fail to fulfil their task. One hopes that that will not be the case with the Bill, but I, for one, do not set out with any great optimism.
      My problem with new clause 16 is that I cannot for the life of me see how it adds materially and usefully to the wording in the Bill.
      In Government amendment No. 53, we are in the "exceptional circumstances" business. The amendment refers to the publication of material and whether that should be done routinely. Again, I accept that the Minister tried to be helpful in his brief explanation. I can understand that he may want to move things along, as Ministers often do, but our job is not to move on until we are satisfied.

      895
      We must consider what the words suggested in the amendment add materially to the Bill. I confess that I am somewhat mystified. The original words are:
      The report of the person who held the inquiry shall, unless the Minister who caused the inquiry to be held considers that it would be inappropriate to publish it, be published in a manner which that Minister considers appropriate.
      I accept what the Minister said—there is a presumption of publication. In the new world of open government, that is as it should be. However, the Bill already states that if the Minister considers publication inappropriate, the report will not be published. According to the amendment, the report will be published unless there are exceptional circumstances. For the life of me, I can see no material difference.
      Of course, I am not remotely querying the sagacity of the selection of the matter for debate—far from it—but there is an onus on the Minister, who is suggesting a different form of words, to explain to us more fully why he concluded that the original wording in his own Bill was not satisfactory for the purpose that he stated, and why the new words are a material improvement. That, after all, is why we are considering the matter.
      I thought that the original words were perfectly fit for the purpose. Obviously, I do not want to digress or delay the House unnecessarily, but we could get into a debate about that. The Minister gave us one or two examples of possible exceptional circumstances. We do not need to get bogged down in that, but we may want to know to what extent the Minister thinks that the power, in the existing words or the Government amendment, is likely to be invoked.
      The Minister wanted to reassure us that that would rarely happen but, as we all know, the good intentions set out at this stage in the proceedings to make us feel warm and comfortable about something often do not stand up in the cold, harsh light of the real world, when the matters on the statute book are tested in practice.
      Amendment No. 31, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, rather puzzled me. I got the impression that the amendment was designed to restrict the powers in the Bill, and I was not sure why that was necessary. The present wording is fairly general—
      considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of its functions under this Part.
      The important question is whether adding "of regulation and inspection" strengthens, clarifies or limits it.
      Mr. Burstow: It does.
      Mr. Forth: In typical Liberal Democrat fashion, the hon. Gentleman says, "it does" when I have asked three different questions. Perhaps he would like to pick one of the three and help me.
      Dr. Brand: Wait and see.
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is reluctant to help, but his hon. Friend tells us to wait. I am really excited now. We have had a hidden Liberal promise of clarification to come. I shall contain myself for now, exercising patience in the expectation that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) will regale us later with a much fuller explanation of what the amendment is all about. I shall restrict myself merely to posing my
      896
      questions now, but if the hon. Gentleman does not keep his promise, I shall find some way to punish him. He can only guess right now at what my means may be, but they may become obvious as the night wears on.
      That brings us neatly and satisfactorily to amendment No. 96, which is much more interesting and with which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) dealt very ably. More and more as we consider Bills, we debate the necessity and wisdom of giving powers of entry and investigation to authorities and bodies, and the extent to which we wish to make those powers general or to restrict them.
      I can see what my hon. Friend's amendment is driving at: he wants to restrict to genuine local authority premises powers that could be extremely wide and intrusive, and he wants to ensure that private dwelling houses are not covered. I confess that I wonder whether that would inhibit the legitimate purposes of the Bill and the bureaucracy. I am caught in a dilemma on this point: I have explained my reservations about bureaucracies, regulatory powers and powers of entry, but I must, reluctantly, accept that once the House has accepted the general purpose of a Bill, we can only ask whether it will be effective.
      There is a slight risk—I put it no higher—that amendment No. 96 could, in some circumstances, inhibit or restrict the proposed powers. I can imagine circumstances in which something happens in the private house of a foster parent about which we may have legitimate concern. Given the relationship between foster parents, local authorities and the proposed bureaucracy, we can query how far the Bill's powers should be restricted or left broad.
      Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
      Mr. Hammond rose—
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge can help me because he proposed the amendment.
      Mr. Hammond: I recognise my right hon. Friend's concern, but there are two points at issue. First, powers exist, particularly under the Children Act 1989, to allow entry in order to protect a child at risk. Secondly, we must make sure that our sanctions and intrusions are proportional to what we seek to do. I believe that my amendment has the balance right.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful. If my hon. Friend cannot envisage circumstances in which his amendment would prevent the proper discharge of the duties in clause 44, I must be satisfied.
      Mr. Hammond: I should make it clear that the Minister has already told the Standing Committee that in the Government's view, there is no power of entry to a private dwelling house under this part of the Bill. The amendment would simply make the Bill clear, which, in my submission, supported by my right hon. Friend's interpretation, it is not at present.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Forth: That is helpful. Of course my hon. Friend has just shown the disadvantage that those of us who did not serve on the Standing Committee have in such matters. I will not be tempted to dilate on Pepper v. Hart; he is not trying to do so. If the Minister has put that on the record in Committee, that may be good enough. Of course I accept what my hon. Friend says; he wants only to put such matters beyond doubt—even beyond the Minister's words, which are on record. The Minister has already said that that is an appropriate matter and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
      Mr. Bruce: I, too, did not serve on the Standing Committee. Indeed, I had not read clause 44 until warming up for the debate, but I have read the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which will restrict law enforcement officers and all sorts of other people from entering a private dwelling or whatever. It strikes me that, without amendment, the Bill could directly contradict another Government measure that is being considered in the House of Lords. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that extraordinary situation?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may think it extraordinary, but I am not sure that I do. He characteristically gives the Government the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they are consistent. I have never believed that and, in his perspicacious way, he shows that the Government are all over the place.
      Mr. Bruce: That is putting it mildly.
      Mr. Forth: Yes, it is. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to develop that point in his own way; I do not want to encroach on his territory.
      I shall move on swiftly to amendments Nos. 3, tabled by my hon. Friends, and 32, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, by which they seek to pre-empt or prescribe the way in which the commission will discharge its responsibilities. That is an important issue. We should carefully consider whether it is beneficial for the House to prescribe how the commission will work, even in the way in which my hon. Friends suggest.
      Amendment No. 3 states:
      The commission shall establish…an independent Healthcare Committee…a Nursing and Care Homes Committee…a Directorate of Independent Health Care…a Directorate of Nursing and Care Homes… The Secretary of State may by regulations define the respective responsibilities…
      That seems to go a bit far, even for enthusiasts of bureaucracy. Either we have reasonable confidence about how the commission will discharge its duties, or we do not. Even at this late stage, my hon. Friends want to state in detail how the commission will be structured and how it will carry out its responsibilities. I make no apology for taking them to task, but they even want to state that there should be
      an Independent Healthcare Committee chaired by a Commissioner who shall have specific responsibility for the Commission's functions in respect of independent hospitals…
      I yield to none in my admiration of my hon. Friends' perspicacity and foresight, but for them to suggest that they can envisage, with such clarity, how the commission should function and discharge its duties seems to go a tad far, and I therefore remain to be convinced.
      Mr. Simon Burns: I want to press my right hon. Friend on that matter. I fully appreciate the
      898
      point that he makes, but we shall have only one stab at the Bill. Can he foresee how the law could be changed if such a provision were not included and the experience of the system working in practice suggested that what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) proposes in amendment No. 3 was needed?
      Mr. Forth: In an attempt to justify the wording of amendment No. 3, my hon. Friend gives the game away completely. He has reminded the House, as I was about to, that it is difficult, though not impossible, to alter or remove a proposal once it has been included in a Bill. That is my worry.
      By my reading, if we do not use either the wording suggested by my hon. Friends or that suggested by the Liberal Democrats, the commission will be free—within the broad terms of its remit and, if necessary, under guidance from the Secretary of State, which is also in the Bill as a longstop or failsafe—to structure itself as it sees fit and to set up such sub-committees as it sees fit. That will provide the flexibility to enable it better to react to changes in circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) points out, if a well-meaning form of words is included, it will be there for ever, or at least until a future Government get round to trying to change it. Were the Government to be re-elected, we know that their legislative programme would be so full that the chance of changing the wording would be zero.
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I have huge sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says, but will he bear in mind that the Bill already provides for a children's rights director who, although not a commissioner, is specifically referred to? That is frightfully politically correct, and I accept his reaction to that, but does he accept that independent health care and social and nursing care, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) refers in amendment No. 3, are the two areas in which the Government find the greatest anathema in respect of providing care across the spectrum? Therefore, specifying that a commissioner is responsible for those areas will make it palpably clear that the person appointed will be put under the spotlight to ensure that the commission's powers are exercised truly impartially.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour, who has given as elegant an explanation of amendment No. 3 as one could expect. I can of course see the force of what she says, but again my reservation is that circumstances can change rapidly, as we know, and sometimes to our cost. My worry is that committing ourselves to such a degree of detail at this stage would also commit the commission and create the danger of rendering it relatively inflexible when flexibility is of the essence. I still have my reservations, in spite of the valiant effort to persuade me.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: Yes, I shall let my hon. Friend have a go.
      Mr. Bercow: I understand my right hon. Friend's objection to, and general concern about, the excessive

      899
      rigidity or specificity, but is there not another concern, which I would usually expect him to express? Unless there is some codification in the Bill, the danger is that unamended Henry VIII clauses will allow a usurpation of a power, to which he would usually object.
      Mr. Forth: Of course I accept what my hon. Friend says, but my assumption is that the Secretary of State will soon be a Conservative Secretary of State. Therefore, what my hon. Friends have in mind and what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) suggested a moment ago could be achieved elegantly and amply under the existing wording. I know that none of my hon. Friends assumes or even expects the Government to be re-elected, so there is no need to put a defensive and protective provision in the Bill and set it in concrete.
      However, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has made an important point, as usual, and, as always, we are in a dilemma as to whether we, as legislators, believe in a general power for a Secretary of State, with the flexibility that goes with it, or think it preferable to include ever more detail in legislation—perhaps to restrict the opportunities for a Secretary of State to intervene. There are more than sufficient powers for the Secretary of State in the Bill. Henry VIII is wandering through the Bill, and this attempt to pre-empt or restrict that probably will not succeed. I remain to be convinced by the amendments, although I will listen to the many different views that will be expressed over the next hour or two.
      Amendment No. 82 may be the most interesting and worrying of the amendments and proposes something with which we have become familiar—the powers of delegation. It says:
      An authority may make arrangements with persons under which they, or members of their staff, may perform functions of members of the staff and of the authority.
      I will not repeat my earlier argument but I am not sure how this adds to the original wording.
      Such provisions always lead to wider issues, as we have seen in other Bills. How far does the Minister believe the proposal will go? Could there be restrictions on the persons with whom arrangements are made and to whom delegation is given? Either we take a fairly restrictive view or there will be a flexible arrangement. The Minister must assure us that the exercise of powers under the amendment would be limited and restricted and that a guarantee or safety mechanism will be available so that there is no danger of delegation to persons who are not fully qualified.
      If the authorities find themselves under pressure to fulfil their responsibilities, there may be a risk of delegating to the wrong people, and we will be right back at the difficulties with which the Bill is trying to deal. The present wording—even with the imprimatur of the Minister and the Secretary of State—worries me. I might have been reassured if it had said "appropriately qualified persons" or "persons with appropriate references". However, the current wording appears to leave the matter loose and over-flexible.
      Mr. Hammond: Does my right hon. Friend conclude that those persons to whom the powers are delegated will have all the powers of entry that inspectors have under the Bill?
      Mr. Forth: That must be a suspicion. Some wide powers may devolve, worryingly. to unspecified persons.
      900
      It is not good enough for the Minister to say that flexibility is needed and that provision must be made for other people to be brought in. In this of all matters—given all the sensitivities that surround it, and all the history behind it—if we are to legislate properly, and provide the reassurances and guarantees that are required, we must have a form of words that gives us more reassurance than we have now.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Bercow: As the devolution of responsibility may entail contracts with outsiders, can we at least be reassured by the Minister—in so far as he feels able to attend to the debate—that such arrangements will be undertaken only after a process of competitive tendering? Or will this take place simply on the basis of the old pals act?
      Mr. Forth: I hope that others are listening, although the Minister patently is not. Perhaps he will be appropriately advised at the appropriate time, although it may take quite a bit longer than he thinks if he carries on in the same way. I may have to repeat everything when I think he is listening to me, and I doubt that he would want that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has raised an interesting point. The mechanism whereby the delegation is to be achieved is unspecified. The wording gives no hint or clue about the connection between the delegating authority and those to whom the important powers may be delegated—including potentially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out a moment ago, powers of entry, inspection or whatever.
      We are completely in the dark about who the people concerned may be, what guarantees or reassurances we may have about them, their relationship—contractual or otherwise—with the authority, and the extent to which the authority may have sought appropriate reassurances in terms of qualifications or references. We know none of that, and the wording gives no clues. I fear that amendment No. 82 poses at least the danger—I put it no higher than that: not the likelihood, but the possibility—that a risk of some kind could emerge. That, as I understand it, is exactly what the whole Bill is intended to avoid.
      The new clause and Government amendments illustrate all too well the dangers that we encounter when we embark on the route of bureaucracies, regulations, regulatory powers, regulatory mechanisms and the like. No matter how well justified such measures may appear on the face of it, we can readily see those dangers just from this first canter around the course. For we have not yet reached the meat of the Bill: although we are discussing important matters, there is much more to come. Already, in scratching the surface in a rather superficial way, we have dug up all sorts of difficulties. The Minister could not reassure us, and—if I may say so—even my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge,

      901
      in his much clearer and more concise speech, was unable to answer all the questions that, in my modest and very brief way, I have tried to pose.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: I will give way once more, but I am trying to conclude my speech.
      Mr. Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to my right hon. Friend for his characteristic generosity. I am sorry to interrupt his flow, but I wonder whether he can answer a question. Speaking to amendment No. 32, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) argued that the regulations that he advocated should be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure. The capacity to debate the regulations, however, is surely of the essence.
      Mr. Forth: It is to my hon. Friend and me, but I do not recall the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) saying as much. I do not think that the Liberal Democrats are all that bothered about parliamentary scrutiny, or about negative or affirmative resolutions. They are not here very often, and when they are they seem to be in the Government's pocket. My hon. Friend and I pay close attention to such matters, but I do not think that we can look to the Liberal Democrats to help us, now or in the future.
      All in all, an awful lot more will have to be said about the new clause and some of the amendments before I am satisfied. Although the Minister did not listen to some of what I said—I cannot imagine why—I know that, having been properly advised, he will be able to give full and comprehensive answers to my points and those made by others. We shall have to make our judgment on the basis of those answers when—somewhat later, I suspect—we vote on the new clause and amendments. The position is certainly not self-evident to me.
      Dr. Brand: This is the first time that I have had the privilege of following the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and it is a curious experience. At the outset of his contribution, he declared himself as a legislative nihilist—he does not believe in regulation and clearly feels that the safety of vulnerable people should be left either to the marketplace or to self-regulation. He then talked about having more powers for the Secretary of State without making them explicit in the Bill, and turned that argument round and said that the Bill was not explicit enough, so I find that confusing.
      The right hon. Gentleman made a threat, which I did not find alarming; I was not surprised at his comment. It was not even an implied threat. It was that we might all be punished tonight by some means not yet declared if we did not toe the line. I am not aware that activities in the Chamber are designed to indulge either masochist or sadistic tendencies. I am sure that we will get many contributions from the right hon. Gentleman. If he would let me know how long he is going to take, we can rest while he makes them.
      I address my main remarks to amendment No. 31, which deals with clause 31. There is a concern that we do not give the commission undue powers. Clause 31 says
      902
      that the registration authority can require—presumably, it is a statutory requirement—to have information made available if it is "necessary or expedient". I can see that it may be expedient for a registration authority to ask for all sorts of information, but I am also aware that red tape is a major imposition, especially for small businesses, and that information does not come free. It takes time and resources. Incidentally, it also takes time and resources to analyse it once it has been obtained. It is clear from the rest of the Bill and from some of the earlier comments that the commission will have a role over and beyond registration and inspection.
      It is right that the commission should have statutory powers to require information to be made available where it is dealing with the safety of the public. Therefore, in relation to its registration and inspection function, it is totally appropriate that anyone running an establishment described under the Bill should be made to provide information when it is requested, but I have an anxiety that that statutory requirement might be extended, because it is convenient and expedient for the registration authority, to other areas such as the giving of strategic advice to the Minister on how many beds might be needed in 10 years, and what the industry's intentions are on retirement and non-retirement.
      Those are important issues. Clearly, consultation with the industry is important, but it should be consultation on equal terms, rather than a requirement by law. It is a simple amendment. I hope that the Minister will take it on board. It in no way diminishes the powers of the registration authority in its primary function: the protection of the public.
      I touch on the other amendments in the group, notably Nos. 3 and 32. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) Sutton has squared the circle in relation to regulation and inspection of acute and chronic services in the private and public sectors. In my clinical practice, I sometimes find it difficult to decide in which of the four categories a particular patient is in the course of treatment or the course of a disease. The permutations are quite large. It would be helpful if we had a common regulation and inspection regime.
      To have the Commission for Health Improvement as the specialist hospital arm, the specialist medical arm, of a national commission makes extraordinary sense. It would still allow the Government to have their own machinery to advise them, but it would also create a healthy, slightly arm's-length relationship, between the Secretary of State in his managerial function with regard to the national health service and the Secretary of State in his regulatory role through the Commission for Health Improvement. I urge the Government to look at that as a way of still accepting that the NHS is different from the private sector, but overcoming their dogmatic doubts about a common way of dealing with the problem.
      As usual—it is the usual phrase that we used in Committee—I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that he will give us some confidence on small matters, but that he will consider the real nub of the argument, which is the safety and quality of standards for all people needing medical, nursing or caring services, irrespective of who provides it and where it is provided.
      Mrs. Lait: Before I contribute to the debate on the Bill for the first time, I should like to put on record the fact

      903
      that before I entered the House in 1992, the National Care Homes Association was a client of my lobbying business, but that subsequently, I have had no remunerative interest in the association at all. However, my husband is the leader of the Conservatives on East Sussex county council, and of course, all social service issues are a responsibility of county councils. For a brief period, he was chairman of the social services committee, and tried hard to persuade the county council to get rid of its substandard care homes. The Lib-Lab pact managed to defeat that, but the objective still remains.
      By putting those two things on the record, I hope that I have not only clarified my position, but made it clear that I have some knowledge of many of the areas that we are talking about. Indeed, I have long advocated the establishment of some form of national standards and care structure for the social care and nursing care sectors. Therefore, in principle, I do not have a difficulty with the structure of the Bill as it has emerged from the various stages of its consideration.
      It may cheer the heart of my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that one of the most overbearing parts of the private sector care standards regime is being totally repealed by the Bill. The repeals list shows that the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 will both be repealed in total, so one form of bureaucracy—a very hard and overbearing bureaucracy—will disappear.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend—I see him nodding—will appreciate that occasionally, legislation can lead to the death of bureaucracy, as well as—as is happening in this case—the creation of further bureaucracy. It is the concerns about the further bureaucracy that I shall take up, as will many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Government new clause 16 is about the advice to Ministers on fostering and adoption. I think that we have established the fact that the advice and how it is implemented will be covered by regulations, which will be taken under the negative resolution procedure. Most Conservative Members find that somewhat concerning, because that procedure makes debate so difficult. However, what concerns me even more is the lack of any assurance that before regulations are promulgated, those who will be affected by them will be consulted. That concern is reinforced by the fact that publication of the commission's advice will not be mandatory.
      6 pm
      It is therefore possible, even for one who is not a conspiracy theorist, to envisage a situation remarkably similar to one with which many care homes are already familiar—the sudden introduction of an entirely new fostering and adoption regulatory regime, without any notification to those affected by the new regime.
      Mr. Bercow: I think that my hon. Friend is right to say that the Government have opted for the negative procedure. However, we have to know the reason for Ministers' knee-jerk reaction and preference. Is it because they do not think that we should be allowed to debate such regulations? Is it because they cannot trouble themselves to have such a debate? Or is it because we do not have sufficient time? The last explanation would be quite unsatisfactory to many hon. Members, who would
      904
      be more than happy to attend a morning sitting of the House to debate the regulations, based on the authoritative advice that has been tendered to Ministers.
      Mrs. Lait: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes some sane and sensible points. I also think that use of the negative resolution procedure is always very sinister. I am simply seeking assurances from the Minister that there will be proper consultation on regulations, and that the commission's advice will be published.
      The commission is a public body, funded by taxpayers. Therefore, it has a responsibility to taxpayers and the public to make public precisely what it is suggesting to Ministers. It is crucial that Ministers reassure us today that, one way or another, there will be proper scrutiny of proposals affecting fostering and adoption—both of which are so fraught with emotion and so important to people's futures. Very many bodies are involved in the subject, and they need to be consulted.
      As all hon. Members know from their surgeries, rumour and innuendo get around, and out of small acorns grow very large oaks. Rumour and innuendo can threaten an entire system. Therefore, correct information has to be placed in the public domain at the right time.
      Government amendment No. 53 deals with the publication of reports. Although I am not a lawyer, I absolutely accept the difficulty of the libel issue and of the possible consequences of prosecutions. It may come as no surprise to my hon. Friends to hear that I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the current Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State for Wales, and the Welsh Office was debating whether he should establish the inquiry into the Welsh children's homes. We grappled at length with the issues of libel and prosecutions. However, my right hon. Friend had the guts and the courage to establish that inquiry, and to take on the chin the possibility of difficulties arising from subsequent legal action.
      If my right hon. Friend had the courage to do that, I cannot see for one minute why the Government cannot give us assurances today, or even write something into the Bill. They could abandon their amendment, so that reports of concern to the public were published. As I said, if the relevant information is not made public, rumour and innuendo will spread and the situation will get completely out of hand. I would not like to see any Government on the back foot in addressing issues that are so important to so many people.
      The Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 31 deals with the National Care Standards Commission. I have some difficulty with the idea of enabling the commission to trawl for information, in a fishing expedition. Such an ability was one of the reasons why the local government inspection system was regarded with fear and trepidation within the private care home sector. In that system—not in all cases, but in a sufficient number of cases to concern the industry—inspectors essentially had that power.
      I hope that in considering the information that it wants and needs from people, the commission will take into account the long history of difficulties between inspectors and the private care sector. To give those inspectors their due, the badly run businesses have now gone out of business. The commission will therefore usually be dealing with well-run businesses. The businesses that have survived—it has been a tough world for them—have

      905
      done so because they are good businesses. Therefore, although there is no need to provide the power to undertake fishing expeditions, there is that history, and such a power is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
      I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) about the potential impact of amendment No. 31. Of course we very much hope that the horrors that we are envisaging do not materialise.
      Mr. Burstow: The import of the hon. Lady's argument seemed to be that she was broadly supporting amendment No. 31—which is about preventing the very fishing exercises that she has been concerned about. Can she say whether she supports the amendment?
      Mrs. Lait: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. I am more likely to be supporting him than the Government on this particular issue.
      I share the concerns expressed in the official Opposition's amendment No. 96, not only because I am a great believer that an Englishman's home is his castle. I am surprised that I am the first hon. Member to use that cliché in this debate, because it is such an obvious one in discussing the amendment. Like many other hon. Members, I know people who have given a lot of their life, time, love, affection and emotion to fostering children. As I am sure all hon. Members will know, many of those children are very difficult and complex characters who have deep-seated needs that foster parents have to deal with.
      Consequently, over the years, in any well-run fostering regime, a body of law has developed that allows access to a foster parent's private home, either by agreement or—when potential child abuse is involved—by instant access. I am sure that many hon. Members will have had constituency cases involving neighbourhood conflicts and difficulties in which, on the flimsiest pretext, although the children themselves have often been difficult, neighbours have taken a dislike to each other and called in social workers and police. In those circumstances, foster carers' homes have easily been accessed by those who wanted or needed access.
      Therefore, on the basis of what we know happens in practice and what is often dealt with in statute, I do not know why the Government cannot reassure people by including in the Bill an exception ensuring that private homes are not covered by the Bill's provisions on rules of entry.
      It may be that legislation cannot impose a negative, but I do not believe that the clever people who draft legislation cannot come up with a form of words to reassure people who foster difficult children that, although their homes will continue to be accessed by social workers and police, as is required by statute, the Bill will not impose further requirements so that any misuse of its provisions presents a further barrier to people volunteering to foster difficult children who need loving homes.
      Hon. Members may have gathered that I support amendment No. 3 because I have concerns about the text of the Bill. When I first reached the conclusion that a national organisation would help the care home industry to provide better care, I was very clear in my own mind that the
      906
      National Care Standards Commission would need to appoint people who represented and had thorough knowledge of the industry. The proposal for separate commissioners for the independent health care sector and for nursing and social care, with separate directorates, would meet that requirement and would go slightly further than the Bill does in respect of the children's rights director.
      Many of us who have some knowledge of the residential and nursing home sectors realise that it is not easy to consider them as indivisible. A nursing home provides nursing care. The demands and requirements on a nursing home are different from those on a residential home, which is a place where people live as independently as possible. They require totally different skills that require different training, although residential care homes for elderly people provide an element of nursing care. However, if a properly run rest home has people who need nursing care there is usually someone on the staff to provide that care and it is usually the sort of care that a district nurse can provide. If somebody is too ill for that, their medical condition will dictate where they are looked after—[Interruption.] I heard someone say, "nonsense" and I would be most interested in the reason for that remark.
      Dr. Brand: Over the past 15 years there has been a dramatic shift in dependency from nursing homes to residential homes and it is not unusual to have people in residential homes who might previously have been in nursing homes, certainly towards the end of their lives. I would not want people to be forcibly moved from what has been their home when they become terminally ill.
      Mrs. Lait: I am not entirely certain that the hon. Gentleman and I are a million miles apart on this. If someone were terminally ill and living in a residential home, as that would be regarded as their home, they would get the same care that would be provided in their own home.
      Dr. Brand: Does the hon. Lady accept that a great many people who live in their own homes have a nursing dependency as great as people in nursing homes under hospital at home schemes and the like? The differentiation is not as clear as the hon. Lady implies.
      Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman and I could have a long dialogue on this, although you would probably call us to order if we did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I desperately disagree about this matter. However, the bulk of people in rest homes are not there—or should not be there—because of nursing requirements. That is part of the argument for national care standards and for removing the involvement of local social services in placement into rest homes. As I said earlier, I have long believed in that.
      6.15 pm
      The amendments seek to ensure that two sectors in which the private sector has taken a strong interest—well-run private hospitals and nursing and rest homes—should receive the consideration that they require from the commission.
      I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has returned to the Chamber. Let me pick up his point about what should happen to the commission

      907
      when we win the next election. I suggest that it would be helpful to have people with the right skills on the commission, and a directorate with specialist skills in the independent health sector and nursing and social care so that those two sectors get the attention that they require to ensure that they provide the highest care standards of which we would all approve.
      Another reason why I support the proposal for a social and nursing care commissioner was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in relation to inspectors. We probably expect that most local authority inspectors will move over to the commissions under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, if for no other reason. I sincerely seek assurances that the inspectors will receive the necessary training to act in an even-handed way. As I said earlier, a number of local authority rest homes are not up to the standards that are required in the private sector. Under the 1984 Act and subsequent legislation, inspectors have no statutory remit to close local authority homes. However, good inspectors in some local authorities—there are some—made sure that some of the local authority homes were aware of their responsibilities. However, we cannot—the private sector would find it difficult to live with this—send in inspectors who are still of the old school and are not prepared to be completely impartial.
      Let me briefly draw a parallel with Ofsted, which was mentioned earlier. Ofsted hires teachers and trains them to be inspectors. Unless the system has changed recently, once inspectors are trained Ofsted does not have the ability to decide whether they are good enough to do the job. Once somebody has been trained they automatically become an Ofsted inspector even if they are not suited to the job. I would not like the same loophole to exist in respect of commission inspectors. Once somebody has been trained, a decision will have to be made as to whether that person meets the required standards. The mere fact that somebody has been trained does not mean that they have attained the necessary standards.
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend as she develops her argument, but is she referring to in-service training or to some other training?
      Mrs. Lait: I made the analogy with Ofsted because everyone wishing to become a school inspector has to go through the training that Ofsted offers. However, all trainees become school inspectors after the training, regardless of the extent to which they fit Ofsted's requirements. I do not want the same system to be brought in for the commission.
      Finally, I have gained a little understanding of how what I have learned to call "CHI" works. A team from the health service is put together and sent to inspect a hospital. It usually consists of a medical director, a nursing director and a chief executive or member of senior management. Those people may be crucial to another hospital, but they are taken away from running their own hospital for at least a week. Given the state of the NHS and the number of hospitals needing inspection, will not the removal of such personnel for inspection purposes place an intolerable burden on all hospitals?
      Dr. Brand: Rubbish.
      Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman may say that that is rubbish, but perhaps he will tell me why. A hospital trust
      908
      could be in trouble if even the smallest crisis emerged while its medical director was away for a week on inspection duties. We all know how long patients have to wait in accident and emergency departments in most hospitals, and how litigious they are these days, with hospitals often being challenged and asked to pay compensation. Taking key managers away from an understaffed and hugely pressurised health service is not the best way to ensure that our health service improves.
      Dr. Brand: I cannot follow the hon. Lady's argument. Is she really suggesting that inspections, by Ofsted, the Commission for Health Improvement or any other body, should be carried out by people who are not involved with the service that they are inspecting? I understand what she says about pressure being placed on services, but that can be solved by adjusting staffing levels. I assure her that the NHS carries out a great many inspections, and that about a tenth of consultants' time is spent on them. That is quite apart from their educational role.
      Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman is a GP and has a direct interest in how the NHS works. He probably knows how much inspection is carried out. I am merely pointing out, however, that the commission represents yet another layer of inspection. It will take people away from their real hospital work for a week, and then reports will have to be written. Taking out that level of management skill is not the best way in which to run the hospital service, let alone the NHS.
      The hon. Member for Isle of Wight will agree that the NHS faces huge staffing difficulties. Imposing an extra burden is not the best way forward.
      Mr. Burstow: Is the hon. Lady aware that a Liberal Democrat amendment tabled in the House of Lords secured cross-party support and gave effect to the principle that the commission would have a role in inspecting provision in the private and public sectors? The Government removed that amendment, against the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).
      Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman and I differ in our view of what the commission is doing at present.
      Mr. Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene and put in context what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) just said. I said earlier that my interpretation was that the Lords were trying to promote the desirability of a single regulatory system for both sectors. That was the essence of the debate in the other place.
      Mrs. Lait: I would have no difficulty with a single regime for inspection. I am interested in the practical application of the commission's operation, given the difficulty in finding enough people of the right calibre to staff the NHS. We must not forget that the basic job of the service is to make people get well, and to prevent some from falling ill in the first place.
      Mine is a practical objection rather than an objection in principle. No matter how much money the Government throw at the health service, it will not improve all that much in the near future. The Bill will not help those

      909
      hospitals that desperately need proper inspection—nor will it ensure that the independent health care sector does not provide a distraction.
      I have spoken for longer than I planned. These diverse amendments set the tone for the matters in the Bill that need to be considered and that concern me deeply, and the debate on them is therefore worth while.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I did not intend to speak to these amendments, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned amendment No. 96, and thereby brought to my attention a specific problem.
      Clauses 44(3)(b) and 45(3) set out the powers that allow the inspection of documents or other material, including computers. They contravene clauses 47 and 48 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which deals with all aspects of surveillance. Schedule 2 of that Bill sets out which people can issue a warrant allowing someone to inspect computers.
      I believe that amendment No. 96, which would protect foster parents from such an inspection, should be more widely drawn. The Minister should know that any evidence obtained under this Bill without a warrant under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill would be specifically excluded, by that Bill, from any legal proceedings. A proper investigation could be made that would then be ruled out of order because of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. I am no fan of that Bill, which I believe to be very flawed. It is extraordinary that the Department of Health and the Home Office should both introduce Bills in the same Session covering the investigation of what is on a computer in someone's premises whose provisions are in complete contravention of each other. My hon. Friend's amendment is very helpful in this respect.
      6.30 pm
      Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend might like to bear in mind the conflicts with the Data Protection Commissioner as to what information is protected, and the demands of the National Audit Office, particularly in the health sector.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Right-minded people might think that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is a sensible measure that can be used to investigate child abuse, for example. Police officers who go into premises to investigate could think from having looked at the Care Standards Bill that they are authorised to get the records from the computer, print them out—perhaps even getting the key for encrypted data. They then think, "The case is all there in black and white." However, the defence lawyer, who is always paid more than the prosecuting lawyer, says, "The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill specifically excludes you from looking at these data, and if you have looked at them, a clause in the Bill says that you cannot use them in a court of law."
      I hope that the Minister understands that I am not filibustering—this point hit me between the eyes instantly. I know that Department of Health Ministers have an awful lot to do—they cannot know what is going on in the Home Office. Frankly, somebody in the Government—
      910
      I thought that this was supposed to be joined-up Government, after all—should have understood the problem.
      I hope that the Government will at least accept the amendment that would protect foster parents. I declare an interest, because my wife and I were short-term foster carers many years ago. I would not like to think that because we had volunteered to do that, our premises could be entered in the course of an investigation.
      From looking at the Bill, it seems that someone's home is available to be entered. The Minister may say that it does not mean that. Even so, a police officer could enter a person's home and be told, "You can't come in," but if he showed them the Bill, the person would read it and say, "Obviously you do have the power." The individual is hardly likely to read Hansard and contact a lawyer for advice: he would instead assume that those powers were in the Bill.
      Mr. Bercow: I shall certainly study Hansard tomorrow. Can my hon. Friend explain what wording in the Bill leads him to believe that there could be a laissez-faire approach to entry?
      Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend just needs to read clause 44, which says:
      the registration authority may at any time require a local authority to provide it with any information relating to the discharge by the local authority of relevant functions which the registration authority considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of its functions under this Part…
      The clause continues:
      a person authorised to do so by the registration authority—
      although such a person is not authorised by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill because the registration authority is not one of the named bodies—
      may at any time enter and inspect premises which are used, or which he has reasonable cause to believe to be used, by a local authority in its discharge of relevant functions.
      What happens is that local authorities approach foster carers to foster a child. The Government have quite rightly said that they will do their best to close down as many children's homes as possible and to put children into foster care or have them adopted, because that is best. If the only avenue that a local authority has when it comes to placing children is a private foster home or adoptive parents, those must be the premises referred to in the Bill. The Minister tries to reassure us that the words in the Bill, which are as plain as a pikestaff, do not mean that, but I am afraid that he is misdirecting both himself and us.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has duly alarmed me by pointing to the relevant provisions of clause 44. On the basis of his 13 years' experience in the House, will my hon. Friend confirm that it is commonplace, when discussing rights of entry for officers or other persons on public authority duty, for clauses to refer to "reasonable force"? However, as far as I am aware—my hon. Friend will disabuse me if I am mistaken—there is no reference in these provisions even to reasonable force, which opens up a worrying spectre of what might be entailed.
      Mr. Bruce: Certainly, there are no such words in the Bill. Let us assume that a police officer is called because

      911
      an inspection authority officer is battering the door down. The person living there says that his premises are being invaded by the officer, who says that under the Bill he is authorised to enter and that, as he has been stopped, he is battering the door down. Nothing in the Bill says that there should be an individual at the premises—it is not about requiring people to allow entry to the premises, but about entry to the premises.
      Mr. Hammond: It might help my hon. Friend to know that I explored this avenue with the Minister in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman confirmed that there will be no power to force an entry under these provisions.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to know that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) both know that. It is a pity that it is not made clear in the Bill.
      Mr. Hutton: You caught me by surprise by calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we were in for a couple more hours of debate on these amendments.
      There is a small but substantial problem with amendment No. 31, in the name of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). We used to say in Committee—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I say it again today—that his amendments were largely unnecessary or technically deficient. Sadly, amendment No. 31 is both unnecessary and technically deficient, which is a first for his party on the Bill.
      I should like to reassure the House that the registration authority will require individuals to provide only information that is needed for its regulatory work. Clause 31(1) states that it may require only information that it considers
      necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of its functions under this Part.
      Part II is concerned only with the commission's regulatory functions. It will therefore not be able to ask for anything that is not necessary for fulfilling those functions under this part of the Bill. That is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, and I can assure him that that is already how the Bill is constructed.
      Obviously, the commission will sometimes need to require a wide range of information from persons carrying on or managing an establishment or agency. I think that all right hon. and hon. Members will understand the common sense of that. The information will vary, according to the stage at which the service is being scrutinised. Inspectors will not have the powers to go on general fishing expeditions, however, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. Nor will they have the power to require providers to give information that may be of general interest for statistical purposes, for instance. They might be able to request such information, and providers will, I hope, be happy to accommodate those requests, in the knowledge that national information of this kind can be useful to all concerned. However, such requests will not come with the force of clause 31.
      Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. He says that the commission will not go on general fishing expeditions, and I accept his word. However, can I take it from what he has said
      912
      that somebody seeking entry to conduct an inspection would subsequently, if there were a dispute, be obliged to prove that he or she had grounds for belief at the time?
      Mr. Hutton: That must be the case. The powers under the Bill can be exercised only if the conditions of the Bill have been complied with. If there is any argument about that, the appropriate place to hold it might well be the court; it is precisely the type of issue that could be tested by lawyers before a judge. We do not propose any provision that would give the NCSC unique powers to act above and beyond the law—of course not. The hon. Gentleman is correct; no such situation could possibly arise.
      Amendment No. 96, tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), concerns the commission's powers to inspect premises under part III. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that that power to inspect applies to premises used by a local authority in the discharge of its functions. He asked me to look into the matter. Having taken further advice, I am satisfied that the power does not apply to individual foster homes, and we certainly have no intention that it should be used in that way. I agree that it would not be appropriate for the commission to exercise powers of entry to foster carers' homes in the same way that such powers would relate to local authority premises.
      The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the wording is that it would include powers to inspect individual foster homes, but I can assure him that that is not our reading of the provision. The private homes of foster carers are not under the control of local authorities, so it would not be sensible to treat them as though they were premises used by local authorities. We cannot consider that the amendment is either justified or necessary.
      As I said in Committee, we expect that, in inspecting fostering services, the commission inspectors will need to speak to foster carers, and to satisfy themselves that the standards required of fostering services are being properly met through the foster carers approved by the authority. We all want assurance about that. That will mean that, sometimes, commission inspectors will need to visit foster carers in their homes, but the commission will not need general powers of entry to a foster home.
      As I explained in Committee, we intend to tackle the matter by setting out a requirement—perhaps through the foster placement regulations under the Children Acts—for approved foster carers to co-operate with the commission inspectors when they are carrying out their functions. That will be reinforced by individual foster placement agreements that will set out what might be required for co-operation with the work of the commission. That approach will not give the NCSC a general power to enter foster homes, backed up by an offence of obstructing inspectors. That would be too heavy handed.
      Mrs. Lait: By giving those powers to the commission inspectors, will the Minister do away with other regulations that give other people power of entry to a foster home?
      Mr. Hutton: I assure the hon. Lady that we are not doing that. The Bill makes clear which provisions will and will not be amended. For example, we are not changing the powers of local authority officers in relation to their child protection functions; nor are we changing the powers of a police constable in the exercise of such functions. As the hon. Lady herself pointed out, it is important to retain measures to ensure that children placed in foster homes by local authorities are properly protected should there be any risk to their health or well-being.
      Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he make it absolutely clear that the measure would give further rights to strangers to inspect a foster home and that foster carers would have to face additional bureaucracy?
      Mr. Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I think that she has completely misunderstood the point. I have made it quite clear that NCSC inspectors would not have a power of entry to private foster homes. I tried to make that clear. Under the Bill, there will be no general power given to NCSC inspectors to enter private foster homes.
      It is not the foster carer who will be regulated by the National Care Standards Commission, but the local authority or independent fostering agency. That is where the powers of the commission will rightly be directed.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: By now, the Minister's officials will have had a chance to examine the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. That measure makes clear the circumstances in which people can obtain information—especially from computers and other forms of investigation and surveillance. The Care Standards Bill is clearly in contravention of that measure. Will he address that point?
      Mr. Hutton: I am pretty sure that it is not in contravention. I may have to qualify my comment later in our proceedings, but I think that the reason that this Bill does not contravene the provisions of the RIP Bill can be seen in clause 44, in which the hon. Gentleman was extremely interested. Clause 44 gives the NCSC the power to require the local authority to provide information. That does not involve the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in relation to the RIP Bill. We are not inspecting computers. The clause requires the regulated provider—in this case, the local authority—in relation to part III, to require information to be produced to the local authority under the powers of the Bill.
      If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I think that the best way to deal with that point would be for me to give him a fuller explanation at a later stage of our proceedings.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman contradicts his own Bill. Clause 44(3)(b) states that the powers include
      in relation to records which are kept by means of a computer, power to require the records to be produced in a form in which they are legible and can be taken away.
      That is exactly what is dealt with in the RIP Bill. The requirements for obtaining such information are set out in that measure and they are not complied with in the Care Standards Bill.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hutton: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure that he is wrong. Later in our proceedings, I will find some way to satisfy him on that point.
      Amendments Nos. 3 and 32 are similar in that they require the commission to establish statutory committees to deal with specific aspects of its responsibilities. Amendment No. 32 was tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. I share the hon. Gentleman's wish to ensure that private and voluntary health care is regulated effectively by the NCSC.
      The Government's commitment to do so has, in our view, been amply demonstrated by the requirement that we introduced on Report in another place a power for the commission to appoint a director of private and voluntary health care, and to fund and head a health care division in the commission, whose functions will be prescribed in regulations. The independent health care sector has broadly welcomed those measures.
      Measures that we have introduced provide the necessary assurance as to the importance that the commission will attach to its responsibilities for regulating independent health care. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would require the commission to have, in addition, a separate and statutory health care committee. That is where our views differ. The hon. Gentleman's approach, which is mirrored by that of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, is over-bureaucratic. The benefits of his proposed solution are not clear. It would duplicate the work of the private health care division.
      The amendment raises questions about the relationship between the Commission for Health Improvement and the NCSC in its role of regulating private health care. That is one of the issues that we have returned to throughout the passage of the Bill in both Houses. I accept that the relationship is important. The two bodies will between them have responsibility for standards throughout all the health care services provided in this country. They will have important common interests and shared experience.
      We have repeatedly spelt out the arguments—although perhaps not to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam—and have pointed out that the role of CHIMP in the NHS is not the same as that of a statutory regulator in the private and voluntary health care sector. CHIMP has been designed to work within the context of a publicly managed national health service, which is ultimately accountable to the House through the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. CHIMP fits into a range of levers, incentives and controls—all under the overall management of my right hon. Friend.
      Independent hospitals and clinics, on the other hand, are private businesses; they do not operate in a publicly managed system and are not under the control of the Government. If an NHS organisation is failing, it is the Government's job to do something about it. That is a responsibility and a burden that we take seriously. If necessary, the Secretary of State can intervene directly in the management of the NHS body, including, at the extreme, removing an entire trust board.
      Amendment No. 32 would introduce a rather clumsy mechanism to try to involve CHIMP in the management of the NCSC. I do not think that it would be practical. It would establish a wholly superfluous layer of administration that would not be able to do anything that

      915
      could not already be accomplished by the National Care Standards Commission under the proposals that we have made. I ask the House to reject it.
      Amendment No. 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, proposes a statutory committee to deal with independent health care, and I do not think that I need to repeat my comments on that subject. It also proposes a further statutory committee within the commission to deal with nursing and care homes, plus a statutory director of nursing and care homes and a separate division for dealing with those services.
      On a technical level, the amendment obviously leaves itself open to criticism. For instance, are care homes really to be dealt with totally separately from domiciliary care agencies? We all recognise that people being cared for today in residential settings may in future be equally well cared for in their own homes, but the amendment would run the risk of creating a new Berlin wall between those services in the way they are dealt with in the commission.
      Although I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, it may help if I say a little about how external interests, including regulated providers, will be able to work with the commission to feed in their views and to engage generally in dialogue with the commission. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) raised that concern.
      Mr. Bercow: Given that we are waiting with bated breath and beads of sweat upon our brows, will the Minister please share with us the contents of the yellow piece of paper that the Secretary of State for Health has just passed to him?
      Mr. Hutton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would like that; the piece of paper might be about him. He might not like what he has invited me to say. Therefore, I will not read it out. However, as I said earlier, I shall come to the points that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) raised when we come to the appropriate point in the Bill.
      The commission, as a regulator, will obviously from time to time find itself in dispute with providers. From her experience, the hon. Member for Beckenham will be aware of such cases. However the commission's purposes will not be best served if it does not also engage in constructive and open discussion with service providers so as to allow feedback and proper suggestions from them and to work together to encourage improvement.
      We certainly intend that there should be mechanisms in place to ensure that such discussion is an on-going feature of the commission's work. We expect arrangements to be in place at a local level to allow for such partnership working and for arrangements to be put in place at a national level for a dialogue to be established between the new National Care Standards Commission and care home providers' organisations and interests. I said in Committee that the relationship between the commission and care home providers will be central to making the arrangements work in practice and I want that relationship to be characterised by professional respect and a clear mutual understanding of each's responsibilities and respective roles. I am sure that the commission will want, once it is established, to develop that relationship with care home providers from all sectors—public, private and voluntary. That will be critical to ensuring that the arrangements work in future.
      916
      I hope that the hon. Members for Beckenham and for Runnymede and Weybridge are reassured that the commission will be open for business with regulated providers and others who have a stake in the work that it will do. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment is designed to ensure that care providers have a point of contact with the commission—that was partly his point—I think that we can make sure that that is available without having to set out the rigid structures that he suggested.
      If, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman really thinks that Parliament should be setting down in primary legislation exactly how the management structures of the Commission will be arranged, I will probably have to disappoint him, because I cannot agree that that is a sensible thing for the House to do. If he decides to press his amendment, I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote against.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) raised a point that is of concern to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to the efficiency and efficacy of the arrangements that supervise private foster care arrangements. I remind him of what I said in Committee. We share with him a concern for the proper administration of the existing regulations. We took the view, and we have stuck to it, that the regulatory framework is robust enough to deal with issues of abuse and concern about the welfare of children who have been privately fostered.
      My hon. Friend asked me specifically whether I would be prepared to revisit the regulations about private care arrangements, and I say to him that I am prepared to re-examine them to satisfy myself once again that they are in the right shape to meet the concerns that he raised. I go further than that: if he and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre wish to talk to me about how, in particular, they want the regulations to be improved, I am happy to have that conversation.
      To some extent, the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Runnymede and Weybridge are a rehash of previous arguments. We have been through the arguments about the right relationship between CHIMP and the National Care Standards Commission extensively in this House, the Committee and in another place. I think that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge welcomed clause 9—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam certainly did—and it will allow the two important new bodies to work closely and effectively together. We should get on with the job, get the organisations up and running and, in doing that, better serve the public interest.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      STATEMENT OF NATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARDS
      '.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish a statement of national minimum standards in respect of establishments or agencies required to be registered under this Part and to amend such statements from time to time as he deems appropriate.
      (2) The Secretary of State may publish different statements under subsection (1) in respect of different descriptions of establishments or agencies.
      (3) Before publishing a statement or amendments to a statement, the Secretary of State shall comply with the requirements of subsections (4) and (5) below.
      (4) The Secretary of State shall—

      (a) consult such persons as he considers appropriate and, in determining who to consult, he shall take advice from the Commission; and

      (b) request the Commission to give him advice as to the likely impact of the proposed statement or the proposed amendment on—

      (i) the aggregate supply of the service provided by establishments or agencies of the type concerned in England and Wales; and

      (ii) the cost of supplying such services in accordance with the statement of minimum standards;

      and shall then publish a draft of a statement or of amendments to a statement.
      (5) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of any proposed statement of national minimum standards or amendments to a statement together with copies of representations received in respect of the consultation under subsection (4)(a) and the advice received from the Commission under subsection (4)(b).
      (6) No statement of national minimum standards shall have effect unless a draft of it has been laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with subsection (5) and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
      (7) Where a statement of national minimum standards applies to an establishment or agency, no person may be registered in respect of that establishment or agency unless the applicable national minimum standard is complied with.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Hammond: 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: Amendment No. 38, in clause 22, page 13, leave out lines 14 and 15.
      Amendment No. 39, in page 14, line 35, at end insert—
      '(m) make provision in the case of an establishment providing cosmetic surgery as to—

      (i) the nature of statements that may be made with regard to the services provided; and

      (ii) the titles that may be used to describe persons carrying on, managing or employed at such an establishment'.

      Government amendment No. 61.
      Amendment No. 2, in clause 23, page 15, line 3, leave out Clause 23.
      Mr. Hammond: New clause 4 and amendment No. 2, which is a paving amendment for it, would remove clause 23 from the Bill and substitute it with new clause 4. The new clause would do broadly the same things as clause 23, but with some important differences.
      For the benefit of hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee, I shall briefly explain what clause 23 does. It gives the Minister the power to
      prepare and publish statements of national minimum standards applicable to establishments or agencies
      and to keep the statements of standards under review. The statements will not be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny; they will be prepared by the Minister and published after the consultation that he considers appropriate.
      918
      Once the standards are published, they will "be taken into account"—that is a rather indefinite phrase—in making certain decisions and in any proceedings taken under the Bill. It also seems likely that the statements will be referred to in regulations made under other parts of the Bill. Therefore, the regulations that refer to the standards or incorporate them may be subject to scrutiny in the House, but the statements themselves will not be.
      Of course, the Minister will consult with whoever he considers to be appropriate before he publishes the statement of minimum standards. However, I remind the House that people's businesses and livelihoods may be at stake and they may be driven out of business if they do not comply with the statement that the Minister has issued. For it to become effective, all he has to do is publish it; there will be no parliamentary scrutiny whatever.
      New clause 4 and the paving amendment seek to do two things. First, the new clause would change the process of bringing into force a statement of minimum standards. It would place a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to prepare statements of minimum standards; he would not merely be allowed to publish them. The statements are a vital part of the structure that the Government are creating and the Secretary of State should have a clear obligation to prepare them.
      Secondly, new clause 4 lays down a procedure for consultation outside Parliament and for a process of interaction with the commission, along the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in the previous debate. That process would require the Secretary of State to require from the commission an analysis of the likely effect of the statements of minimum standards so that he can make a proper appraisal of their probable impact on the supply of services and the cost of providing them. Finally, it provides for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the draft statement of minimum standards before it comes into force.
      7 pm
      Mr. Burns: Will my hon. Friend clarify proposed subsection (4)(b)(ii), which is a crucial part of the new clause and refers to
      the cost of supplying such services…?
      Does that mean the cost of supplying the service to the business providing it or does it mean the cost of supplying the service to the individual who is benefiting from it? Or does it mean both?
      Mr. Hammond: The two are obviously related, but the provision is intended to relate to the cost to the business supplying the service. Proposed subsection (4)(b) seeks to ensure that, when formulating a draft statement of minimum standards which is to be laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State has advice from the commission about the likely effect of such a statement on the aggregate supply of services in England and Wales and the likely cost of supplying them.
      My hon. Friend spoke about the connection between the cost to the business of supplying a service and the cost to the person enjoying it. Of course, he could go further and discuss the cost to the public purse because, in the majority of cases, the service will ultimately be paid for from the public purse. There is, therefore, a direct

      919
      read-across from implications for costs on the businesses providing such services to implications for the public purse.
      Mr. Bercow: Did I understand my hon. Friend correctly when he suggested that, in the absence of new clause 4, regulations will become effective on publication? Is my hon. Friend telling the House that, under the Bill, there is no required minimum period of consultation for draft regulations, and no required gap between the consultative process and the required date of implementation?
      Mr. Hammond: As I understand it, the Secretary of State will consult such persons as he considers appropriate before publishing statements. However, those statements will become effective on publication. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I have misunderstood that aspect of the working of clause 23.
      May I go back to the point I was making about what the new clause seeks to do? First, it deals with the process of bringing such a statement into force and, secondly, it makes it clear in proposed subsection (7) that someone who does not comply with the statement of national minimum standards will not be registered. Clause 23 states:
      The standards shall be taken into account
      in making decisions, in any proceedings for making orders and
      in any proceedings for an offence under regulations.
      That seems to be rather vague for a matter as important as national minimum standards. If a national minimum standard is to mean anything, it should mean that someone who does not comply with it cannot come to the table. New clause 4 would therefore provide that someone who does not comply with the standard cannot be registered.
      Of course, we accept that many standards are going to be made—indeed, some have already been made in draft. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), has already circulated draft minimum standards on child minding. It would, therefore, be wrong to lead the House into thinking that statements of minimum standards published under clause 23 or, indeed, our new clause would relate only to care homes. However, everyone present will understand why I will focus on the statements of minimum standards for care homes, as there cannot be a Member who has not received correspondence from owners, operators and residents of care homes in their constituencies expressing concern about the potential impact of the national standards that the Government have circulated for consultation in the draft consultation document "Fit for the Future?".
      We accept the need for minimum standards, which are a central feature of the Bill and the structure that the Government are putting in place. However, standards must not simply be aspirations: they must be deliverable, and the question of cost must be addressed. We have repeatedly asked the Government whether they accept that higher quality equals high cost and that that cost must be paid for. Do they recognise that the great majority of those in nursing and care homes are paid for by the state and the public purse? Therefore, as I have asked the Minister many times, does the state accept the implications for public spending and is it ready to meet them?
      920
      Throughout the industry, the concern is not that the Government want to raise standards—indeed, people would be delighted to operate to higher standards. The industry is concerned that the Government want to raise standards without paying the costs incurred, which will have a disastrous consequence. In the vast majority of cases, local authorities are the purchasers of this type of care. If they are not funded to meet the higher costs that these aspirations will impose, higher quality for the lucky ones will, inevitably, mean that no funding is available for others. Regrettably, the Government have consistently refused to address that point, and have not told the House or the Standing Committee whether they accept that there will be substantial costs and whether they are prepared to meet them in the case of those whose funding is met from the public purse. If the Government can reassure providers about that, many concerns will, at least, be diminished and, in some cases, will melt away completely.
      We cannot look at the matter in a vacuum. The new higher standards in "Fit for the Future?" are being introduced against a background of tight finances for providers in the care home and nursing home market. They are dealing with the consequences of the national minimum wage—which has an impact in some areas, but not in others—the working time directive and other elements of the Government's social and employment legislation that have involved significant costs. They work in an environment in which, to a great extent, they face cost inflation of the type faced by the NHS, which is significantly higher than general inflation in the economy. In particular, wage and pay increases for NHS personnel, however welcome, have an inevitable consequence for competing employers in the private sector who provide services to publicly funded residents in nursing and care homes.
      For many years, in many, if not most, parts of the country, providers of such care have faced below-inflation fee increases from local authorities that, with the best will in the world, cannot be more generous because their finances are too squeezed.
      Mr. Burns: Has my hon. Friend considered the possible financial implications for local authority providers of residential care? There is much evidence that local authorities that still have residential homes do not receive in their Government grant the financial resources that will be necessary to upgrade the quality and structure of their premises to meet any minimum standards that the Secretary of State may set under the Bill.
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the difficulty in which local authorities find themselves. Local authority accommodation is some of the least compliant of any accommodation, and the Government's recognition of that is the main factor behind their intention to bring it into the regulated system. They want to create a level playing field and to ensure that the quality of that accommodation is improved. I say to my hon. Friend, however, that local authorities' ability to improve their accommodation, particularly through capital works, will depend ultimately on the Government making funding available or authorising local authorities to finance the necessary works in unconventional ways.
      Many private care home operators, particularly the smaller players in the market, do not have the luxury of being able to anticipate capital grants from central

      921
      Government. As I shall show in a moment, they have found that the capital markets are closed to them because of the uncertainty created about the potential standards for nursing and care homes.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not know whether, in Committee, my hon. Friend received any assurances from the Minister that the Government would ensure that those who provide standards higher than the minimum—which, in looking after people, would be a natural way to get business—would not be financially penalised. It should not be possible for someone to say to them, "Although you are giving value for money in your provision, the minimum standards mean that you can provide the services for less," because that would force providers down to the minimum standard.
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend has made an important point. One introduces minimum standards with the best of intentions, but if the contracting price is set at the minimum standard level, one compels anyone who wants to participate in the market to reduce their standards to the minimum. As I said in Committee, I fear that that is inevitable unless the Government introduce a method to incentivise the provision of care over and above the minimum standards. I shall not digress further because that is another debate.
      New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State not only to undertake the usual consultations, but to use his powers to require the commission to evaluate the likely impact on aggregate supply and cost. That is to ensure that decisions are properly informed and that the full impact of proposed national minimum standards is properly taken into account. The new clause provides for that information to be made available to Parliament. That would mean that a quasi-independent body would be required to review the cost and supply implications of any proposed standards or changes to standards. It would not be right to characterise the commission as a fully independent body because it is required to act on directions in writing from the Secretary of State. The new clause would therefore introduce objectivity into the debate about new or changed standards.
      7.15 pm
      I shall contrast that with what the Government have achieved with their draft standards for residential care homes. As many hon. Members will know, the Government commissioned a report, which they have put out for consultation. I believe that it contains some 280 recommendations, some of which are not controversial and will not have significant cost implications. Others, however, are highly controversial, and many of my hon. Friends will know from their postbags that the standards relating to staffing ratios and room sizes, in particular, have alarmed providers.
      There is no doubt that the standards set in the draft document—10 sq m for rooms in existing accommodation and rooms of 12 sq m for wheelchair users and in newly built accommodation—would drive some providers out of business. I refer to particular individual providers whose accommodation is of a certain type and, perhaps, incapable of being easily converted. Other standards
      922
      would have a more general impact across all providers in the sector; for example, recommendations for staffing ratios would have the straightforward effect of increasing costs for providers of all sizes.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's grasp of the detail is positively Powellite, and I want to probe him on subsections (5) and (6) of the new clause, which properly require that a draft of the proposed national minimum standards should be subject to approval through a resolution of each House of Parliament. My hon. Friend will understand that I am troubled because it is not entirely clear from either subsection that the resolution of approval will require a debate.
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Subsection (6) says that the national minimum standards will not have effect until they are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I understand that that is what we know as the affirmative procedure.
      Mrs. Lait: On a point of information, my hon. Friend has mentioned smaller homes, but what regime will cover three-bed homes?
      Mr. Hammond: All homes will come under a standard regime. As my hon. Friend implies, some of the proposals in the draft minimum standards document will be more onerous for small providers than for large providers. If, for example, there were a requirement to have a member of staff in a management position who was supernumerary to the established staffing ratio, that would clearly be a more damaging blow to a very small home than to a large home provided by a large corporate provider.
      I shall give the House some measure of the impact that "Fit for the Future?" would have on provision in this country if it were implemented in full. I do not want to mislead the House: the Minister has made it clear that the document will not be implemented in full. On this issue, he can be characterised as a man on a bicycle pedalling very fast backwards, but unfortunately we do not know where he will have got to when he stops pedalling, so uncertainty still hangs over the marketplace.
      Let me illustrate the scale of the problem. The Department of Health has estimated that 20 to 23 per cent. of independent sector residential homes, 12 per cent. of independent sector nursing homes and 55 per cent. of local authority residential homes would not meet the draft space and amenity standards; and that 53 per cent. or more of nursing homes would not meet the draft staffing standards. Even those alarming figures ignore the impact of economics, considering only the possibility of meeting the standards by reducing the number of places and, thus, income; in the real world, in many cases, reducing the number of places would drive the home out of business.
      Regional and local variations are even more striking. In the Southampton area, more than 50 per cent. of capacity in the residential market will be non-compliant. In Hampshire, a survey has shown that, overall, 71 per cent. of nursing homes and 68 per cent. of registered care homes would be non-viable. The position is worse in Portsmouth, where 88 per cent. of registered care homes and 65 per cent. of nursing homes claim that they would be non-viable if the draft standards were imposed in full. In the constituency of the other Minister of State,

      923
      Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), 82 per cent. of registered care homes and 85 per cent. of nursing homes would be non-viable. In Blackpool, a staggering 91 per cent. of care home provision would be non-compliant with the 10 sq m standard; and I am told that in Blackburn that figure is an astonishing 100 per cent. of provision.
      The problem is serious and, unsurprisingly in view of the figures I have just read out, it has provoked—in a masterly understatement—a reaction in the market; actually, it has produced something nearer to panic. Lenders have withdrawn; many potential sellers of homes have found that they are unable to sell their property because the buyer cannot know whether it will be compliant with a standard as yet undetermined and unpublished; potential new entrants are being denied access to capital, because no one knows what the final standards will be; and the presence of distressed sellers unable to sell causes a downward spiral in values. The overall result is chaos and blight in the market.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: New premises have to be larger to comply with the regulations, and someone selling a business will, in effect, lose his registration. Will a new business taking over the same premises with a new registration come under the regulations for new premises, or those for old premises?
      Mr. Hammond: That brings me back to my description of the Minister as a cyclist furiously peddling backwards. The concern that my hon. Friend expresses was circulating widely in the marketplace until very recently. However, the Minister recently wrote to me specifically confirming that transfer of ownership will not constitute a trigger event that would cause a change of status requiring the larger room size standard.
      To be fair, as I always try to be, the Minister has been doing his best to stem the tide of speculation that has been rising for the past year and causing considerable harm; he has been engaged in a damage-limitation exercise, drip feeding pieces of information as and when possible, in an attempt to dampen expectations of the final standards. However, the fact remains that he has been unable to make a definitive announcement of either the standards in the key areas that are the source of disruption in the marketplace, or, most critical of all, the time scale for compliance. To be frank, those are the only two pieces of information that will calm the market.
      The story becomes worse, degenerating into Whitehall farce. At the beginning of the Standing Committee's consideration of the Bill, the Minister said that he should be able to
      share with the Committee some of the detailed thinking—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 June 2000; c. 29.]
      on the standards by the time that Committee reached consideration of the relevant part of the Bill. At that time, it was common knowledge that negotiations were being held with providers of residential and nursing accommodation about the detail of the most contentious remaining issue: room size. As the Committee made progress, hon. Members were delighted to be invited to the Department of Health, there to partake of the largesse of Her Majesty's Government and to look at a little display showing what the different room size options meant in practice: helpful plastic cut-outs had been laid on the floor and some plans prepared by NHS Estates were hung on the wall.
      924
      That lunch set alarm bells ringing in the minds of some, because the plans clearly showed that the area of the room occupied by the sweep of the door as it opens—that arc—was to be excluded from the calculation of usable space, as were any en-suite bathroom facilities. I questioned the Minister in the Committee that same afternoon; he replied that it had always been intended that only usable space would be measured. I and people outside took that as confirmation that the area swept by the opening door and the en-suite bathroom would be excluded.
      I am happy to say that the Minister has since made matters clear in correspondence, which I have faxed on to everyone I thought might be interested. He has stated that it is not now the Government's intention to exclude the door-opening area and en-suite bathroom facilities when calculating usable space. I am delighted to hear that; otherwise, we would have faced the absurdity of care home owners who two years ago had spent large sums installing en-suite bathroom facilities—as one owner that I met had—being forced to take them out to comply with the minimum standard. That would have been bureaucracy gone mad, especially as surveys consistently show that the facility most valued by residents in care homes is an en-suite bathroom.
      Mr. Bercow: I am somewhat reassured by the letter my hon. Friend has apparently received from the Minister, but does he not agree that it is only right that such an assurance should have been forthcoming, given that, otherwise, the Minister would have been implying that en-suite bathrooms did not constitute usable space, which would have been bizarre, even by the standards of the current Government?
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. My point is that the process followed by the Government, if it were intended to introduce workable standards in an orderly fashion without damaging the market, has failed. Instead, that process has resulted first, in the breakdown of the negotiations that the Minister expected, wrongly, would reach enough of a conclusion to enable him to make an announcement to the Standing Committee; and secondly, in a lack of clarity about issues such as whether or not en-suite bathrooms and door-sweep areas are to be included. I am merely speculating, but, as the Minister makes announcement after announcement in an attempt to reassure the market, it strikes me that, in his efforts to make the arrangements workable, the Minister is having, time and again, to overrule civil servants who have led him seriously astray and left him with a system that would be unworkable and unaffordable.
      7.30 pm
      We still have no definitive answer to clarify the mystery of what the minimum acceptable room size will be. Similarly, we do not have a time scale for compliance in existing properties. We are still in a mess. I do not pretend that the new clause will solve all the problems. Clearly this is a matter of process rather than one of legislation. However, I believe that the new clause would lead to cleaner, better, more informed and more transparent processes for arriving at national minimum standards. It would ensure that the Minister had all the relevant information. To put it bluntly, he would be able to see the size of the bomb crater that he would create in

      925
      his own backyard before he published the draft standard. There would then never be a danger of disrupting a market by allowing rumour and speculation to get a hold.
      Critically, the new clause will provide for proper parliamentary scrutiny of these most important parts of the regulatory system. I suspect that my hon. Friends will agree strongly with me that it is outrageous that a key element of the Bill, which could destroy people's businesses and livelihoods, should lie outside and beyond the scrutiny of Parliament.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance. Perhaps he will be able to tell us when he will make a definitive announcement, and what the time scale will be for compliance with the definitive room size that he determines. Of course, he will tell us that he is still in the process of consultation, and we have no objection to that. Indeed, it is valuable. However, we know that the Department can act when it has to. It managed to consult 12 million people in its so-called national health service survey in a fortnight. Apparently, it cannot talk to those responsible for about 17,000 care homes in much less than a year so as to get them on board and understand their responses to the consultation process. Meanwhile, individual owners of care homes and residents—those who live in fear of what will happen to their homes, many of them having gone into them expecting to live out the remainder of their lives there—are suffering from blight. Repairs are not getting done, and extension plans are being put on hold. The system has degenerated into chaos.
      It is easy, tempting and convenient for government to express national minimum standards for care homes in terms of what is easily measurable—for example, the size of a room, the number of staff, the number of choices on a menu and the number of square metres available per resident in the day room. I have serious doubts about that, which I know are shared by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. Are we measuring what matters or what is easily measurable? What matters to those who are being cared for is the quality of care being delivered. The danger of introducing prescriptive national minimum standards is the elimination of choice and diversity.
      It seems self-evident that if there is a given income—usually provided by a local authority—for housing a resident, it can be spent in several ways. For example, a larger bedroom may be provided, but there may be smaller areas of communal accommodation. Smaller rooms might be provided for both purposes, but there may be a vastly superior menu. There might be smaller rooms but a much higher staffing ratio, or much better qualified staff. There should be choices because different residents will have different needs. Someone who has limited ambulatory capability—in other words, someone who cannot walk about—will not have much use for elaborate day-room facilities. Someone who is active and sprightly may have little need for a large bedroom. It seems self-evident that there should be no one set of prescriptions to govern all the accommodation in the marketplace. That would have the effect of eliminating choice still further.
      The new clause would improve on clause 23. It would ensure that future proposals for new national minimum standards were better informed. It should help to avoid shambles such as those created by the circulation of "Fit for the Future?" Crucially, it would allow for proper
      926
      parliamentary scrutiny of these vital national minimum standards, which have a huge impact on individuals and on the public policy agenda.
      Mr. Hutton: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is setting out his case clearly. Will he confirm what I think I heard him say? Is he saying that there should not be a national room-size standard for residential or nursing care homes?
      Mr. Hammond: I questioned whether there should be rigid criteria which reduce choice and—[Interruption.] The record will show what I said. I shall clarify what is in my mind and what concerns me. The Minister knows of my concerns because he has heard me express them before. I believe that different people have different needs and different wants. We are talking about people, not statistics. There needs to be enough flexibility in the system to cater for people's diverse needs and wants.
      In an ideal system, we could have 12 sq m rooms for everybody, and payments high enough to allow care homes to provide additional services. However, if resources are constrained so that we are forced into choices, surely it is better not to lay down certain criteria and state that they will apply to all care homes, but to lay down some variable geometry. That might be sensible. Some care homes might provide better bedroom accommodation and fewer communal facilities. Others might provide better communal facilities and less bedroom space. One category of home will appeal to one category of resident and another type will appeal to a different category.
      Mr. Hutton: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the need for discretion in terms of a possible national minimum room-size standard. I shall take up his argument when I respond. However, does he think that there should be a national minimum room-size standard, perhaps subject to discretion?
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister knows very well that minimum standards are required by local authorities, and that they vary from area to area. I can see advantages in having national minimum standards—but we must regard them as the minimum. As I said in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), if we introduce minimum standards we run the danger of their becoming the normal standards.
      If we introduce minimum standards at a level low enough to allow, within the resource envelope available, some discretion to provide above-minimum standards in other areas, we must always avoid the minimum standard becoming the norm. Some sort of variable geometry, which recognises the reality of a trade-off and takes into account the fact that different residents will have different needs and wants, is the way forward.
      Mr. Burstow: I wish to clarify the hon. Gentleman's exposition. He is saying that there is a clear link between quality and costs, and that standards may need to be lower to accommodate the current financial envelope. Which is his preference? Is he saying that we should increase resources to enable a higher standard to be achieved, or that we should lower the standard?
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman misquotes me. I was saying that if we want room for discretion—and if

      927
      we want diversity there must be room for discretion—the minimum standards will have to be set at a level which leaves some resource in the hands of the provider, so that he can add to that minimum provision in one area or another. If the minimum standard in each area where a minimum standard is set—room size, staffing ratio, meals—is at a level which, together, consumes all the resource available to the provider, there is no possibility of diversity and variation between providers, and the consequence of that is no choice for those entering residential care.
      Amendment No. 38 seeks to leave out from the powers to make regulations a reference to imposing
      requirements as to the financial position of an establishment or agency.
      The Bill seeks to level the playing field between public and private sector providers. It is unlikely that anyone will lay down requirements as to the financial position of a county council or unitary authority before it is allowed to operate or register a care home. Therefore, the provision allowing the Minister to set regulations regarding requirements as to financial position can only be taken to be addressed to private sector providers, and to open up again a distinction between private and public sector providers, which the Government have sought to close.
      I am not sure what the criteria will be. The Minister knows that a considerable number of care and nursing homes operate in receivership. That, I am afraid, is the nature of the pressures in the marketplace. The Minister assured me in a letter that the provision that we seek to omit, which concerns requirements as to financial position, would not be used to disallow the registration of an operator merely because it was operating in receivership.
      One's financial position cannot get much worse than operating in receivership, so I am not sure quite what the Minister has in mind. However, the provision will act as a barrier to entry. It will stifle new entrants to the sector if they are required to show a financial robustness which, typically, start-up businesses may not have. That would be a massive own goal for the Minister because competition among providers is essential to him in ensuring good quality and sensibly priced provision.
      We also run up against the problem of who will make decisions about adequacy of financial position. By and large, the people doing the inspecting, registering and regulating will be people who know about the care and accommodation of frail elderly people, not accountants, and that is a major problem.
      Amendment No. 39 will not get the attention that it deserves, but it is important, as it would enable the Minister to make regulations to
      make provision in the case of an establishment providing cosmetic surgery
      to control
      the nature of statements that may be made with regard to the services provided; and…the titles that may be used to describe persons carrying on, managing or employed at such an establishment.
      The first problem arises because there are many well-documented examples of misleading claims being made for cosmetic surgery and premises providing cosmetic surgery. The second provision is there because there is hard evidence that in some cases, people have been seen by, and indeed treated by, people who describe themselves as consultants, but who are sales consultants,
      928
      not medical consultants. Whether or not the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment, he will share the worry about the fact that that is going on. Those are areas of concern, and the amendment is simply intended to highlight them.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Burns: I add my support to the important new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). However, I warn my hon. Friend that I have a grave reservation about part of it.
      As my hon. Friend said, minimum standards are a fundamental part of the Bill and of its impact not only on care home owners in the private sector but on local authorities that still own and control residential homes.
      As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend, there is grave concern among many local authorities, not least Essex county council, about the bills that they will have to pay to upgrade their homes to a decent standard. For a variety of reasons, over the years some authorities have fallen behind in renovations and improvements, to the point where the cost of complying with any minimum standard issued by the Department of Health would be excessively high—and that is before we even come on to the issue of the quality of care. The quality of care could be, and in many cases will be, infinitely better than the quality of the buildings in which people may live.
      Therefore, I am concerned about who will finance local authorities' need to improve their homes. As I have said, Essex county council has a real problem. It already spends significantly above its standard spending assessment on social services. As the Minister will know, there is no relaxation or abatement in the demands that are being put on social service budgets by the needs of the populations that they and local authorities have to meet. To have to find on top of that a significant amount of money to enhance their residential homes stock will be an onerous burden.
      Has the Minister made any provision for helping local authorities through central Government grants to take that into account? Many hon. Members whose local authorities are concerned about that would be grateful if the Minister could deal with it when he replies.
      Mr. Bercow: Given the financial constraints that local authorities face, does my hon. Friend agree that those authorities would welcome from the Minister tonight a clear idea of the timetable within which they will be expected to achieve the minimum standards that he favours? Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is incumbent on the House in taking forward the Bill properly to distinguish between desirable standards and those that are essential to human safety?
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising two crucial points. I hope that the Minister listened carefully to my hon. Friend's point about the timetable that the Government expect local authorities to use to bring the physical structure of their residential homes up to the standards required. With regard to the quality of care, there is probably no problem in the vast majority of residential homes.
      My hon. Friend's second point is critical. It would be desperately perverse if residential homes were penalised because they were way above the minimum standard.

      929
      By definition, the service that they provided would be too good according to the criteria of the bureaucracy entailed in establishing any minimum standard. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. It would be terrible if care home owners were penalised because they had enhanced and improved, or were seeking to enhance and improve, the quality of their service way above the minimum standard
      Mrs. Lait: I agree with my hon. Friend, but does he agree that the unintended effect of minimum standards could well be that local authorities get out of residential provision entirely, and such provision then becomes a private sector monopoly?
      Mr. Burns: That is a logical conclusion to draw from the situation facing several local authorities. Particularly in the case of Essex, unless the Government are exceptionally generous in providing ring-fenced additional money to help authorities deal with their residential home stock, local authorities will have to sell those homes into the private sector. If they do not, the homes will not reach the minimum standards that the Government plan to establish. Presumably, they would then have to be closed down, and that would be intolerable.
      I do not entirely agree with the conclusion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that it would necessarily be a bad thing for local authority owned residential homes to move into the private sector. There is a great deal to be said for that, particularly in view of the problems that the public sector has faced for many years because the financial resources have not been made available to it by central Government to allow it to keep pace with the standards and quality of private homes.
      Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Burns: Briefly.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way, I appeal to him to face the Chair.
      Mr. Swayne: Given my hon. Friend's inference that the provision is a potentially welcome privatisation measure, those on the Treasury Bench no doubt welcome the fact that there is not a single Labour Back Bencher present to hear the real consequences of the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need to worry about who is not in the Chamber. We are in the Chamber. That is the important thing.
      Mr. Burns: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge about minimum standards. When Governments start laying down minimum standards, there is a danger that an attitude of mind develops, and that what began as a minimum becomes set in stone. The troubles multiply as people try to enforce the minimum standards. If they have got it wrong in any way, tremendous problems can result for the care home owners providing residential care and nursing care to our citizens.
      930
      Similarly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there is considerable uncertainty about what the standards will be and how much parliamentary scrutiny the process of establishing them will receive. I assume that the Government intend the standards to be a movable feast as changes are needed in the light of experience and developments in the provision of residential care and nursing care for members of the community.
      There is one aspect of my hon. Friend's new clause about which I have serious concerns. I do not criticise my hon. Friend lightly, because he does not deserve criticism, but part of his new clause suffers from what may tactfully be described as careless or ambiguous drafting. I refer to subsection (4)(b)(ii).
      Under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall
      consult such persons as he considers appropriate
      and
      request the Commission to give him advice as to the likely impact of the proposed statement or the proposed amendment
      on, according to subsection (4)(b)(ii),
      the cost of supplying such services in accordance with the statement of minimum standards.
      As I suggested to my hon. Friend in an intervention, the reference to the cost of supplying services could mean one of two things, or possibly both. It could mean the cost to the supplier of the service—the owner of the care home—or it could mean the cost to the person using the service.
      Mr. Hammond: I do not want to engage my hon. Friend in a detailed grammatical debate, but I feel obliged to defend myself. It seems to me that the cost of supplying a service can be incurred only by the supplier. The cost of purchasing a service will be incurred by the purchaser.
      Mr. Burns: I thank my hon. Friend. His knowledge of the construction of the English language is probably superior to mine. I do not want to continue to argue with him, and I accept his clarification, but that has implications for the person to whom the service is supplied. There should be a sub-paragraph (iii) referring to the cost to the user of the service supplied in accordance with the minimum standards.
      I have good reason for considering that to be important. The sheer horror of the situation will become apparent only next Tuesday. I expect that the Minister saw or had drawn to his attention the main story on the Channel 4 news last night. I do not know how many of my hon. Friends saw it. The subject, which has a serious impact on many hundreds of thousands of elderly people and their families, was the leak of what the comprehensive spending review to be published next Tuesday will say about long-term care, its cost and how that will be met.
      As the Minister will remember, although he was not at the Department of Health at the time, the former Secretary of State, when announcing the royal commission, said that it must complete its work swiftly. The original timetable set was 12 months from its inception in the summer of 1997. Because of the sense of urgency and the rhetoric, we expected the Secretary of State to consider the recommendations and make an announcement to the country fairly swiftly.
      The 12-month period would have ended in July or August 1998. It is now July 2000 and we have not heard a single word from the Department of Health about how

      931
      it is to move forward. I understand from the Channel 4 report last night—this will have a direct bearing on new sub-paragraph (iii), which I urge my hon. Friend to include in new clause 4—that the state is to pick up the bill for nursing care in nursing homes. The Government would be absolutely right to make such a decision. The difference between what the health service should provide and what the individual should pay for has become increasingly blurred as the National Assistance Act 1948 has become more and more irrelevant to society's changing needs over the past 52 years. If that is what the Government intend to do, it is a step in the right direction.
      8 pm
      Mr. Collins: The powerful case that my hon. Friend is developing seems to be an argument in favour of new clause 4. The Minister may be reluctant to accept subsection (4)(b)(ii) because the only advice that the Secretary of State will wish to take will be that of the Chancellor, who will tell him what he can and cannot spend. The Secretary of State has no interest in independent, possibly awkward, advice.
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point in his correct analysis of the thinking in the Department of Health. He identifies the straitjacket within which Health Ministers must operate. They have received different moneys from the Chancellor for hospital and medical care, and I imagine that the Chancellor thinks that enough is enough.
      As Channel 4 said last night, pensioners will now be hit with a double whammy—the miserly 75p a week increase in pensions this April and the announcement—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters are worth mentioning given that some people live on fixed incomes or are in long-term care, but the hon. Gentleman must not make a meal of them.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In conclusion on that point, then, I feel that the new clause should include a subsection (4)(b)(iii). The Government will apparently announce on Tuesday that they will not fund long-term care. They may raise the £16,000 threshold, but will still expect families to sell their homes to pay for long-term care. That takes us to the need for an analysis by the commission or by those whom the Secretary of State consults of the costs of the minimum standards to the users of the services. Those costs must include the costs to families or individuals for living in a residential or nursing home.
      We shall not know until Tuesday whether Channel 4 was accurate, but if it was, there is even more need for a change to new clause 4. It is, of course, too late to amend the new clause tonight. I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge if he wishes to pursue his new clause, but, without being unduly unfair to him, repeat that it is a pity that my additional proposal is not in the new clause.
      Mr. Burstow: I support the new clause, which provides a basis for exploring the Government's attitude towards national minimum standards and the process by which we have reached our present point. The Bill is primarily a vehicle for a series of regulation-making powers, giving
      932
      the Minister powers to redefine and rewrite large chunks of the Bill. It also gives the power to introduce minimum standards in a range of differing care settings, and we must be clear what the role of the House will be, not only in passing the Bill, but for the future when standards are introduced.
      The Standing Committee explored in some detail an issue that we must revisit—the need for a clear and transparent process that gives the House and the other place an opportunity to debate both the statutory instruments that give effect to national minimum standards and those standards themselves. As we know from "Fit for the Future?", the standards will contain an awful lot of detail, and many devils lie in the details, which has raised much concern outside the House.
      The debate about national minimum standards is at least in part motivated by understandable anxieties among care home owners, and all Members will have had representations from them. It is important to record, however, that minimum standards exist for the safety and security of the consumers of the service, and act as a guarantee for them. That should be our starting point in constructing any minimum standards. I entirely accept that legitimate concerns exist about minimum room size, staffing ratios and so on. We must address those questions, but other standards—identified in "Fit for the Future?"—are welcome and should be implemented at the earliest opportunity.
      The debate about minimum standards will of necessity be better informed if we consider what has happened to date rather than talking only in the abstract about future domiciliary care, day care or any other type of care. It is crucial to bear in mind that a key element underlying minimum standards must be the principle of maintaining the independence and dignity of people in care. We must consider how to provide choice and how to ensure as much control as possible for the individual. "Fit for the Future?" covers such issues as social activities and other measures of quality that ought to be covered by minimum standards. I do not see room size as an adequate proxy for quality.
      That said, we must recognise that standards change over time and cannot be absolute. My generation may expect something different in a care home from what a future generation will expect. Perhaps there are differences in what those living in care homes expect. Those differences should be borne in mind. Equally, on choice, someone living in a care home may have chosen a particular location because it is a listed building with unique features. That may be the very reason why that person has chosen that home, and we should not lose sight of that fact as we implement standards. It would be wrong to drive out of business a home in which people are receiving the quality of care and life that they want just for the sake of complying with a minimum room size standard.
      The regulatory impact assessment attached to "Fit for the Future?" said that 7,000 additional nurses would be required to give effect to the national minimum standards. We know all too well from questions and debates that the Government are struggling to recruit and train enough nurses to fill the 17,000 vacancies in the national health service. To suggest that we can find another 7,000 beggars belief. As we consider "Fit for the Future?" and the emerging national minimum standards, we should be given clear timetables showing when consultation will end

      933
      and when ministerial deliberations will be concluded. That would provide the maximum possible clarity on the minimum standards, which the industry—home care, day care or care homes—wants.
      Mr. Bercow: I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, but may I focus his attention on Government amendment No. 61? Given that clause 22, which will be amended under that amendment, contains no fewer than 10 subsection and 34 paragraphs, what precisely is the merit of, or the need for, Government amendment No. 61?
      Mr. Burstow: That is an interesting point. When the Minister responds, we may discover that the Government are attempting to respond constructively to concerns that were expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may have to wait to listen to the Minister's gracious comments on those matters.
      In Committee, several hon. Members expressed concerns about the impact that standards would have on the supply of places in care homes, but the availability of domiciliary care is also important. The Government need to accept that there is a crisis of confidence in the care homes sector. How many homes are closing in any given week may be a matter of dispute, but I have heard that one a week, possibly more, are closing. They may be closing for the perfectly legitimate reason that they do not provide a good standard of care. Such homes should be closed, but many others are closing because they cannot provide a decent rate of return on the investment that they have made in their businesses.
      Fees have not kept pace with costs. That key problem predates the Bill and national minimum standards, but the uncertainty about those standards has added fuel to it. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has said, local authorities are under financial pressure on the provision of social care and the increasing demands that are placed on them. As a result, they must be ruthless in exercising their role in purchasing care places. They are undoubtedly holding down fees as much as they can. There have been some increases, but they have not been adequate in many cases.
      The link between quality and the cost of meeting the standards is not straightforward. The equation is more complicated than that, but there is a link. If the standards are driven up—I would entirely applaud and support that—it must be recognised that, at some point, that will have a bearing on the fees that need to be charged and the incomes that need to be provided. We shall expect care assistants and others involved in domiciliary care and care homes to receive more training to meet the new national minimum standards and to ensure that adequate numbers of staff are registered with the commission.
      All too often, better trained staff look for better paid jobs. Care assistants in care homes are not paid decent salaries. They can get better pay stocking the shelves at the local supermarket. If we do not recognise that problem, we shall store up problems for ourselves. There will be a flight from the sector as a result of improving the qualifications of its staff because they can get better jobs in other aspects of social care, where their skills are more fairly rewarded.
      934
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford, who is no longer in his place, rightly expressed concern about the link between improvements in standards and the potential increase in costs to the consumers—those who live in care homes. He linked that to reports of yet other leak about what the Government have in mind for long-term care and the relative distribution of the consequent costs between the state and the individual. We shall have to wait for the White Paper, rather than the comprehensive spending review, to find out whether the leak is true.
      If "Channel 4 News" is to be believed, I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will give further thought to what the Prime Minister said before the general election. He said that he did not want to live in a country where old people had to sell their homes to pay for their care. The many hundreds of thousands of people who thought that the Government would take serious action on that feel betrayed and let down by the Government in that respect.
      8.15 pm
      We shall have to wait until next week to find out whether the comprehensive spending review will provide a true idea of exactly what sums will be allocated to such matters. Time will tell, but I fear that we might have to wait until the White Paper is published, I hope, at the end of the month.
      If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge decides to press the motion to a Division, we shall support him. New clause 4 proposes an entirely right and proper structure in which the Government should discharge their responsibility to produce minimum standards. The House should have a clear role in scrutinising those standards. Its role should involve much more than approving a statutory instrument under the negative procedure. The affirmative procedure should be used, so that we can consider not only the regulations, but the details behind them. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
      Mr. David Amess: I do not want to fall out with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on his skilful drafting of new clause 4. I found his arguments entirely convincing and hope that the Minister will accept new clause 4.
      The Minister will know from our deliberations in Committee, that I feel very strongly about such matters. There are a huge number of residential and nursing homes in Southend. That should be no surprise because it is well known that Southend is the finest seaside resort in the country and elderly people are flocking to the town because the movement of the Thames estuary is extremely good for people's breathing. That is why our residential and nursing homes are so popular, especially those in Southend, West. I regularly visit those homes and I am in constant contact with the people there.
      The Minister takes a different view, but of course Conservative Members support national minimum standards. That is well understood, but he is saying "Trust the Government." I, for one, do not trust the Government. I am very concerned about those standards. As the Minister knows only too well, this is not about the curtains, the en suite facilities or similar matters, but about the love and care that many elderly people in those homes

      935
      are given by the home owners. I baulk at using the expression "running their business", but it is not good enough for the Government to expect the owners of those homes to do whatever the Government want without proper and due consultation.
      I take my hat off to the Minister; he was kind enough to invite the Committee to 79 Whitehall to look at the different rules and regulations on which he was consulting. However, I ask him to consider new clause 4 carefully because it would be a tremendous fillip to all our residential home owners if it were accepted. He knows only too well that the Independent Healthcare Association, Leonard Cheshire, the National Care Homes Association, Help the Aged, William Laing and others have all been somewhat concerned about the overall tenor of the minimum standards.
      Perhaps the Minister will tell us that he has managed to placate those concerns in the past few days, but the magazine, "Caring Times" carried out a survey to discover the effects of "Fit for the Future?". That survey should be of concern to the Minister because more than 50 per cent. of respondents said that they could be obliged to close due to bankruptcy.
      We all know from our constituencies that the national health service is in crisis. My goodness, I experienced that myself at St. Thomas's accident and emergency unit in the wee hours of the morning on Monday, learning at first hand how the NHS is in great difficulty. Many of our constituencies are experiencing bed blocking. We have 56 people in hospital at the moment—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are wide of the new clause; he may want to return to discussing it.
      Mr. Amess: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      A residential home proprietor in the north-east said of minimum standards:
      Basically, this is another idea developed by those who do not know and never ask.
      A nursing home proprietor in Scotland said:
      We are negotiating a loan to improve our facilities and have been experiencing difficulties with lenders directly due to the possible implication of these proposals. We are now having to alter plans and hope this will satisfy lenders. This will increase our loan and without an adequate increase in fees, budgets will be very tight. These are onerous standards, financially wasteful and will threaten small establishments.
      That is why we need the Minister's reassurance that there will be due and proper consultation. For that reason, I am an enthusiast for new clause 4. The Scottish proprietor continued:
      The larger homes can easily absorb costs. Is this the future—the large pies controlling the care sector?
      That is another concern.
      I do not want to cause controversy in Southend, West, but when I go round residential nursing homes and see chintzy curtains and plush facilities, I am not taken in for a minute. I am concerned about the quality of care. I have first-hand experience because next door to me is an excellent residential nursing home called Cherry Croft, and I pay tribute to the loving care and nursing that it gives to many of my constituents. However, I also have first-hand experience of another nursing home outside the area that I represent, although I shall not go public on that
      936
      as I am trying to deal with the matter tactfully at the moment. One would think that the home is the cat's whiskers, but I happen to know that the care and attention that it provides are somewhat disappointing to say the least and there have been unfortunate outcomes.
      Recently, I had the privilege of visiting a small home with only eight beds in my constituency. It is struggling, and it told its Member of Parliament that it is struggling because it is concerned about minimum standards. It is looking for certainty, as it wants to plan for the long term. The people there love their residents, but they think that, unless there is the certainty that new clause 4 would provide, the home may have to close, adding to the 50 per cent. of homes that believe that they will have to close.
      A residential home owner in the midlands said:
      We've just spent a fortune upgrading to existing standards. If new standards are introduced, we would have to close. Residents would lose their homes, staff would lose their jobs and we would be devastated.
      That is happening right this minute in the midlands. Linda Nazarko, the director of the Registered Nursing Homes Association, said:
      Standards must be meaningful, and concentrate on quality, not merely on physical standards… The RNH is 100 per cent. committed to quality care but have been saying for some time that it is unjustifiable to raise physical standards any further in a climate of decreasing resources.
      That is a different argument, but we should not completely reject the points that she has made.
      A residential home proprietor in the south-west said:
      We comply with all the current regulations. I have difficulty comprehending how an increase in bedroom size can have that great an effect on the care and wellbeing of our residents. The vast majority spend no waking time in them whatsoever. We employ more care staff per week than the basic requirement, our staff are comprehensively trained and care is of the highest standard. These standards would bankrupt us. Eighteen residents would be homeless. Twenty-four staff, many of them breadwinners, would be unemployed.
      Another residential home proprietor in the south-west said:
      In our experience, most of our residents have used the bedroom only for sleeping in at night and a few for a nap after lunch.
      Recently, I attended a reception at which home owners gathered to debate the national minimum standards and I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that I found them overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the proposals in new clause 4.
      I have received a letter from the Norfolk Residential Care Homes Association, which is very concerned about minimum standards. It says:
      We are seeing Home closures in Norfolk which result in residents being transferred up to 20 miles away
      and that is
      a problem for relatives and friends for…maintaining contact
      with their loved ones. I have also been contacted by the Brighton and Hove National Care Homes Association. It, too, is very concerned and I am advised that 17 of every 20 care homes for old people in Brighton and Hove—85 per cent.—will close as a result of the minimum standards. The councillor dealing with this matter said that the Conservatives were scaremongering and that the closure rate would be only 30 per cent. That is no comfort to the good people of Brighton and Hove.

      937
      I ask the Minister to consider carefully the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I support minimum standards—they are desperately important to the living standards and living conditions of elderly people—but where is the measure for the love, care and devotion that many home owners give to residents? An overwhelming number of residents have no relatives and might have lived in a home for 10, 15 or 20 years. They may not have en suite bedrooms or rooms that meet the standard that the Minister has in mind, but none of that is important to them. They do not regard home owners as wicked capitalists. In fact, morning, noon and night, they put their hands in their pockets to make sure that standards for residents are decent and they also celebrate residents' birthdays and provide all sorts of entertainment. None of that is recognised in the minimum standards.
      I know that the Minister has the best intentions, as he showed in Committee, but we need to be convinced that the minimum standards are in the best interests of residents. I hope that he will reconsider new clause 4.
      8.30 pm
      Dr. Brand: I am sure that the motives behind "Fit for the Future?" were right, but it has caused great concern, mainly because it does not necessarily address the issue of fit for the purpose. I have been struck by the complaints. Small care home owners are concerned about rigidity—the bricks, mortar and buildings—and are relaxed about the excellent quality standards for care and staffing. Conversely, the larger providers—those quoted on the stock market which run large granny factories—were relaxed about the bricks and mortar, but extremely concerned about meeting the staffing levels and qualifications. There is no doubt that care is more to do with staff than with buildings.
      It is right that the Government should set minimum standards for staffing and training, which are vital. We should commend the Minister for his efforts in that area. However, minimum structural standards for care homes could be best addressed through ministerial guidelines to the commissioning agents. Different homes suit different people. That is not only because different personalities are happier in different settings, but because their physical, emotional and social needs may be different.
      It would be sad if a fixed ratio were imposed on the double occupancy of bedrooms, as opposed to single occupancy. Even in a place such as the Isle of Wight, there are cultural differences. In one part of the island, it is the norm to share. In other parts, everyone wants an en suite room and not to talk to anyone else. We must accept that that is part of giving residents choice.
      The issue of communal facilities has been mentioned. In nursing homes dealing mainly with post-operative conditions, people spend a great deal of time in their bedrooms. They do not want to go out, mix or sit in a dining room. They want to rest in peace and quiet and then go home. If that is the business that the establishment is in, it seems unreasonable that it should be required by regulations to have facilities that it does not use.
      In Committee, I supported the imposition of statutory standards by affirmative resolution, but these should be backed by ministerial guidelines which, in time, may
      938
      show where statutory standards may go in the fullness of time. That will help health authorities and local authorities in their commissioning role. There is a need for standards to rise even in places such as the Isle of Wight, where we have done well at the expense of some less effective and less successful home owners. One must accept that we are dealing with a part of the business sector, and that businesses should compete. With that goes grief from time to time.
      There is no doubt that what is happening to the sector is unreasonable. One of my slight criticisms of new clause 4, which is well drafted, is that it does not give a time scale for consultation. Consultation is vital. The Government consultation on "Fit for the Future?" was announced in October last year and it took until a week after Christmas before I could get copies to the people affected by it. It was difficult to get responses in within the deadline and, when people put in their responses, nothing happened. In the meantime, we have had a long period of uncertainty, which is having a detrimental effect on investment in raising standards and on those who were about to retire, but cannot at the moment.
      We have rehearsed the arguments and we have heard indications of comfort, but no real comfort from the Minister. I hope that he will go further than he did in Committee.
      Mr. Hutton: First, I wish to explain to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) why amendment. No. 61 has been tabled. The amendment will place an obligation on the Government to consult the people and bodies whom they think appropriate before making any regulations under clause 22 and before making any significant amendments to regulations made under clause 22. In tabling the amendment we are responding to concerns raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who raised the issue in Committee. I assured him then, and I confirm today, that it was always the Government's clear intention to consult on all the regulations made under this clause. However, I am happy to table this amendment to put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will be pleased to see that we have actually gone further than his amendment would have required, in that we have included a requirement to consult on any substantial changes to regulations that have already been made under this clause. I hope that that will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
      We have had a wide-ranging debate about some other issues, particularly new clause 4. This is a familiar theme to those Members who take an interest in national minimum required standards. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) spoke with his usual passion—if not accuracy—about the subject. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke with substantial knowledge, gained from his time as a Health Minister. I thought that his contribution was important and useful.
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford explained the difficulties that he had experienced in his own county, Essex. It is my own county, too; I lived there for many years.
      Mr. Keith Simpson: An Essex boy!
      Mr. Hutton: Indeed.
      Mr. Stephen Day: That explains a lot.
      Mr. Hutton: It might explain a few things, but I do not think that we should go there today.
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford was explaining some of the problems that small care home owners in Essex were experiencing primarily with the room size standard. He will be aware that the problem in Essex perfectly illustrates the need for the changes in the Bill and the new laws that we are proposing. Essex county council has had a 10 sq m standard since 1991, and the council gave care home owners 10 years to comply with the standard. The hon. Member for Southend, West was moaning about the standard, but it was introduced nearly 10 years ago in his constituency and that of his hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford. To be fair to both hon. Members, I must say that I have no information about the extent to which the standard has been implemented by the county council and, in particular, the social services department. It may be possible for us to correspond about that.
      The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the fact that the county council had never applied the standard to its own homes. In the Bill, we are creating a level playing field between the public and private sectors. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would at least welcome that advance.
      Mr. Burns: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hutton: I will in a minute. Conservative Members have taken nearly an hour and three quarters; I have spoken for four minutes.
      An important point has been made today—all who have spoken made it effectively. We have tried to make it too; certainly, I made it repeatedly in response to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in Committee. We absolutely must get the emphasis right. The quality of care must be measured accurately, and that cannot always be done with a tape measure.
      Not all hon. Members—although, to be fair, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) probably came closest to it—have sufficiently stressed the importance of room sizes as a measurement of quality. We should ask ourselves whether, if we were going into a care home, we would want to be in a small room, or in a reasonably sized room. The hon. Member for Southend, West said that some care home owners were saying, "These people do not spend much time in their bedrooms." We should bear in mind, however, that in a typical residential or nursing home the bedroom is probably the only private space for residents.
      The care home owner may believe that a resident is not spending much time in the bedroom. That is an observation. It must be recognised, however, that for many people the size of the room is an important issue. I am certain that, whatever hon. Members on either side of the House may say, it would be important for us if the time arrived for us to be in care homes.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister asks whether any of us would want to be in a small room. Viewing the question
      940
      in isolation, everyone would probably prefer the idea of a larger room; but we cannot consider such questions in isolation. If limited resources are available, choices must be made. That, I think, is the point that some of my hon. Friends have been trying to make.
      Mr. Hutton: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is right. The whole process of government and decision making in this place is about making choices. I will not pretend that we do not have difficult choices to make in setting national minimum required statements; of course we do. It would be naive to imagine that we could sail through it without having to make difficult judgments. What planet does the hon. Gentleman live on?
      Of course these are difficult issues. That is why the process is taking time—that is a matter of record; it is taking time to make the right decisions, but we are determined to get them right.
      Mr. Bercow: A couple of minutes ago, the Minister referred to room sizes, in the plural. In the light of his earlier challenge to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), will he confirm that he is irrevocably committed to a single national minimum room size?
      Mr. Hutton: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 12 months or so, but he has obviously not been following this debate.
      Mr. Bercow: I have.
      Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman may have been following it closely, but if he has I am surprised that he should ask such a question.
      Mr. Bercow: I have a family interest.
      Mr. Hutton: I am pleased to learn that.
      We have always made it clear that we want to establish proper national minimum requirement standards, and those standards will include room sizes. My grammar may be wrong. I have been picked up on that a few times before in this place and I am sorry if I confused the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously punctilious in his use of grammar. If it is easier for him to come to terms with "room size", that is what I am talking about.
      If the hon. Gentleman is as familiar with "Fit for the Future?" as he says, he will know that we are talking about the separate room-size requirement in relation to nursing homes, as opposed to residential care homes. We have postulated the possibility of a different room size for residents who are permanently in wheelchairs, for instance. I am afraid that the suggestion that we ever discussed just one figure makes me less convinced than I otherwise would have been that the hon. Gentleman was paying as close attention as he would have us believe.
      8.45 pm
      Let me now deal with amendment No. 39. We consider it important for prospective patients to receive clear and accurate information about the treatment and services that are proposed. The Bill already contains scope for that in clause 22. The power that we already have, enabling

      941
      regulations and standards to be produced in relation to patients information requirements, is more flexible than the power in the amendment.
      The Government's response to the fifth report of the Select Committee on Health on the regulation on independent health care, produced in 1999, was that the powers in the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 were sufficient to control advertising. That, of course, is a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority and the trading standards departments of local authorities.
      The amendment also deals with the question of the medical titles that people might use in cosmetic surgery clinics. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will know—he conducts his research carefully—section 49 of the Medical Act 1983 already makes it an offence for any person to pretend to be, or use the title of, a physician, Doctor of Medicine, surgeon, general practitioner or Licentiate of Medicine—I must say that in my travels across the country I have never come across anyone who has described himself as that. I think we have the right balance: there is already enough legislation to prevent such problems, and section 49 of the 1983 Act triggers liability for criminal sanctions.
      Amendment No. 38 concerns the financial position of establishments and agencies. I cannot accept the amendment, which would remove a key power to ensure the protection of vulnerable people who depend on regulated care services. The purpose of this express power is simply to ensure that the establishment or agency is and remains financially viable. Would-be providers must be able to demonstrate that they have the means to run their businesses properly. Establishments or agencies providing care must be financially sound; otherwise, service users who depend on them will be put at risk.
      The hon. Member for Isle of Wight rightly said that the focus of all this work should be on the consumers—those who live in residential homes. That is what the provision is about. It will, I hope, prevent unreasonable and unnecessary movements between care homes.
      The principle was recognised in recent case law relating to fitness under the Registered Homes Act 1984, and therefore already forms part of the existing regulatory arrangements. In that case, the registration authority proposed to refuse registration on the ground of a lack of financial viability. The case was referred to the High Court for judicial review. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the care home owners challenged the decision. The court upheld the registration authority's view. The judgment confirmed that the consideration of the way in which it was intended to carry on the home must include the means available to provide the facilities and services.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke of intrusiveness, but I think that most sensible people will see the power as simply a demonstration of common sense. Of course we need the provision in the Bill, and I would not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to remove it.
      I accept that our proposals may require commercially sensitive information to be made available to the commission, and I fully appreciate some of the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, as I told him in Committee, such information will be confidential, and the commission will have to observe high standards of
      942
      security in respect of it. Not to allow the commission to be able to satisfy itself about these matters would make it harder, not easier, for it to do its job properly. That should be our yardstick.
      Mrs. Lait: Could the Minister clear up a point of confusion on a slightly different subject? Close care sheltered housing, quite rightly, will be regulated. However, on 14 June, in a debate on sheltered housing in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), said:
      The Care Standards Bill…will introduce the regulation and inspection of all types of home care provision, including that provided in sheltered accommodation.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 14 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 270WH.]
      Does that refer to all sheltered housing, or just close care sheltered housing?
      Mr. Hutton: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I should like to look at that reference myself and confirm—[Interruption.] She is waving it at me. I cannot actually read it from here, but I am sure that we will have a chat about it in the Lobby in a minute. We tabled amendments to the Bill to make it clear what type of care homes we wanted to regulate. We do not intend to extend the category of homes currently being inspected and regulated by inspection units. We have tabled amendments to put that beyond reasonable doubt.
      The difficulty is, as the hon. Lady will be aware—she has much experience in the matter—that none of those categories of sheltered housing is legally defined anywhere. Therefore, we have made clear in the Bill which care homes we think the new powers should relate to. We have tried to reassure care providers that the Bill will not widen or broaden the scope of registration. I hope that that clears up the point for the hon. Lady.
      There has been substantial discussion on new clause 4 and amendment No. 2. They have led to a long discussion tonight, and the same subject led to extensive discussions in Standing Committee. New clause 4 goes to the nub of the Bill—how we intend the new regulatory system to work in practice, and the impact that it may have on the viability of some the establishments and agencies to be regulated. When debating these matters it is important that we maintain our primary focus on the benefits of the Bill's changes for the people—children, young adults and older people—who use the services that we intend to regulate.
      Those people are at the heart of our regulatory reforms. It is important to know how vulnerable they are to shoddy, negligent and, in some cases, abusive care. We know that there are some operators who should not be in the business of providing care, whose performance damages the reputation of decent providers and has led to the destruction of public confidence in some areas. Our intention with the Bill is to establish a proper regulatory system that promotes good quality care services and supports those many providers—the vast majority, in fact—whom the public can rightly trust. Therefore, I want to argue against the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, both in substance and in practice. It should not be part of the Bill.
      The regulations will, as it were, form the bones on which the minimum standards will be the flesh. The current system works similarly, but the main difference is

      943
      that under the present arrangements there are no national standards; there are only local standards. We want a level playing field between different providers. The independent sector has been calling for national standards for a long time—a point that was never acknowledged by Opposition Members during the debate. That is what we intend to deliver, but consistency must be balanced with discretion.
      In Committee, much of the debate on standards centred on "Fit for the Future?", the draft standards for care homes for older people. Through consultation, we established that nine of the 11 topic areas were widely supported. Standards cover fundamental aspects of quality of care for residents. They introduce principles of dignity, privacy and choice, and demand that residents are treated with respect by properly trained, competent and trustworthy staff. Two controversial areas—room sizes and staffing—have provoked concerted opposition from some sectors of home owners, especially owners of smaller homes, and opposition from owners in certain parts of the country rather than others. The wide variation in standards is in itself an argument for more consistency nationally.
      Mr. Burns: On the question of national consistency and a level playing field, can the Minister answer the questions about how local authorities will be able to fund the upgrading of their residential homes?
      Mr. Hutton: I want to say something about resources in a minute. Labour Members still have to be persuaded that the hon. Gentleman and his friends are the right people to hand out any lectures about the level of public funding and public support for some of these important social services. His party, I understand, has something of a widening gap, or black hole, in its public sector finance policies after some of the recent announcements and U-turns by his right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Of course, the hon. Gentleman will be aware—again, because of his interest in the subject—that the Government are making record resources available to finance social services. The present comprehensive spending review provided nearly £3 billion-worth of additional expenditure during this period. There will be more to come. He will have to wait for those announcements, like everyone else, but the general financial situation is a positive one for local authorities and social services, with record resources going into those sectors.
      I was referring to two controversial areas that have caused legitimate concern. On staffing, I have already stated our intention to base trained nurse staffing levels on assessment of need rather than fixed ratios. That should be of considerable help to many small nursing home providers.
      On room sizes, it is important to state that 10 sq m is a reasonable norm, long established and widely observed. However, to balance consistency with discretion and to try to respond to some of the concerns that many hon. Members have expressed, I am considering criteria within which some flexibility can be exercised on that standard, to allow rooms smaller than 10 sq m to remain in use. I hope shortly to be in a position to provide the House, especially hon. Members who have an interest in the matter, with a fuller explanation of what the minimum
      944
      required standards will specify. However, let me make it clear that there is no intention to prevent good quality homes from continuing to operate. We want to preserve the stability of provision for residents.
      Turning to the specific provisions of the amendment, the commission will have access to important information about the state of the care sector and will be able to advise the Secretary of State accordingly, but I personally do not believe that it is the commission's role to advise on standards in terms of their effect generally, or on the costs of their implementation. I believe strongly that that responsibility rests squarely with the Government. That is ultimately where it should remain.
      The issue of consulting on standards was well aired in Committee. We have given clear undertakings to consult on standards and on regulations, and the latter will be laid clearly before Parliament. Draft standards will also be made available to hon. Members for consultation.
      In Standing Committee last week, I extended to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, an opportunity to participate in some of the consultations on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I am more than happy to extend such an invitation in relation to the national minimum required standards to all the right hon. and hon. Members who speak for their parties on social services issues.
      It is self-evident that no establishment or agency will be registered unless it complies with the standards, and of course the regulations; otherwise there is no point in having them. That is one other reason why the hon. Gentleman's amendment adds nothing of value or substance.
      I have tried to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the debate. I do not want to go into all the nooks and crannies of the hon. Gentleman's description of proceedings in Standing Committee, but I do not think that he gave a completely accurate description of the exchange that we had on those issues.
      The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to a letter that I had written him, which he said indicated that we were not going to include en suite bathrooms in the standard. There was not, and is not, any such letter. The letter dated 6 July that he mentioned referred to the door-sweep implications. I have in front of me a copy of the letter that I signed dated 6 July—I remember it clearly—and it does not refer to en suite bathrooms. My recollection is that we had an exchange on the subject in Committee. Although I do not remember the exact wording that we used, I certainly did not write to the hon. Gentleman as he has implied.
      This has been a full debate. I have tried to share with the House a very important piece of information—although I am not sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham was even paying attention when I told him that we were providing for discretion on the 10 sq m standard. Perhaps he acknowledged that discretion; certainly some other Opposition Members did. Nevertheless, I hope that that discretion will send a reassuring signal for decent, good quality care home providers—whom we have no intention whatever of hounding out of the business. We need them, and we rely on them. We also want to encourage them to invest in their businesses so that they can be successful.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend accept that what he has just said is

      945
      tremendously good news for providers of good-quality residential care who want to remain in business and give excellent care, particularly for older people but also for people with all types of disabilities and difficulties? Do those comments not show that the Government are listening and taking on board the views of people throughout the sector?
      9 pm
      Mr. Hutton: I am pretty well bound to agree with my hon. Friend on all those points, and I am glad that he feels that way.
      We are trying not only to respond to the concerns quite reasonably expressed by the industry, but to meet the legitimate needs of our constituents. It is important that their voices are heard and their interests considered in addressing all the issues. That is the balance that the Government are trying to strike, and I strongly urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this group of amendments, except Government amendment No. 61.
      Mr. Hammond: This has been a useful and wide-ranging debate. I am certainly glad that the Minister said that he himself had found it useful.
      When I said that I had received a letter from the Minister about door-sweeps and en suite bathrooms, I was working from memory. I do not have the letter with me, and I apologise to him if I misquoted it. However, I am rather more alarmed than I was if he has not ruled out the inclusion of en suite bathrooms, as that once again raises the prospect of home owners who have installed them having to rip them out to meet a future standard.
      Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this important point. We are certainly looking to find ways of incorporating en suite bathrooms in the room size standard that we intend to develop.
      Mr. Hammond: I take that to mean that the Minister has not written to me to say that he is excluding en suite bathrooms, but that that is what he plans to do.
      I was disappointed that the Minister could not accept our amendments Nos. 38 and 39. He read out a great list of titles that could not be used under the Medical Act 1983. However, I did not hear him read out the title "consultant", which is the one causing particular concern. On amendment No. 39, the Minister said that financial viability was an essential attribute for a care home or an establishment, but he did not explain how it would be possible for an establishment in receivership to meet that criterion.
      The debate has focused mainly on new clause 4—or rather, it has focused primarily on the standards that will be promulgated, rather than on the new clause itself. The Minister has told us that he is now investigating ways of offering us a flexible response that will allow homes with rooms smaller than 10 sq m to remain in operation. I am grateful to him for sharing that information with the House. He also said that he hoped to be able to give us more detail soon. We shall, of course, wait with bated breath.
      New clause 4 itself is about the methodology for preparing and approving the statements of minimum standards, rather than the detail of the standards
      946
      themselves. It is clear from this debate that our new clause 4 is an improvement on clause 23, which it would replace, and that it would allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of this very important sphere of legislation. I commend the new clause to my right. hon. and hon. Friends.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 299.

      Division No. 265]

      [9.3 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gorrie, Donald

      Allan, Richard

      Gray, James

      Amess, David

      Green, Damian

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Greenway, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Grieve, Dominic

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hammond, Philip

      Baker, Norman

      Hancock, Mike

      Baldry, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ballard, Jackie

      Hayes, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Heald, Oliver

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bercow, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Boswell, Tim

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brady, Graham

      Key, Robert

      Brake, Tom

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brazier, Julian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lidington, David

      Burnett, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Livsey, Richard

      Burstow, Paul

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Butterfill, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Loughton, Tim

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Clappison, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Malins, Humfrey

      Collins, Tim

      Maples, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Cran, James

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Moore, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Evans, Nigel

      Öpik, Lembit

      Faber, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Prior, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Randall, John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Rendel, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Robathan, Andrew

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Robertson, Laurence

      Gibb, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gill, Christopher

      Ruffley, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Sanders, Adrian

      947

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Richard

      Walter, Robert

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

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Webb, Steve

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Spring, Richard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Swayne, Desmond

      Wilkinson, John

      Syms, Robert

      Willetts, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wills, Phil

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Yeo, Tim

      Townend, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tredinnick, David

      Trend, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      Mr. Peter Luff.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coaker, Vernon

      Allen, Graham

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Colman, Tony

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Connarty, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Corbett, Robin

      Austin, John

      Corston, Jean

      Banks, Tony

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Cox, Tom

      Barron, Kevin

      Cranston, Ross

      Bayley, Hugh

      Crausby, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Berry, Roger

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Best, Harold

      Dalyell, Tam

      Betts, Clive

      Darvill, Keith

      Blackman, Liz

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davidson, Ian

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Borrow, David

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

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Denham, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Burden, Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dowd, Jim

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Edwards, Huw

      Cann, Jamie

      Efford, Clive

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ennis, Jeff

      Casale, Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Caton, Martin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Cawsey, Ian

      Flynn, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Foulkes, George

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      948

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Goggins, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Grocott, Bruce

      Martlew, Eric

      Gunnell, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Meale, Alan

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hanson, David

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Miller, Andrew

      Healey, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Heppell, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hesford, Stephen

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hill, Keith

      Morley, Elliot

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

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

      Hood, Jimmy

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hutton, John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Norris, Dan

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Olner, Bill

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pendry, Tom

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pike, Peter L

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pond, Chris

      Kemp, Fraser

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kidney, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rapson, Syd

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lammy, David

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Rogers, Allan

      Laxton, Bob

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Lepper, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Levitt, Tom

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roy, Frank

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ruane, Chris

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Salter, Martin

      Lock, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Love, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonnell, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McFall, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McIsaac, Shona

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      MacShane, Denis

      949

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Soley, Clive

      Tynan, Bill

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Spellar, John

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wareing, Robert N

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Watts, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      White, Brian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Woolas, Phil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wray, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wyatt, Derek

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 6

      NATIONAL ADOPTION REGISTER
      '(1) There shall be established and maintained by the Commission in accordance with this section a list (referred to in this Act as "the National Adoption Register") recording all those persons suitable and willing to undertake the adoption of children in England and Wales.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for persons to apply to be entered in the National Adoption Register.

      (3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provisions for criteria to be set by which applications pursuant to the regulations mentioned in (2) above shall be assessed by the Commission.

      (4) The regulations in subsection (3) shall provide that any person who a local authority had determined within the period of five years prior to this section coming into force to be fit and proper to undertake adoption of children in England and Wales shall be entered in the National Adoption Register.

      (5) The regulations mentioned in (2) shall make provision for a person applying to be listed in the National Adoption Register to appeal against any decision to refuse to so list him.'.[Mrs. Spelman.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We are most grateful that the new clause was included in the revised selection list. It provides us with an ideal opportunity to return to unfinished business that we began in Committee. Since then, important developments have taken place on adoption. The debate will allow us to contrast and compare the aims of our new clause and the Government's proposals. We could not engage in such a debate in Committee, although the Minister gave us heavy hints as to the imminent announcement of a national register.
      The new clause provides for an adoption register of parents qualified to adopt, to be held by the National Care Standards Commission, according to nationally established criteria set by the Secretary of State. The provisions on adoption and fostering in this wide-ranging Bill offer us an opportunity to help to amend the law on adoption.
      950
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House probably agree that some amendment of the law is necessary. At present, the adoption process is too slow. Families need more support both during the adoption process and in the longer term. Help is needed when an adopted child enters a family, but difficulties can arise much later. Children adopted at the age of five or six might still manifest problems as they enter the troubled teenage years. That period is difficult enough, but it is even harder for young people who have to cope with the disruption to their life of being adopted when they were younger.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is getting adopted in the first place? Children who need to be adopted are available only to potential adoptive parents in a particular county or region. Will the provision of a national adoption register under the new clause ensure matching, throughout England and Wales, of parents who want to adopt and children who are available for adoption?
      Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend exactly understands one of the main aims of the new clause. It would remove the lottery aspect of the process—in which the family wanting to adopt is constrained by the immediate geographical region and by the variation in eligibility criteria under different local authorities. The new clause would do away with that. At present, adoption is a postcode lottery.
      My hon. Friend touched on another important aim of the new clause. It would address the problem that 54,000 children languish in care—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady. The conversation below the Gangway should cease. We are holding a debate.
      Mrs. Spelman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We have a poor track record because so many children are in care—54,000. On average, it takes four years for a child to be adopted. It is obviously detrimental for children who have already been damaged by being parted from their birth family to languish in care. Often, they move between various foster parents before they find security and stability in an adoptive family.
      The new clause would impress on local authorities the urgent need to draw up plans for the children in their care. Contributing to the national register would increase opportunities for matching, which is restricted by geographical constraints on local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out, the creation of the national register would provide much better opportunities to obtain a good match.
      Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Lady accept that the views that she has expressed are accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House? In fact, the proposal for a national register for adoption was included in the adoption consultation paper, which was published last week. As legislation is not required to do what she wants to do, is the new clause necessary? Can we not just accept that the

      951
      whole House wants to do what is already in the consultation paper and therefore move on to the important clauses in the Bill?
      Mr. Forth: What a silly man.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mrs. Spelman: If consultation papers had such a powerful effect, many more of the Government's good intentions might have had some force in law. It is because we doubt that the Government have enough time to enact a provision that has power and effect that we have sought more urgently to use a Bill that is going through the House to implement the measures for a national register on which we all agree.
      There are subtle differences between the Government's proposals in the consultation document for changing the process for adoption and our proposals, even though our aims are the same. It is worth while promoting the new clause to explain those differences.
      We believe that the Government's proposal for how and where the register should be held suggests that there will be a lack of independence. The National Care Standards Commission is independent and an ideal body to hold such a national register. We are not satisfied that a register held by some local authorities, which simply draw together their data, is sufficiently independent—and independence will be important.
      In the Government's document on adoption, the Prime Minister suggested that a new taskforce should be set up and that it should be called the new adoption and permanency taskforce. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), how much power and force does a consultative document have? We have also grown sceptical about the power and force of taskforces; they are not always all that they are cracked up to be.
      We have a chance with this Bill to make progress and to proceed to implement the ideas that we have in common. I would describe our new clause as a bird in the hand, and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The new clause offers us an opportunity here and now to make the changes.
      Two other aspects of the new clause need to be assessed against the Prime Minister's proposals for adoption. Our subsection (4) would recognise that the parents who have already gone through the mill and qualified as adoptive parents on the existing criteria and within the past five years should not have to go through the whole rigmarole again. That is important. People with friends who have had to go through the adoption process know that it is traumatic. It is long drawn out and involves a series of personal and far-reaching interviews. I do not dispute the importance of the interviews, but everyone will agree that it would be hard on people if they had to go through that process all over again.
      Dr. Brand: I will be interested to know whether the commission's role under the new clause would purely be to hold a register. Would it also have a role in determining the quality of vetting that took place before prospective adopters could go on to the register?
      9.30 pm
      Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is helpful. He served on the Standing Committee, so he will recall that part of the Bill is devoted to the question of raising the status of social work and the General Social Care Council. As much of what he described as the vetting procedure will be carried out by qualified social care workers, the Bill will have the advantage of bringing about a rise in the status of that profession.
      The hon. Gentleman asked specifically how we envisaged the role of the commission. We envisage principally that it would hold the national register, which would draw together all the adoptive parents registered with local authorities throughout Britain. However, if the vetting procedure is to work and be fair for adoptive parents and children, the cornerstone would be the national criteria set by the Secretary of State. Together, those two elements would make the vetting procedure fairer than the present system. The procedure would be carried out by qualified social workers, which would improve the position.
      Another important difference between the proposal in our new clause and the consultative proposals in the adoption document concerns the appeals procedure. Proposed subsection (5) of the new clause would create a proper appeals procedure involving the independence of the commission. The Prime Minister's review of proposals to introduce an appeals mechanism for potential adopters is rather unclear about that. We feel strongly that the appeals procedure needs to involve an independent body. Page 5 of the Government document states:
      appeals mechanisms for potential adopters should be put in place in all Local Authorities.
      We are concerned about having an appeals procedure in a local authority, as potential adoptive parents who have been refused have to make an appeal to the body that refused them. The appeals procedure will be stronger and better if the appeal can be made to an independent body, which is in marked contrast to what is the consultative document.
      Mr. Dawson: I am sure that the hon. Lady accepts that adoption is first and foremost a service for children rather than for would-be adopters.
      Mrs. Spelman: I do not dispute that it is first and foremost for the children. However, quite a few parents feel that, at the moment, the system does not deal with them altogether fairly, especially when they compare the grounds on which they were rejected by their local authority with the grounds on which their friends may have been accepted in another local authority. That has fundamentally undermined the confidence of potential adopters in an appeals procedure which is limited in all local authorities. There is therefore an important distinction to be made between the Government's proposals and what we would like to achieve in the new clause. I am bound to say that I believe that our proposal is better and would have more support from adoptive parents.
      It is important to grasp the nettle, as the Bill creates the opportunity to do something about adoption law. There is no question but that the time is ripe for reform. It is no secret that the previous Government had a draft adoption Bill ready in the last parliamentary Session, but ran out

      953
      of time to introduce it. Even if the Government were to introduce legislation in the next parliamentary Session, that might not be a full Session so, to stop history repeating itself, we urge the Government to seize this legislative opportunity to introduce the national register which they said clearly in the consultative document they would like to accomplish.
      As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre says, most important are the children. Once displaced from their birth parents, rather like war children, what they most need is security and permanence; they do not need to be moved from pillar to post in the care system. A Department of Health local authority circular, reference No. LAC(98)20, states:
      Many local authorities achieve high standards in the provision of children's services… However, recent Social Services Inspectorate reports involving a number of local authorities demonstrate a lack of consistency and co-ordination in England in the overall quality of their adoption services.
      We believe that that reveals the need to hold the list at national level and to have nationally set criteria. The information revealed in the Department's own document should lead Health Ministers to draw the same conclusions that we have drawn.
      The poor rate of adoption from the care sector reflects the poor level of therapeutic help available to displaced children. By involving the NCSC in a fresh approach to national adoption law, the new clause would create the opportunity to tackle the lack of such care provided during the process, both before and after adoption is complete. There is no doubt that a child who comes into care has already experienced some damage for which therapeutic help is needed; as the child moves into a transitional state—perhaps a foster home—more help may be required; and, as the child enters the adoptive family, yet more help will be needed.
      However, there are other groups in the critical triangle who also need such help. Often, the complaint is made that the adopting family receives inadequate support once a child has been adopted. The extremely high failure rate—it is estimated that 20 per cent. of all adoptions break down—must be attributed in part to the lack of therapeutic help provided to the child and the adopting family.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point and I am sure she is right about the causes, but may I point out that 20 per cent. is not an especially high rate of adoption breakdown? The fact that 80 per cent. of adoptions succeed, often with no support of any sort being received and despite the fact that nearly all the children involved have experienced some sort of trauma, demonstrates what a successful institution adoption is.
      Mrs. Spelman: By referring to the 20 per cent. breakdown rate, I was not implying that adoption was anything but an excellent solution for many displaced children. However, I hope that the strategic role assigned to the NCSC by the new clause will ensure that the breakdown rate is even lower.
      One more piece of the jigsaw could usefully be addressed by the NCSC: providing help to the relinquishing family. They are rather left out of the equation, which leads to the
      954
      complex triangle between the child to be adopted, the adopting parents and the relinquishing family becoming unstable. Some adoption breakdowns are rooted in a poor process of relinquishment.
      Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Spelman: I know that the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about the subject, but I should like to make some progress before giving way again.
      There is no doubt that one of the advantages of having a national register would be improvement in the matching process. I carried out a little research into authorities local to me to find how practice can vary across the country. That is pertinent to the debate, because it is a problem that the new clause and the national register would address. I examined three local authorities which contrast in terms of size, socio-economic mix and other features. I would like to applaud their efforts, but I am using them to illustrate the extent of variation in practice between local authorities.
      I shall take the example of the Coventry adoption service. It allows prospective parents from the city and the rural hinterland of north Warwickshire to adopt children under 12 months from its care. Most people start with a wish to adopt babies, but very few are available. That trend has developed over the past 20 years, with the increasing amount of birth control and support for younger women who choose to manage single handed with a small child. Coventry placed only two babies last year.
      For children older than 12 months, the adoption team prefers adoption by parents who live within 50 miles of Coventry. However, adoption outside that radius is permitted, subject to the usual statutory checks by social services or by voluntary agencies such as the National Care Homes Association and Barnardos. Regional adoption is seen as the best option by the local authority because parents living further afield would face practical difficulties in attending Coventry's preparation groups in the run-up to adoption.
      Our new clause is designed to address a practical point. There are cost constraints on local authorities, and that is one of the reasons why they tend to focus on a tight radius. The authority is thinking about the costs that will have to be met by prospective adoptive parents, and we should not forget the cost to social workers, who have to travel from their headquarters to interview parents. When those journeys are further afield, that adds significantly to the costs of a social services department. That will need to be addressed if we are to have an optimum matching process that allows a countrywide national register to be held and for the best match to be found.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that speed is sometimes of the essence? Did she see a recent television programme that showed potential adopters, who said that they had been on the register for two years, but that after those two years of waiting they began to question whether they wanted to adopt, and came off the register? Sometimes it is a good thing that people can be matched early. That maximises the number of families that are prepared to adopt.
      Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes an important and sensitive point. A couple may discover that they

      955
      cannot have children quite late in life and quite close to the upper age limit, above which they are not able to adopt. The waiting process can be a time of terrible anxiety and uncertainty. Despite initial enthusiasm to adopt, some couples decide in the face of that sort of pressure that they cannot see the thing through to the end. It is hoped that, through the creation of a national register and much improved opportunities for matching and by setting national criteria that are clear and apply throughout the country, the process will become much quicker. The loss of confidence in the process and people giving up on it might become less common occurrences.
      I shall give some contrasting examples. Another large local authority near to my constituency is Birmingham. It faces a particular challenge because a quarter of the children in its care are of dual parentage. For that reason, Birmingham focuses particularly on other large conurbations for non-white parents. That is another practical problem that would be overcome by introducing a national register. The capacity for an authority such as Birmingham, with many children of mixed ethnic origin, to find the optimum match would be made more easy.
      I contrast that with a small authority, not to criticise that authority but to illustrate some of the problems and some of the reasons for the variation in eligibility criteria that would be resolved by the new clause. My constituency lies in the Solihull local authority. One of its difficulties is the matching process. Its age limit is children under two years of age. That is in contrast to the flanking local authorities. The age limit for parents is not applied in Birmingham and Coventry, but it is 35 in Solihull. Sometimes discretion can rightly be used, but that is Solihull's publicised upper age limit. Therefore, my constituents might well ask themselves why they should be subject to such an age limit when neighbours just over the border in other local authorities are not.
      Solihull tries to match children with parents from the same race as a first choice, if necessary placing them with parents outside the borough to achieve its aim. It simply has to because it is so small. That highlights the problem that local authorities are so different in their composition, which has led to the variation in criteria.
      9.45 pm
      Some local authorities have restrictions on inter-country adoption. I had a constituency case where a couple particularly wanted to adopt from China. They had seen that moving documentary called "The Dying Rooms", which no doubt other hon. Members will have seen, about young Chinese girls left to die because in their society a baby boy is more revered than a baby girl. My constituent's response was to seek with total determination to adopt from China, but they were refused because of restrictions on inter-country adoption.
      I am not clear whether that is the key factor that contributes to another rather harsh statistic, but I have my misgivings. It is significant that, if we look at the number of inter-country adoptions by a comparable developed European country with a similar sized population, such as France, we find that there were 3,666 inter-country adoptions last year, compared with 250 in the United Kingdom. That marked contrast must, in part, be explained by some of the criteria set by our local authorities in terms of allowing children to be adopted from certain other countries. I have direct experience of
      956
      some restrictions on inter-country adoption in my local authority, which may be contributing to the low rate of inter-country adoption. That reinforces the importance of the need for nationally set criteria.
      The new clause is all about making the adoption process easier and more effective, and, at its heart, helping children who languish in care—all to often for far too long for lack of a better process—to find permanency in a family that really wants to adopt them.
      Mr. David Tredinnick: It may assist my hon. Friend if I recount my experience of helping a family adopt a Romanian child during the last Parliament when I was much involved with eastern Europe. A child was successfully adopted and the family are very happy, but the parents, who were British nationals, suffered great anguish and heartache because the law was unclear at both ends. They sought to take a child from an orphanage who had little future—we all know about Romanian orphanages—to give that child a life over here, but at one point they were extremely worried that they might be arrested. I shared their considerable heartache and I commend what my hon. Friend is trying to do in the new clause.
      Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend underlines what we are talking about here, which is that there is a lot of heartache in the adoption process, not only for those who are unsuccessful in adopting, but often for those who succeed, but who find the process a lot more difficult than they thought, and also, often, for the children involved who may never fully recover from the damage caused by being parted from the family that has relinquished them. That is why we must proceed with sensitivity but also with haste, in order to address some of the real problems that could in part be corrected by the new clause.
      The new clause would be fairer both to the child and to the parents, given that the state has so obviously failed to fulfil its role as a corporate parent, as is shown by the statistics relating to children in care. We are dealing almost simultaneously with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, and many of us have served on the Standing Committees considering both these Bills.
      Those of us who have served on both Committees are all too aware that 80 per cent. of children leaving care end up homeless, 75 per cent. have no educational qualifications and—this particularly affects me when I think about it and put myself in the girls' shoes—one in seven of the girls leaving care is pregnant or a mother by the age of 16. We cannot hold our heads up high when we think about the role that the state has played as a corporate parent to those children in care.
      For all those reasons, we strongly advocate a reform of adoption law so that it is possible for more of those children to leave care and to be adopted in a family—a family that is there not just till the child reaches the age of 16 or 18 or some other fixed limit, but in which, as in any family, a child is for life. That is a strong reason for reforming adoption law.
      The Government's proposals do not get to grips with the problem of variation in eligibility. Local authorities such as mine, which have an upper age limit of 35 or 40 for parents, are getting into difficult territory. Women are delaying the age at which they have their first child. There are various social reasons for that—women are looking

      957
      for equal employment opportunity, and will often wait for a considerable time before stopping to have a family. They may not realise that their fertility has declined during that time, and they may find, too late, when they have passed the age limits for adoption, that not only can they not conceive, but adoption is no longer open to them.
      We strongly contend that there are parents over the age limits who offer good adoption opportunities for children in care, especially for children aged five, six, seven or eight and possibly children in their teens. Not enough consideration is given to the adoption prospects of children in their teenage years. It may well be right for them to be adopted by slightly older parents with more experience of slightly older children.
      Mr. Tredinnick: To support of her argument, will my hon. Friend remind the House that medical science is progressing so quickly that ladies can give birth much later in life? There have been newspaper reports recently of women up to the age of 60 giving birth. Does that not make my hon. Friend's case for raising the age limit?
      Mrs. Spelman: I should like to be able to agree with my hon. Friend, but the Prime Minister's wife had my sympathy when she gave birth at 45. There is no question that managing a very small baby as one gets older is more difficult. My father, who is almost 92, may have found me quite wearing when I was born.
      The child must be the focus. A child coming from care with considerable luggage from the experience of being displaced may benefit from going into a family where the parents are older than 35 or 40, and joining a family in which the other children are of a similar age to the adopted child and the parents are experienced in dealing with children of that age.
      In Northern Ireland, there is an active programme to promote the adoption of children in their teenage years and older parents are actively sought. That experience shows that variable and arbitrary criteria can sometimes be obstructive in the adoption process.
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is there not a risk that having the one-size-fits-all option of a national register may result in the individuals to whom the hon. Lady is referring falling outside it? The flexibility that authorities offer at present may give hope to individuals that they may not have if there is only one option.
      Mrs. Spelman: Two points arise from that intervention. First, there must be full consultation on the criteria that the Secretary of State will set. We should agree on that as a basic principle. The criteria must also be simple, straightforward and easy to understand. Secondly, we need discretion, such as that exercised by my local authority. Children are individuals; they are not an homogeneous mass. Those who have been in care have individual problems that need specific assessment.
      The great thing about a national register and matching process would be that a child with highly specific needs would be far more likely to find the best match from a bigger pool of parents. The Government and the Opposition do not disagree on that, and the Government's consultative document states that they want a national register.
      958
      Behind the new clause lies a sense of urgency. We should like to change the law sooner rather than later. In Standing Committee, we heard the Minister's reasons for resisting an amendment—to a different part of the Bill—that was intended to achieve the same as new clause 6. He resisted it first because the Government were about to make an announcement on adoption, as they have since done. He suggested that we should not debate the matter further until the Government's proposals were on the table, after which we could have the fruitful discussion that we are holding now.
      Secondly, the Minister argued that the Government could achieve a national register more quickly than would be achieved by an amendment to the Care Standards Bill. He said that the care standards commission would not be constituted until 2002 and that annual returns from local authorities, from which the national register would be drawn up, would not be supplied to it until 2003. I should like to revisit that point. The Government have produced only a consultative document, and I should feel much more confident if the Minister were to say that the Government would introduce a Bill early in the next session.
      I am offering a risk-benefit analysis along the lines of my bird-in-the-hand analogy. If the Government should lose the next general election—always a possibility—and given that it is tipped to happen next May, some of the legislative programme announced in the next Queen's Speech would be likely to fall. That is not an unrealistic scenario. To allow the national register to come into existence, debate would have to begin early in the next session.
      We are almost splitting hairs in saying that the legislation would come into force in 2001 while the care standards commission—the bird in the hand—will start in 2002. I cannot see why local authorities could not be urged to supply annual returns in time for when the care standards commission opens shop in 2002. Why lose another 12 months? Local authorities have the information, and we simply seek to legislate for that register to be held by an independent body.
      Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has given way three times, but it is not clear from her remarks that anything that she wants to achieve requires legislation.
      Mrs. Spelman rose—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Care Standards Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Question agreed to.
      As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has a background in social work and in Committee he contributed many points that informed our work. As relatively new Members, perhaps we can agree that we may not be world experts on the legislative process. However, in my experience consultative documents do

      959
      not necessarily receive the force of the law that they need to achieve change such as that which we have described. For that reason, we have tabled the new clause.
      I hope that the Minister will give legislative effect to the consultative proposals. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre nods, implying that he has the same hope. Obviously, I would like them to be finessed in the way that I have described, particularly on the point of the appeals procedure, which as proposed in the document is not sufficiently independent to inspire parents with confidence. Indeed, they do not have confidence in the process at present because it is far too in-house.
      I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. We need to move swiftly and, given that the reform has been a while in gestation, the difference between 2001 and 2002 does not strike me as huge. The important point is whether we are to have a Bill that will bring it into force.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: The answer to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is simple. If the Minister does not need fresh legislation, it does not matter whether the new clause is included in the Bill. The Secretary of State could implement the reform under several pieces of legislation, but he needs the new clause to make progress if he does not have such a power at present.
      Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has much more experience of the legislative process than I, having been a Member for longer, so he knows exactly how to set out the choice—either/or. However, because this issue is sensitive and important, we do not want to be fobbed off. We need cast iron assurances that the reform will come into effect, as do all the parents who are frustrated by this tardy and haphazard process, which would be so much better were our new clause accepted.
      Mr. Brazier: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the excellent new clause 6, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It is set against the background of the positive Government document to which she referred several times, part of which concerns establishing a national register. Our new clause deals with that matter.
      At this late hour, the House will be relieved to hear that I shall be brief. However, before dealing quickly with four detailed aspects, I remind hon. Members of the importance of establishing a national register and national standards. There are 54,000 children in care, of whom only slightly more than 2,000 were adopted last year. My hon. Friend gave some horrifying facts about the fate of many of those children. Up to a quarter of the girls become pregnant in care and we hear one sorry story after another. That is not to say that care workers and many devoted and loving foster parents do not do a good job, but in most cases adoption offers the best prospects for children in care because it provides permanence.
      The case for a national register is overwhelming, and the best evidence of that is the performance league table for individual local authorities. The top three councils have adoption rates of between 10.5 per cent. and 14 per cent. of the children in their care, but more than 20 councils have rates of less than 1.5 per cent.
      I wish to focus on one local authority that would benefit from a national register and some national standards. It happens to be a Labour council, but I do not mention it
      960
      in a party political way. I should stress that the second best authority in the country, Middlesbrough, is a Labour council. Islington—left to itself, without a national register or national standards—has a miserable adoption rate of well under 2 per cent. of the children in its care.
      The Voice—a very good Afro-Caribbean newspaper—has a lot of good advertisements on adoption, including one recently placed by Islington council. It contained a description of a little boy who needed a two-parent adoptive family who could reflect and promote his ethnic and religious identity as closely as possible. I do not wish to reflect at length on the views of some black members of an adoption group to which I belong, the Adoption Forum, about the good experiences that they had with white parents.
      However, for a council to specify that it wants to match the religious identity and racial background of a little boy of less than two years old, and to imply that it is willing to hang on to that child—apparently indefinitely, as the council's poor figures indicate—if it cannot get that match shows how badly we need national standards and a national register.
      I do not want to go over the general argument any further, except to say that there can be only a national solution to a situation where local performance is so patchy, varying from a few good councils to a large number that perform so badly.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has mentioned the need for a proper appeals procedure. There is a complicated process, whereby someone who has not been certified by one local authority to get on a list could be considered by another local authority. I prefer the provision in the new clause which makes it clear that there is an independent appeal outside the local authority system.
      Independent management of the list is important. It would be quite wrong if the list were to be managed by the local authorities themselves. It would be wrong also if it were to be taken over by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, because although it has an important role to play—given to it by the Government—the list will not be seen as independent by adopters or older children hoping for adoption if it is controlled by the local authorities.
      I was pleased to see in the back of the Government's consultation document that a large number of other groups—including the Adoption Forum, Adoption UK, which represents over 3,000 adoptive parents, and the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and their Parents, which represents many ex-adopted children—are being consulted. I believe that the association shares that view.
      It is critical that the measure is centrally funded. If the national register were set up and local authorities—some of which, such as Kent, are in difficulty with their social services funds—found that it became another service to pay for, there would be a danger that they would not use it. Also, the use of the register ought to be compulsory. I suspect that that is the Government's intention, but it is not clearly stated.
      The present position is terrible in many local authority areas. The new clause gives us an opportunity to press the Government to get on with provisions that the preliminary consultation paper suggests already exist in outline, or at least constitute—in part—their intentions. It is

      961
      disappointing—all the more reason for the new clause—that the next step will be another consultation paper, or at any rate a White Paper, some time before the end of the year, followed by another consultation period. I urge the Government to act as soon as possible.
      Dr. Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on making such a strong case for a national register for prospective adoptive parents. I also congratulate her on explaining that we are not just talking about a database for adoptive parents; the register would have to play an active role. However, I hope that the hon. Lady does not assume—as others appeared to—that being on the register would confer entitlement to a child for those who could find one. There is still much hard work to be done to ensure that prospective adoptive parents are suitable to adopt prospective adopted children.
      Mr. Fabricant: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, but does he agree that—as I said earlier—speed is of the essence? Of course the safeguards of which he speaks should exist, but the new clause would help to speed up the process and to secure a better match, as it were.
      Dr. Brand: Undue delay is never useful, but, in the context of adoption, speed is also dangerous. I have a problem with subsection (4) of the new clause, which confers an automatic right if, five years ago, someone said that certain people were suitable adoptive parents.
      Things change with time; attitudes change with time. I would be worried about prospective adoptive parents who changed their minds after two years: I would be a bit concerned about how committed they had been to the adoption in the first place.
      The hon. Member for Meriden wants an agency that does not fit in with the National Care Standards Commission. The commission is a regulator and an inspector, not a deliverer of services. Adoption is very much an active process. It is not just about regulation; it is about ensuring that things are done properly.
      Mrs. Spelman: I think that there are two misunderstandings of what I said. The first concerns the five-year period. Obviously, someone who no longer met the eligibility criteria that had been set nationally would not still be eligible. Secondly, I did not mention an agency.
      Dr. Brand: The commission is to set up the national adoption register, and run it. That worries me. I do not believe that the commission, which we discussed during—I think—22 Committee sittings, has ever been seen as a service deliverer. When I say "service deliverer", I mean a deliverer of personal social services, which is what we are talking about in the context of adoption.
      I support the hon. Lady's plea for appropriate and speedy action, but let me gently say to her that the problem has not arisen over the past few years. Many of us have discussed it over the past 20 or 30 years. Moreover, the extra complications that the new clause would cause in regard to inter-country adoption pose a significant problem. It would not be possible to develop a national policy to deal with it on the spur of the moment.
      962
      10.15 pm
      Therefore, I say with great regret that, although we recognise the need to look at a much better package for adoption—mainly to look after the interests of adopted children and the support structures that they and their adoptive parents will need after adoption—I cannot support new clause 6. I do not think that that activity sits happily with—
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman queries the role of the particular organisation concerned. Does he none the less accept that it is critical that the register be handled by an organisation that is independent of the local authorities themselves?
      Dr. Brand: That is a valuable contribution. The hon. Gentleman is right. We are repeating our argument over standards in residential homes. There should be criteria that should not be breached by anyone if they want to become adoptive parents, but then there should be an assessment to see whether those criteria fit the particular child. That creates enormous complexity. We get add-ons to the basic criteria, which will have to be put somewhere on the register to see whether a match can be done.
      It is like being a blood donor. A person may be group O, but there may be sub-groups that make that person unsuitable for giving blood to a particular patient. There is complexity in relation to adoption. There is an on-going activity which does not sit happily with the commission as we have discussed it. Therefore, unhappily, neither I nor my colleagues will be able to support the new clause.
      Mr. Fabricant: Despite the contribution from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), I cannot help but think there is a degree of unanimity of support for the general thrust—
      Dr. Brand: For the objective.
      Mr. Fabricant:—for the objective of new clause 6. We must all accept that the present position will not do. The Utting report discussed the regulation of private fostering and was highly critical of the present arrangements. It concluded that private fostering as well as general fostering was an area where children were not being safeguarded properly. It summarised the position by saying that the present arrangements were unworkable.
      The tragedy is that there are 54,000 children in care, yet there is a mismatch between the 54,000 children in care, most of whom would be better looked after in foster homes, and the number of people seeking to foster children. [Interruption.] The children are in foster homes, but they would like to be adopted by private families; I thank hon. Members for correcting me. My point is that there is a mismatch between the number of children who are in foster homes—in care—who should be adopted and the number of private families. A private family can offer a better environment for bringing up children. Again, I do not believe that there is any argument about that in the House.
      Just as I think that all parties in the House would say that, where there is a mismatch between the number of people who are seeking a job and the availability of jobs, there should be mobility of labour, so I believe that there should be a mobility of children. It is wrong that there should be the mismatch of which I have spoken.

      963
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) pointed out, there is a huge variation between those areas where potential parents cannot be aged over 35 and those where the age limit is 40. That is not the only criterion that is different. In many different areas, many different criteria are used.
      The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that he supported the general motive of the new clause, yet he asked what the point was of adding it to the Bill because it is in the Prime Minister's review of adoption. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, good intentions are not enough. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked, if the Government believe that a national register is a good idea in principle, why do they object to new clause 6?
      In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, I made the point that there have been cases in which, after two or three years of waiting on a list, prospective parents have changed their minds about adopting. They have simply been discouraged by authorities saying, "You may or may not be suitable to adopt." People have second thoughts about adopting, as was shown in a recent television programme. Like other hon. Members, I have also seen such cases in my own constituency.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: The Government rightly received an enormous amount of good publicity for their announcement that they would establish a national register, and we thought that that announcement was reality rather than spin. Is it not extraordinary that, now that a clause to do exactly that is being presented to them, they say, "No, we don't want to do it yet"? Are they not simply spinning, rather than getting on and doing something?
      Mr. Fabricant: As I should like to think of this as a harmonious, cross-party debate, I shall not enter the debate on spin. Nevertheless, I do have to ask why Ministers are not keen to accept new clause 6. Undoubtedly, the Minister will eventually give us those reasons. However, even if the Government are not happy with the details of new clause 6, surely the new clause's principle could be included in the Bill. There is a vacuum in any such provision, resulting in 54,000 children being left in care.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden described the position of the United Kingdom in relation to other countries on the inter-country movement of children. As we heard, only about 250 children from abroad have been adopted in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) described such a case in his own constituency.
      I have a similar case in my constituency, involving a family in Burntwood who want to adopt a young child from Romania. They are having great problems in adopting the child not only because of the different adoption criteria of different local authorities, but because the immigration authorities have said that the child has overstayed his leave to remain in the United Kingdom, thereby forcing the family to race against the clock in their attempt to adopt. The child may be sent back to Romania—not to go into care, but to be returned to the home, with quite dreadful conditions, from which he was only recently extricated.
      964
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, a national register has two advantages, the first of which would be central funding. Surely our duty of care to children in care applies equally to all children who will affected by the Bill—in this case, to children in England and Wales. There should not be regional variations in the exercise of that duty, and a centrally funded national register would ensure that each area has equal resources.
      The second advantage would be central standards. I must confess that I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight when he expressed reservations about new clause 6(4). He argued that people who had been included on an adoption register up to five years previously might no longer be suitable to adopt. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that if new clause 6 is accepted, one of the tasks for the commission that maintains the national register would be very quickly to inspect the families hoping to adopt who had been put on a local authority register more than two or three years previously. Those families circumstances may have changed in the intervening period.
      At present there is too much variation. There are about 80 independent fostering agencies and about 35 voluntary adoption agencies with a total of 60 branches. The situation is dire. There are 54,000 children in care, and that is 54,000 children too many. If there were 54,000 children in care with hardly anyone seeking to adopt, at least the position would be understandable, but that is not the case. There are more than 10,000 families seeking to adopt children. If new clause 6 means that some, if not all, of those 54,000 children in care can be adopted into a stable family environment, it should be adopted by the House tonight.
      Mr. Collins: I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who produced a number of superficially cogent reasons why he felt that although the objective was shared by all hon. Members, new clause 6 was not the best means of securing it. In many respects the debate so far has established that with adoption, the best is often the enemy of the good.
      Although the hon. Gentleman may be right that to say at some time in the future there might be a superior legislative vehicle, this is the only one available in the current parliamentary Session; it may well be the only legislative vehicle available before the next general election. So, despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman's arguments seem to have some force, if the alternative is to wait not just months, but possibly years for any legislation on the matter, accepting new clause 6, possibly with an undertaking to amend or improve it in another place, would be a sensible means of making progress.
      The same argument applies to the important points made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who acknowledged that the new clause embodied an important objective, but asked why we had to have this debate. It is important to recognise that we are dealing with a subject that should be properly debated and fully discussed.
      In that context, I would like to put on record something on which hon. Members on both sides of the House are united, but which has not been properly expressed tonight. Although there is a general preference and presumption in favour of adoption over local authority care, that does not mean that any right hon. or hon. Member is belittling

      965
      the enormous contribution made by people who work in local authority care, many of whom do an immensely good job, work extremely hard and should be rewarded and applauded for the sacrifices that they make. However tonight's debate concludes, many children—particularly those who are in care—will be looked after by local authority care workers for a long time. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they will be looked after extremely well. It is important that that should be put on record in the overall context of adoption.
      Mr. Dawson: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he accept that a large proportion of children and young people in care still have good relationships with their natural families and often return to them shortly after being taken into care? Therefore, a large proportion of young people in care are not available for adoption, which in any case would not be appropriate for them.
      Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is essential to recognise that although there is cross-party agreement that adoption should be made easier and more widespread, there will always be a continuing role for local authority care, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, among others.
      10.30 pm
      The hon. Gentleman spoke about cases in which adoption is rarely, if ever, the best outcome. However, it is important to stress that in most other cases adoption offers the best prospect of giving children permanent and secure homes in a genuine family atmosphere. Moreover, there is a long-term aspect. Children's need for emotional, financial or practical support does not end at 16 or 18. It may be easier for them to receive that from adoptive parents than from local authorities, which, given the calls on resources, tend to concentrate their efforts on younger children.
      Most children would benefit if a national adoption register, as provided for in new clause 6, were established. As the hon. Gentleman said, the child's interests must come first. However, there is often no conflict between the interests of the child and those potential adoptive parents. Both sides are seeking to create a loving family atmosphere from which all involved can benefit. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to imply it, but it is important to accept that there is not necessarily a conflict of interests in such cases.
      The House seems to agree about the principle of a national adoption register. What should be its characteristics? I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) that such a register has taken a long time to arrive, having been promised by Governments of all political colours. I hope that we will move forward with it, and I welcome the conclusions in the consultative paper that suggest that the Government are persuaded of the need for the register.
      The register must set out clear standards that are openly arrived at and clearly understood. Implicit within new clause 6 is the question of the extent to which criteria for inclusion in the register are widely explained, so that people understand them. They should be published,
      966
      on the internet and elsewhere, so that people will be able to understand why they have or have not been included. Understanding is limited at present by the different approaches adopted by local authorities.
      New clause 6 offers potential adoptive parents two possible routes by which they may get on to a register. Under new clause 6(4), they can apply to their local authority.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend share my concern—which I am ashamed to say was also expressed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand)—that people considered suitable by a local authority five years ago may not now be considered suitable?
      Mr. Collins: I take the point, which was made originally by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I understand why some time period should be specified, and I can see why five years was chosen, although I am not sure that that is the right length of time. However, a much shorter period would require quite a lot of bureaucracy, as what would amount to a rolling review would have to be instituted.
      In addition, a proper notification mechanism would be needed for people on the register who are no longer considered suitable. The reasons for such a change may be more or less dramatic, but we need a clear procedure by which the local authority, or other public body that acquired the relevant information, could notify the holders of the national register and get the person concerned removed as fast as possible.
      The time involved would have to be more than a year, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) that five years may not be ideal. However, as I said earlier, the best can sometimes be the enemy of the good. Even though I would not die in the trench for every word of new clause 6, I would rather have it than not have any such provision at all.
      I was talking earlier about the two routes by which a potential adoptive parent could register interest and be approved. The first is the existing route through the local authority. The second, which is set out under the procedures covered by subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 6, would allow people to apply directly to the holders of the national adoption register for inclusion there and then. Potential adoptive parents who, for whatever reason—perhaps no more than a simple personality clash—feel that they have incurred the displeasure of their local authority, or rather, the small number of decision makers in their local authority, and who, for good reasons or ill, have lost confidence in their local authority, could have a second bite of the cherry. This should not be a way of enabling clearly unsuitable candidates to exploit a loophole and get on to a register. However, borderline candidates, or those who had a problem at the start of their application process, would know more clearly the reason for the decision that was reached, even if the final answer was still no. They would know that their case had been properly aired by people who were not headquartered in their local area.
      Proposed subsection (5) of new clause 6 would allow appeals to be made. In her excellent speech introducing the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) explained why it would be desirable to have an appeal mechanism independent of the local

      967
      authorities. She explained that that is a slightly different approach from that set out by the Government in their consultation paper, because it would involve something more than a simple aggregate of local authorities across England and Wales. That is an important point, which I hope that the Minister will address in his remarks.
      Whether the body holding the register should be, as the Government propose, an aggregate of the local authorities, or whether it should be, as is proposed in new clause 6, the National Care Standards Commission or another body, the appeals mechanism must be seen to be independent of the holding body. It would not be in the spirit of new clause 6 if the appeals mechanism set up by the National Care Standards Commission to allow its decisions to be appealed against, were part of the commission. "Independent" must mean independent of the commission as well as of local authorities.
      The objective of new clause 6 is very important. It is clear from what has been said, and from the many powerful examples cited by my hon. Friends and others, that, unfortunately, we have a postcode lottery. Potential adoptive parents and children are treated very differently according to where they are resident at any given time. That is difficult to justify, and although inherent in any system of local discretion and local authority control is the possibility of differentiation, the differences described in the debate are on such a scale as to be difficult to justify. The principle of a national register must be right, and it must be right that we put such a register on the statute book as soon as possible.
      I was intrigued by the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. He said that he believed that it would be possible for progress to be made on the Government's report without legislation. He seemed to be saying that he thought that it would be possible for a register to be set up without any statutory framework. The hon. Gentleman is nodding vigorously, so I must be paraphrasing his remarks accurately. I should be very interested to hear whether the Minister confirms that, and if so, whether the Government intend to proceed with establishing a register in advance of legislation. If they intend to do so, would such a register be made statutory sooner rather than later, or do they foresee an indefinite period during which the register would operate with no statutory backing? That could raise difficulties when controversial decisions—in a minority of cases, I hope—were appealed against in the courts. If the register had no statutory backing, the Government would be creating a rod for their own back.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that if such a register had no statutory backing, local authorities would have no statutory obligation to provide information for it? Just as there is a patchwork of criteria across local authorities for people who are allowed to adopt, so there might be differences in the degree of co-operation authorities would be prepared to offer with such a register if it had no statutory backing.
      Mr. Collins: I take my hon. Friend's point. The vast majority of local authorities would want to co-operate, whatever their political control. However, we are dealing with a disparate range of local authorities and, without statutory backing, there is less chance of receiving 100 per cent. co-operation from 100 per cent. of them, if only because local authority officers—who, as we know
      968
      from our constituency work, are often greatly burdened with responsibilities and the other requirements that are pressed on them—tell us that they are barely able to keep up with their statutory duties.
      Those officers certainly would not be able to undertake duties that were, in effect, voluntary. Some of them might downgrade their co-operation with the register—although not in a deliberate attempt at sabotage. They would tell the elected councillors that they must carry out Parliament's statutory requirements. Only when they had done that would they be able to undertake other activities. Those activities might well be desirable, but they would not have the time or resources to undertake them.
      Early statutory backing for a national register is important. The new clause offers an appropriate mechanism for debating it. I hope that the Government will look with favour on the provision—ideally this evening. Ministers listened constructively when we debated the measure in Committee, so I hope that in that spirit, they might reflect on the new clause and offer us some thoughts on it at a later stage.
      It is important to acknowledge that if we place the welfare of the child at the centre of our objectives—as we should—the best means to advance that welfare will be to ensure that the child, or those who make decisions on the child's behalf, have access to the widest possible pool of potential adoptive parents. That cannot happen when the pool in any given area is confined by the local authority. Only if it is national can the pool be as large as it should. That is why I hope that, whatever the fate of the new clause, we move as swiftly as possible towards the establishment of a national adoption register.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I speak to the new clause from two aspects of my personal experience. First, I am the joint chairman of the all-party group on street children. I see that one of the other joint chairmen, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), is leaving the Chamber. She is probably going for a rest. Secondly, my wife and I were short-term foster parents for several years. Both those experiences are relevant to our discussion of the new clause.
      Whenever the all-party group makes overseas visits in connection with its work on street children, we meet British people who have taken an enormous amount of time and trouble to adopt children from the country in question—however difficult it is to reach. When we ask them why they have done so, the answer always comes back to the fact that, in the UK, they were barred for being too old or the wrong colour or whatever. There is an enormous latent demand from parents who want to adopt children.
      We often say that the primary purpose of any adoption must be the benefit of the child—that is a given. However, if an adoption is not to the benefit of the parents as well, there cannot be a proper match. No childless couple or individual adopts a child other than to fulfil a need. There is a natural human desire to have children and to bring them up. My wife and I have been lucky enough to have four children, and bringing them up—however well or badly we have done it—is our greatest achievement. We must take account of the couples who want to adopt children, because they are likely to provide the best homes for them.
      10.45 pm
      I wish to describe the experience that my wife and I

      969
      had when we decided we wanted to become short-term foster parents. At the time when my first son was born, we lived in Scotland. My wife had given up work and we thought that we could do short-term fostering in our house while we brought up our young children. We therefore made inquiries but, after six months, a decision had still not be made as to whether we were a suitable couple to become short-term foster parents.
      We moved, so we started the process again in West Yorkshire when that was a county authority dealing with fostering. We met wonderful people who were clearly concerned about children, but we never met anyone who seemed to have any common sense. I am grateful that our social worker friend, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), is smiling at that. We had meetings, but then everything would go quiet for three months. We would ring up to find out what was happening about the fostering and someone would say, "I've been terribly busy, so I'll come and see you again." We would have another meeting and another three months would go by.
      Social workers investigated my work and our family. The strange thing is that in the time they took to decide whether we were a suitable couple—it was more than a year—my wife became pregnant with our second child and I lost my job. By the time our background had been investigated and the social workers had decided we were suitable, our circumstances had completely changed. The process was daft.
      We should not accept people who walk in off the street as short-term foster parents, but we must get on with the process of carrying out the investigations. One of the problems is that the social workers who are responsible for the children with difficulties who might be suitable for short or long-term fostering and adoption—that is sometimes the ideal route—are so swamped with social problems that they have no time to consider whether the right type of parents are available to adopt the children. Even more important, areas with social problems are not likely to be the areas where the mass of the potential adoptive parents live. There is a mismatch between the areas affected by social problems and the areas where the more stable families who are better able to look after children live.
      That mismatch takes place between different local authorities, and a national register would at least start to address that problem. If we had more time, the new clause could have gone much further in describing how we could establish the register. However, such a register might kick-start the process so that it works properly.
      Another problem in the adoption process is the fault of Parliament. Every time a child is abused in the system—unfortunately, an awful lot of that abuse has happened in children's homes—we pile on social workers rules and regulations that make them so incredibly scared and careful that they cannot take a step without making yet another check. They cannot lose their job for refusing to approve someone as an adoptive parent, but they might be criticised in a judicial inquiry set up by this place if they make a mistake.
      We know that if we leave children in children's homes, and do not give them permanent families, they are at enormous risk. I do not know how many children have been abused by their adoptive parents, but I suspect that
      970
      the number is tiny: I cannot recollect a case that has been in all the newspapers. We would remember such a case and comment on the fact that adopted children were being abused. That does not seem to be happening.
      Mr. Brazier: The councils with the worst records on abuse in children's homes and among foster carers—Lambeth council has been the source of recent, well-publicised examples of the latter—are the same councils that are exceptionally poor at putting children out for adoption. My hon. Friend is therefore entirely right to say that the endless checking of politically correct minutiae does not keep abuse at bay.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is much more knowledgeable about such cases than I am.
      This may sound too political, but when the Government want a good headline, they announce that they will do something about this problem. I made speeches similar to this when the Conservative party was in power because I wanted the system to work better. The Government could do something rather than just talking about it, and they could benefit their political careers—if that is a requirement for getting something done, that is fine. However, it is not acceptable that the Government should brush the new clause under the carpet and say that this would be a good thing to put in their manifesto and act on in the next Parliament; action should be taken now. Let us not have any delay.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and to the House for the fact that I was unable to hear the whole of her speech. I strongly support new clause 6, and this is a good opportunity for the House to consider it. The House is particularly lucky to have the Minister of State to reply to the debate, because he has been at the forefront of the Government's efforts to introduce and speed up change in adoption. He has chaired the performance and innovation unit's steering committee, which has looked into the matter.
      Those of us who believe that the new clause should have a fair wind find a good deal of support from a pretty powerful source because page 4 of the adoption report contains an introduction by the Prime Minister. He says:
      It is clear from the PIU report that there are some things we can get on with quickly. Over the next few months we will therefore: develop and implement proposals for a National Adoption Register…
      The question is how one implements that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is absolutely right to table the new clause to find out whether the policy can be implemented in this Bill.
      I think that Members on both sides of the House agree that the changes and welcome innovations in adoption law have been a long time coming. We know that there is pressure on legislative time in any Parliament, but it is exceptionally heavy in the current Parliament—the Government have packed this Session with Bills. I say that not to be controversial but to emphasise that when there is a parliamentary vehicle available for a purpose, it should not lightly be set aside.
      We have heard what the Prime Minister has said on the subject and we know that it will be considered over the next few months. The consultation document issued this

      971
      month allows for a proper consultation period—not one that is unduly short, as others have been, but one lasting three months, with receipt of consultation responses expected by 6 October. I doubt that the House will return after the long recess before that date; in addition, those who are expert in the subject will know what to expect in the way of responses to the consultation and will have time to assimilate them.
      With all that in mind, I would argue that it is not impractical, in parliamentary terms, to include in the Bill a statutory framework for a national adoption register; nor would it be inconsistent with the Government's manner of legislating—which we sometimes deplore, but which might be appropriate in this case—if the new clause were accepted as the vehicle and, provided that the principles were set down in the primary legislation, modified to some extent to enable the details of a national adoption register to be dealt with in secondary legislation.
      I hope that I have established that there are perfectly sensible reasons to accept the new clause now, before the Bill is returned to the other place in the normal course of events. The Bill came from the other place on 5 April without the issues addressed in new clause 6 having been debated, because it was only in February that the Prime Minister had made his—welcome—announcement of a personal initiative to take a grip on adoption. The Prime Minister has been subject to great pressure in recent weeks—rightly so, most Conservatives would think—but on this subject we can find common ground with him. He has spoken a lot of good sense and we are glad to lend our constructive support to his efforts.
      Mr. Bruce: My right hon. and learned Friend says that the new clause, if accepted, could subsequently be altered in the other place. I note that it begins by saying that a register:
      shall be established
      but, if the Government are reluctant, they could modify it in the Lords and replace "shall" with "may". That would give the Government a permissive power, but not force them to act.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I have suggested that the modification might be achieved through secondary legislation, but the method and timing would be a matter for the Government of the day. The fact is that our purpose could be achieved legislatively without difficulty.
      Having dealt with the framework, I turn to the substance of the matter and the argument in favour of establishing a national register. The whole House would agree that to set out to be approved as a prospective adoptive parent is a daunting pilgrimage. Two features of adoption stick out starkly. The demand for children to adopt where those children are very young, or not so young but have been taken into care, substantially exceeds the supply of children to be adopted. By contrast, although, happily, there is a significant pool of parents who are willing to adopt children from care—many are parents who have fostered children, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has done, and are willing to move on to adoption—that pool could valuably be increased. A national adoption register would provide a good method of encouraging people to consider adopting from children in care.
      972
      11 pm
      Let us not exaggerate the number of children in care who are available to be adopted. The consultation document shows that there were some 55,300 children in care in 1998, but obviously by no means all of those would be candidates for adoption—the figure would probably be 1,000 or 2,000. I might be being unduly pessimistic, but I think that about 2,000 children from that pool of 55,000 have been adopted over the years. Perhaps the Minister can tell us over how many years how many children have been adopted from the pool of children in care.
      Another interesting fact in the consultative report is that the United States is a little bit ahead of us in this area. Britain can be proud of being second in the world in the proportion of children adopted from the pool of children in care. We achieve some 4 per cent. The United States achieves some 7 per cent.—about 1,500 children. I am not sure if it is 1,500 children a year or at any one time—no doubt the Minister will elucidate—but it is getting on for double the number of children.
      Also striking is the average age of children who are adopted in the United States. In Britain, the average age is one year and two months. In the United States—this is highly significant for children in care—the mean age is six years and nine months. In other words, there are pools of parents in the United States who are willing to take on the tremendously important, and in a way significantly more difficult, role of adopting such children.
      The process of encouraging that must be taken gently over a number of years, but the national register will provide a sensible way of getting started on that desirable route. It will provide parents who may hitherto have been daunted with an opportunity to talk through the problems with professionals. The fact that it is done with professionals on a national basis, and in circumstances where an immediate pressing desire for adoption is rather less acute than in some other cases, will enable it to be done well. There will be an opportunity for both the potential parents and the authorities to reflect, for the potential parents to be assessed, for a conclusion to be reached, and, hopefully, for a significant number to be included in the register.
      Those who are included in the register will be able to find a suitable child to adopt whom they may well have fostered on an interim basis in the meantime, providing a better life for a small but none the less significant proportion of those 55,000 children who are in care. Of course, one hopes that a significant proportion of those children will go back to their own parents in due course, but there are many who do not have that opportunity. The national register will enable many hundreds, perhaps a few thousand, to find a happier home, and that is something on which all hon. Members will agree.
      Mr. Hutton: I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. On the occasions when we can agree on a sensible way forward, we should not be shy in saying so, and the national adoption register commands a substantial measure of support in the House as a sensible way in which to proceed. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), whom I thank for his kind comments about me, displayed the mastery of a brief which we lawyers like to display.

      973
      As a former Attorney-General, he showed himself in his finest colours tonight in his mastery of the intricacies of the performance and innovation unit report.
      I shall try to confine my remarks to the substance of the new clause, which calls for the establishment of a national adoption register under the auspices of the National Care Standards Commission. I shall explain to the House the Government's commitment to establishing a national adoption register, as several hon. Members have asked me to do in detail. I shall also explain why new clause 6 is probably not the most sensible way to go about it.
      Having undertaken the review and received the recommendations of the PIU, which prepared the report, the Government decided to take a number of steps. We are committed to the establishment of a national adoption register for England and Wales. Let me make it clear to Opposition Members who raised the issue that, as stated in the PIU report, we intend to tender for the operation of the national adoption register. Later this year, we will invite applications to operate the register. We hope to get the register up and running some time next year.
      The PIU report raises the question whether we need any legislative underpinning for the national adoption register. We are consulting on that. If legislation is required to establish the register, we will include those proposals in the legislation that we plan for next year. However, it is desirable that we should go ahead now with the establishment of a national adoption register, and that is what we intend to do.
      The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) asked how we would do that. We have an opportunity to use the powers in section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 to issue statutory guidance to local authorities, if that is the mechanism for making sure that the register remains an accurate register of children and approved prospective adopters.
      The Government are going ahead with establishing the register. We want to do it quickly, and we are grateful for the support expressed by hon. Members for the register.
      What is wrong with new clause 6? Why should we not incorporate it in the Bill? There are three or four problems with the new clause. First, it deals only with local authority approved adoptive parents. It is not clear how the register proposed by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) would work in relation to adopters approved by voluntary adoption agencies. Many hon. Members expressed their support in principle for the work that VAAs do. The new clause would exclude adoptive parents who had been approved by VAAs. That is not a sensible way forward.
      Secondly, and more problematically, the new clause does not provide for the inclusion of children available for adoption. If the purpose of the register is to match prospective adoptive parents with children, the hon. Lady's solution clearly will not achieve that, because there is no provision in the new clause for children to be recorded on the database that she wants the National Care Standards Commission to operate.
      If those problems were not sufficient to persuade the House not to support the new clause, the other difficulty—which is the same difficulty that we encountered when the hon. Lady moved a similar new clause in the Standing
      974
      Committee—is that the establishment of the commission will take about two years. We intend to establish the commission from next April. Presumably, the national adoption register would come into operation some time after that.
      Given the support that I have heard tonight for such a register, I do not believe that many hon. Members, having studied the proposals moved by the hon. Lady, would want us to hang around for that length of time before we establish the register. We should get on and do it as soon as possible. That is what we shall do. We believe that we can do that and operate the register using the powers that we have. It is essentially an administrative arrangement. If we need to underpin it with primary legislation, we will do so next year. Despite the positive and welcome comments in support of the register that we heard tonight—
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hutton: I am not giving way. It is probably best that the House gives its blessing to the Government's proposals and that we get on with establishing the register. If we need to return to the matter in primary legislation, we will do that next year.
      Mrs. Spelman: When we prepared the new clause, the Government had not made their proposals. We have learned a great deal more since then. We accept what the Minister says about the Government introducing legislation early in the next Session. That is entirely in the spirit of consensus in which the debate on the new clause has been conducted. If the Government introduce the legislation early in the legislative programme next year, we will certainly support it—[Interruption.] I hope that the Minister is listening to the kind offer that I am making—as we are all agreed that we want to establish a national adoption register. When we make nice offers, it is important that they should be received.
      The point about legislative underpinning is an important one. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for making it. I should hate it if we looked back in a year's time to realise that we had missed an opportunity. We accept that section 7 of the Local Government Bill may provide powers to make local authorities make the changes happen.
      Having made those points, and given that we accept the Minister's points about inadequacies in our drafting—we do not have the resources at our disposal that the Government have—we will withdraw the new clause and look forward to seeing a legislative proposal early in the next session. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 7

      ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES
      '.—(1) A person is an alternative or complementary therapist if he is providing or offering for gain or reward services purporting or claiming to alleviate, cure, suppress or improve any condition which is customarily addressed by services of a type provided by health authorities, special health authorities, National Health Service trusts, primary care trusts or by local authorities in the exercise of their social services functions, and who is not required to be registered under section 11 or section 42.
      (2) The Commission shall maintain a register of alternative or complementary therapists.
      (3) The Secretary of State shall provide by regulations the method by which—

      (a) applications for registration shall be made; and

      (b) applications for registration shall be determined.

      (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he deems necessary to protect the public in respect of—

      (a) the description of the services provided by the alternative or complementary therapist;

      (b) the claims that may be made in respect of those services;

      (c) the techniques which may or (as the case may be) may not be employed in delivery of such services; and

      (d) any other matters relating to such services as the Secretary of State may specify.'.—[Mrs. Spelman.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      One of the most intriguing things about this wide-ranging Bill is the opportunities that it provides for mini-debates on quite different subjects. We shall see the advantages of that this evening as Members have the chance to discuss their particular interests, as in the previous debate on adoption and in this one on alternative and complementary therapies.
      In Committee, we tabled an amendment on alternative and complementary therapies. The Under-Secretary resisted it. First, she said, complementary and alternative medicine is, by definition, evolving and cannot be clearly defined. Secondly, she said that it was neither practical nor justifiable to regulate an ill-defined sector. Having read and considered Hansard, I have moved the new clause because I believe that those arguments are not sufficiently robust.
      In Committee, the Minister said:
      Services that were considered outlandish several years ago are now almost considered to be part of conventional health care.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 June 2000; c. 81.]
      Within the huge bracket of alternative and complementary medicine, some therapies have been around for a very long time. Acupuncture has existed for at least 2,000 years, but, at the other end of the spectrum, new therapies such as reflexology were probably unheard of by most people as recently as 10 years ago.
      Therapies quickly become established. Alternative medicine is growing rapidly. The medical care research unit at Sheffield university estimates that 40 per cent. of general practitioners provide access to some sort of complementary medicine. Already, there is a close interleaving between traditional and complementary medicine. Acupuncture, which I have already said is one of the oldest complementary therapies, is provided by 73 per cent. of primary care groups. Osteopathy, which is
      976
      also well established, is provided by 43 per cent., homeopathy by 38 per cent. and chiropractic—which I have had good reason to use—by 23 per cent.
      Those therapies are well established and widely used. Members of the public will often consider alternative and complementary therapies when they feel that they have made no progress down the conventional medical route and are prepared to pay their own money to solve the problem or salve the pain that they are experiencing. We all have good anecdotal evidence from friends and relations of success with complementary and alternative medicines.
      11.15 pm
      The Bill offers an opportunity to help to provide a regulatory framework for complementary medicine, some branches of which are long established. There has been no over-arching regulatory framework because different techniques are used and different training courses apply. For example, chiropractors go through undergraduate training to gain a BSc honours degree, but I understand that, in the eyes of those who practise acupuncture, a 24-hour training course will suffice for a certificate of basic competence.
      However, the diversity of qualifications should not deter us from drawing alternative and complementary therapies into the Bill. Social care is to be regulated and a distinction made between social care workers and social care assistants who have different qualifications. Therefore, within the logic and principle of the Bill, it is possible to regulate care workers with different qualifications and the different titles resulting from them. I see no logical objection to trying to regulate alternative and complementary medicine.
      The availability of alternative and complementary therapies is increasing and people are becoming better informed about fresh approaches to established medical conditions. They avidly read the features pages of the broadsheet newspapers and, if conventional medicine has found no solution, often present their GPs with new findings on long-standing problems. A large number of new practitioners have set up in response to increasing demand. Therefore, it seems logical to provide through legislation adequate protection for the public and regulation that recognises the importance and status of the complementary therapies.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out the need to protect the public from the possibility of misleading diagnoses by people who are not properly qualified or who might provide the wrong treatment. He gave an example that drew attention to the potential for serious abuse, given that a lot of therapies are provided one to one. Intimate touching may be part of a therapy and that could put the individual receiving treatment in a risky situation. His constituency example is probably not an isolated case and it should cause us, as legislators, to think about whether to take it as a warning and whether to provide protection for both parties.
      In Committee, the Minister gave her reasons for resisting our amendment on alternative and complementary therapies, saying that the original clause 39 would provide adequate scope to cover the issue. The clause referred to services similar to those provided conventionally through health authorities and NHS trusts and also covered the

      977
      example that I gave earlier: 40 per cent. of GPs refer patients to complementary medicine. There are many members of the general public who, without going to a GP, seek treatment from complementary and alternative therapies. In reflecting on the reasons for rejecting our amendment, I am not satisfied that there is adequate protection.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he has an interest in this area. On 6 April, in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend made some interesting observations about aspects of complementary medicine that are already regulated; homeopathic doctors, since 1950, and osteopathy, since 1993, were examples. Already, some alternative and complementary therapies have a degree of regulation and protection. It is not unreasonable to look for an extension to cover some of the others.
      The therapies are new and evolving; reflexology, for example, has been around for about 10 years and is now well understood by the public. I cannot see the argument that it is too new to be the subject of some protective legislation, similar to other alternative therapies.
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case that the Bill provides the opportunity for such regulation, but not all of us are persuaded that, because the opportunity to regulate exists, it should be taken up. There are those of us on the Opposition Benches who are not entirely disposed to regulation for its own sake. If my hon. Friend could outline some of the regulations that she thinks might be made under the new clause, it would give us a greater sense of confidence in what she is spelling out.
      Mrs. Spelman: I understand exactly where my hon. Friend is coming from. Ours is not a party that seeks to legislate unnecessarily; in fact, it is committed to trying to remove as much unnecessary legislation as possible. However, I referred earlier to a genuine constituency case, in which there has been a claim of serious abuse in a situation where an alternative therapy was being provided. A therapist was providing one-on-one treatment to someone who, in good faith, placed their trust in the practitioner as they would with a medical practitioner. Undoubtedly, members of the public would expect that trust not to be abused. However, it is claimed that it was. We must take that seriously, as it is likely that other examples exist. I can see the potential risk that that represents.
      Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as giving protection and peace of mind to the patient, the measure will give protection to the practitioner?
      Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I tried to make earlier; the new clause cuts both ways. It provides protection for the person seeking help through the therapy, but it also provides important protection—a title, in due course—for the practitioner, and sets out the necessary qualifications to assume the title. That helps to raise the status of that profession, and is entirely consistent with legislation introduced for the professions allied to medicine.
      978
      There are some difficulties in getting what was envisaged in the Health Act 1999 to work, and there are a lot of difficulties in devising the right structure for a diverse group of professions allied to medicine. None the less, the practitioners of those professions recognise the advantage that the measure gives to them; the protection of a title and a clear definition of their therapy and skills.
      I do not think that the new clause falls into the category of onerous and unnecessary regulation. On the contrary, there is a need to protect patients who place themselves in a position of potential risk, trusting the professional in whose hands they have placed themselves not to abuse that trust. As I have said, we have examples of such abuse. I feel comfortable about promoting a new clause that would benefit both patients and practitioners of the new therapies.
      We intend to remain entirely within the guiding principles of the Bill, which are extensive. The Bill proposes the establishment of a commission to regulate diverse types of care. It seeks to remedy some of the abuses that have occurred, in regard to which there is a consensus that additional protection should be provided. I am thinking particularly of children's homes. It also creates an opportunity for complementary and alternative medicines—some of which have been around for a long time—to be included in the legislation. I believe that failure to include them would constitute yet another inconsistency of the type that we have tried so hard to address from the outset of our debates on the Bill. The most notable inconsistency is the Government's willingness to regulate public and private care homes uniformly, along with their rejection of the application of the same principle to private and public hospitals.
      I fear that, unless the new clause is accepted, practitioners in professions allied to medicine—and those seeking therapy from them—will be protected in terms of title and the definition of the qualifications necessary for practice, but complementary and alternative therapists will be out in the cold. Here is a legislative opportunity to put that right. It is not superfluous, and it is supported by the Institute for Complementary Medicine, which was pleased to observe an attempt to fill what it sees as a gap in the law. I therefore feel confident in asking the Minister to look at the matter again, and to reconsider her reasons for objecting to our original amendment. I hope that, following that reconsideration, she will have a change of heart.
      Mr. Tredinnick: I welcome the new clause. I have been closely involved in complementary and alternative medicine in three Parliaments, as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine. The new clause reflects the new-found importance of such medicine and its new-found status in this country.
      There are three main reasons why we should welcome new clause 7. First, more and more people in Britain are using complementary and alternative medicine: it is no longer something for minority groups. It is now very much part of the nation's way of life and as such, it requires more attention. That is illustrated here by the fact that acupressure is now available in the House of Commons gym. There is a practitioner there, and some of us will have read in his leaflet the statement from an unnamed Member that it is the only way in which he or she can find any relief from stress. I think that I see the

      979
      Minister smiling, which is always encouraging. Perhaps she will let the new clause go through on the nod. I am sure that Conservative Members would welcome that.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend let us know what acupressure is and precisely how the service that is provided in the gym will be augmented or enhanced by the regulation consequent upon the new clause, particularly as it seems to be so successful without the new clause?
      Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to help me along. Of course, I am just setting out, but all I say to him is that, if he had a headache, the practitioner might apply two thumbs either side of his head and produce a remarkable effect. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) if he wants to contribute, albeit briefly, although if he does so, he may find that he is not promoted very quickly; I guess that the Government Whips will not approve.
      I recommend that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) tries that acupressure method. It is an illustration of how one can become more relaxed. I am not suggesting that he is not relaxed. In fact, I have always seen him as one of my more relaxed colleagues in the House and I always enjoy sitting next to him. Indeed, I could say, as a new ager might say leaving the Glastonbury festival, "I can feel the vibe sometimes." It is very relaxing being near my hon. Friend. However, we must not get too sidetracked. I would not want you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call me to order so early on.
      I give another illustration of how complementary and alternative medicine has been received in the House. Recently, we had an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, which was well supported by colleagues. Several Members from both Houses availed themselves of the treatments that were available. Colleagues do not normally bare their feet in public in the Upper Waiting Hall without good reason. Many colleagues, including me, queued up for the reflexology that was available on that occasion. [Interruption.] They did not include my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I thought that he was nodding. Perhaps he hoped to have the treatment, but did not get it, or perhaps he is astonished at my suggestion.
      The group provided treatment in the House. Whereas in the past, some of those treatments would have been seen as absolute quackery—if one discussed them with one's doctor, one would perhaps have been struck off the patients list—they are now the type of treatment that people expect to be available, and they have been available in the House of Commons.
      The second reason why the new clause is relevant to the Bill is the greater use of complementary and alternative medicine in the national health service generally. The greater use of CAM in the health service started with fundholding GPs and has been taken up, with varying degrees of success, by primary care groups and, perhaps, primary care trusts. More and more people are using complementary and alternative medicine, and we now have greater use of complementary and alternative medicine in the NHS. Thirdly, we are looking at a new style of health provision overall—what is termed integrated health care: the combined use of conventional and complementary medicines.
      980
      My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) touched on the exponential growth in the use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine. She gave some examples from the Sheffield study of the use of CAM by doctors. I could add to what she said. It has been established by a survey that 75 per cent. of the population want complementary and alternative medicine to be available on the NHS, and that between 20 and 25 per cent. of the population already use one form or another of complementary and alternative medicine. I need hardly tell colleagues that the fact that complementary and alternative medicine is a key interest for one quarter of the British population has profound political implications.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden also mentioned newspapers' interest in complementary and alternative medicine. The tabloid newspapers—such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, but also the others—have regular features on complementary and alternative medicine. The articles are not just one column long; they are usually four pages long. The Sunday newspapers, too, often have features on complementary and alternative medicine.
      I have always felt that, in a sense, public opinion is ahead of the House on the subject of complementary and alternative medicine; unfortunately, we have often been behind on it.
      Mr. Burns: How is it possible to judge successful treatment outcomes in alternative medicine compared with outcomes in more conventional medicine?
      Mr. Tredinnick: There are many different complementary and alternative medicines, and outcomes are judged in different ways. The evaluations, too, are very different. One of the targets of the complementary and alternative medicine disciplines is to develop greater transparency, greater understanding of what works and—this is the subject of new clause 7—better, more effective regulation of complementary and alternative medicine providers. One of the points that I hope to develop later in my speech is that we are gradually establishing some order in the mass of those different disciplines.
      The issue is important because of the great interest in complementary and alternative medicine. The United Kingdom population is voting with its feet on the issue. One can barely walk down a high street in Britain without coming across a health food shop selling complementary and alternative medicine products. One cannot go into a conventional chemist, such as Boots, without finding a whole range of homoeopathic preparations by one of the well-known providers, such as Nelsons. One can find Bach flower remedies and vitamins of every description on the high street. People are not mugs—they would not buy those things if they did not work. The fact is that there is great interest in and great demand for complementary and alternative medicine.
      The concept of integrated health care is here to stay. Not only the Government but the Opposition have been addressing the issue of integrated health care. Way back in 1987, the all-party parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine set integrated health care as one of its principal targets. Undoubtedly, some of our distinguished colleagues, who are no longer with us, had vision and could see the issue's importance. It was only

      981
      10 years later that a watershed report on the issue was published by the Foundation for Integrated Medicine—which is the group that was established by the Prince of Wales, and has subsequently done much with the King's Fund to produce ideas on regulation that are acceptable both to conventional practitioners and to complementary practitioners.
      The report—entitled "Integrated Healthcare: A Way Forward for the Next Five Years?"—was launched, at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, by the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He not only spoke in favour of the report, but gave some money for research in complementary and alternative medicine. The report gave the medical profession a benchmark to work by. The very fact that those who ran the royal colleges and many highly respected medical practitioners were involved in the report has given it great credibility. The report has been fundamental in the acceptance and development of complementary and alternative medicine.
      Earlier this week, at its request, I met the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the offices of which are just over Lambeth bridge. I never thought of the society as being particularly interested in complementary and alternative medicine. However, it is the professional and regulatory body for all of Britain's pharmacists.
      Professor William Dawson, who invited me to the society's offices, wrote:
      We believe that there should be greater integration of complementary medicine into health care and that practitioners of orthodox and complementary medicine need to be encouraged to work together in all areas of practice.
      When I met the professor and his team, he made it perfectly clear that he wanted pharmacists to act as a bridge between conventional and complementary medicine, and that he had every intention of facilitating better understanding of alternative therapies. It is instructive to us all and most encouraging that such an important society should be going down that track.
      The next point in my argument supporting the new clause relates to the increased use of complementary and alternative medicine in the national health service. The person who really got the ball rolling—not in the last Parliament, but the one before—was the then hon. Member for Loughborough, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who as Under-Secretary, following meetings with the parliamentary group and others, produced a health service directive to the effect that if conventional practitioners took clinical responsibility for the actions of complementary therapists, they could engage their services and pay them out of the national health service budget. That was a significant breakthrough in the use of complementary and alternative medicine in the health service. When right hon. Friend became Secretary of State, he always kept a wary eye on that issue, supported by the then hon. Member for Bolton, West, Tom Sackville.
      Let me say to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), that there has been a progression in the thinking in the Department of Health—a gradual move towards integration of the use of complementary and alternative
      982
      medicine in the national health service and integration of conventional and complementary therapies in mainstream medicine. That is our starting point.
      The major development that followed my right hon. Friend's initiative was the introduction of GP fundholders, who were instrumental in spreading dramatically the use of complementary and alternative medicine. Under the arrangements that many of my hon. Friends will remember—and others who were not in the House at the time may not remember so fondly—a small number of doctors could get together and become GP fundholders. Therefore, doctors who were strongly in favour of complementary and alternative medicine could become fundholders and allocate a proportion of their budget to those therapies.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the new clause. Whether or not doctors support complementary medicine is neither here nor there. The new clause deals with registration and the hon. Gentleman must relate his comments to that.
      Mr. Tredinnick: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are absolutely right to draw my attention to the new clause. I was talking about a type of registration, however, because those doctors could not practise unless they were registered as fundholders. The fact that they registered as fundholders provides the building block for some of the remarks that I want to make about the new clause, and I cannot make those points unless I refer to GP fundholders and primary care groups.
      Another reason why we need the new clause relates to the primary care group system introduced by the present Government. New clause 7 deals with the registration of complementary and alternative medicine. However, there has been a real problem with primary care groups since the switch from fundholding. The reason for that is that the new boards are much larger and many of the health care professionals on them are not sympathetic to complementary therapies. Demand for complementary medicine has therefore dipped since primary care groups were introduced.
      11.45 pm
      A positive aspect of the Government's approach to the matter has been the initiation of trials using NHS funds. For example, the acupuncture trial was funded by the NHS executive in collaboration with the Foundation for Traditional Chinese Medicine. Such trials are very important in relation to registration. A stamp of approval from the NHS means that the treatments would be more acceptable to people.
      The Minister knows that I have been saying for many years that there is not enough money for research. If registers and better regulation are to be introduced, more research into complementary and alternative medical therapies is needed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford is always helpful, and he asked earlier how we can know whether alternative therapies are effective. One way is through trials, and we need more of them. However, this is the same old chicken and egg problem: the Department

      983
      asks where the evidence is, and the complementary and alternative practitioners ask for money so that they can provide it.
      Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Tredinnick: I see that I have stimulated my hon. Friend, without acupressure. I have not even had to put my thumbs to his temples.
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend says that the techniques are effective. I do not doubt that, but why should the Secretary of State be given the power to determine whether they are used? That power would be afforded to him in this awful new clause.
      Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend is emitting a different vibration. I do not pretend to be the most sensitive person, but I have noted the change in feeling on this Back Bench.
      Mr. Bercow: My intervention will be comparatively prosaic, but new clause 7(3) confers on the Secretary of State the right to determine by regulation the method of application for registration and the means of its determination. I return to my usual hobbyhorse: does my hon. Friend agree that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House, and that they should not be left to the administrative fiat of a Secretary of State?
      Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend tempts me. I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and of the House of Commons Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and I have a great interest in affirmative and negative resolution procedures. I agree that an affirmative resolution procedure would be desirable in this case.
      I have to declare another interest. I hesitate to answer his query in any other than a very friendly way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is due to speak in my constituency on Friday. It is therefore especially important that I do not upset him, for fear that he will not make the kindly opening remarks that colleagues occasionally make about each other. That might not be helpful in the run-up to the general election, whose date was let out of the bag by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
      Let us be serious about this: my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West and other colleagues are on the right track about how the regulation works. I want to address that in a moment—[Interruption.] The Minister appears to be imitating my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he occasionally enjoys a joke. Was it something that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West did? Or was it something that I said?
      To consider regulation and registration, we must, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, deal with how complementary therapies interrelate and how they relate to conventional medicine. One of the difficulties of regulation is that complementary and alternative practitioners and patients tend not just to use one therapy, but to move between therapies until they find the one that works for a given ailment.
      984
      I should like to illustrate this with the true story of a child whose severely broken leg was repaired, with great skill, by a great surgeon. The child's parents wanted to do everything possible to help his leg repair. To support the surgeon's work, and with his agreement, they looked to complementary therapies to speed up the repair of the leg. To start with, they relieved some of the boy's aches and pains with the homoeopathic medicine arnica and used symphytum to help heal the wound, because the leg had been pinned. To encourage the bone to repair faster, they looked to traditional Chinese and ayurvedic medicine, which teach that one of the first things to do with a broken bone is to use frankincense and myrrh, which were, as we know, potent in biblical times. However, I am told by experts in traditional Chinese medicine that frankincense and myrrh bind bones. They are resins which help bone binding and encourage the healing process.
      Another aspect that had to be addressed was the child's moods. They were helped using certain aromatherapy oils, such as lavender and mandarin.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to say that this is very interesting. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman speak in Adjournment debates, and I know that this is a favourite subject of his. However, alternative medicine is not specifically what we are debating in the new clause; we are debating registration. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go into detail about the great things that alternative medicine does for people—perhaps another time.
      Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to you for guiding me back on to the rails, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not pursue that line further, other than to say that, in the registration of practitioners and the way in which we regulate, we must bear in mind that there is often no clear distinction between the various therapies because they are used in combination. That is a fundamental issue which relates to the new clause that I wish to deal with in a moment.
      Before I do that—and I hope it is in order—I wish to refer to the Select Committee in the other place. I think that I am allowed to call it the House of Lords, nowadays. You would have called me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I had called it anything other than the other place not long ago, and I am nervous because I do not want to be told that I am out of order.
      In any event, the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the other place is currently considering complementary and alternative medicine and will soon produce its report. One of the issues that the Committee had to address was what is complementary or alternative medicine. That is germane to this debate on registration and regulation. What exactly are we regulating?
      In 1976, I damaged my back in an accident and turned to a chiropractor, but I did not tell my GP. If I had done so, I would certainly have been ruled out of order. He would have told me that he would not treat me any more. That is how serious such matters were—it would have been the equivalent of suspension. However, under subsequent legislation—including the Osteopaths Act 1993 promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—such therapies are regulated by statute. A person falsely claiming to be an osteopath commits a criminal offence and could incur a heavy penalty.
      Mr. Swayne: There is more than one way to skin a cat. My hon. Friend points out that some years ago the doctor

      985
      avoided competition by refusing to treat him. However, have we not strung together those alternative professions under statutory regulation by the medical profession?
      Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend may be treading on politically incorrect ground by talking about stringing things together with catgut. As I am afraid of being called to order, I shall not pursue that point, if he will forgive me.
      I have lost my place in my speech. When that happened to me some years ago, one of my hon. Friends helpfully intervened to remind me of what I had been saying. None of my hon. Friends is rising to do that. It is a bitter disappointment.
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend was talking about his back.
      Mr. Tredinnick: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
      The serious point is that osteopaths and chiropractors are no longer considered to be beyond the pale; they have been integrated into conventional medicine. It is now debatable whether osteopaths are complementary practitioners at all. Furthermore, some therapies that were not even included in the list being considered for regulation by the House of Lords Select Committee—for example, crystal therapy, which is believed by some people to be beneficial—will probably enter mainstream medicine in the future.
      After those brief introductory remarks, I shall turn to the body of my speech—[Laughter.] That is an old line, but it always works—especially when it is late and the House is exhausted. I definitely support new clause 7. We have heard about joined-up government; I am trying to achieve some joined-up opposition, so I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that the new clause may need some fine tuning.
      Many alternative and complementary therapists provide their services not only through the NHS, but in prisons and other places free of charge. To classify such a therapist automatically as someone who is
      providing or offering for gain or reward services purporting or claiming to alleviate, cure, suppress or improve any condition
      is not wholly accurate. I hope that the new clause is accepted on the nod, but that point may need to be addressed in another place.
      12 midnight
      I strongly support the proposal for a register of alternative and complementary therapists. There are about 50,000 complementary medical practitioners in the United Kingdom and it would definitely be appropriate to have some form of register.
      I now come to the points of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West about the style of regulation. I do not think that we should have a register that merely says that certain people are complementary practitioners. That would be impractical, misleading, dangerous and counter-productive. We have to draw on the way in which regulation has come about. That generally means that groups have bound together and agreed some form of self-regulation. They have then gone on to NVQ status—
      Mr. Bercow: National vocational qualification.
      Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
      986
      The groups move from voluntary to statutory regulation and they can achieve that through the legislation that the Government, to their credit, introduced in the previous Session. They can achieve statutory regulation in a gradual way by binding together.
      We will face major problems if we try to have one register. At the moment, there are 120 organisations representing alternative and complementary practitioners. The way forward is for the different groups in a particular discipline—for example, aromatherapy has four or five governing bodies—to work together progressively. That is what the chiropractors did. They were at loggerheads with each other and unfortunately they are at loggerheads again, but they at least came together to achieve regulation. The only practical way to proceed is to persuade organisations to work progressively towards statutory regulation. I want a register to be in place to denote the therapies in which the practitioners are qualified. It is not right to have just a general register.
      Practitioners often face few formal obligations to meet a level of standards. It is possible for people to break away from one organisation to join another if they so wish. That is not good for public safety. We should move to 10 separate registers and perhaps then move to five separate registers, but the disciplines must be clearly delineated.
      Self-regulation is the best and most appropriate form of regulation for complementary medical therapies. As I said, osteopathists and chiropractors have taken that approach, and I could have talked about the national occupational standards that homoeopathy, reflexology, hydrotherapy and aromatherapy have achieved. Each profession is developing at a different pace.
      One of my colleagues touched on the issue of insurance, which is one of the ways in which practitioners become regulated. Insurance companies will not insure them unless they reach certain standards. More could be done to consider the way in which insurance companies are used.
      I am slightly concerned at any proposal that will give the Secretary of State the power to decide the techniques that may or may not be employed in the delivery of services—although I was nearly called to order when I tried to develop that argument. Many services and disciplines overlap, which can create problems because it is a complex matter.
      For example, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence does not have the machinery to assess homoeopathic medicines at, let us say, 1M. It has no chance because all its equipment will say that there is nothing in them. However, a homoeopathic medicine functioning at 1M is working at a level higher than the physical body. Bach flower remedies and Australian bushfire essences cannot be detected using conventional measures, so we need to think of new ways of assessing those medicines.
      Mr. Swayne: Am I correct in my analysis that although he began by saying that he welcomed the new clause, my hon. Friend has, after detaining the House for half an hour, come around to opposing it, as I do?
      Mr. Tredinnick: I would hate to be accused of having the two faces of Janus, the Greek god who faced in opposite directions. I welcome the new clause, and the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has

      987
      tabled it in the proceedings on this Bill is a great milestone. Maintaining a register of alternative and complementary therapists is a good idea. However, I am slightly nervous about the Stalinist imposition of these measures through statutory instruments subject to the negative procedure.
      This is a complex matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West has, in a sense, helped me. On the continent, draconian sanctions are in place against some therapists. Such sanctions are unnecessary. We would be better sticking to statutory regulation, but there should be flexibility in that.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health said that a complementary practitioner had been found to have acted improperly. What about all the doctors who have acted improperly? That is not a valid argument at all. There are policemen who act improperly. Normal mathematical distribution means that there are such people in every walk of life.
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that I welcome the tabling and consideration of the new clause, and I say to the Under-Secretary that it requires careful consideration and a measured reply. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Tredinnick: I give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech.
      Mr. Tredinnick: I had not sat down, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman advise the Chair what he is seeking to do? It seems that he has finished his speech but is trying to give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
      Mr. Tredinnick: Out of courtesy to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was not on my feet when you were on yours. I must admit that I had been about to sit down, but my hon. Friend wanted to intervene, and I felt that it would be a discourtesy on my part not to let him do so.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose courtesy and generosity are unsurpassed in the House. As the new clause requires the Secretary of State to determine the regulations, how does my hon. Friend think the experience of the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) at John Marlay school, Stokesley comprehensive school, Newcastle university and Lancaster university, and as a senior business development officer in north Tyneside, has equipped him to determine regulations on alternative medicine and complementary therapy?
      Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend is helpful and raises an important point. It has long been a contentious issue between those in complementary and alternative medicine and Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health that the committees that adjudicate on such medicine are not staffed by those
      988
      who understand the disciplines. In fairness to the Government, I acknowledge that the issue has been addressed, and new committees have been set up. My hon. Friend has made a valuable point, and I now intend to conclude my speech.
      Dr. Brand: I am glad that the previous speech did not end prematurely.
      I have absolutely no doubt that alternative and complementary therapies make an enormous contribution to people's feeling of health and well-being.
      The definition set out in new clause 7(1) would catch almost any activity, because the national health service and all the other bodies set out in that subsection treat conditions such as feeling unhappy, feeling unwell, feeling unfit and not getting enough sleep, all of which are amenable to alternative and complementary therapies, just as they are amenable to food, wine, other drink—in moderation—and going to the hairdressers. There might be a need to ensure consumer protection in relation to the wide range of interventions to which we all submit ourselves—hairdressers should be just as much at risk of having their collars felt if they do something wrong as those who are in the business of tickling people's feet—but market forces could determine what is effective and what is not, and what is appreciated and what is not. The real problem is some of the claims made by some therapists.
      Within my practice for the past 10 years—preceding fundholding—acupuncture, manipulative therapies, homoeopathy and hydrotherapy have been available to our patients. That has been achieved through clever arrangements with the private sector, whereby we sent them the odd patient who paid and they then saw our NHS patients. That arrangement worked extremely well.
      Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman is a physician. He is discussing complementary therapies, which are also competing therapies. Does he admit that if such therapies are to be regulated, that must be achieved without the influence of their competitors—physicians such as himself—affecting that regulation?
      Dr. Brand: That is very difficult intervention to answer. I do not regard looking after people as a competitive event. I am always delighted when someone else can do it better than I can, because it means that they will have the hassle, not me—and the same is probably true of most of my colleagues. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point.
      The Prince of Wales's think tank produced an excellent paper, "Integrated Medicine", and I was present at its initial launch at St. James's Palace. The only therapies mentioned during that event, and those that formed the substance of the opus itself, were acupuncture, manipulative medicine, homoeopathy and hydrotherapy. That is not surprising, given that those four disciplines are well established: a body of work has been produced that shows that they have an effect and that, when handled responsibly, they are safe—in fact, far safer that some of the things that bog-standard medicine gets up to.
      Incidentally, as the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) says, acupuncturists, osteopaths and chiropractors are all adopting the PAMs—professions allied to medicine—route, whereby they become

      989
      registered and gain protection of title. They tend to be insured, and the insurance company will ensure that they have a certain competence.
      My problem is with the phrasing of new clause 7, because its definition of an alternative or complementary therapist is someone who is
      providing or offering for gain or reward services purporting or claiming to alleviate, cure
      and so on. That basically means that anyone who says "I can make you better" becomes an alternative or complementary therapeutic specialist, and subsection (2) provides that the commission "shall maintain" such a person on a register—there is no condition attached. If I said that a Mars bar a day helped you work, rest and play, that would constitute a claim to offer better health, so I would be able to go to the commission and say that I wanted to be registered as a Mars bar therapist. The commission could do nothing about that. Under the new clause, it would have to register me. Subsection (3) states:
      applications for registration shall be made,
      so presumably the Secretary of State has an option whether I make the claim by post or turn up in person to demonstrate the size of my Mars bar.
      12.15 am
      We have a well-meaning attempt to introduce a measure of consumer protection where people are at risk of being ripped off or emotionally and physically abused, which does happen, with little sanction other than in criminal law or under trading standards. There should be a more established way in which some of the alternative therapies could be recognised as mainstream. We have already seen that with some of the manipulative interventions, and I have no doubt that others will follow suit.
      We have had an in-depth and entertaining debate, which has taken us into the next day, but the new clause does not meet the requirements of the Bill, and I shall be surprised if the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) pursues it.
      Mr. Swayne: I shall confine myself exclusively to the new clause and avoid the wide-ranging analysis of the complementary therapies that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) drew to our attention. I mean no criticism—I found his exposition fascinating—I simply do not have the breadth of knowledge to comment on the areas on which he touched.
      I am not hostile to these therapies. The key issue is whether the therapies will be improved by being regulated under the new clause. I took my son to an osteopath after a diagnosis that he needed grommets, and his head was manipulated. The hearing test was subsequently repeated by a conventional ear, nose and throat consultant, and—lo and behold—grommets were no longer necessary. So I have every confidence that many of these therapies work. The issue is entirely whether they will be assisted by the new clause.
      My hon. Friend was eloquent in pointing out how these therapies have grown in status and extent during recent years. But that has happened without the benefit of the new clause, by which he laid so much store. I do not see
      990
      by what process the new clause would make matters so much better. When he told us of the acupressure available in the Palace of Westminster, I asked what it was and how it would be changed by and benefit from the regulations specified in the new clause. Interestingly, he answered only the first part of the question. He told me what it was; he did not go on to expand on how it would be improved or changed by the regulation to which he drew attention.
      Mr. Tredinnick: I should have said that this type of acupressure adjusts the meridians, which are the energy lines in the body. According to traditional Chinese medicine there are a number of meridians. They are like different pulses. A traditional Chinese medical practitioner would take a range of different pulses. Through the massage of the feet—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into far too much detail, and away from the substance of the new clause. I cannot permit further discussion down that line.
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend has helped us enormously. The new clause provides an overarching regulatory framework for all those therapies. He has just described a therapy that does not lend itself in any way to the regulation of technique or of description, as specified in the new clause. The description that we have just heard is testimony to the fact that the therapies cover a wide range. We were told earlier of crystal therapy, whatever that might be.
      The idea that such vastly disparate therapies could be covered by the same regulatory framework, as specified in the clause, is manifest nonsense. They are a consequence of very different life styles and religious backgrounds. I do not believe that they lend themselves to regulation in any way.
      If we attend to the clause in some depth—I promise to be brief, as I see that some hon. Members are enjoining me to be so—we see that subsection (1) outlines the therapies that will be covered by the new provision. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) pointed out, it is extremely widely drawn. That subsection would encompass the healing ministry of evangelical priests. They would be included as healing practitioners.
      Of course, alternative or complementary medicine derives part of its attraction from being precisely that: alternative. Much of its attraction might be jeopardised by bringing it into the medical establishment by such overarching regulation as is outlined in the new clause.
      Subsection (3) states:
      The Secretary of state shall provide by regulations the method by which—
      (a) applications for registration shall be made—
      that seems innocuous enough and entirely proper, but it continues:
      (b) applications for registration shall be determined.
      The Secretary of State will determine how applications for registration are to be determined—by what test, criteria or validity. We have just heard my hon. Friend's exposition about energies, crystals and all the rest. How on earth is the Secretary of State to draw up regulations to govern such things?
      Subsection (4)(a) refers to

      991
      the description of the services provided by the alternative or complementary therapist.
      The description that we heard was alternative enough. I listened to an exposition of what the osteopath had done to my child. I accept entirely that what he did worked, and that, as the Prime Minister says, what is right is what works—but the description was utter mumbo-jumbo. One might as well try to regulate witchcraft.
      The fact is that the descriptions defy regulation. It is nonsense to provide the Secretary of State with a power to determine what the description should be and what is acceptable.
      Mr. Tredinnick: May I ask my hon. Friend to put away his box of matches for a moment? I support what he said earlier about grommets. There is a well-documented case of a child being given one dose of a homoeopathic medicine and having the problem solved.
      Mr. Swayne: I understand that. I do not dispute for a moment the effectiveness of alternative treatments. I know that they are effective. I have had experience of them in my own family, What I question is whether the Secretary of State is competent to regulate them in his capacity under the clause. The point is absolutely clear. Subsection (4)(c) refers to
      the techniques which may or may not (as the case may be) be employed in delivery of such services.
      It is not up to the Secretary of State to determine how therapies should be applied. In fact, having given his exposition on the therapies, my hon. Friend hit the nail on the head. He said that he supported the new clause, but came round at the end to saying, extremely lucidly, that regulation should not be as described in the clause, but should be self-regulation. That is what he said, and it is entirely proper.
      Therapists should regulate themselves. I do not believe that an acupressurist could in any way regulate an acupuncturist. They are clearly separate therapies with quite different philosophies. They do not lend themselves to the sort of regulation outlined in the new clause.
      Subsection (4)(d) contains an absolutely extraordinary provision, allowing for
      any other matters relating to such services as the Secretary of State may specify.
      If I were the Minister, I should leap at that with alacrity. Just think of the power being ceded to Ministers. I look to my own Front-Bench spokesmen for some explanation of the justification for giving Ministers such enormous powers.
      Mr. Bercow: They will be the Ministers next year.
      Mr. Swayne: Indeed, they will be in a position to exercise that extraordinary power, but I should like to know about their plans for doing so.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): This has been a most interesting debate. At times, I felt in need of a dose of Bach rescue remedy, which I am sure is available not far from here.
      New clause 7 seeks to give the National Care Standards Commission the responsibility to maintain a register of complementary or alternative therapists. As has been
      992
      amply illustrated, it would require the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the method of registering and determining applications. It would further require the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the descriptions, claims and techniques used by therapists, and any other matters pertaining to them that he may specify.
      We do not think the new clause necessary. We recognise that developments are moving apace in the provision of treatment and care services; in the range of settings in which they are provided; and in the equipment, techniques and technology through which they are delivered. We also recognise the need to ensure that the door is open to extend the range of services to be regulated in future, if and when necessary.
      For that reason, the Bill already contains clause 42, which demonstrates the Government's forward-thinking approach to the regulation of social care and independent health care. It shows that we are building a new regulatory system that will last because it will have the flexibility to move with the times. Clause 42 provides for regulations to be made to bring further health care services within the new regulatory system, if or when considered appropriate at some time in the future. The clause must indicate the parameters of what that means. It has been drafted to refer to health care services that would include those that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) seeks to bring within the National Care Standards Commission's remit under new clause 7.
      Independent health care services and establishments that will come within the new regulatory system from the outset are described in clause 2. Those services and establishments are those that we consider, having taken account of the consultation exercise held last year, to have the most pressing need to be regulated. They do not include complementary or alternative therapies. Bearing in mind the flexibilities in clause 42 to extend the regulatory scope of the National Care Standards Commission in future, we see no pressing reason to include such services in the Bill. Provision already exists to allow movement in that direction.
      Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister acknowledge that the scope of private sector provision that can be regulated would be determined wholly by what the NHS chose to make available, or not to make available?
      12.30 am
      Ms Stuart: Some alternative therapies are already available in the NHS, but we simply do not think that the new clause is necessary.
      The Government issued guidelines on professional self-regulation in complementary and alternative therapy that encouraged the formation of a single lead body to take forward self-regulation in each therapy. Steady progress is being made, particularly among the more popular therapies, and therapist registers are maintained by the lead bodies for each field. In addition to professional self-regulation, all practitioners of complementary and alternative medicines are subject to a range of general legislation that regulates the claims that they can make publicly, health and safety and the prescribing of medical products.
      The new clause would give the National Care Standards Commission the responsibility to maintain a register of alternative and complementary therapists and to regulate

      993
      them. As I have explained, the consultation that we undertook on the regulation of independent health care indicated no pressing need for such measures. The Science and Technology Committee in the other place is currently conducting an inquiry into complementary and alternative medicine, and regulation of the professions is a major theme. In its hearings so far, the Committee has shown no sympathy for the idea of a single body to regulate all therapies. For that reason, the new clause is neither necessary nor appropriate and I ask the House to reject it.
      Mrs. Spelman: I have, of course, listened to the observations made on all sides, and I would not pretend to have tabled a perfectly drafted measure. I have a residual concern: when tabloid newspaper headlines refer to one or perhaps more proven cases of abuse involving a therapist, the Government may regret dismissing so lightly the risk faced by the significant number of patients who seek alternative therapies without going through the NHS or the gateway of a GP. Clause 42, which refers to provision through the NHS or primary care trusts, does not cover such circumstances.
      We have tried to warn the Government of the risks of leaving a wide range of therapies completely unregulated. I draw to the Minister's attention the example of hypnosis. Members of the public will be left exposed, and an opportunity to raise the status of some long-standing therapies has been missed. However, in the interests of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 8

      OLDER PERSONS' COMMISSIONER
      '.—(1) There shall be an office of the Older Persons' Commissioner.
      (2) Schedule (The Older Persons' Commissioner) shall have effect with respect to the Older Persons' Commissioner (referred to in this Act as "the Older Persons' Commissioner").'.—[Mr. Burstow.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Burstow: 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 9—Review and monitoring of arrangements—
      '.—(1) The Older Persons' Commissioner may review, and monitor the operation of, arrangements falling within subsection (2), (3) or (4) for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and to what extent, the arrangements are effective in safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of older persons to whom this Part applies.
      (2) The arrangements falling within this subsection are the arrangements made by the providers of regulated services in England or Wales, or by the Secretary of State or the Assembly, for dealing with complaints or representations in respect of such services made by or on behalf of older people to whom this Part applies.
      (3) The arrangements falling within this subsection are arrangements made by the providers of regulated services in England or Wales, or by the Secretary of State or the Assembly, for ensuring that proper action is taken in response to any disclosure of information which may tend to show—
      994

      (a) that a criminal offence has been committed;

      (b) that a person has failed to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject;

      (c) that the health and safety of any person has been endangered; or

      (d) that information tending to show that any matter falling within one of the preceding paragraphs has been deliberately concealed,

      in the course of or in connection with the provision of such services.
      (4) The arrangements falling within this subsection are arrangements made (whether by providers of regulated services in England or Wales, by the Secretary of State or the Assembly or by any other person) for making persons availableߞ

      (a) to represent the views and wishes of older people to whom this Part applies; or

      (b) to provide such older people with advice and support of any prescribed kind.

      (5) Regulations may confer power on the Older Persons' Commissioner to require prescribed persons to provide any information which the Older Persons' Commissioner considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of his functions under this section.'.
      New clause 10—Examination of cases—
      '.—(1) Regulations may make provision for the examination by the Older Persons' Commissioner of the cases of particular older people to whom this Part applies.
      (2) The regulations may include provision about—

      (a) the types of case which may be examined;

      (b) the circumstances in which an examination may be made;

      (c) the procedure for conducting an examination, including provision about the representation of parties;

      (d) the publication of reports following an examination.

      (3) The regulations may make provision for—

      (a) requiring persons to provide the Older Persons' Commissioner with information; or

      (b) requiring persons who hold or are accountable for information to provide the Older Persons' Commissioner with explanations or other assistance,

      for the purpose of an examination or for the purposes of determining whether any recommendation made in a report following an examination has been complied with.
      (4) For the purposes mentioned in subsection (3), the Older Persons' Commissioner shall have the same powers as the High Court in respect of—

      (a) the attendance and examination of witnesses (including the administration of oaths and affirmations and the examination of witnesses abroad); and

      (b) the provision of information.

      (5) No person shall be compelled for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) to give any evidence or provide any information which he could not be compelled to give or provide in civil proceedings before the High Court.
      (6) The regulations may make provision for the payment by the Older Persons' Commissioner of sums in respect of expenses or allowances to persons who attend or provide information for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3).'.

      995
      New clause 11—Obstruction etc.—
      '.—(1) The Older Persons' Commissioner may certify an offence to the High Court where—

      (a) a person, without lawful excuse, obstructs him or any member of his staff in the exercise of any of his functions under regulations made by virtue of section (Review and monitoring of arrangements) (5) or (Examination of cases); or

      (b) a person is guilty of any act or omission in relation to an examination under regulations made by virtue of section (Examination of cases) which, if that examination were proceedings in the High Court, would constitute contempt of court.

      (2) Where an offence is so certified the High Court may inquire into the matter; and after hearing—

      (a) any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person charged with the offence; and

      (b) any statement that may be offered in defence,

      the High Court may deal with the person charged with the offence in any manner in which it could deal with him if he had committed the same offence in relation to the High Court.'.
      New clause 12—Further functions—
      '.—(1) Regulations may confer power on the Older Persons' Commissioner to assist an older person to whom this Part applies—

      (a) in making a complaint or representation to or in respect of a provider of regulated services in England or Wales; or

      (b) in any prescribed proceedings,

      and in this subsection "proceedings" includes a procedure of any kind and any prospective proceedings.
      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), assistance includes—

      (a) financial assistance; and

      (b) arranging for representation, or the giving of advice or assistance, by any person.

      and the regulations may provide for assistance to be given on conditions, including (in the case of financial assistance) conditions requiring repayment in circumstances specified in the regulations.
      (3) The Older Persons' Commissioner may, in connection with his functions under this Part, give advice and information to any person.
      (4) Regulations may, in connection with the Older Persons' Commissioner's functions under this Part, confer further functions on him.
      (5) The regulations may, in particular, include provision about the making of reports on any matter connected with any of his functions.
      (6) Apart from identifying any person investigated, a report by the Older Persons' Commissioner shall notߞ

      (a) mention the name of any person, or

      (b) include any particulars which, in the opinion of the Older Persons' Commissioner, are likely to identify any person and can be omitted without impairing the effectiveness of the report,

      unless, after taking account of the public interest (as well as the interests of any person who made a complaint and other persons), the Older Persons' Commissioner considers it necessary for the report to mention his name or include such particulars.
      (7) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication of any matter by the Older Persons' Commissioner in a report is absolutely privileged.'.
      New clause 13—Restrictions—
      '.—(1) This Part does not authorise the Older Persons' Commissioner to enquire into or report on any matter so far as it is the subject of legal proceedings before, or has been determined by, a court or tribunal.
      996
      (2) This Part does not authorise the Commissioner to exercise any function which by virtue of an enactment is also exercisable by a prescribed person'.
      New clause 14—Interpretations—
      '.—(1) This Part applies to an older person to or in respect of whom regulated services in England or Wales are provided.
      (2) In this Part, "regulated services in England or Wales" means services of a description provided by or in Part II undertakings for the time being provided in respect of older people, so far as provided in England or Wales.
      (3) For the purposes of this Part, in the case of the services mentioned in subsection (2) the person who carries on the Part II undertaking is to be treated as the provider of the services.
      (4) For the purposes of this section, an establishment or agency, and an undertaking of any other description, is a Part II undertaking if the provider of the services in question is for the time being required to be registered under that Part.
      (5) Where the activities of an undertaking are carried on from two or more branches, each of those branches shall be treated as a separate undertaking for the purposes of this Part.
      (6) Regulations may provide—

      (a) for this Part to be treated as having applied to an older person at any time before the commencement of this Part if regulated services in England or Wales were at that time provided to or in respect of him;

      (b) for references in this Part to older people to whom this Part applies to include references to persons who, at any prescribed time, were such older people.

      (7) In this Part—
      "information" includes information recorded in any form;
      "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Assembly.'.
      Amendment No. 10, in clause 117, page 78, line 27, at end insertߞ
      '( ) The provision which, by virtue of subsection (6), may be made by regulations under the Part of this Act which relates to the Older Persons' Commissioner includes provision amending or repealing any enactment or instrument.'.
      Amendment No. 11, in clause 120, page 81, line 31, at end insertߞ
      'Older Persons' Commissisoner Section (Older Persons' Commissioner
      New schedule 2:—'The Older Persons' Commissioner—

      OLDER PERSONS' COMMISSIONER

        Status
        1.—(1) The Older Persons' Commissioner is to be a corporation sole.
        (2) The Older Persons' Commissioner is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Older Persons' Commissioner's property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.

        Appointment and tenure of office
        2. Regulations may make provision—

        (a) as to the appointment of the Older Persons' Commissioner (including any conditions to be fulfilled for appointment);

        (b) as to the filling of vacancies in the office of Commissioner;

        (c) as to the tenure of office of the Older Persons' Commissioner (including the circumstances in which he ceases to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office).

        Remuneration
        3. The Secretary of State shall—

        (a) pay the Commissioner such remuneration and allowances; and

        (b) pay, or make provision for the payment of, such pension or gratuities to or in respect of him,

        as may be provided for under the terms of his appointment.

        Staff
        4.—(1) The Commissioner may appoint any staff he considers necessary for assisting him in the exercise of his functions, one of whom shall be appointed as deputy Commissioner.
        (2) During any vacancy in the office of Commissioner or at any time when the Commissioner is for any reason unable to act, the deputy Commissioner shall exercise his functions (and any property or rights vested in the Commissioner may accordingly be dealt with by the deputy as if vested in him).
        (3) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (2), any member of the Commissioner's staff may, so far as authorised by him, exercise any of his functions.

        General powers
        5.—(1) Subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, the Commissioner may do anything which appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of his functions.
        (2) That includes, in particular—

        (a) co-operating with other public authorities in the United Kingdom;

        (b) acquiring and disposing of land and other property; and

        (c) entering into contracts.

        Reports
        8. Regulations may provide for the Commissioner to make periodic or other reports to the Secretary of State and the Assembly relating to the exercise of his functions and may require the reports to be published in the manner required by the regulations.

        Accounts
        9.—(1) The Older Persons' Commissioner must keep accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may determine.
        (2) The Older Persons' Commissioner must prepare annual accounts in respect of each financial year in such form as the Secretary of State may determine.
        (3) The Older Persons' Commissioner must send copies of the annual accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the accounts relate as the Secretary of State may determine.
        (4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on the annual accounts and must lay copies of the accounts and of his report before Parliament.
        (5) In this paragraph "financial year", in relation to the Older Persons' Commissioner, means—

        (a) the period beginning with the date on which the Older Persons' Commissioner is established and ending with the next 31st March following that date; and

        (b) each successive period of twelve months ending with 31st March.

        Payments
        13. The Secretary of State may make payments to the Older Persons' Commissioner of such amounts, at such times and on such conditions (if any) as it considers appropriate.

        General
        14. In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in Part III of Schedule 1 (certain disqualifying offices), the following entries are inserted at the appropriate places—
        "Older Persons' Commissioner."
        "Member of the staff of the Older Persons' Commissioner."
        15. In the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, the same entries as are set out in paragraph 14 are inserted at the appropriate places in Part III of Schedule 1.
        l6.—(1) Regulations may provide that the office of Older Persons' Commissioner shall be added to the list of "Offices" in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (offices etc. to which section 1 of that Act applies).
        (2) The Secretary of State shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to provision made under sub-paragraph (1) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.'.
        Amendment No. 12, in schedule 5, page 107, line 40, at end insert—'Older Persons' Commissioner'—
        .—(1) The Part of this Act which relates to the Older Persons' Commissioner has effect, in relation to times before the commencement of any other relevant provision of this Act, as if references—

        (a) to regulated services in England and Wales; and

        (b) to the provider of such services,

        were or included references to services which would be regulated services in England or Wales, or (as the case may be) to the person who would be the provider, if that provision were in force.
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) has effect subject to any provision made under sections 117 or 118.'
        Mr. Burstow: The new clause introduces the proposition that the Government should establish an independent commissioner for the rights of older people, who would have a number of duties. I want to explain our concerns and why we thought it necessary to table the measure.
        A piece of work published earlier this year by Action on Elder Abuse caused me to think that we needed a commissioner to advocate the rights of older people. That body, which is connected with Age Concern and a number of other organisations of and for older people, was established in 1994. In 1995, it set up a pilot helpline to give older people and their carers, friends and relatives the opportunity to report confidentially issues of abuse and other concerns. The service was rolled out nationally in 1998.
        The report found that it was necessary to undertake a detailed analysis of two years' worth of calls to the freephone service to see what the trends were. Some 3,919 calls were analysed, of which some 1,564 were about incidents of abuse. As a country and a House, we have acknowledged and taken the necessary steps to start to address child abuse, but there is still too much of a taboo around the subject of the abuse of elders.
        Action on Elder Abuse looked at how it would be appropriate to define such a subject. In 1994, a number of definitions were to hand. The definition that it alighted on—in the article "Listening is not enough"—is
        A single or repeated act or lack of appropriate action occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person.
        That definition was signed up to by Action on Elder Abuse in 1995. The analysis bears some reflection. The organisation started by looking at the main types of abuse,

        999
        of which there are five. The first is physical abuse: hitting, slapping, pushing, restraining and over-medication, the last of which has been a particular concern of Members on both sides of the House for some time.
        The second is psychological abuse: shouting, swearing, frightening, ignoring, blaming or humiliating.
        The third is financial abuse, whether it be the illegal or unauthorised use of a person's property, money, pension book or other valuables.
        The fourth is the sexual abuse of any person forced to take part in sexual activity without their consent.
        The fifth is simple neglect; a person is deprived of food, heat, clothing, comfort or medication.
        When the definitions are applied, a number of things emerge. It was found that three in four of the callers felt that abuse had occurred. Some 42 per cent. of the calls concerned alleged abuse in sheltered accommodation; 5 per cent. concerned abuse in hospital, 10 per cent., abuse in residential homes; 11 per cent., abuse in nursing homes; and 66 per cent. were concerned with abuse in a person's own home. The survey found that psychological abuse was twice as likely to occur as physical or financial abuse.
        The findings of the research are disturbing, showing that abuse is taking place in a range of care settings. The number of people in a formal care setting is small and, given the substantial number of calls expressing concerns about those care settings, it is right to ask the Government to help older people, their relatives and others by providing a mechanism to flag up those concerns.
        A director of older person's rights would be able to give a clear focus to the work of the National Care Standards Commission, and beyond it. He would be able to look across all care settings and establish a highly visible position to which people could turn in confidence, in the secure knowledge that their rights would be respected and their needs met.
        I hope that such a post will be established in this country—even if it is not established by the Bill—and that a position will be created that has influence over policy makers at a national and local level; that has influence over practitioners; that ensures that there is compliance with minimum standards; and, crucially, that promotes respect for older people and their dignity.
        Often when Ministers respond to such amendments, one of the lines of approach is that the amendments are technically defective. In this instance we have relied heavily on parliamentary counsel, because the new clauses and amendments bear a passing resemblance to proposals tabled by the Government to give effect to their commitment to establishing a commissioner dealing with the rights of children in Wales. I hope that Ministers will not deploy the same argument this evening. I hope that they will address the central concern about the need to raise the profile of issues affecting older people, in the context of abuse.
        I accept that the Bill already deals with some of the matters to which I refer, but I believe that the new clause is a necessary additional step which would go a long way towards dealing with many of the worries that I—along with other Members and a number of outside organisations—have about the rights of older people and discrimination against them.
        Mrs. Spelman: I shall be brief, because the hour is late. [Interruption.] I am keen to ensure that all the
        1000
        remaining groups of amendments are given proper attention, and I am mindful of the fact that other Ministers are involved in those.
        I entirely appreciate the needs described by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). They have been well expressed to all Members in publications by recognised voluntary organisations with real expertise, such as Help the Aged and Age Concern. Some of those publications have been excellent, describing in detail the problems experienced by older people. Probably the most moving is Age Concern's document "Turning your back on us", which deals with discrimination in the health service. However, I think the real question asked by the voluntary organisations is, "What is the most effective way of tackling the problem?"
        I must tell the hon. Member that I am not persuaded that the best solution is the establishment of an older persons' commissioner. Very professional charities working with the elderly point out that we as politicians must beware any suggestion of tokenism. In a letter to me, Help the Aged expressed its fear that the creation of a Minister for older people—which has happened in Germany—would be a nine-day wonder in practice, and that the existence of one designated person to deal with such matters would make it too easy to compartmentalise. The absence of any real resources or power for that person would make it difficult to get things done.
        Established voluntary organisations say that the problems of the elderly should be dealt with in departments where there is power to change the way in which things are done. In particular, they would like the national health service to stamp out all age discrimination in the service.
        Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
        Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman has had his turn. Will he let me develop my argument a little?
        In some very good work, the all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people explicitly calls for NHS powers to be reinforced. The group says that it should be illegal for treatment to be refused to older people simply on the ground that they are older.
        Mr. Burstow: I am listening closely to what the hon. Lady is saying. She has prayed in aid a number of the national charities that work for and on behalf of older people. Does she acknowledge that a number of them are, in coalition, campaigning for an entity—a commission, I think—to deal with age discrimination? Indeed, earlier today we considered, and voted on, a ten-minute Bill drafted by that coalition.
        12.45 am
        Mrs. Spelman: I think that we must be careful not to put words into the mouths of those voluntary organisations. Help the Aged has not specifically lobbied for an older persons' commissioner. That is not the conclusion reached by Age Concern in its document "Turning your back on us." I come back to my basic thesis. The important thing is to look at the powers that the Government have, to look at the way in which perhaps practice is slipping away from those existing powers and to bring it back to the basic principle of eradicating discrimination against older people simply on the ground of their age.

        1001
        Help the Aged said specifically to me that it is anti the idea of a Minister for older persons because such special Ministers tend not to have the power and resources that are needed to get something done, so that is why I cannot support the specific outcome that the hon. Gentleman wants, although I identify with him on the need to do something about the problems.
        I wish to see a vast improvement in the complaints procedure. The hon. Gentleman outlined a large number of complaints by older people about the way in which they are treated, but we need to look at the vehicles that they have to make complaints. Through an age summit that we organised in February, I have learned much about the problem that older people have in making complaints about the care that they receive. They are afraid that they may receive even worse care if they complain about it. Many older people are of a generation that was not encouraged to complain. For them, it is counter-intuitive to complain about the service, which is essentially free to them; they feel that they should not complain.
        There is a strong case for advocacy for those older people. We would support that. However, although we agree with the extent of the problem, believe that the Departments have the powers to address some of those problems and want an improved complaints procedure, we cannot support that expression of the solution of the problem—an older persons' commissioner.
        The hon. Gentleman sees a need for an older persons' commissioner—an older persons' rights director—and tries to make a parallel; his amendments mirror closely what is envisaged in the Bill for a children's commissioner. There is one important distinction between children and older persons in that respect: older persons have the vote; they have the right to vote. They are one in four of the electorate and the figure is rising. That is an important power, which they can exercise, making the Government of the day accountable for the treatment that older persons have received.
        That is a logical argument for making a distinction between the two groups that we are seeking to protect. It is not that we do not believe that older people need protection. We believe that better and more effective tools can be used to address the problems that have been outlined.
        Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) did well to remind us of the ten-minute Bill that was presented and given leave to be brought in earlier today. I would save the House's time if, instead of repeating them, I asked Members to read the exchanges on that Bill. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a series of problems, which can be summarised as being due to ignorance, carelessness or indifference and wickedness. If a commissioner were created, I am not sure what leverage he would have over those human problems—problems of the human condition.
        I believe that it is our responsibility here to defend the rights and interests of elderly people; we should not place our confidence in some commissioner to do it for us. Surely the purpose of the Bill is to lay down the conditions and standards by which elderly people in care should be treated, and not to hand that over following some knee-jerk reaction, saying, "If we had a commissioner, he would do all that for us."
        1002
        The way in which the hon. Member jumped from the problem to the solution was not very persuasive. I did not detect in his comments any particular logic demonstrating that a commissioner would solve the problems that he described.
        Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend think that, if we had had an old persons' commissioner 12 months ago, the commissioner could have secured for pensioners more than the measly 75p pension increase that they received in April? Do you think that an older persons' commissioner, if we had one—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I tell the hon. Gentleman, who has some experience of the House, that he is now committing several misdemeanours—in the way in which he is addressing his hon. Friend, and in turning his back to the occupant of the Chair, whom he should be addressing?
        Mr. Burns: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Does my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) think that, if we had had a commissioner, the commissioner would have been able to persuade the Government to act more swiftly on the conclusions of the royal commission on long-term care about how to help the elderly?
        Mr. Swayne: I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that road, as I am sure that you would rule me out of order if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am convinced that the commissioner would deal not with wider political rights, but with treatment standards for the elderly as defined in the Bill. I suspect that my hon. Friend is right that, in the matters that he mentioned, such a commissioner would have made no difference whatsoever.
        Nevertheless, the proposal hits the nail on the head. Some people say, "If only there were a commissioner, he would deal with the problem." Such thinking leads to hon. Members being negligent in assuming our proper responsibility. I believe that we have been negligent in accepting our responsibility. What have we done? In this Bill—rather than simply attending to the problems to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has drawn our attention and which we all already know exist—we should have formulated solutions to those problems and established the procedures by which they might be remedied. We have not done that at all: the Bill is an empty box.
        All that we have done is effectively to give Ministers the power to take action later. The consequent regulations will not even be debated in the House before they are implemented. We are being asked simply to hand over the problem to Ministers, just as the hon. Member is asking us to hand it over to a commissioner. I believe that the new clause demonstrates the House's negligence in its responsibilities.
        Ms Stuart: This has been an interesting debate, covering a wide range of issues related to care services for older people. Although the new clauses, amendments and new schedule in this group relate to a proposed commissioner for older people, such a proposal cannot be seen in isolation.

        1003
        Older people form by far the majority of people receiving the care services that are dealt with by the Bill. There are literally millions of older people—a sizeable proportion of the population aged over 65—who rely on care services of one type or another to help them get the best out of life and to remain independent and active. Good-quality care services can make the crucial difference for older people between active participation in society in later years, and social exclusion and marginalisation. Therefore, the Government need no persuading of the importance of health and social care services for older people.
        The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will not be surprised to hear me say that the Government do not intend to accept his new clauses and amendments. However, he and other hon. Members must not infer from that that the Government are not interested in the quality of care provided for older people, because nothing could be further from the truth.
        We should not kid ourselves that creating an older persons' commissioner will determine whether the rights and interests of older people are protected. The health and social care services provided to older people throughout this country—their quality, accessibility, suitability, and the enhancement that they make to quality of life—depend on much more than the setting up of a new statutory post. I believe that the Government can claim with justice to be making greater improvements in the care services for older people than have been delivered by any previous Government.
        The hon. Gentleman's new clauses talk about safeguards against abuse for older people. The Government have put in place a substantial programme of action to bring about improvements in the procedures for safeguarding older people from abuse, mistreatment and poor care standards.
        Part I will set up the National Care Standards Commission as a powerful new watchdog against abuse and poor standards. The commission will work to new national minimum standards. We have already debated extensively the fact that national minimum standards for older people in care homes are being set for the first time, applying equally to all care homes, whether public, private or voluntary.
        In future, care home providers will be clear about what standards they have to meet, and older people and their carers will be clear about the standards that they can expect. These will be aimed at promoting better quality care and helping to prevent abuse by grounding practice in the principles of dignity, choice, privacy and respect. The standards will guarantee residents access to an effective complaints procedure and ensure that vulnerable people are cared for by reliable and trustworthy staff who have been carefully recruited and properly trained to do their jobs.
        The standards will also ensure that older people in care homes have the right to choose the way in which they live their lives—for example, when they get up or go to bed, what they would like to eat, and so on.
        For the first time, older people living in their own homes will also be protected. The Bill introduces as part of the National Care Standards Commission's responsibilities a regulatory framework for personal home care services. In future, all domiciliary care agencies will be registered and inspected annually. That will provide a
        1004
        greater assurance to the hundreds of thousands of older people for whom care in their own home is a lifeline and a means of staying independent.
        Elsewhere in the Bill, part VII establishes for the first time a protection of vulnerable adults list that will identify people who have abused vulnerable adults, and ensure they do not have a second chance to harm vulnerable older people; and the establishment of a General Social Care Council will mean that better training and professional standards will apply to the care staff who work daily with older people.
        In addition, looking beyond the provisions of the Bill, we have published new guidance, called "No Secrets", on preventing abuse of vulnerable adults. "No Secrets" deals with developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults, including older people, from abuse. Local multi-agency codes of practice will be developed and implemented by 31 October 2001.
        Improving the care provided for older people is not just about preventing abuse. It is about making sure that services are up to standard, that the right services are available to meet people's needs, that there is no age discrimination in health or social care services and that health, housing and social care services work together to meet older people's needs rather than letting them fall through the gaps.
        We are taking action across all those areas through a range of initiatives, including the long-term care charter; the development of intermediate care services to build a new bridge of care between hospital and home; the extension of direct payments to people aged over 65; the national strategy for carers; and the national service framework for older people.
        I could continue in the same vein, but I will not test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I am making is that the Government are taking real steps to drive up the standards of care services for older people. That is what older people want, and that is what the Government's priority should be. I do not think that it would be the best use either of the Government's energies or of public money to set up a commissioner concerned with older people's care services.
        We believe that the new initiatives that we are developing and those already in place are the most effective way of advancing our commitment to better protect older people from harm and abuse, and to improve the quality of the care that they receive. We cannot sensibly consider the addition of an expensive national office before the new arrangements have even had a chance to work.
        For those reasons, we believe that available resources should be spent first and foremost on raising the quality of care provided to older people in our society. I very much hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments.
        Mr. Burstow: Let me respond briefly to the interesting exchange that we have had on this group of amendments. We have sought to raise a number of concerns. We have concentrated on concerns about elder abuse, but other contributors to the debate have broadened the discussion to include the wider context of age discrimination. If the scope of the Bill had permitted it, we would have wanted

        1005
        a broader remit for the proposed commissioner, so that the concerns of a number of the relevant charities about age discrimination could be addressed.
        1 am
        The ageist assumptions still prevalent in our society need to be challenged, as does the taboo about abuse of elders. As a society, we have decided to confront discrimination based on sex and gender, and we have decided to tackle racism. The House has decided also that we should do something about disability, and it is time that we decided to do something about age. The commissioner proposed in the new clause would have achieved that.
        However, given the hour of the night and the contents of the debate, the best thing to do seems to be to withdraw the new clause, and return to the matter at a later stage.
        I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 1

        CHILDREN'S HOMES
        Ms Stuart: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 2, leave out from beginning of line 7 to "or" in line 9.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49.
        Amendment No. 33, in clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out "services are" and insert—
        'a substantial part of the services provided are services'.
        Amendment No. 34, in page 3, line 11, leave out "any" and insert "a substantial part".
        Government amendment No. 50.
        Amendment No. 97, in clause 3, page 3, line 41, at end insert—
        '; or
        '(d) it is a sheltered housing development in which residents live in defined self-contained units and are supplied with nursing or personal care on a variable basis according to their needs'.
        Government amendment No. 51.
        Amendment No. 98, in clause 4, page 4, line 20, at end inser—
        '( ) "Healthcare agency" means, subject to subsection (6), any undertaking which consists of or includes arranging the provision of direct medical services performed by nurses to people in their own homes, or any undertaking which consists of or includes arranging the provision of any personal or medical care performed by occupational therapists, speech therapists or physiotherapists to people in their own homes.'.
        Government amendment No. 52.
        Amendment No. 99, in page 4, line 42, after second "agency,", insert "a healthcare agency,".
        Government amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 85 to 93.
        Ms Stuart: I do not intend to detain the House, as these amendments are all tabled in response to concerns raised
        1006
        by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in Committee. I shall speak first to amendments No. 46 and Nos. 85 to 93.
        In discussion on clause 1 in Committee, I undertook to consider whether it was necessary to exempt homes provided under section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989. That section allows the Secretary of State to arrange for the provision, equipment and maintenance of homes for the accommodation of children in need of particular facilities and services which are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, unlikely to be available in community homes. This section of the Children Act 1989 replaced section 64 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
        The two youth treatment centres—the St. Charles centre in Brentwood, Essex, and Glenthorne in Birmingham—were established in the late 1970s under the 1969 Act. No homes have been established under section 82(5) of the 1989 Act.
        In 1995, the St. Charles centre was closed, and Glenthorne will close on 13 July. I have taken the view that local authorities, the health service and specialist facilities in the private sector are better placed to care for the type of children placed in Glenthorne. I have therefore concluded that it is no longer appropriate for my Department to run such a child care facility and that we should withdraw from providing such a service.
        Although there is no current intention of using section 82(5) of the 1989 Act to establish any more of these homes, its use cannot be ruled out at some point in the future. In those circumstances, it is my view that these homes should be regulated as children's homes by the National Care Standards Commission, and Government amendment No. 46 amends clause 1 accordingly. Government amendments Nos. 85 to 93 are consequential to bringing these homes within the regulatory framework.
        I turn now to Government amendment No. 48. The Bill provides for independent schools that accommodate children for more than 295 days a year to be registered as children's homes. The reason for this dual registration is that, where children do not normally return home to their families during the holidays, they need the added protection that is provided by registration as a children's home.
        Government amendment No. 48 will bring all boarding schools—that is, those in the voluntary and state sectors as well as the independent sector—into the dual regulation provision. It is important that children who spend more than 295 days a year in a boarding school, regardless of whether it is independent or not, should receive the added protection of being in a children's home.
        In our Committee deliberations, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge tabled a number of probing amendments to find out exactly how we planned to use the power to except establishments and agencies from the definitions, contained in clauses 1, 3 and 4, of children's homes, care homes, domiciliary care agencies, residential family centres, fostering agencies and nurses agencies.
        The hon. Member was concerned that we should not use the powers to exempt individual establishments or agencies from the requirement to register with the commission. I explained in Committee that it was certainly never our intention to exempt individual establishments or agencies from the definitions. We only ever intended to use the powers to except types of

        1007
        establishment or agency. However, I am happy to put the matter beyond doubt, and I have therefore tabled these amendments to clauses 1, 3 and 4 today.
        On amendments Nos. 49, 50, 80 and 81, there was much debate in Committee on the language used in the Bill to describe people with learning disabilities. It was felt appropriate that mental disorder should be defined in the Bill as an illness. It is quite right that "illness" is defined in what is now clause 120 in such a way as to include mental disorder, and that "mental disorder" is defined as including
        "arrested or incomplete development of mind
        which covers learning disabilities.
        On reflection, I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and other members of the Committee who spoke eloquently on the subject. I have therefore tabled amendment No. 80 to remove mental disorder from the definition of illness in clause 120. I have also tabled consequential amendments to the definition of a hospital in clause 2 and a care home in clause 3. The amendments separate mental disorder from illness and list it separately in its own right.
        The last amendment in the group includes mental disorder in the definition of disability in clause 120. At the same time, we have taken the opportunity to update the language in these provisions to provide a more acceptable definition of "disabled".
        I am grateful to members of the Committee for drawing our attention to these issues, as I believe that it has helped us improve the Bill in these important respects.
        Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for going through the list of Government amendments. All of them—unusually, in my experience—are in response to amendments that we tabled or points that we raised in Committee which the Government were prepared to accept in principle while wanting to come back with their own drafting.
        I do not wish to do what the Minister has done and read out the purpose of each amendment. However, I have one or two points to make. On amendment No. 46, I am grateful to the Minister for taking our suggestion on board and giving effect to it in the Bill. Similarly, on amendments Nos. 47, 51 and 52, we have always taken the view that it would be iniquitous for Ministers to use these powers to exempt individual establishments or agencies. The Minister of State made it clear that that was not the intention, but the Bill did not make that clear beyond doubt. I am grateful to the Government for agreeing to amend the Bill to make that incontrovertible.
        I am also pleased to see amendment No. 48. We tabled a similar amendment in Committee, which the Government rejected. It is good to know that Ministers occasionally go away, think again and then reintroduce the same amendment that they rejected in Committee. We are interested in strengthening the legislation, making sure that it is workable, and in reinforcing and underlining the principle of uniformity in treatment across the different sectors. Therefore, I shall not carp about the fact that it is not my amendment that will be accepted but the Minister's, which is in exactly the same form. I am just glad that we got there in the end.
        Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 80 and 81 deal, as the Minister said, with the rather tortuous language in relation to learning disabilities. The Minister of State said in
        1008
        Committee, that while he sympathised with the problems, he suspected that there might be some real technical difficulties because of the legacy of the language used in previous legislation and the way in which social care Bills have tended to build on each other. However, I am very pleased that the draftsmen have found a way round this. I think that the Minister was in the Committee when this was discussed, and she will agree that members on both sides felt genuinely uncomfortable that people with a learning disability were being defined as having an illness. In the early part of the 21st century, we should not characterise that condition as an illness. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for addressing the problem.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and I tabled amendments Nos. 33 and 34. They address a simple, but potentially important, problem that could arise from clause 2. They would revise the definition of an independent clinic and an independent medical agency. The Bill provides that any establishment or agency that carries out any NHS work will be excluded from the definition "independent medical agency" or "independent clinic".
        The problem arises because of the dual system of monitoring—the Commission for Health Improvement in the NHS and the National Care Standards Commission in the private sector, which has rather more teeth because it is able to deregister establishments or agencies when necessary. It cannot be right that, by performing a nominal service in pursuance of the National Health Service Act 1977, an establishment or an agency can move along the spectrum so as to be regulated under a different system.
        The measure refers to
        any…services provided…in pursuance of the National Health Service 1977 Act.
        The amendment would change the word "any" to "a substantial part". The test would change. That establishment or agency would move from being regulated by the NCSC to regulation by CHIMP only when a substantial part of its services were being provided to the NHS. For example, if an independent medical agency provided out of hours services to a single GP for a small group of NHS patients, it would not be wholly excluded from NCSC control.
        It seems common sense to us that the occasional provision of minor services to the NHS, at the margin, should not change the status of an establishment, any more than—as the Minister might argue—a hospital or NHS establishment that provided the occasional paid service to a private patient should be moved from the CHIMP to the NCSC system. Whether or not the Minister is minded to accept the amendments, I hope that she will acknowledge that there is a problem and will tell us whether she sees any other way to address it.
        Amendment No. 97 would establish conclusively that the definition of "care home" cannot include units in a sheltered housing development. That issue has been raised again because some doubts, hesitations and concerns remain outside this place as to whether the Bill offers a proper and precise definition.
        The issue is relevant because of the way in which the social security system determines the eligibility of individuals for housing benefit. If a sheltered housing development, where people occupied separate and individual units, was classed as part of a care home

        1009
        because it was located on a site where services were offered to occupants—perhaps on an ad hoc or a la carte basis—there could be a danger that such people would not be eligible for housing benefit. Organisations outside the House have again raised that issue and I hope that the Minister will tell us whether she will accept this amendment. It would simply make clear in the Bill something that the Minister of State said in Committee was the Government's intention.
        1.15 am
        I wish to say something about amendments Nos. 98 and 99 which were tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and his colleagues. They deal with nurse-led care provided in the home not by an agency, but by the direct supply of a nurse-led service. The hon. Gentleman has done the House a service in raising this issue because a problems needs to be addressed. A well-publicised case in Essex illustrates the problems of a nurse—in that case a nurse in the NHS—working in the homes of individuals. There is a clear need to ensure that nurse-led services are properly regulated.
        The Minister may accept the hon. Gentleman's amendments. However, if she chooses not to do so, she must tell the House how the Government envisage regulation of direct nurse-led care. I hope that she will not resort to telling the House that the Secretary of State's powers under clause 42 could be used to widen the scope of the Bill. We take the view that it is not satisfactory, when a Bill is not yet on the statute book, for a Minister to suggest that the use of regulatory powers to extend its scope is an adequate alternative to sending the Bill back in good order to the other place for further consideration.
        Mr. Burstow rose—
        Hon. Members: No, no.
        Mr. Burstow: I rise with encouragement from some Labour Members. I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 97 and then consider the amendments that were tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand).
        The Government amendments are all very welcome. They address several concerns that were raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in Committee. The hon. Gentleman, in describing amendment No. 97, rightly alighted on another issue that we explored in Committee when we considered clause 100, which also deals with definitions. Through amendments that I and my hon. Friend tabled, we examined the issues relating to definitions. One of the points that came up then was that the definitions of personal care that were in the Bill at that stage called into question whether sheltered accommodation, sheltered housing and extra supported housing schemes would suddenly find themselves bracketed with care homes.
        The Minister gave us assurances in Committee that seemed to imply that the only way to deal with the issue was almost to do away with a single definition of personal care and introduce a multiplicity of definitions. That gave me grave cause for concern in terms of the tenor of Government statements about their long-awaited response to the royal commission on long-term care.
        1010
        Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 return us to a debate that we had in the Committee's third sitting when I and my hon. Friends sought to clarify the definition of medical agencies. The Minister offered reassurances that led us to withdraw two amendments that sought to probe the Government's intentions on that matter. However, we have since consulted further and we feel that there is a gap in the definitions through which some providers may pass, unregistered and unregulated. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge described a recent case that goes to the heart of the matter.
        We are trying to ensure that health care services at home which are not based in clinics or hospitals will be covered by the regulatory framework that the Bill will put in place. Some may be covered by the term "independent medical agency" as defined in clause 2(5), but that definition is inadequate. Although in Committee the Minister assured us that the definition of "nurses agencies" would cover all our concerns, the Bill deals with them only in their role as staffing bureaux, and not as direct health service providers.
        Health services provided in the home by nurses without the need for supervision by a doctor can be extremely complex; for example, home blood transfusions and chemotherapy are two of the important services now being provided in that way. Professions allied to medicine, such as occupational therapy and physiotherapy, are understandably and rightly providing services in the home, and they do not appear to be included in the Bill's regulatory framework. None of those examples fits the definitions in the Bill.
        A health care staffing agency provides temporary and permanent staff, and there is confusion about that. We hope that the Minister will be able to clear that up in her response. Historically, nursing agencies have provided a mix of health and social care services, and that is why, in the other place, nursing agencies were included in the Bill in an amendment. As things stand, however, it is possible that direct health care provided at home, which is not covered by the provisions on nursing agencies, will be left unregulated. Those services will be covered only if they are provided by a nurse under the control of the patient. We therefore tabled amendments Nos. 98 and 99 to flag up the concerns felt by several people who are involved in providing such services and who are anxious that they will not be covered by the regulatory framework.
        Dr. Brand: Does my hon. Friend agree that a good example of such services are those provided by independent midwives? They may well deliberately work without the support of a medical practitioner, and patients' only protection is the opportunity to complain to a regulatory authority, which deals with professional standards rather than the care provided.
        Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to use independent midwives as an example of the problem that we are flagging up. We hope that the Government will accept that there is cause for concern and that the problem needs to be addressed. As my hon. Friend said, patients' only recourse in respect of such practitioners is through the professional body that registers them.
        The Government have accepted that there needs to be one agency for the registration of people, such as social workers, and another separate agency for the regulation and registration of agencies and establishments. We think that the same rule should apply in this case.

        1011
        Doctors will be regulated by the Bill, but nurses who work on their own will not necessarily be regulated. My hon. Friend gave another example of a practitioner who works alone. Nurses and care assistants do not appear to be caught within the regulatory framework, and professions allied to medicine also appear to be outwith the Bill's scope.
        1012
        We hope that the Minister will accept that our concern is real and that, even if the precise wording of our amendments is unacceptable to the Government on technical grounds, they will find a vehicle in the other place to enable them to close the loophole.
        Ms Stuart: I shall respond first to amendment No. 97, which is intended to ensure that sheltered housing schemes are not required to register as care homes. I am aware that concerns have been raised about whether sheltered housing or supported accommodation will be registrable as a care home, so I want to reassure hon. Members that we do not intend to extend the requirement to register to new types of accommodation that have not previously been regulated.
        Clause 3 defines a care home as one providing accommodation together with nursing or personal care for persons who are or have been ill; persons who are disabled or infirm; or persons who are or have been dependent on alcohol or drugs. The Registered Homes Act 1984 included the provision of board within its definition of a residential care home, but the Bill omits it from its definition of a care home, so as to ensure that providers who, to all intents and purposes, run care homes, but are currently able to avoid registration by operating pay-as-you-eat schemes, are required to register.
        There is no clear definition of what constitutes sheltered housing and little consistency in the use of the term in the field. I assure the House that it is not the Government's intention to require schemes in which people live in their own homes and receive personal or nursing care to register as care homes. The great majority of such sheltered housing schemes involve care being provided to people in their own homes, and a person's own home, whether that person is a tenant or the owner, will not be registrable as a care home.
        Mr. Burstow: I want to check one point. We are dealing with a Government Bill, yet the Minister is telling us that it sets out no clear definition. Surely the Government have it in their power to provide a clear definition?
        Ms Stuart: I was attempting to explain the parameters of registration. A fear had been expressed that we would extend the requirement, so I was making clear our intentions.
        Mr. Hammond: We are not suggesting that the Minister would deliberately attempt to extend the requirement. The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that she does not inadvertently do so.
        Ms Stuart: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern to ensure that we do not make mistakes. I assure him that we shall do everything in our power to ensure that there is no unintentional extension. I can add little to what I have already put on the record in connection with amendment No. 97.
        Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 deal with clause 2, which, as currently drafted, contains a provision designed to ensure that independent clinics and independent medical agencies, which are mainly small organisations, are properly regulated, but not over-burdened by regulatory or review bodies. The amendments would change that, and I am surprised that such an approach has been adopted. Clause 2 provides that independent clinics, such as privately run walk-in medi-centres, and independent medical agencies, such as organisations that arrange for doctors to provide call-out services for private patients, will be regulated by the National Care Standards
        1014
        Commission only where they do not provide services to NHS patients. That is because services for NHS patients come within the remit of the arrangements that the NHS has in place to provide quality assurance. I have no intention of going into the arguments about whether the NHS and the independent sector should be regulated by the Commission for Health Improvement or by the National Care Standards Commission.
        Clause 2 as it stands draws a clear demarcation of the National Care Standards Commission's role as regards independent clinics and independent medical agencies. Such establishments and undertakings will be regulated by the commission to the extent that they are wholly engaged in providing non-NHS services.
        Mr. Hammond: The Minister is right, but our point is that, under the Bill as drafted, a private establishment that provides a service to a thousand private patients and one NHS patient pursuant to the National Health Service Act 1977 will cease to be regulated by the National Care Standards Commission. That strikes me as perverse and illogical.
        1.30 am
        Ms Stuart: I would be surprised if that theoretical example occurred in practice to any great extent. During our long discussions about how the regulatory scheme should work, we tried to establish a system which has the flexibility to enable providers to use the NHS and the private sector. The proposed amendments would change the balance which we felt was the right one. Where an independent clinic or an independent medical agency provided services for NHS patients, except where those services were a substantial part of its overall services, it would not only be regulated by the National Care Standards Commission, but would, to some extent, come under the NHS arrangements, for example, within the remit of CHIMP by dint of CHIMP's role in improving quality in the NHS.
        Mr. Hammond: Is not that exactly what will happen in the case of an independent acute hospital that treats NHS patients?
        Ms Stuart: It is a matter of horses for courses. The regulations should be relative to the size of the organisations. We consider that we have struck the right balance. We could discuss that further into the small hours, but we feel strongly that we have struck the right balance.
        We would not welcome the change introduced by the amendments. We envisage that independent clinics and independent medical agencies will, in the main, be small businesses. Therefore, it is important that regulatory requirements strike the right balance, and they should not be over-regulated.
        Dr. Brand: I should like to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Earlier, I referred to the provision of alternative medicines, where, not infrequently, one can persuade an alternative practitioner to accept someone as an NHS patient, as pro bono work, in exchange for the odd referral of paying patients. Such an establishment or sole practitioner would be providing a service to NHS

        1015
        patients, under the Minister's definition. It may be a significant part of their clinical work load, although perhaps not of their financial turnover. Under those circumstances, would such a clinic have to register?
        Ms Stuart: If the clinic or medical practitioners are providing NHS services, they will be supervised by the NHS; if they provide medical services, they will come under the commission. I may be missing the point. However, we consider that we have struck the right balance when an organisation provides independent and NHS services.
        I also have doubts about the practicality of the proposed amendments. The extent to which they would apply to independent clinics and independent medical agencies—placing them inside or outwith the regulatory ambit of the National Care Standards Commission—would hinge on an assessment of whether a substantial part of their services were for NHS patients. Who is to say what "substantial" might mean in that context? The amendments would cause confusion all round. They would place an unnecessary burden on independent clinics and independent medical agencies, something which I thought the Opposition were keen not to do. They do not improve the current balanced provision in clause 2.
        Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 would require health care agencies to be regulated by the commission. I am unable to accept the amendments. The National Care Standards Commission will have a big programme of work when it takes on its regulatory functions. Not only will it be regulating those services that health and local authority inspection units regulate at the moment, but it will be regulating new services such as local authority homes, small children's homes and private doctors. To allow it to carry out that work successfully, we must ensure that it is not overburdened when it is first established. We have to consider which services might provide the most risk to the most vulnerable in our community.
        When we consulted last year on the regulation of private and voluntary health care, there was no particular suggestion that the services that are included in the definition of "healthcare agency", such as occupational speech or physiotherapy services, should be regulated. The Bill already provides powers for the National Care Standards Commission to regulate independent medical agencies, nurses agencies and domiciliary care agencies. If any of those agencies carry out services included in the definition of "healthcare agency", they will in any case be regulated.
        It is important that occupational therapists, speech therapists and physiotherapists, if they are to be state registered. are already required to register with the Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine. Although we do not believe that it is appropriate to regulate health care agencies at present, I cannot say whether the position might change in the future. To allow us extra flexibility, we introduced amendments in Committee to what is now clause 42, which gives us the power to bring other health or social care agencies within the regulatory framework.
        1016
        We have a responsibility to ensure that the commission is not overburdened in its early years. However, if there is concern in the future about the safety of services provided by health care agencies to vulnerable people, we already have the power in the Bill to require them—
        Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It sounds as though the argument for rejecting the amendments is based solely on a concern about the work load that the commission will face in its early years. Surely that is in the hands of the Government, in so far as the Government will draft the minimum standards against which the commission will do its work. If the standards are not introduced at an early stage, the definition may be in the Bill, but it will not be implemented.
        Ms Stuart: I do not entirely agree with that interpretation. The consultation dealt with the aspects that should be addressed first. It is a matter not just of work load, but of priorities. If there is genuine concern, we have the power to extend regulation to health care agencies in the future. That is important.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 47, in page 2, line 11, after "is" insert "of a description".
        No. 48, in page 2, line 14, leave out "An independent" and insert "A".—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

      Clause 2
        INDEPENDENT HOSPITALS ETC.
        Amendment made: No. 49, in page 2, line 40, after "illness" insert "or mental disorder".—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Clause 3

        CARE HOMES
        Amendments made: No. 50, in page 3, line 35, at end insert—
        '( ) persons who have or have had a mental disorder;'.
        No. 51, in page 3, line 42, after "is" insert "of a description".—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

      Clause 4
        OTHER BASIC DEFINITIONS
        Amendment made: No. 52, in page 4, line 26, at end insert "description of'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Clause 10

        INQUIRIES
        Amendment made: No. 53, in page 7, line 22, leave out "it would be" and insert—
        'there are exceptional circumstances which make it'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

      Clause 11

        REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER
        Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 7, line 36, at end insert—
        '( ) Regulations shall provide that no person is required to be registered more than once with the Commission in respect of the same establishment or agency'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 54 to 57.
        Amendment No. 41, in clause 18, page 10, line 35, leave out "written".
        Amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 37, at end add—
        '( ) Representations under subsection (1) above may be made in writing or in person and an opportunity shall be afforded to a person served with a notice under section 17 to make representations in person in the manner prescribed by regulations'.
        Government amendments Nos. 58 to 60.
        Mr. Hammond: I see a gathering of Welsh Members who are anxious to move to the next groups of amendments, so I shall try to be brief.
        Amendment No. 37 addresses the issue of multiple registration requirements. Because of the architecture of the Bill, establishments might be required to register several times, involving several sets of bureaucratic procedures and possibly the payment of several sets of fees. The amendment would insert into the Bill a provision that where a person registers in respect of an establishment, he will be required to register only once in respect of that establishment, even where it may require to be registered on different parts of the register because of what goes on in that establishment.
        Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), deal with an important principle. Clause 18 provides that a person threatened with deregistration may make only written representations. There is an important issue at stake, because deregistration impinges on a person's right to practise his livelihood.
        Through the amendments, we are asking for the right to be heard. I am not a lawyer, but the Minister is, so perhaps she will tell me in due course whether she agrees with me. It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that an individual has the right to be heard. In professional misconduct hearings, for example, under the requirements of employment law there is always a right to appear and to plead one's case. It is also a human rights issue, as the right to a hearing before an impartial tribunal is a fundamental part of the European convention on human rights.
        No doubt the Minister will tell me that the procedure outlined in the Bill includes a right of appeal to a tribunal after the written representation has failed and deregistration is ordered. That is too late. The damage has already been done by then, and the reputation of the business is ruined. There must be an opportunity for a registered individual to be heard at first instance. That is possible under the Registered Homes Act 1984—the current legislation.
        1018
        The Minister has in the past relied on a recommendation supposedly made by the report of the Longcare inquiry into a case in Buckinghamshire. That report apparently provided evidence that oral representation procedures had been abused to cause delay. No one condones abuse or delay of procedures, but it is incumbent on the Government to lay regulations ensuring that procedures are not abused. Fundamental and important rights cannot simply be removed because one or two people might be tempted to abuse them.
        In any case, on careful consideration of the Longcare inquiry report, it is by no means clear that recommendation 31 supports the Minister's case. It is in fact based on an opinion given by the director of social services of Buckinghamshire on what might have happened had the county council sought to move for deregistration of the establishment in question. In fact, there was no move to deregister, so the issue of delay never arose. If the Minister carefully reads the relevant part of the report, she will find that that is the case.
        The evidence on which the Government seek to remove an important right is of the flimsiest nature. I could read out details of the report, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall spare the House that ordeal. None the less, I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on my argument on an important point of principle.
        Government amendments Nos. 54 to 60 are a response to a request made by the Opposition in Standing Committee to make it clear that conditions on registration could be not only varied at a later date, but removed. That means that conditional registration can be cleaned up once the conditions have been complied with. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time and trouble to put that into the Bill.
        Ms Stuart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the issue covered in Government amendments Nos. 54 to 60. The Bill will be better as a result.
        I come to amendments Nos. 37, 41 and 42. Amendment No. 37 adds nothing substantive to clause 11. If an undertaking is an establishment or agency required to be registered under the Bill—for instance, an independent clinic—the person carrying on or managing the clinic will be required to register only once because he or she is providing only one type of service.
        Mr. Hammond: My point is that some establishments provide more than one service, such as an establishment in my constituency that provides respite care for children with cerebral palsy and day care for adults with learning difficulties. I understand that it will have to register twice.
        Ms Stuart: The amendment is intended to provide that there is a need to register only once in respect of a single site or building, irrespective of the different services provided there. That is unacceptable, even if the same staff and premises are used for two different categories of establishment. It will be important to have a separate registration for each.
        1.45 am
        Different types of service—for example, an acute hospital and an independent clinic—provide different services and so will need to meet different regulatory

        1019
        requirements. Applications will need to set out different information so that the registration authority can satisfy itself that standards are being or will be met. I hope that I have made clear the need for separate applications in respect of different categories of establishment. The amendment should not be accepted.
        Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 would enable representations to be made in person or in writing when an individual received a registration authority's notice of proposal. The very same amendments were tabled in Committee, but, as I do not want to repeat those debates, I simply say that the Bill will not remove people's right to make representations in person. They will still have the opportunity to appeal to the tribunal, and the Bill merely provides that the registration authority can decide whether to take enforcement action without oral representations being made.
        In Committee, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that he had been furnished with the view that the Bill's provisions for making representations would not comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. That is not the case: a person will be able to appeal to the independent tribunal and there will be an oral hearing. The authority's decision would not take effect until the tribunal had decided the case, unless the provider's registration had been cancelled under clause 20—the urgent procedure for cancellation. Before that, individuals would have had the opportunity to make written representations to the registration authority before it made a decision. At that stage, a misunderstanding could be cleared up or the authority could decide to take further action.
        For the reasons that I have given—abuse of the existing provisions for oral representations in the Registered Homes Act 1984 and prolonging the risk to vulnerable people—I ask the House to reject the amendment.
        Mr. Hammond: The Minister's arguments on amendments Nos. 41 and 42 were unconvincing and she did not address the question of the false premise, on which the arguments made in Committee by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), depended. I hope that the hon. Lady takes the trouble to consider recommendation 31 of the Longcare inquiry report in detail. Perhaps she will realise that the Government are removing an important right without good cause. However, amendment No. 37—the lead amendment—is relatively minor, so I shall not press it. [Interruption.] If Labour Members are so insistent, we might think again about amendments Nos. 41 and 42 at the relevant point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 13
        GRANT OR REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION
        Amendment made: No. 54, in page 8, line 36, after "vary" insert "or remove".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Clause 15

        APPLICATIONS BY REGISTERED PERSONS
        Amendments made: No. 55, in page 9, line 21, after "variation" insert "or removal".
        No. 56, in page 9, line 38, after "(stating" insert ", where applicable,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

      Clause 17
        NOTICE OF PROPOSALS
        Amendment made: No. 57, in page 10, line 26, after "vary" insert "or remove".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Clause 19

        NOTICE OF DECISIONS
        Amendment made: No. 58, in page 11, line 16, after "varied" insert—
        ', the condition which is removed'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

      Clause 20

        URGENT PROCEDURE FOR CANCELLATION ETC.
        Amendments made: No. 59, in page 11, line 32, after "varying" insert "or removing".
        No. 60, in page 11, line 37, after "variation" insert ", removal".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

      Clause 22

        REGULATION OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND AGENCIES
        Amendment made: No. 61, in page 14, line 47, at end insert—
        '( ) Before making regulations under this section, except regulations which amend other regulations made under this section and do not, in the opinion of the appropriate Minister, effect any substantial change in the provision made by those regulations, the appropriate Minister shall consult any persons he considers appropriate.'—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

      Clause 61

        CODES OF PRACTICE
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 30, line 3, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate Minister".
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 63 to 66, 95 and 67.
        Mr. Hanson: The amendments represent minor modifications to the clause that simply extend the power of direction to enable the National Assembly to direct a local authority in Wales to take account of any code of practice published by the Care Council for Wales. They will create powers parallel to those already prescribed for England. Indeed, they are essential requirements. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised those issues in Committee. We gave a positive response and have tabled the amendments.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 66

        FUNCTIONS OF THE APPROPRIATE MINISTER.
        Amendments made: No. 63, in page 33, line 15, at end insert—
        '(5A) Any functions of the Assembly under this section—

        (a) may be delegated by the Assembly to the Welsh Council; or

        (b) may be exercised by any person, or by employees of any person, authorised to do so by the Assembly'.

        No. 64, in page 33, line 17, after "(5)(b)" insert "or (5A)(b)".
        No. 65, in page 33, line 18, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "appropriate Minister".
        No. 66, in page 33, line 23, after "Act" insert—
        'and, in respect of an authorisation given by the Assembly, references to a Minister included the Assembly'.
        No. 95, in page 33, line 23, after "(5)(b)", insert "and (5A)(b)".
        No. 67, in page 33, line 25, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

      Clause 72

        REVIEW AND MONITORING OF ARRANGEMENTS
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 35, line 23, after "may", insert—
        '(a)'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 9, in page 35, line 27, at end insert—
        '(b) make recommendations concerning the operation of arrangements falling within subsection (2), (3) or (4) with the purpose of improving the effectiveness of those arrangements in safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies; and
        (c) when he considers it necessary, or when requested so to do by the Secretary of State or the Assembly, prepare and submit, to the Secretary of State and the Assembly, proposals for amending the provisions of this Act or any other enactment or instrument as they relate to regulated children's services in Wales.'.
        Government amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 94.
        Mr. Griffiths: I welcome the provision for a children's commissioner in the Bill, and the way in which the Government have acted since the Waterhouse report and other reports about the abuse of youngsters in care in Wales. I also welcome the way in which the Government have worked with the National Assembly for Wales in terms of clauses 71 to 77 and schedule 2.
        However, I feel that my amendments will help to fine-tune and improve the Bill and the functions of the commissioner. The burden of the clauses is to emphasise the process and the functions that the commissioner will have in relation to individual children in regulated services in Wales.
        The clauses are concerned with the duty of the commissioner to review and monitor the effectiveness of arrangements for safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children participating in regulated children's services; the effectiveness of information disclosure; issues relating to criminality; the effectiveness
        1022
        of advocacy and advisory support services to enforce the provision of certain functions with regard to information; assisting a child in making a complaint; and giving advice to any person who requests it. In schedule 2 there is a power to make periodic reports relating to the exercise of the functions of the commissioner.
        What is missing is any positive note that the children's commissioner should make recommendations for the improvement of the provisions made in the Bill. In this, I claim no originality; I looked at the remit of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which could, on its own initiative or at the request of the Secretary of State, bring forward proposals to amend the Act or any other Act relating to its functions.
        It would strike a positive note in the Bill if we could give the commissioner the power to take such initiatives, which would involve making a recommendation to the Secretary of State in cases of primary legislation—either this Act or Acts related to regulated children's services in Wales. However, recommendations could also be made about secondary legislation, which would be a matter for the Assembly.
        In both cases, the commissioner could make recommendations, or either the Secretary of State or the Assembly could request the commissioner to consider whether there was a need to change legislation to make it more effective. I hope that the Government will feel that they can accept the amendments, as that would be a good signal to the National Assembly and people involved in regulated services for children in Wales. The commissioner would be more than a person dealing with process and functions, and would have the positive role of being able to recommend changes in legislation—for this House or the Assembly—to ensure that safeguards for children in care are kept at the highest levels.
        Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the proposal for the establishment of such an important post. Hon. Members will have some idea of how important my party thinks it is from the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke about it on 17 March. and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did so on 18 May.
        I had the privilege of moving an amendment—in fact, it was a new clause—to the Local Government (Wales) Bill back in May 1994, with the aim of establishing just such a commissioner. I argued that the commissioner should
        be responsible for the interests of children at all levels of policy and…ensure that current legislation is enhanced and that the current child-care agencies work together in close harmony in the best interests of children.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 May 1994; c. 627.]
        The new clause was supported by all child care organisations in Wales and beyond, and by four royal colleges connected with health. Since then, there has been the Waterhouse inquiry. I congratulate the Government on having presented their proposals so promptly.
        My new clause relating to the Local Government (Wales) Bill was supported by several Labour Members, and, indeed, by the current First Minister in the Welsh Assembly. It is interesting to note, for historical reasons, that much of the impetus for the creation of the commissioner's post has come from the Assembly, and I

        1023
        have no doubt that it is supported by the First Minister. I am pleased that we have taken this vital step at long last. We need a better understanding of the problems, on an inter-agency basis. "Working Together", the guidance on the Children Act 1989, demanded better inter-agency working, but it has been a while coming. Today's children, obviously, are tomorrow's society, and we owe it to future generations to do all we can to ensure the well-being of society.
        I believe that we are striking a blow for our children and for the future, but, as I have said, it has been a long time coming. That is not meant as a criticism of the Government, but there has been a reluctance to recognise the concept of children's rights, as opposed to the Victorian idea that children should be seen and not heard. The establishment of a children's commissioner for Wales was a key recommendation of the recent Waterhouse inquiry into the awful abuse of children in north Wales children' s homes and foster care.
        I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I seem to recall that he supported my new clause back in 1994; no doubt he, too, will be pleased that we have reached this stage.
        We should pay regard to what the Welsh Assembly has said. It has said that it wants the commissioner to have a wide remit—not simply to deal with complaints, not even to liaise with various agencies, and not even to issue guidelines to local authorities and so on, but to take a role in the forming of policy that affects children.
        On 3 July, I received a helpful letter from the Minister explaining some of the purposes of the Government's amendments and new clauses. I shall not give the details of the letter, but I hope that the commissioner will have a wide remit allowing him to deal not only with children in care, but with, for instance, circumstances in which current agencies and even the courts fail in their duties to children. I am thinking of circumstances in which a child's life is affected in any way. This may be a matter of general policy; it may involve a forum in which young people can discuss certain matters. I appreciate the whistleblowing aspect, to which the Minister's letter refers.
        I hope that the commissioner will be able to formulate child-friendly policies in both the voluntary and the governmental spheres. I also hope that the establishment of this post will promote equal opportunities for the children of Wales, and that the commissioner will monitor the production of, for example, child impact statements. Much is expected of the commissioner. I hope that the office will live up to its name. I am delighted that it has been set up today, and I pay tribute to the Government for having moved so quickly.
        I hope that, with the National Assembly, we shall be able to make a real go of the initiative. I am pleased that it was first considered in the National Assembly. In a way, it is a first for Wales. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the office will have a broad remit and be able to take into account the important matters included in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bridgend.
        2 am
        Ms Julie Morgan: I intend to be brief in supporting the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I am pleased to speak in support of them because he has an excellent track record in working for children in Wales.
        I should like clarification on the points that my hon. Friend has made about whether the commissioner will have the power to make proposals to amend the Bill when it has been enacted, or any other legislation that relates to children in Wales. It is important that the commissioner has a proactive role and is able to make positive suggestions; that must be made clear. It is the Welsh Assembly's intention that the children's commissioner and the office of the children's commissioner should develop, and that the commissioner can promote the interests of all children in Wales, not just the children who are referred to in the legislation. It is important that we make the commissioner's powers as wide as possible in the Bill.
        It is important to remember that the commissioner's duties already go way beyond children in care. There is a misconception in Wales that the amendments to the Bill would cover only children in care. We are covering much more: children in day nurseries, the fostering and adoption of children, domiciliary services and all the regulated services. All that goes way beyond children in care.
        A voluntary body has expressed concern to me about whether the Welsh commissioner can be an advocate and champion for children as well as an impartial investigator of complaints that arise. I would like the Minister's comments on that. As I see it, the commissioner's office will be able to deal with the wishes and concerns of children in the areas covered in the Bill, which obviously goes far beyond simply investigating complaints. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that.
        The National Assembly intends the office to go far beyond the impartial office of an ombudsman. One of its main functions should be, and will be—the Assembly wants it to be—to promote and monitor the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to raise the profile, to improve public attitudes towards children and to be a proactive force in Wales. I should like the Minister's assurance that nothing in the legislation would prevent the Assembly from developing a wider remit for the commissioner and from taking on wider functions, initially, of course, on a non-statutory basis.
        The establishment of the commissioner is an important development in Wales. This is one of the first pieces of legislation introduced here that has been requested by the National Assembly, and it is an example of the partnership between Westminster and the Welsh Assembly. I understand that the Assembly plans to involve children in the recruitment and selection of the commissioner. That is giving children a voice in the selection, and it is a tremendous step forward. It is important to remember that the commissioner will not be just one person. There will be an office for the commissioner, with different people who can undertake the different functions that we envisage the commissioner having.
        I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the commissioner will have the powers proposed in amendments Nos. 8 and 9, and that further legislation will

        1025
        be introduced as soon as possible, in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly, to extend the commissioner's remit on a statutory basis to all children in Wales.
        Mr. Hanson: The Government amendments in this group are minor and technical ones, tidying up the provisions for the commissioner.
        I very much welcome the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), and the generous welcome given to the Government's proposals by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
        The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North asked about the Bill's development. On 15 February, Waterhouse recommended establishment of the position of a children's commissioner. On 2 March, we stated that we would table relevant amendments. Subsequently, in Committee, we tabled the amendments, and today we are tidying them up.
        We shall sympathetically and urgently consider the National Assembly's wish for a wider role. However, I hope that both the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North can accept that, although we are in discussions with the National Assembly, I cannot pre-empt a future Gracious Speech. Nevertheless, we shall certainly examine the possibility of expanding that role and fulfilling the full potential of the Waterhouse recommendations. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend.
        Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, would include in the Bill a requirement for the children's commissioner in Wales to make recommendations to the Secretary of State or to the Assembly. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the concepts of reviewing and monitoring such arrangements, and the provision for reports by the commissioner, are intended to encompass the making of such recommendations as his amendments seek to ensure will be made. It is implicit in part V that the commissioner will be able to make the type of recommendations suggested by my hon. Friend. It is therefore not necessary, I hope, for specific provision on the matter to be included in the Bill.
        My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North also mentioned amendments to legislation. They will both be aware that primary legislation remains principally a matter for the Government and the House, whereas devolved secondary legislation is a matter for the National Assembly. I assure my hon. Friends that I am confident that if recommendations are made in reports by the commissioner that relate to changes in either primary or secondary legislation, strong and due consideration will be given to amending that legislation. The commissioner's reports will carry tremendous weight in the matter.
        I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend on both those points, so that he will be able to withdraw his amendment. I genuinely welcome the general points that have been made in this debate, and I look forward to completing the remaining tasks at an appropriate parliamentary opportunity.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that very positive response to this short
        1026
        debate. I am sure that the words that will appear in Hansard will give great reassurance to everyone who works with children in Wales, both on the commissioner's specific power to recommend changes to primary and secondary legislation, and on development of the commissioner's role. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 78

        AMENDMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1989
        Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 40, line 1, leave out subsection (8).
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 40, line 6, leave out from "is" to end of line 9 and insert—
        'any person, authority or agency (referred to in this Part as the Registrar) prescribed by the Secretary of State, and reference to the Registrar's area are references to England.'.
        No. 4, in page 40, line 20, leave out "regular contact with" and insert "proximity to".
        Government amendment No. 68.
        No. 5, in page 40, line 37, leave out "regular contact with" and insert "proximity to".
        No. 7, in page 40, line 48, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 41.
        No. 14, in page 41, line 20, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 6, in page 41, line 31, leave out "regular contact with" and insert "proximity to".
        No. 15, in page 41, line 44, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 16, in page 42, line 2, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 17, in page 42, line 25, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        Government amendments Nos. 69 to 71.
        No. 18, in page 46, line 36, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 19, in page 46, line 41, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 20, in page 47, line 1, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 21, in page 47, line 6, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 22, in page 47, line 9, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 23, in page 47, line 12, leave out "the Chief Inspector" and insert—
        'Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England'.
        No. 24, in page 47, line 15, leave out "Chief Inspector's" and insert "Registrar's".
        No. 25, in page 47, line 21, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 26, in page 48, line 7, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".

        1027
        No. 27, in page 48, line 13, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 28, in page 48, line 16, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 29, in page 48, line 35, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        No. 30, in page 48, line 37, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "Registrar".
        Government amendment No. 72.
        Mr. Hammond: I hope that all the Welsh Members present will not leave the Chamber, because the regulations that we are debating apply in both England and Wales, and there are some important issues to be addressed.
        I should like, first, to deal with the Government amendments in this group—amendments Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 71—which were tabled to address issues raised by the Opposition in Committee. My notes say that I should express gratitude to the Government for doing that. However, as I have already done that several times today, I am beginning to wonder whether the Government should not be expressing gratitude to us for tidying up the sloppy drafting of their legislation for them. Either way, we have worked together to ensure that the Bill is tidier, more explicit and, we hope, better than when we started.
        Amendment No. 45 seeks to delete clause 78(8). Clause 78 is a long and complex clause introducing a number of new sections into the Children Act 1989. The amendment would remove subsection (8) of the proposed new section 79A to the 1989 Act.
        The proposed new section provides for the registration of child minders, who are defined by the Bill as people who look after children in their own homes—that is, the home of the person minding the children. It specifically excludes people who come to the parents' home to look after their children—in other words, nannies, babysitters and so on. So far so good—but on the basis that it is the intention not to interfere with what the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), described as certain informal arrangements, subsection (8) excludes any child minding between the hours of 6 pm and 2 am. Those hours are disregarded in determining whether or not a person is required to be registered as a child minder under the Bill.
        I probed the matter in Committee and the Under-Secretary replied to the points that I raised. I am sorry that she is not here this evening. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who seems to be a multi-purpose Minister, practising joined-up government by dealing with child minding as well as Welsh affairs, will be well briefed on what the hon. Lady said in Committee.
        I have just noticed what appears to be a misprint in the Bill, which refers to
        any time between 2 am and 6 pm
        I am pretty certain that the Bill should refer to any time between 6 pm and 2 am; even at this hour we still have our wits about us. The only reasoning that the hon. Lady was able to adduce in support of the decision to exclude child minding between the hours of 6 pm and 2 am was that she used to leave her children with a neighbour and pay her neighbour some pocket money as a reward. That is the informal arrangement that the Under-Secretary did
        1028
        not want to include within the scope of the Bill. How informal that arrangement was in terms of whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer benefited from the reward that was given is a subject for discussion on another day.
        If a child is looked after between 9 am and 5 pm, that must be regulated child minding. The person who looks after the child has to be registered; the premises in which they do the looking after have to be inspected and they have to meet requirements governing the suitability of the premises and anyone who may be there—husbands, boy friends, lodgers or whoever. If a child is looked after in the same place between 6 pm and 2 am, however, the person doing the looking after is not required to be registered. The premises are not required to be inspected and there are no requirements as to the suitability of other people who may be on the premises.
        I am not an expert on child abuse, but it is pretty much common sense that a child being looked after in someone else's home is likely to be at more risk during the evening than during the day. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the evidence points to alcohol being a factor in the physical abuse of children. I would guess that the sort of people who might be undesirable to have around when young children are being looked after by a child minder are more likely to be present in the evening than during the day. I can see no justification beyond expediency for the exclusion that the Bill proposes.
        2.15 am
        I am not sure that I am entirely comfortable with the Bill's regime for regulating child minding. The question of exclusion of care in the parents' home strikes me as an anomaly, but I accept that practical difficulties mean that the line has to be drawn somewhere. However, regulations require some consistency, and proposed new section 79(8) must go. The message that it sends out is that places where middle-class parents who work conventional nine-to-five hours leave their children must be regulated, to reassure those parents. In contrast, parents who work evening shifts and who have to leave their children with child minders between 6 and 10 pm—
        Mr. Stephen Pound: That is us.
        Mr. Hammond: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is now 2.16 am. Under the Bill, we would fall within the regulated period of time. However, if the hon. Gentleman were to collect his child at 1.58 am, the person looking after the child would not be required to register as a child minder. That is absurd. Parents working shifts need people to look after their children in the evenings. They will find that those people are not required, under the Bill, to be registered and regulated.
        That is a clear anomaly. It is based on nothing more substantial than the personal experience of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who told the Committee that she used to leave her children with a neighbour—a revelation that made hon. Members in the Committee feel uncomfortable, regardless of party. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) had something to say about the proposal on behalf of parents working shifts.

        1029
        The distinction is absurd and unacceptable. It rests on expediency alone and creates an unacceptably uneven playing field between children cared for at different times of day. It would mean that arrangements for children cared for by child minders at the times of most risk would be unregulated, whereas those governing children cared for in the mornings and afternoons would be regulated.
        That would be highly unsatisfactory, and even the Under-Secretary was hard put it to defend it in Committee. I hope that the Minister has considered the matter and that he has some good news for us.
        Finally, I assume that the Minister will correct the erroneous transposition of 2 am and 6 pm in the Bill before it proceeds to the Lords. I should be grateful if he would confirm that.
        Dr. Brand: First, I wish to indicate the support of my party for the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The specific importance of treating child minding performed later in the day in the same way as that performed in daylight hours stems from the benefit payments and tax credits that may be available to working families. It seems iniquitous that registered child-minding facilities should be available during the day but not at night, when there is no requirement for child minders to be registered. The resulting unfairness will be hard on shift workers and those who work irregular hours.
        I shall not speak to every one of our amendments, because there are rather a lot of them. The Minister will recognise our main amendment because it mirrors exactly a Government amendment that was brought forward in Committee in relation to the registration function in Wales. The initial amendment specified an education inspector for this part of the Bill. After a lot more discussion and consultation in the Principality, it was decided that it would be safer to have the flexibility of having a registrar or a registering authority rather than specifying a particular agency other than the Assembly.
        It is too late in the day for us to rehearse a lot of the arguments. Many of my colleagues think that Ofsted is not the right agency for the regulation of child minding and day care—and not only because its track record as an agency suggests that it is not supportive of vulnerable establishments. Given the fear that Ofsted manages to engender in quite large schools, I wonder what effect it will have on vulnerable child minders. However, I will leave that aside.
        There is an important philosophical issue here. I see child care and day care as a social care rather than an educational issue. One must be careful not to allow the educational umbrella to spread too wide. Having said that, we clearly lost that argument in the turf wars between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. One must accept that the Government are intent that Ofsted will carry out this very important work.
        I accept that the Government have every right to do that. However, I have some problem as to whether they are wise to put that in the Bill. There is a very interesting example in amendment No. 72. In the past three weeks, the Government have felt it necessary to change in the Bill the title of the person carrying out a particular piece
        1030
        of work, presumably because the job title has changed in those three weeks. Does that now mean that that individual's job can never be retitled because primary legislation might be needed for him or her to carry on with the same work? If so, it is ridiculous.
        I invite the Government to think again about whether it is sensible to tie themselves, in primary legislation, to one particular organisation and, indeed, one particular post. It would be extremely difficult. The only sanction that the Government would have if they did not get on with their chief inspector of schools—who may be excellent at inspecting schools but useless at regulating child minding and day care—is to sack the individual, rather than saying, "If we don't get it right, we will transfer your service over to another agency."
        At times, we ask the Government to be too prescriptive in their Bills. Their response is that we should not tie their hands but give them the flexibility so that another round of primary legislation is not necessary if they need to change things by regulation. I invite the Government to give themselves the opportunity to revisit a decision that they have made today. I hope, for the sake of the children about whom we are talking, that they do not have to revisit their decision, but it would be a tremendous shame if that could not be done because of a lack of legislative time or parliamentary procedure.
        Mr. Hanson: As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) acknowledged, the Government amendments were tabled in response to representations made to us in the Standing Committee. I hope that shows that we are a listening Government and that co-operation in Committee can serve a valuable and interesting function.
        The hon. Gentleman was concerned about a possible misprint. My reading is correct. There is an explanation, and to save time, I shall write to him about the matter. I assure him that the Bill is correct, but, for clarity, I shall write to him.
        The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is that there should be regulation for child care at all hours, whether at home or elsewhere. The issue is simple; it boils down to whether the Government should deal with such matters, or whether parents should decide which of their friends or neighbours they leave their children with for the evening. Should that be a judgment for the Government or for parents?
        As we made clear in Committee, the purpose of the exemption is to avoid the regulation of informal care arrangements. The Government understand that such care is most likely to be provided during the specified hours. Any reduction would only cause more informal arrangements to be caught within the remit of the regulations. I am sure that the Conservatives do not want more opportunities for regulation on matters such as child care. An important principle is involved.
        The proposal to lift the exemption would bring within the scope of registration anyone who babysits in their own home in the evening for reward. We held significant discussions of that matter in Committee. It was emphasised that informal arrangements are outside regulation and the Government believe that parents should be responsible for them. Although we accept that there may be some concerns, it would be difficult to regulate such child care—we would be intruding on parents'

        1031
        private arrangements. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge may disagree with that. In essence, I reiterate the points made in Committee.
        The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) raised several important issues. There are differences between the arrangements in England and Wales.
        Dr. Brand: Before the Minister deals with my amendment, will he address the issue of benefit payments to working parents for child care? Will he discuss that matter with his colleagues in other Departments? If he is saying that child care does not have to be provided by a registered child carer during the specified hours, is it possible for parents to claim tax benefits for unregistered child care? It is vital that we treat workers equally, irrespective of the time of day at which they work.
        Mr. Hanson: I shall look into that matter and discuss it with my colleagues. The question is about parental choice at that time of the evening and whether we should intrude by introducing regulation to cover that time. The Government judged that we needed to draw a line and we have done so, as we explained in Committee. However, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman when I have discussed the matter with the appropriate ministerial colleagues.
        As the hon. Gentleman is aware there are differences between England and Wales on these matters; they were well rehearsed in detailed discussions in Committee. The amendment would certainly offer the possibility of removing responsibilities from Ofsted in England. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, given Ofsted's track record on taking on new work, he need not be quite so anxious as he appears to be. It is appropriate that such a fundamental decision should be taken through secondary legislation. The matter is important; it is for the House to consider. That is why the provision is in the Bill. We have discussed the arrangements in detail.
        Dr. Brand: Will the Minister give way?
        2.30 am
        Mr. Hanson: No, because I want to finish my point. We had considerable discussion in many sittings in Committee on the roles and responsibilities of Ofsted and on the position in Wales. The Government have made it clear that the Bill will give Ofsted the responsibility for the sector that we are discussing. The matter has been discussed and the changes to be made are a matter for secondary legislation in due course. I urge the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that and to take the opportunity to see how the provision operates. At some point, we can return to it in future.
        Mr. Hammond: I was not sure to which amendment the Minister was speaking, but it was not to amendment No. 45.
        I have now recovered my wits and the Minister has no need to write to me about the times. I see that the provision is framed in the negative, and I understand that the excluded hours are between 6 pm and 2 am.
        I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to remove an illogicality from the Bill. My amendment offered one more lifeline to the Government to try to remove a banana skin and a provision that is
        1032
        likely to rebound on them in the not too distant future. He said that a line has to be drawn somewhere and that the Government were anxious not to impose additional regulation in respect of early-evening arrangements undertaken by child minders. Equally logically, however, he could have said that the Government had therefore decided that it was not appropriate for exactly the same child-minding arrangement to be regulated if it took place in the afternoon or in the morning.
        The amendment was an attempt to resolve an obvious anomaly in the Bill, which had been identified and commented on by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. It is clear that the Government do not wish to take the opportunity to resolve it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: No. 68, in page 40, line 34, leave out "and every prescribed person".
        No. 69, in page 44, line 36, leave out "The regulations may make" and insert—
        'Any regulations made under this section shall include'.
        No. 70, in page 44, line 36, leave out "for".
        No. 71, in page 45, line 35, at end insert—
        '( ) Where an order has been so made, the registration authority shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the making of the order, notify the local authority in whose area the person concerned acts or acted as a child minder, or provides or provided day care, of the making of the order.'.
        No. 72, in page 52, line 26, leave out—
        'the Chief Inspector of Schools'
        and insert—
        'Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education and Training'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

      Clause 79
        BASIC DEFINITIONS
        Amendment made: No. 73, in page 53, line 22, after "clinic" insert ", independent medical agency".—[Ms Stuart.]
      Clause 91
        PERSONS REFERRED FOR INCLUSION IN LIST UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT 1999
        Amendment made: No. 74, in page 61, line 22, leave out "or 2A" and insert ", 2A or 2D".—[Ms Stuart.]
      Clause 98

        TRANSFER FROM CONSULTANCY SERVICE INDEX OF INDIVIDUALS NAMED IN PAST INQUIRIES
        Amendments made: No. 75, in page 67, line 8, at end insert—
        'and in paragraph (a), for "this section" there shall he substituted "section 1 above"'.
        No. 76, in page 67, line 22, leave out "this section" and insert "section 1 above".—[Ms Stuart.]

      Clause 103

        SUITABILITY TO ADOPT A CHILD: SEARCHES OF LISTS
        Amendments made: No. 77, in page 70, line 22, at beginning insert—
        '( ) The Police Act 1997 shall be amended as follows.'
        No. 78, in page 70, line 22, leave out'—
        113(3A) of the Police Act 1997'
        and insert "113 (criminal record certificates)—
        ( ) in subsection (3A)'.
        No. 79, in page 70, line 23, at end insert—
        'and
        ( ) After subsection (3D) (inserted by section 89) there shall be inserted—
        "(3E) The references in subsections (3A) and (3C) to suitability to be employed, supplied to work, found work or given work in a position falling within subsection (3B) or (3D) include references to suitability to be registered—

        (a) under Part II of the Care Standards Act 2000 (establishments and agencies);

        (b) under Part IV of that Act (social care workers); or

        (c) for child minding or providing day care under Part XA of the Children Act 1989, or under section 71 of that Act or Article 118 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (child minding and day care)."

        ( )In section 115 (enhanced criminal record certificates)—
        (a) in subsection (5)—
        (i) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
        "(ea) registration under Part II of the Care Standards Act 2000 (establishments and agencies);
        (eb) registration under Part IV of that Act (social care workers);" and
        (ii) after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted—
        "(h) a decision made by an adoption agency within the meaning of section 11 of the Adoption Act 1976 as to a person's suitability to adopt a child." and
        (b) in subsection (6A), after "113," there shall be inserted "or his suitability to adopt a child,".'.—[Ms Stuart.]
        Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Ms Stuart.]
        2.33 am
        Mr. Hammond: The lateness of the hour clearly calls for brevity, but it would not do justice to the process that the Bill has undergone if I did not make one or two comments.
        I would not like the length of this evening's proceedings and the fact that the opposition parties—ourselves and the Liberal Democrats—have felt the need to raise further issues to obscure the fact that, by and large, the Bill has passed through the House with a fairly strong spirit of consensus behind it. Some difficulties have been identified with specific matters of implementation, but the principles behind the Bill are supported on both sides of the House. I would like to place that fact once more on the record.
        The Bill is not perfect, but the substantial dependence on regulations to make it work, which was one of our significant concerns during earlier stages of its consideration, now becomes a strength. We have not finished with the Bill because, in the coming months, and
        1034
        perhaps years, the Government will issue a stream of regulations that will put the meat on its bones. We will be looking to engage constructively with the Government to ensure that it becomes proper, working legislation.
        I shall certainly be taking up the offer that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has extended to myself and Liberal Democrat representatives to participate in the consultation process on standards and regulations. In that way, I hope that we will be able to ensure that the legislation is workable and robust.
        I cannot speak for my noble Friends and other noble Lords who may take a different view of the substantial changes that have been made to the Bill since it came from the other place. It started life there, and I know that several noble Lords have a sense of ownership towards it. It may yet be possible that we in this place will see it again—who knows what will happen when it returns to the other place?
        The Minister of State is not present, probably because he is preparing for a Standing Committee early in the morning. He has dealt with the issues that we have raised and the dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of amendments that we have tabled with great diligence, courtesy and good humour throughout. Sometimes, I sense, his patience has been sorely tested, but he has never allowed that to show, or at least not very often.
        Although it may not always seem like it to the Minister, the points of difference between him and us are relatively small. The main difference is that, from where he is sitting, he can afford to take a much more relaxed view of the use of secondary legislation than we can. Perhaps if I were doing his job, I would be able to take that relaxed view too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dream on."] Well, in time.
        I end by congratulating the Minister on getting his Bill through the House. I hope that whatever disagreements there have been along the way, we can all work together to try to ensure that, as the regulations are drafted and adopted, we have robust and workable legislation that will achieve the objective that we all share, which is to improve the quality of care to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
        2.37 am
        Mr. Burstow: I wish to associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) with the comments that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has just made about the Minister of State and the way in which he has conducted the Government's part in Committee, and I extend that to other Ministers who took part in the Committee's deliberations. I think that it is appropriate to single out the Minister of State because he had to carry the larger burden in dealing with the Bill.
        The Bill is very important and, although 2.38 in the morning may not be the time to trumpet that fact, it is worth putting on the record our feeling that introducing this regime for regulating and inspecting a host of care settings is a vast improvement on what has gone before. The previous system was a hotch-potch and did not give adequate safeguards to vulnerable people, and the Government are to be applauded for putting in place a regime that goes a long way to doing just that.

        1035
        There are still gaps, and I hope that, when their lordships consider what we have done in this place, they will feel that there is still more that can be done to improve the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that vulnerable people, including the elderly and children, are given the safety, security and standards of care that we would want for our own parents and children and for ourselves.
        The Bill should receive a Third Reading; it is a good Bill, and it deserves our support.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

        WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
        Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
        That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet on Wednesday 19th July at half-past Ten o'clock at Westminster.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
        Question agreed to.

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

        IMMIGRATION
        That the draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2000, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
        Question agreed to.

        FOOTBALL (DISORDER) BILL
        Ordered,
        That, if a Bill entitled the Football (Disorder) Bill is presented and read the first time, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

        DATA PROTECTION
        Motion made,
        That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the salary of the Data Protection Commissioner 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. Mike Hall.]
        Hon. Members: Object.

        Default Judgments
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
        2.40 am
        Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, Derek Birch, and to tell the House how he has been disadvantaged and prevented from seeking justice because of the way in which the law on default judgments is currently framed; he now faces ruin, with payment of all costs. I shall begin by filling in the background to the case. I should make it clear that I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on an individual case. I raise Mr. Birch's case to illustrate a specific point in law that my hon. Friend might want to reconsider in the light of events.
        Mr. Birch has a lifelong dream of owning a horse, and he has a passionate and consuming interest in dressage and drag hunting. In early 1996, his trainer, Angela Niemayer, told him that she had found just the horse for him and strongly urged him to inspect the horse—Waltrap—at the Russian Horse Society in Epsom. Mr. Birch made it plain that he was looking for a horse trained in and skilled at dressage. He was told that the previous owner, a Cambridge lawyer, Mr. Duncan Samuel, was too busy to ride the horse himself.
        Susan Hodges, a friend of Mr. Birch, accompanied him when he inspected the horse. The woman from the RHS who sold him the horse is called Mrs. Lansley, and Mr. Ron Meddes, a director of the RHS, was also present. According to Miss Hodges, Mrs. Lansley understood very well that Mr. Birch was looking for a dressage horse and she went to some lengths to convince both Mr. Birch and Miss Hodges that Waltrap would be entirely and eminently suitable for Mr. Birch's purposes.
        In 1996, Mr. Heathcote, a veterinary practitioner, examined Waltrap for the purpose of ascertaining the horse's suitability for Mr. Birch's purposes. The horse was passed fit for
        Riding club/competition/medium level dressage/drag hounds mount.
        Letters from Mr. Heathcote confirmed that he discussed Mr. Birch's needs at length with the RHS, especially with Mrs. Lansley. In August 1996, Mr. Birch entered a contract with Duncan Samuel and/or the RHS for the purchase of the horse for £5,500. His cheque paying for the horse was made payable to Regine Lansley of the Russian Horse Society. The horse's previous owner, Mr. Samuel, was company secretary to the society at the time of the sale.
        Unfortunately for my constituent, it transpired that five months prior to the sale, in March 1996, the horse had been diagnosed as osteoarthritic, osteochondritic and a false rig. I understand that the latter term applies to a horse that is castrated late and badly, which can make the horse dangerous and often results in the horse having to be destroyed. Mr. Alan Heath, a veterinary surgeon employed by Mr. Duncan Samuel, made the diagnosis, but that was, of course, not revealed to my constituent until some time later. The revelation took the form of a statement made by Mr. Heath to Surrey trading standards officers.

        1037
        Waltrap was clearly not worth £5,500 and was not at all suitable for drag hunting or dressage. There is evidence suggesting that, under Mr. Samuel's ownership, the horse had never been formally schooled; it had never attended formal instruction, never hunted and never hacked, nor even left the yard. Mrs. Niemayer, who had recommended to Mr. Birch that he should buy the horse, later admitted that she had received a commission on the sale, although she refused to disclose how much she had been paid.
        According to both counsel and solicitors, that would appear to prove that the vendor and his agent knew at the time of the sale that the horse was unsound and unsuitable for Mr. Birch's purposes. However, no mention was made of the conditions from which the horse was suffering. It should be made clear that the conditions do not necessarily give rise to continuous symptoms and that they are quite likely to escape detection during an inspection, especially if the horse has been doctored. There is evidence to show that Waltrap had been diagnosed and treated with a palliative drug of long-term effect while it was still in Mr. Samuel's ownership.
        I know little about horses, but I am told that the degenerative joint diseases with which the horse had been diagnosed are progressive and incurable. The treatment that had been given to the horse did nothing and could do nothing to stop or slow down the progress of the disease. However, the drug that was administered made it difficult for even a qualified vet to diagnose the condition.
        Following the discovery that Waltrap was unsuitable for the purpose for which he had been purchased, my constituent complained to the trading standards officers in Cambridge. They referred the complaint to Surrey trading standards officers, as that was where the Russian Horse Society was based.
        Following a lengthy investigation, Surrey trading standards officers decided not to prosecute. The reasons for that were interesting in the circumstances. A letter from Mr. Ray Tapping, the legal manager of Surrey trading standards—I think that he still is—to Mr. Birch in June 1999 indicated that, in the absence of interviews with Mrs. Lansley and Mr. Meddes, and evidence from Mrs. Niemayer, there were too many questions and doubts.
        Those potential witnesses had exercised their right to remain silent, so making it difficult for Surrey trading standards officers to investigate Mr. Birch's allegations properly. Mr. Birch is disappointed that the lengthy negotiations with Surrey trading standards officers led nowhere, and he is still keen that they should resume their investigations and commence proceedings under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
        Mr. Tapping also advised that that best venue for deciding the matter was the civil courts, and indicated that he would be willing to release the evidence obtained by the Surrey trading standards investigating officer, subject to the necessary witness order by a court.
        That is what happened, and after proceedings were issued, an attempt was made to dissolve the Russian Horse Society, which had transformed itself into Russian Horses Ltd. in August 1998. That was obviously done to escape the civil proceedings which Mr. Birch had commenced against it. However, he managed successfully to avert that
        1038
        action by contacting Companies House. It is worth mentioning that the company is also known as Alex Crown Ltd., Eurovet Ltd., Anglo-Russian Export Ltd. and possibly other names as well. Mr. Birch's solicitors issued proceedings in September 1998 against three defendants—Duncan Samuel, the Russian Horse Society and Angela Niemayer Eastwood.
        Judge Blomfield sat in judgment on the case. He said that he would like the action to be tried on its merits because it seemed clear that there were triable issues against Samuel, but he could not allow the case to be brought. There had been an election to pursue the second defendant. That choice was a bad one, as that defendant, the Russian Horse Society, had no assets as by that time they had been transferred to one of its sister companies, Eurovet Ltd. That defendant was therefore incapable of meeting a claim for compensation, however justified that would have turned out to be.
        Under the provisions of the civil procedure rules, part 13.3(1)(b), the judge had the discretion to set aside the default judgment against the second defendant and had he done so, Mr. Birch's lawyers would then have been able to pursue the other defendants in the case. However, it was obviously a tactical error to choose the second defendant rather than the first. The judge said that the only reason for setting that default judgment aside was to enable the first defendant to be pursued. He said that he was persuaded that, if he did so, it would run counter to the underlying ethos of the Woolf reforms. It would also have the effect of prolonging litigation and adding uncertainty where Woolf seeks to provide a greater degree of certainty and clarity.
        Unfortunately for my constituent, therefore, the judge had to strike out the case not only against the Russian Horse Society, but against the other defendants as well. Under part 13 of the new civil procedure rules, that also means that no other defendant could be tried. My constituent is therefore unable to seek redress for the expenses that he has incurred.
        It is clear that my constituent has been badly advised by his solicitors in electing to pursue the Russian Horse Society. One course of action is open to him—to sue his solicitors for failing to check that the Russian Horse Society or Russian Horses Ltd., now Eurovet, was still a going concern, and for failing to warn him of the consequences of electing that defendant.
        Mr. Birch finds it somewhat ironic that had he been a litigant in person, the court would have been duty bound to warn him of the consequences of the action that he pursued. Unfortunately, he now has no resources left to pursue his claim against his previous solicitors. He owes many thousands of pounds in court costs and is a long way from finding the justice that he deserves.
        The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to ask my hon. Friend to look again at the procedure in default judgments in the light of this unfortunate case. Will he see whether the rules for discretion could be widened to allow a judge to set aside a default judgment when he feels that there is clearly an action that should be tried, as in this case?
        I am well aware that if my hon. Friend can accede to this request, it will unfortunately not help Mr. Birch. However, there are several ways in which he could be helped. One would be for Surrey trading standards officers to re-open their investigation against the Russian

        1039
        Horse Society and Duncan Samuel. I know that that is not likely at present, but if new evidence emerges, I hope that they will be encouraged to do so.
        There have been allegations that witnesses have complained of threats and intimidation from Samuel. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has been asked to investigate, and Mr. Birch has submitted copies of letters from witnesses. However, the response has not been encouraging, and the OSS says that it will take some time to allocate a caseworker to the case. It is clear to me and to many other people that self-regulation of the legal profession is not working well at present, and that there needs to be another body to which people can complain.
        I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to respond in a way that recognises the truly awful situation of my constituent, Derek Birch, and offers him some hope of a full investigation. I also ask my hon. Friend to consider whether there is a case for revising the guidelines concerning the new civil procedure rules in the light of this case.
        2.52 am
        The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) acknowledges, I must respond to the debate with some delicacy in the light of the particular case that is before the court. I cannot comment on the circumstances or intervene in an individual case, and it would not be right or proper for me to do so, particularly as that case may be the subject of appeal or enforcement proceedings hereafter. Nothing that I say should be taken to express any view on the facts of the case, which I get only from my hon. Friend's observations.
        I have considerable sympathy for anyone who brings a case before the court and is unhappy with the result. The role of the courts, however, is to adjudicate cases on the evidence before them and on the course of action presented by those facts, not to advise claimants or suggest other avenues of action for them to explore. That would be incompatible with the principle of judicial independence and the duty of the judge to remain strictly impartial as between the parties before him.
        Default judgments in the civil courts, which my hon. Friend mentioned, have been available for many years. They are an important feature of the civil justice system. They enable claimants to obtain a judgment for money due to them in a relatively simple and easy way, while providing important safeguards for defendants. In essence, the process seeks to balance the needs of the parties in a proportionate manner, while dealing with cases justly.
        I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, but must tell her that the Government have no plans to reform the law on default judgments, not least because Lord Woolf's substantial review of the civil justice system considered the issue only recently. For reasons I shall detail shortly, the issue that my hon. Friend is concerned with relates not so much to default judgments as to agency.
        Prior to the review, default judgments were available in the High Court and the county court, although the procedures differed slightly. In the High Court, judgment was available for both default of acknowledgement of service and default of defence. In the county courts there was no acknowledgement of service, so there was scope for judgment only in default of defence.
        1040
        Following the review, and as part of the civil justice reforms brought into effect in April 1999, unified civil procedure rules were introduced for the High Court and the county courts, including those covering default judgments. It might be helpful if I explain the default judgment procedure.
        An admission, an acknowledgement of service or a defence must be filed by a defendant within 14 days of the service of the particulars of claim. Where an acknowledgement of service is filed, defendants have 28 days to file a defence. If a defendant fails to comply with those requirements, the claimant can, in the majority of cases, request or apply for a default judgment for a specific sum.
        A default judgment is a devolved administrative act that requires no judicial input. It requires staff to check that there has been no reply as indicated in the claimant's request, and that the time for doing so, calculated from the date of service, has expired. Nor is there any issue about costs for judicial decision, as costs are fixed by rule according to the amount claimed. The claimant is required to tell the court of any payment that would reduce the amount claimed so that the defendant is not disadvantaged where a payment may cross in the post with the service of the claim form.
        In cases where the claim is unspecified there is a clear need for judicial intervention, and the rules provide for that. That is the important distinction between claims for specified and unspecified amounts. On receipt of the request for application and providing the relevant conditions have been satisfied, judgment may be entered in default. A judgment may be for the full amount, for an amount to be decided by the court, for costs only or for specified amounts at specified periods. An interest claim from the date of the judgment may be included in certain circumstances.
        Certain safeguards for defendants are built into the system. Defendants who feel they need more time to prepare their defence may be able to agree that with the claimant or may ask the court for an extension. Defendants who fail to acknowledge service or provide a defence will be aware of the implications. Notes for defendants that accompany the claim make it clear that failure to reply may result in a judgment being entered against the defendant.
        If claimants subsequently become aware that a defendant had not received the particulars of claim when judgment was entered, they must ask the court to set aside the judgment or ask the court for directions. The claimant cannot seek to enforce a judgment until either the application to set aside or the application for directions has been disposed of.
        That summarises the current law concerning default judgments. As I have said, I am not able to comment on the case referred to by my hon. Friend, but cases of this type can sometimes turn on the question whether an agent is sued rather than the real owner of goods—in law referred to as the principal. The law on agency in this context is not straightforward or always clear, but put broadly—I risk the danger of oversimplification; this may not be appropriate to the case of my hon. Friend's constituent—where a person has entered into a contract through an agent, whether he knew of the existence of the

        1041
        principal or otherwise, and where he obtains a judgment against that agent, he may not later sue the principal in relation to the same matter.
        In addition, where a person elects to sue an agent and not a principal, although he knew at the time when the contract was made who the real principal was, or discovered it later, he again may not sue the principal in relation to the same matter. The question whether such an election has taken place is one of fact and depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
        The fact that a judgment has been made against a company with no apparent assets does not mean that it is without effect. The company may well have assets in the form of claims against directors or other persons associated with it, or against linked companies if, for example, the directors have acted in breach of their fiduciary duty to the company at or about the time when assets are moved in relation to transactions involving the company or in any other related way. Therefore, a company that, on the face of it, has no assets, may none the less be a valuable entity that, through one mechanism or another, may provide a vehicle for enforcing a judgment, including any judgment for costs obtained in an action. That is obviously a matter on which my hon. Friend's constituent would have to seek advice, and I offer those remarks merely by way of guidance.
        My hon. Friend referred to the conduct of solicitors. As she accepted, that is a matter for their professional body, the Law Society. Solicitors are members of an independent and self-regulating profession, and the Lord Chancellor, his Ministers and officials cannot intervene in specific cases or comment on complaints about members of the legal profession. The Law Society has the responsibility in the first instance to ensure that solicitors observe proper standards of behaviour when dealing with their clients, other solicitors and the courts.
        The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors is a separate organisation set up by the Law Society to handle complaints against its members. The Law Society, through the office, investigates complaints of inadequate professional service and professional misconduct. Allegations of negligence will be reviewed by the office, which, as it cannot give legal advice, has set up a panel of independent solicitors to which such allegations may be referred. The panel solicitors will advise the complainant on whether a solicitor has been negligent
        1042
        and, if so, what action can be pursued. It is thereafter a decision for the complainant as to how to pursue the matter.
        As my hon. Friend said, there are certain problems with the operation of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, but there is some indication of a commitment by the Law Society to solve them. I was heartened by the approach taken by the newly elected president of the Law Society, Mr. Michael Napier, immediately on his election. He stressed that sorting out the complaints system and improving the quality of client care are high priorities for his presidential year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that important statement. There must be a step change in the standard of client care by solicitors.
        There is also a backlog and problems with quality at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. Both are being tackled, but, as I am afraid the report from the legal services ombudsman released earlier this week shows, there is still a very long way to go before we can be confident that the Law Society, through the office, has a properly functioning complaints procedure. However, in cases where it has established that a client has received inadequate professional service, the office can award compensation of up to £5,000. That issue was raised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor earlier this year.
        I have considerable sympathy for Mr. Birch and his predicament, and appreciate that he will have to seek further legal advice if he wishes to pursue the matter. However, I can tell my hon. Friend only that, since May, all actions, with the exception of family cases, can be pursued by solicitors on a no win, no fee basis on what is called a conditional fee arrangement. If her constituent has a good case to pursue against the people who left him in this unfortunate situation, I am confident that he will be able to find a solicitor who will back his or her judgment, enter into a no win, no fee agreement and therefore perhaps provide him with an avenue for justice. However, he must pursue that matter and find his own lawyer, who will act wholly independently of the Government, as is right.
        Default judgments are not the core of the problem that my hon. Friend has raised, though I hope that some of my observations may assist in describing one or two avenues that her constituent might wish to pursue.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Health Action Zones
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. McNulty.]
9.30 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is nice to start the day in the knowledge that we are adjourning. That always strikes me as odd.
I want to raise the subject of the funding of health action zones and I hope that the Minister will have comfort, if not good news, for them when he replies. I welcome the principle behind health action zones. The Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 recognised that there were serious problems of inequality relating to health and that, in some areas of the country, people lived longer. Similar variations included infant mortality, notifiable diseases and accident rates. The discovery was not new. The relevant work had been going on for a long time. I was fascinated at school by the works of Dudley Stamp on the geography of life and death, in which he demonstrated that people living near steelworks lived for a shorter time than others and that poor housing led to low life expectancy.
The 1974–79 Government saw from the record of the national health service since 1947 that there were serious inequalities in health provision between different parts of the country and commissioned Sir Douglas Black to produce his excellent report on inequalities in health care and the resulting problems affecting life expectancy. The incoming Conservative Government in 1979 promptly banned the publication of the report, because of its implication that much redirection of resources was needed.
I was pleased when the previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), not only recognised many of those issues but also agreed, through the publication of the Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", and the establishment of health action zones, to examine health inequality in particular areas. That was very welcome. At the heart of what has been said on public policy direction and reducing health inequalities is that
all policies likely to have a direct or indirect effect on health should be evaluated in terms of their impact on health inequalities…all those policies should be formulated to favour the less well-off and so, wherever possible, will reduce health inequalities…priority should be given to the health of women of child-bearing age, expectant mothers and young children…further steps should be taken to reduce income inequalities and improve the living standards of poor households.
I welcome that approach.
Today is a good time for this debate, because the Government are announcing the reintroduction, after the tragedy of their 20-year lapse, of nutritional standards for school meals. Simple things like the food that is provided for young people in the morning and
180WH
reasonable school lunches have an enormous impact not just on health, but on the ability to study. The Government's strategy of promoting greater health expenditure to deal with health inequalities is important. There are terrifying differences in the levels of serious illness, life expectancy and infant mortality in different parts of the country—for example, in the inner-London ring, by which I mean Lambeth, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Islington, Hackney, Camden, Hammersmith and Southwark. One sees huge inequalities in health in the inner-London ring between those areas and wealthy areas of central London, such as Kensington and Westminster. If one makes a comparison with suburbs further out, such as Golders Green or, even further out, Merton and Kingston, one sees massive inequality. A journey down the Old Kent road from central London to the Surrey suburbs would lead from a place of considerable wealth and high life expectancy through some of the worst cases of public health in Europe. The position changes quickly when one gets a bit further out.
There are many complex reasons why life expectancy is so different, one of which is the conditions under which people work. Building workers, miners, street cleaners, refuse collectors and others in dirty and dangerous occupations are more likely to end up with bronchial-related conditions and more likely to die in accidents at work than people in higher-paid, office-based employment. The Government cannot necessarily solve that problem, but matters can be much improved through rigorous enforcement of health and safety at work legislation.
Inequality in child health often leads to inequality in later life. Children growing up in overcrowded, small flats, where illness is transmitted easily from one child to another, might be unable to do homework properly because there is nowhere quiet to do it. With parents on a low income, they are less likely to eat good-quality, healthy food. They might end up being off school more because they are ill and they might under-achieve at school because they are off so much. They are unlikely to go to college or university or to get jobs for which they might be perfectly capable but for which they could not become qualified.
Those problems cannot all be solved by the Department of Health, but it is important to recognise that much inequality arises from such issues. We must study carefully how the problem is tackled. Merely throwing money at problems does not necessarily solve them. It is a question of approach and how money is spent. I strongly welcome the thrust of what the Government are doing in recognising the causes of health inequalities and in putting together a series of programmes that improve education, access to health care and basic living standards through a minimum wage, although I wish that the wage were much higher.
It is also a question of linking local initiatives, which is where the health action zones come in. Unfortunately, the then Secretary of State did not include the boroughs that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) represent—Camden and Islington—in the initial wave of health action zones, although they were included in the second phase. I can understand the reasons for that—the choices before the Minister were unenviable. He had inherited a terrible situation in the former coalfield communities, where life

181WH
expectancy was low and where there was a high level of industrial illnesses and serious depression because of the loss of the coal industry and the community spirit that went with it. Coalfield communities were rightly in the first round, as was most of the east end of London.
I was pleased when my borough and Camden were included in the second phase of the health action zones because I still find the annual report from the medical officer for the health authority that I represent to be fascinating reading. When reading through it, one sees a pattern of inequality, illness and depression, which is linked to the problems of living in an urban area, of a migrant community and of public services that often fail to meet people's needs, expectations or aspirations. The declaration of a health action zone was an important recognition of the multiplicity of problems.
Our community has, unfortunately, among the highest infant mortality rates in the United Kingdom, one of the highest levels of AIDS, some of the worst housing in the country and a hugely migratory population. In some wards, population turnover approaches 20 per cent. a year, which makes it difficult to build communities or a community spirit. There is a large transient population and the number of homeless people and rough sleepers is high. Public services struggle to make ends meet, to provide services and to survive. Whitehall has to assess the needs of health care services and of local authorities. Although we welcome any support that is given to our public services, it is difficult for Whitehall accurately to calculate the number of people who are sleeping rough or the number of asylum seekers who are passing through, especially if they are in bed-and-breakfast hotels or hostels. Such people, for perfectly understandable reasons, place an enormous demand on local health facilities and services.
The Government did us a service by establishing a health action zone for the area. The broad themes of the health action zone are, first,
Tackling social, economic and environmental factors that are the root of ill health. This will prioritise areas that have particular relevance to children and young adults,
such as early lives, social inclusion and addiction;
secondly,
Improving and integrating services, to increase their effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness;
and, thirdly,
Developing the infrastructure to underpin the HAZ: for example the capacity for community involvement; better information management and technology; staff education and training; improvements to hospital and primary care premises.
Those are welcome aims. In addition, the implementation of the mental health strategy is an important priority for our own health action zone. In that context, a document on the achievements of the health action zone states:
The added value that the HAZ brings to the work is providing the joint architecture which enables partnerships to flourish.
The mental health services of inner London are under enormous strain. Although we must deal with people who suffer mental illness in the best way possible, long-stay institutions are not necessarily the right approach. Community care is, in general, a much better option, provided there is sufficient funding, support and
182WH
monitoring. Sadly, some patients were taken out of long-stay institutions and moved into community care institutions where the level of support and back-up became negligible. Many deeply disturbed people who needed significant help ended up wandering around the community and becoming social pariahs in their districts. Although I strongly support the principles of community care, I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about monitoring it.
On overall funding of our health authority, the Government inherited a situation in which Camden and Islington health authority was in the unenviable position of being the only health authority to receive no increase in the last two years of the previous Government's life. The recent per capita cash increase of nearly £60 a head—a 6.79 per cent. increase—is extremely welcome and recognises the situation that we inherited. However, when the Government announced the creation of health action zones, there was substantial press coverage of associated funding. I am not criticising health action zones, but I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind a number of factors. How will the staff and facilities of health action zones integrate with community health authorities and hospital trusts and the health authority as a whole in the long term? Although I welcome specialist initiatives to deal with the particular problem, there is a danger that we will end up with a plethora of experienced, well-paid and well-meaning professionals who spend so much time meeting one another that they have no chance to do anything for the public that they are meant to support.
I am not looking through rose-tinted spectacles at the halcyon days of the late 1970s, but I remind hon. Members that a system in which one health authority had overall responsibility at least ensured clarity, as one knew whom one was meeting and at whom responsibility had to be directed.
When I consider similar issues now, I find myself in conversations with the health authority, the hospital trust, the community health trust, the health action zone and the primary care group—and so it goes on. They tell me that they are all working well together. Indeed, I am sure that they are doing so and that they get on extremely well, but I must say that they spend an awful lot of time getting on well and meeting one another. I hope that the Minister will use his examination of the role of health action zones as a spur to improve co-operation and integration—a suggestion that is made in a constructive, rather than a negative, spirit.
I am always depressed when I hear about the time that hospitals spend in trying to persuade elderly and often psycho-geriatric patients to leave hospital care and to go back into their homes, the community, social services care or wherever else. When co-operation works well, it is fine and there is a seamless transfer, but the result is different when it does not. That can happen when everybody is up against budgetary constraints, when the hospital is desperate to get rid of patients because they are blocking beds and it is expensive to keep them, and when social services can afford no more agency staff and can find nowhere to put people, and are therefore understandably reluctant to take on new patients. As a result, people who should no longer be in hospital are often bored out of their brains for weeks on end, blocking a bed that somebody else could use, whereas they should be in a cheaper facility elsewhere. Such

183WH
issues must be resolved. I know that the Minister is aware of them, but will he reflect on them and suggest ways of dealing with the problems?
I turn now to funding the health and social services needs of a community. The Government have at their disposal a vast array of statistics on issues of poverty, inequality and ill health. Figures on free school meal take-up in primary schools can be used as a broad parameter of poverty. One finds enormous inequalities even within individual areas. My constituency is next to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate. In our area, one can go from schools in which 80 or 90 per cent. of pupils have free school meals to schools with a take-up of 25 or 30 per cent. Such schools are situated within a couple of miles of one another, which is, I suppose, a feature of London life. When the Minister reflects on such statistics and evaluates how circumstances change and improve, will he also consider the efficiency with which the various agencies co-operate?
The Camden and Islington health action zone was expecting an income of £4,075,000. It planned developments accordingly for years two and three. This year, however, the amount was reduced to £3,734,000, which meant that some of the schemes that it proposed could not go ahead. Consequently, it has had to reconfigure its plans. The Government made the cut because they were concerned about underspending. I understand their concern, as it is rightly expected that public money that has been made available for a project should be spent. As I understand it, however, the reason for the underspend was that the health action zone was anxious to ensure that its projects were efficient, well funded and well planned. It was felt that throwing money at its goals in the first year would not necessarily be the best way of achieving them. The zone has shown a degree of caution in its plans, but has been penalised for doing so, which seems slightly unfair. There is concern that the message sent by the Government's attitude to funding is that they no longer give the same priority to health action zones as they gave when the first phase was signalled a couple of years ago—or, in the case of the zone to which I am referring, a year ago—in a welcome announcement.
The health action zone is addressing issues of local health inequality and seeking to integrate with other groups. The improvements in relation to mental health are very important, as are those in relation to coronary heart disease, cancer, accident prevention among older people and drugs action team structures. In the case of the latter, it is easy for us to throw money at drugs action zones or groups and tell them to go away and deal with the problems because we are horrified to find that young people are taking hard drugs and becoming involved in drug dealing. However, it is important for any drugs team to be credible within the local community and to be seen to be effective, but that can take a long time to achieve.
The overall aims of the health action zone are to speed up improvements and integration of local services, tackling the underlying causes of ill health and building local capacity to sustain and improve health; aims that I am sure will be welcomed. I want to give some examples of the "early wins" that have already been delivered by local partnerships:
Jointly managed and fully integrated Mental Health teams covering all localities—
184WH
we have had enormous problems with mental health, as I said earlier—
Assertive Outreach and 24 hour access to Crisis Response and Resolution; this has led to a significant reduction in hospital admissions.
Changes in service policy at the Whittington Hospital Trust as a result of the HAZ-sponsored Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) awareness programme;
The introduction of welfare benefits advice in local GP practices;
That is extremely welcome, because cuts in advice services have resulted in many people not gaining access to the benefits to which they are entitled. At least if some advice is available from GP practices, that will be of assistance. The "early wins" also include:
Multi-disciplinary sex education teams; 25 health professionals have been trained and their joint protocol ensures young people are linked into local services.
Various figures are quoted for the number of people who have given up smoking: 160 people in four weeks, although I have no idea how many of those took up smoking again. I get the feeling that some people are eternal quitters; they receive some sort of prize for quitting and then start smoking again, so that they can quit again, so one must be sceptical about figures for a reduction in smoking. However, health education to prevent young people from taking up smoking is very important.
The "early wins" also include:
Increased levels of participation in physical activity particularly among older people.
That is achieved through health fitness and training in day centres, which is very welcome. Indeed, on Sunday, I was involved in the opening of a day's health fair organised by Arachne, a Cypriot women's organisation. The day included a discussion about health and fitness, and various exercises and complementary therapies were featured by a project known as Healthy Islington 2000, which works closely with the health action zone and others.
More "early wins" are:

A number of deprived communities are already more engaged in health promoting activities.

Health Promoting School Scheme in place in nine pilot schools.

Sure Start Initiatives in deprived areas outwith the nationally designated pilot areas.

A training programme for refugee doctors and nurses with qualifications from overseas has been established.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) would strongly endorse that. Many asylum-seeking nurses and doctors are extremely well qualified in their own countries, but because of the delays, difficulties and, dare I say, obstructions caused by professional organisations, we are losing the skills of people who want to contribute to our society and who do not want to spend time waiting for their cases to be resolved, as I am sure the Minister appreciates. If we can speed up that process and help with language training, where necessary, those highly skilled people will be able to help the community. Anyone who has seen the effective work of health advocates, who are able to offer translation facilities, will know that they have an enormous impact on the health of individuals and improve the self-esteem of their families.

185WH
I welcome the establishment of health action zones and the recognition of the link between inequality and ill health. However, I am disappointed that, within a year of our health action zone starting, the planned expenditure had to be reduced by such a considerable sum. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises that the underspending was the result of caution; people want to be responsible with public money and not throw it at projects in order to gain more money in future years.
The question is how public expenditure should be planned. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response. If he would like to visit our health action zone again, those groups would be pleased to meet him and discuss with him the positive work that has been done to try to give everyone a reasonable chance in life and, as far as possible, equality of access to health care. We must overcome inequalities between the suburbs and inner cities if we are to achieve any sort of harmony within our society.
9.55 am
Ms Glenda Jackson: First, Mr. Lord, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) not only on obtaining this debate but on choosing to speak on a subject of such importance. As he said, Mr. Lord—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that, in this Chamber, the occupant of the Chair is referred to as the Deputy Speaker.
Ms Jackson: Please accept my most humble apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank you for enlarging my information pool.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North was at pains to point out, the Camden and Islington health trust covers several constituencies and boroughs. My constituency of Hampstead and Highgate, which is invariably misrepresented by the popular press as being inhabited exclusively by millionaires who do nothing but sip champagne and chatter, contains areas of grave deprivation. My hon. Friend welcomed the Government's move to create health action zones to try to tackle inequalities in the delivery of health care. Although we were disappointed that we did not achieve a health action zone in the first tranche, we were delighted to be part of the second wave. As my hon. Friend said, the complexities inherent in attempting to tackle inequalities of health provision are themselves a major burden; it takes time, effort and partnership to tackle them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North mentioned the disappointment felt by the chairman of the Camden and Islington health trust and the director of the health action zone on hearing of the reduction in funding to the HAZ. Richard Sumray, chairman of the Camden and Islington health authority, said that the HAZ leaders conference on 6–7 October 1999 was told that it could assume for planning purposes that it would receive £1,874,000 for the year 2000–01. As we know,
186WH
that amount has now been reduced. Richard Sumray told me in a fax that the allocation for HAZ includes variable funds that are ring-fenced. He went on to say:
Had all of the funds been allocated at the same time, there would not be a problem but it is the timing of such an announcement and consequently the effect of it on our partner organisations which will be extremely deleterious.
I want to speak about the impact of the Government's most recent announcement on those partners that are essential in enabling the HAZ board to achieve genuine equality of health provision in our area. As I said, we were elated by the announcement that Camden and Islington would have a health action zone as part of the second tranche. I believe that that sense of elation was felt by everyone in the boroughs who was involved in delivering health care across a wide range of areas, by the recipients of health care and by those who believed that much better and more integrated work could be done across the boroughs in delivering, improving and targeting health care.
No one was under any illusion that a single agency or organisation could deliver and improve on equality in health care provision. Everyone involved accepted from the very beginning that success would depend on genuine partnerships being put in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North talked of meetings for meetings' sake. I do not believe that such meetings deliver anything other than, perhaps, the enjoyment of participants of such meetings at seeing each other. Undoubtedly, a great deal of detailed work must be done before partnerships for delivering can be in place. Everyone must be clear about what they are trying to achieve and how to achieve it, and must actively monitor whether they are delivering.
In a fax to me, Gail Findlay, the director of HAZ in Camden and Islington, expressed anxiety that what seems to be a reduction in funding for HAZ programmes might send the wrong message to the partners involved, who are, as I said, central and essential to delivering the desired outcomes. It might be perceived as the Government losing confidence in health action zones, which I and deliverers of health provision in my constituency believe to be innovative and to incorporate in exactly the right way the experience of health professionals, of people who receive the services of health professionals and of people who are active in campaigning organisations. One of those organisations, Age Concern, is holding discussions with a health action zone on a programme to build on the accessibility of exercise for elderly people, to ensure that their health improves.
The partners may regard the development as a lack of conviction on the part of the Government that health action zones will deliver what we all believe that they can. There may be a perceived lack of confidence in the Government in this innovative and exciting venture and a lack of commitment on their part to see the programme through the full seven-year period.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to restore confidence, especially in those in my constituency who are most actively engaged in delivering in the health action zone. Quite apart from tackling, rightly, the scandal of inequality in health provision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, it is not the Government's fault that such inequalities exist. It is a question of time. The root

187WH
causes are many and varied, and there may be a tradition of expectation and aspiration not being encouraged by individuals, families or communities about the level and quality of the health provision that they receive.
We are beginning to tackle those central and essential issues via health action zones and many other innovative programmes that the Government are introducing in health care. On one level, in dealing with health action zones, prevention is better than cure. I have already mentioned encouraging elderly people and making it easier for them to exercise to ensure that they maintain mobility and that their health improves.
At the other end of the age scale, we have the Sure Start initiative's marvellously imaginative approach to children, which will make an amazing difference for far too many children who have been allowed to live in poverty for far too long. That programme will give them a start in life to enable them to discover what is best in them and what can be developed. None of that is possible without constant monitoring to ensure that health provision is in place.
More than 30 schools are taking part in Camden and Islington's programme to tackle health in schools. One of those schools, Beckford school, is operating a befriending scheme whereby 25 nine and 10-year-olds are helping to look after the emotional health of younger pupils by becoming "playground buddies". Although I do not necessarily like the Americanisation—the name "buddies"—the scheme has immense value, not only for the young children who will be assisted to find their feet in the wider environment of a secondary school, but for those who participate because they wish to help younger children. That is not only part and parcel of delivering on a health requirement and outcome, but intrinsic to ensuring that we have healthy communities. It encourages a sense of community in young people from the earliest possible age.
My hon. Friend touched on the issue of targeting by the health action zone in Camden and Islington to encourage smokers to quit. As a smoker who has never had the desire to quit, I should not linger too long on this incentive. Although I would not go so far as to use the phrase "professional quitters", I agree with my hon. Friend that some people seem to quit as part-time entertainment—
Mr. Corbyn: Serial quitters.
Ms Jackson: That is precisely the phrase that I was stumbling to find. Those of us who are still trapped by nicotine know who those people are. They invariably say that they have quit, but then say that they are having difficulties, and ask, "Could I bum a cigarette off you?" I am making light of a serious issue, especially as far as young people are concerned. It is one of the areas in which health action zones can make an enormous difference.
My hon. Friend touched on the special difficulties in our part of inner London. Those difficulties are not exclusive to Camden and Islington, but are shared by all inner London boroughs. They are related to the peripatetic life style of people suffering mental health problems, and perhaps drug and alcohol-related
188WH
problems. In relation to homelessness and rough sleeping, our constituencies include large refugee populations, who have difficulties because English is their second language. That is exacerbated, in many instances, by cultural and traditional approaches not only to the treatment of illness but to access to health professionals. Health action zones can make a major difference because they involve a wider range of partnership in which health delivery professionals had not previously engaged. A wealth of expertise exists, on which health action zones, by virtue of their partnership basis, can deliver. That would be extremely difficult to define on a simple accountancy cost-benefit basis. None the less, the benefits can be enormous and incalculable.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to calm the fears of those who are enthusiastic and committed to the idea of health action zones, and that the work will continue, involving not only the health trust but all those partners who are actively engaged in tackling the kind of issues that we have touched on. I hope that he will give an assurance that the Government are as confident of supporting the schemes for the first seven years as they were when they were introduced. I regret the reduction in funding, for the reasons that I have given, and the timing of the announcement. My hon. Friend the Minister apologised for the delay in his letter to the chairs of the health action zones, which was courteously copied for the relevant Members of Parliament. He said that he was concerned about what he perceived as an underspend in the first year of funding for the zones.
It is time consuming and difficult to set up the partnerships in the first instance. The zone director in my area was adamant that no purpose would have been served by throwing money at the problem and regarded it as a grievous waste of public money to do so. Structures are now set up within their partnership structure that can successfully deliver. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) will make the point to our hon. Friend the Minister that the underspend in the first year was not due to a lack of willingness on the part of the HAZ directors or partners, or a dearth of problems on which to spend the money. The underspend came out of a desire to ensure that public money was well spent and delivered services in not only the short but the long term.
10.11 am
Ms Oona King: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for securing the debate.
I commend the Government for focusing on, and rooting out, health inequalities. An impediment to equality has been a compartmental approach to health problems; one of the key aims of the health action zones is to break down that type of compartmentalisation. The best thing about the zones is that, for the first time, British Government thinking embraces a wider definition of ill health and its causes, such as poverty. That can only be a good thing for hon. Members such as myself who represent deprived inner-city areas that are stricken by poverty and inequality of opportunity, manifested perniciously in life-long health inequalities.
The Government's Sure Start programme is another example of that cross-departmental approach. On the Ocean estate in my constituency, 480 children under the

189WH
age of four have been identified as needing help. Throughout Tower Hamlets, £1 million will be spent on trying to improve the early years of some of our most vulnerable children.
That brings me on to one of the main problems with the HAZ programme. The Sure Start programme, which I welcome, exposes the many cracks that HAZ attempts to paper over. One local general practitioner asked me whether I thought it made sense for money to be spent on Sure Start when, in Tower Hamlets, the most basic health services—the ability to get an appointment with one's doctor, or even to be on a doctor's register or to have health visitors—cannot be consistently delivered. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said that prevention was better than cure, and one of the fundamental elements of health action zones is that they encapsulate that approach. However, the same GP—the situation is replicated in surgeries around Tower Hamlets—has one health visitor, who is supposed to cover 250 under-fives, but covers 570 young children because resources are so stretched. A young child in Tower Hamlets has half the attention from a health visitor that he or she would receive if registered in a more affluent area, yet has two, three or four times the need.
Another example of a basic service that Tower Hamlets cannot adequately provide is midwifery. In the Evening Standard last week, a distressed pregnant woman in east London wrote:
we are told that east London is a Health Action Zone with millions of pounds in extra funding. But the health authority is clearly on its knees. Its staff are obviously overworked, you can't get an appointment for weeks, the opening hours are few and far between, there's never a light or toilet paper in the loos and the system is bursting at the seams with frustrated patients.
The article appeared under the headline, "Pregnant? Well you can't see your doctor this year". She tried to get an appointment with a doctor in November and was told to come back in January.
Most people not living in deprived areas do not have such experiences, and I recognise that the Government set up the health action zones to deal with such problems. However, we need to be careful about mainstream funding, which HAZs are not intended to replicate or substitute for. The methodology behind the HAZ in Tower Hamlets is such that it will focus on young people. It will also target heart disease and mental illness, which are the biggest causes of early death.
I welcome the notification of funding for health programmes from April 2000 to March 2001. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, we recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister explained some of the delay in a letter, which was courteously copied to relevant Members of Parliament. None the less, there has been great uncertainty among HAZ services. I sincerely regret the reduction in funding that has befallen the East London and City HAZ programme. We have taken into account the allocations made to it, and although we are thrilled to have received an increase of—depending on how it is calculated, and there are many ways to skin a cat—14 per cent., we note that the overall increase for HAZ budgets has been around 36 per cent.
190WH
We are shocked to have received not even half of that in Tower Hamlets, given that we have the highest concentration of poverty in the country. No other area in Britain has more poor people. Health problems are manifest, and I cannot help but be distressed every time I visit my constituents, go round the estates and find families of 12 living in two bedrooms with water dripping from the walls, condensation, all the kids having asthma and none having places to study. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North explained, that inevitably cripples those children's chances for life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made the point, but I shall make it again. I appreciate that in my hon. Friend the Minister's letter, he said that he was surprised and disappointed at the size of many of the 1999–2000 HAZ underspends. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate explained some of the reasons for that, but it might be because Tower Hamlets is so full of amazing ready-to-go ideas and has the most incredible need that it has an underspend of 2.04 per cent.—the smallest in the country, I am proud to say. Although many other health action zones may face reduced funding, they will be able to cushion themselves with large carry-forwards. Tower Hamlets is looking at a cut compared with 1999–2000 and will receive £2.37 million as opposed to the previous funding of £3.139 million. That is a great disappointment, especially given the serious health problems in the area. Substantial savings will need to be made in the HAZ budget, leaving a significant shortfall to make up.
East London HAZ is committed to delivering on the Government's national health service priorities, but feels that it is being punished for its success. Will the Minister consider that and the more significant point that, without adequate funding in the NHS, the lessons learnt from HAZ cannot be heeded or acted on? The central fact is that, despite increased resources, the demand for health care in east London outstrips supply. The HAZ cannot bridge that gap, nor should it be responsible for doing so because, although the programme is for seven years, that is a relatively short time.
We are grateful to have been included in the HAZ programme because it has resulted in many initiatives. The emphasis on partnership and the recognition that the local health economy comprises more than the NHS are critical in Tower Hamlets. The multi-agency work to identify and carry through health improvement programmes is also important. GP surgeries have benefited from the funding streams in IT equipment and training. The link between the programme and schools is an important step in the right direction. Nine projects based on the work with the communities fund are up and running, including a Bengali and Somali men's health scheme with 90 participants. All those initiatives contribute to the community. The best HAZ initiatives should be incorporated into mainstream practice and should not just be a bolt-on.

Better communication is needed between the Department of Health and regional health action zones. I hope that HAZs will address people's experiences of the health service and begin to tackle its inequalities. They have expanded provision in health services, but the deprivation uplift of £1.6 million has already been committed for service developments in cancer, coronary

191WH
heart disease and mental health. Tower Hamlets merited the average increase in HAZ funding, as opposed to the 14 per cent. that we received.
We are anxious that expanded provision, which was overseen by the health action zone, will have to be cut back and taken out of mainstream budgets. The best way to prevent that from happening would be to improve the central funding allocation and ensure that the overall formula is fairer. Thus, the work expected of health care professionals in Tower Hamlets, based on the number of people served by Tower Hamlets and the East London and The City health authority, would be founded on fact, not fiction.
I welcome the Government's historical initiative, which, for the first time, recognises that poor health is linked with poverty and enables the more effective delivery of health care services to young children and adults, some of whom have the worst health in the United Kingdom.
10.26 am
Mr. Nick Harvey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing this interesting debate. He justified health action zones most convincingly and rightly spoke about the problems that they try to solve.
I represent a rural constituency and I am familiar with pockets of deprivation; rural areas have many problems, such as the cost of running basic services, which are not properly recognised in formulae, but that is a discussion for another day.
Areas such as north Devon do not have to struggle with the extraordinary deprivation that many inner cities have faced for decades. There are no overnight solutions to their problems, but switching additional resources to those areas is justified. The health action zones, which I welcome, will have fewer resources at their disposal in the coming year than they expected. Overall funding to the health action zones, and the total funding at the disposal of individual HAZs has increased. However, not for nothing did the draft letter from the Minister to the health action zones state:
I appreciate that programme funding is less than we had previously indicated.
Only by taking the special earmarked deprivation allocations into account can it be said that, in some cases, HAZs will have more resources at their disposal. It is not surprising that civil servants warned:
We can anticipate that, following receipt of a notification which will, in effect be announcing cuts to anticipated HAZ budgets this year, there is likely to be some negative financial, management and political feedback from HAZ partners.
They stated:
This will not be received as good news and we would not recommend a press notice.
That is prudent advice, but unfortunately it got out anyway, despite the advice of another civil servant that the health action zones
should not be made aware or played into these discussions.
The Department recognised that there was bad news. Even if the health action zones have more cash, they have not received what they had anticipated. They made plans on the basis of what they anticipated would be at their disposal.
192WH
The hon. Member for Islington, North made a good point about the number of bodies that need to be involved to make HAZs work—it is dangerous to have too many bodies with too many budgets and too many programmes. I enjoyed his point about the need to ensure that everyone gets on, because they must spend an awful lot of their time working together. I am not sure whether I recognise his description of the halcyon days of the late 1970s, but we shall pass over that for the moment.
Mr. Corbyn: I was being perverse.
Mr. Harvey: Yes, I thought so.
The hon. Gentleman made some good points about the dangers inherent in stopping and starting—or boom and bust, as the Prime Minister likes to say—in such services. It was right that HAZs were set up for seven years and told at the outset that they had the right to carry over funds. That encourages sensible phasing and sensible planning.
It should surprise no one that HAZs did not necessarily spend all their funds in the first year of getting up and running from a cold start and that they had reckoned on the basis of being able to carry over those funds. I wish that they could have done so, because they were probably just being responsible and prudent. The Government have changed their view and said that that is not allowed, which is a mistake. If HAZs are no longer allowed to carry forward funds, I hope that the Minister will reassure us that mechanisms will be put in place to spot early the HAZs that will not use all their funds for the year and to redistribute those funds to any other HAZs that could use the funds for programmes on their books during that year.
Many hon. Members will be aware, from experience of the public sector or involvement in it, that problems arise when a budget must be spent in one year. I have sat on the governing bodies of higher education institutions, and the director appears in mid-February and says, "Does anyone have any good ideas how we can blow a couple of million pounds by the end of March? If we don't, the money won't be there next year." It would be regrettable if HAZs were driven in a direction where that perverse logic applied. I urge the Minister seriously to reconsider the matter and recognise that it is not surprising that HAZs have not used up in the first year all the moneys allocated.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said that local HAZ leaders were disappointed that they would not receive the funds that they had anticipated. I am not surprised about that. Other organisations were encouraged by the formation of HAZs. The hon. Lady mentioned Age Concern, which was impressed and signed up to the programme, anticipating making a seven-year commitment with the Government. Those organisations believed that the Government were right behind HAZs, but their faith will have been somewhat shaken and they will be wondering how things will work out in the time left for the programme.
I was also struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). She is absolutely right to say that programmes such as Sure Start expose in her constituency the problems that HAZs might have

193WH
conspired to paper over. There are real problems on the ground in Tower Hamlets and many other areas. I welcome the new money coming onstream. However, it would be a pity if it were handed down with too many strings attached. When a Government Department makes new funding available it understandably does not want that money to be swallowed up in bureaucracy or used to cover historic debt. Nevertheless, we need to have faith in local people, who understand the priorities for their areas and can therefore sensibly judge how the sums should be used. Too much diktat about how funds should be used is not welcome.
Despite the injection of the funds, serious problems remain to be solved. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, demand for health services far outstrips supply, and is likely to continue to do so for a long time. It would be a pity if some of the extra funds earmarked for deprivation allocations had to be used quietly to cover up shortcomings.
We must be honest and say that the resources anticipated by health action zones have been reduced. That is regrettable. The programme is a good idea, but the Minister needs to make a fresh commitment to pursuing it fully. He needs to answer some of the questions about the ability of those responsible for implementing the programme to plan ahead and make sensible commitments over seven years. He also needs to set out the future arrangements for carrying over resources. As I said, people should not have to rush around in the last few weeks of the year finding ways to spend money to ensure that they do not lose it in the future.
10.36 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I shall endeavour to be brief, because we are running out of time. I should like to hear a full response from the Minister, and there is no need to repeat some points that have already been made well. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing the debate. I understand why the three Government Back-Bench Members who spoke have a particular interest in commending the restoration of funding to their areas, which have high levels of deprivation. Those hon. Members made their cases well. I am surprised not to see some other Members of Parliament, whose health action zones are even more adversely affected. The subject is particularly suitable for an Adjournment debate, because it concerns a large number of people.
My constituency contains many contrasts. There is a seven-year difference in life expectancy between people on one large council estate, which has its origins in the Birmingham slum clearance, and people in a more affluent area. Although my constituency does not qualify for health action zone money, I am well aware of the pockets of deprivation that exist in several other constituencies.
The programme budgets of 11 health action zones have been reduced dramatically with effect from this month. My research shows that the biggest casualties are the South Yorkshire coalfields health action zone in Barnsley, whose budget has been slashed by £789,000; Tyne and Wear HAZ, whose budget has been cut by
194WH
£1.2 million to £3.5 million; Manchester, Salford and Trafford HAZ, whose budget has been cut by £1 million; and Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HAZ—the "inner-London ring" constituencies to which the hon. Member for Islington, North referred—whose budget has been cut from £3.65 million to £2.713 million. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) described well the position of the east London health action zone.
Before I came here, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). They told me that the Plymouth health action zone's budget will be cut from £1.037 million to £771,000. I know that the budgets of many health action zones have been cut by less than that, but Luton, Sandwell, Bradford, Northumbria and North Cumbria HAZs are nevertheless affected. It is important to mention all the affected areas, because one of the purposes of Adjournment debates is to raise wide-ranging issues.
The nub of the debate is whether the money to those areas, which we all agree need additional support, is being cut. The argument has run along the lines—I expect that the Minister will make this point—that the money is not really being cut because the health authorities in those areas will receive other moneys. That does not persuade the local Member of Parliament or those running health action zone projects. We know exactly how public money works. It is parcelled up for particular projects and it is difficult for a project to recover its position if its core funding is cut.
The Liberal Democrat leader made that point rather well at Prime Minister's Question Time. He showed the sequence of internal documentation, which the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) has read out. The Prime Minister replied:
I think that he will find that, when taken with the money given to health authorities in those areas, the funding has gone up, not down.—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 901.]
We all know that it does not work like that in practice. Handing out extra money for anti-smoking campaigns, for example, does not mean that core funding for the health action zone project is restored. Other initiatives will go to the wall because it is not easy to cross-subsidise from another pocket of funding to the project that has lost its core funding.
That is the nub of today's debate. We agree that health actions zones are a good idea. They are needed in the areas where, for many complex and diverse reasons, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) fairly pointed out, there are life expectancy and health inequalities. Those inequalities are complex to tackle and, regrettably, are getting larger. There is hence an understandable political need to target money into the areas concerned. When a seven-year programme has been agreed, it is most disheartening for those who have to deliver the project to have their core funding cut at such an early stage. It sends all the wrong signals to the people on the ground.
I have some straightforward questions for the Minister. Will there be further cuts next year, or will the core funding be restored? I am not persuaded that providing parcels of money to fund other health-related projects in those areas, which is a loose way of describing where the money is going, will restore

195WH
confidence in the health action zones project. Can the Minister assure us that the capacity to carry over from year to year will be restored? A number of hon. Members said that the underspend by their health action zones had resulted in some of that money being taken away. In modern government we are trying to move away from the idea that, unless money is spent on something at the end of the year, it will be taken away or, in this case, cut back. At the outset of the project, there was a commitment to allow health action zones to carry forward their underspend, but it appears to have gone. Can the Minister reassure us that the capacity to carry over from year to year will be restored?
The integrity in the core funding must be maintained if the health action zones are to work and if their seven-year programme is to be completed. I look to the Minister for a clear assurance on that point. It is essential for the confidence of all of those who work in difficult situations. For them, the money never seems enough because the degree of inequality is so large and, regrettably, getting larger.
10.43 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): This has been a useful debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing it. I welcome the contributions made by my hon. Friends and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has a keen interest in health action zones. He has raised a number of points today and he spoke about them recently in an Opposition day debate in the House. This timely debate sets out the position.
In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend welcomed the priority that the Government attach to areas of highest deprivation and to the need to tackle health inequalities and rebuild and modernise the national health service. He also welcomed our practice of launching health action zones. I wish to reassure hon. Members of our continuing support for this programme. I noted what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said. I have to say in passing that there was no such programme during 18 years of Conservative Governments. In the light of the shadow Chancellor's announcement that he is abandoning commitment to any of the spending programmes, I shall probably write to the hon. Lady asking her whether what we heard from her was a spending commitment to the future of health action zones. However, I doubt whether she will be able to reply as I shall reply today. We are committed to health action zones.
Many of the issues raised by my hon. Friends reflected those that Ministers must consider when deciding on the overall allocation of funding for areas covered by HAZ programmes. There is common ground on the importance of areas where some 13 million people suffer particularly harsh deprivation receiving extra money, over and above what they would have received through the usual allocation formula for such areas.
A persistent theme of the debate was that we should ensure that we strike the right balance between the innovative and ground-breaking work of new partnerships that are formed by HAZs and the allocation of mainstream resources for those areas. We have sought to achieve that balance in a series of
196WH
decisions that the Government have taken on funding HAZ programmes and allocating resources. When the total figures are seen, it will be clear that they represent a substantial and increasing commitment to tackling the poverty, inequality and health deprivation that have been described.
We are strongly committed to improving the health of the most deprived communities. The work of HAZs is key, in that much is being done to reduce health inequalities, to modernise services and to tackle social exclusion. The partnerships that have been formed—they have been well described today—between local authorities, local health services and other agencies, including the voluntary sector and local community organisations, play an important part in driving through those changes. That is very different from the fragmentation and lack of partnership in the internal market in the health service under the previous Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North essentially asked how we should act to make the cooperation achieved through HAZs a more mainstream feature of operating what I shall call the local health economy. In the past two years, we have instituted health improvement programmes that bring together health authorities, with their strategic leadership role, trusts, primary care groups and trusts and local authorities. We have consulted widely with the voluntary sector and have set out areas' health priorities. As well as the range of services provided by the national health service, those priorities include many of the issues that have been raised this morning. The funding that we give to local health authorities and primary care organisations is intended for locally agreed priorities in the health improvement programme, which of course also reflects national priorities set by Government, such as work on coronary heart disease, mental health and so on.
HAZs can be seen as giving a kick-start to the health improvement programme process, which works across all local health authority resources rather than as a separate, detached element. HIPs have been part of the local planning system for only two years. Hon. Members will have received from their local health authorities copies of the HIP, which is only the second version of the document. The process will evolve over time as the HIP becomes the focus for the sort of cooperation that has been spoken about today. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that we have a clear strategy to develop coherence in health planning and the promotion of good health across the local health economy that goes beyond the partnerships formed through health action zones.
Mr. Corbyn: The Minister will have heard what I said earlier. Can he offer us any comfort with regard to the perverse effects of budget planning in the health service and the local health economy, whereby it becomes a positive incentive not to take patients from a hospital into community care or vice versa because whoever takes them must pay for them and whoever has them is already stuck with the bill? I know that the problem

197WH
sounds minor, but squabbling about who should and who should not have a patient causes an enormous waste of time, energy and resources.
Mr. Denham: That problem is partly addressed through, for example, the local winter planning groups, which were established for the first time last year. They led to much more integrated planning between social services and health services locally and were able to pinpoint places in the system where bed blocking and delayed discharge could occur. We shall build on the experience of last winter for the coming winter. I think that that will become a permanent feature of the system. In many areas, the co-operation has been so productive that the planning process has been extended year round, rather than focusing only on the key winter months for which it was originally developed.
In addition, the Health Act 1999 introduced new legal flexibilities to enable local authorities and health services to pool budgets, to have an integrated provider of health and social care and to have a variety of other means for overcoming problems in developing partnerships locally. Those powers became available only towards the back end of last year, but there is considerable local interest in developing them. We have pointed to the potential role of primary care trusts working with social services departments to use the new powers to avoid individual patients falling down the gaps between the health and social care systems, as we all recognise has happened too often in the past. Although I would not pretend for one moment that all those measures are in place on the ground, the planning mechanisms and the organisational powers are now in the system to enable such problems to be tackled more effectively.
In view of the lack of time, I want to ensure that I deal with the key funding issues that have been raised, although I should like to say more about health action zones. First, however, I will respond to the several hon. Members who asked for signs of our commitment to health action zones.
I have already said that we regard the zones as a key tool in tackling health inequalities locally. We have worked with health action zones in two areas. First, we have rightly impressed on the zones the need, when spending public money, to develop programmes that not only address individual problems but that have clear targets and outcome measures, so that we can evaluate their effectiveness and be sure that the investment is achieving the desired impact. In the first year, we worked closely with health action zones to help them to do that and to encourage them to take the process further.
Secondly, we have worked with health action zones on the mainstreaming of programmes to ensure that their activities, for example, work on coronary heart disease, do not become detached from the mainstream work and the developments of the national service framework on that disease. Real progress is being made on those issues locally, but we shall continue to work with health action zones.
It is important to recognise that the extra funding going into the areas covered by the health action zones this year represents an overall increase of 37 per cent.
198WH
compared with last year. It is true that there have been changes in the balance of streams through which that money goes into the zones, but, by any measure, the resources have substantially increased.
When we launched the health action zone programme, we gave the zones a general indication of the funding that they might expect to receive over the comprehensive spending review period. Everybody recognised that that budget, like any indicative budget, could change in the light of experience and developments. Two significant developments occurred. First, last December we decided to provide through the deprivation allocation an extra £30 million to the health authorities covered by health action zones. That expenditure was not envisaged or predicted this time last year. We had built an initial £30 million of extra funding into the health action zone areas in the previous year, but the new expenditure raised that total to £60 million.
Secondly, it became apparent that there was a substantial underspend of health action zone funding. We had agreed to give some flexibility to allow for slippage and for the development of local partnerships. However, out of the £88 million that was available to health action zones in 1999–2000, about £23 million was unspent and carried forward into this year. Although every zone will give reasons for that slippage, it was much higher than we had anticipated or thought to be justifiable when we agreed to the year-end flexibilities. That is why we have decided not to allow slippage at the end of this year, although we will conduct precisely the sort of exercise that I think was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). We will review progress in about October to ensure that we can take action on any apparent problems. It is clearly important for public money that has been allocated for tackling health inequalities and deprivation to be spent on delivering the services that people want.
Ms Glenda Jackson: As far as my local HAZ is concerned, the Government's attitude is an indication of their desire to push HAZs into the mainstream delivery of NHS services—an approach that ignores local realities on the ground and sends markedly the wrong message to the partners. Early wins can be achieved, but they do not deliver in the long term, which is what most HAZs want to do.
Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We must engage the health service more effectively in the wider agenda of tackling health inequalities and ensure that the zones are properly engaged in shaping the mainstream delivery of national health services. I do not see the two matters as juxtaposed. What is important is an effective partnership to tackle the broader issues that are being tackled by the zones and by the national health service.
For this year, health action zone areas will receive a £60 million allocation on top of what would usually have gone to the relevant health authorities. Other resources include £40.5 million in programme funding for joint projects with other agencies; £10 million for smoking cessation, which had already been allocated; £7 million in innovations funding; and £2 million for

199WH
drugs funding. That makes a total of £120 million. It compares with last year's total of £87 million and represents an increase of 37 per cent.
In the Budget, an additional £660 million was allocated to health authorities throughout England. I do not pretend that that point is central to the debate, but it is worth making it clear, especially as health authorities in the health action zones received an additional £215 million of that money. The funds were allocated according to the formula, but there was arguably an increase on last year's investment of more than £200 million in those areas. Although the balance of funding has varied, health action zones received substantially more from both the health action zone project and the wider increase in resources than they would have expected this time last year. They are an important Government initiative and will continue to receive our backing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The next debate is on the report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

NHS Appointments
11 am
Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important matter concerning the report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, but I preface my remarks with a note of regret: that we are having this debate in Westminster Hall when the House of Commons Chamber is not in use. That is indicative of the way in which the Government treat the matter. It is also regrettable that it is necessary for an Opposition Member of Parliament to raise this subject for debate. The issue is of great importance. It has arisen from a report presented to the Government by an independent public body. The Government should have responded quickly in the House and, ideally, allowed an opportunity for debate.
It is almost four months since the report was published. It is unacceptable that the Government have taken that long to make a serious response to the commissioner's findings. It is typical of the Government's arrogance and their contempt of parliamentary scrutiny. It is also typical of their contempt for the public, who deserve an open exposition and discussion in Parliament of the findings of Dame Rennie Fritchie's report as part of our country's proper democratic process. The fact that the Government have sought to avoid that process and scrutiny is unfortunate.
However, as I say, I am pleased to secure the debate. I am fortunate that the balloting process has allowed me to bring the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), to this Chamber to comment on the matter, but had the Government been prepared to make a statement or to allow debate in Government time, hon. Members of all parties would have found it easier to take seriously the Government's commitment to improve the process of public appointments in the national health service. It would also have been easier to accept that they were taking seriously such a careful and rigorous piece of work.
The Government's failure for so long to respond to the report reveals an unfortunate attitude towards the Nolan process and the drive to improve standards in public life. The Nolan rules were not intended to be a party political tool for the use of the Labour party when in opposition. They were a serious attempt to raise standards in public life and, in this context, to raise standards in the public appointments process. The Government's treatment of the report shows that they want to take Nolan à la carte. They want to decide when it suits them and when it is politically expedient to listen to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, without understanding the important principle that the public have a right to fairness and higher standards in public life and in the Government's conduct with respect to public appointments.
The Government have abjectly failed to take seriously a matter which is vital, not just because of the need for political balance in appointments—although of course that is important, as a matter of natural justice and because the general public do not like the smell of an appointments process that is patently politically biased. The most important aspect of the question is that

201WH
relevant appointments are being made to the boards of health authorities, NHS trusts and, now, primary care trusts. The people concerned are entrusted with the responsibility of providing, through the national health service, health care of the standard that the public have a right to expect. It is a matter of serious concern if appointments to those senior national health service positions are not based on ability or merit, because the public are being short-changed by the appointment of people who are not up to the job.
I have said that the Government have not taken the matter seriously. The report from the Commissioner for Public Appointments was published on 22 March. Ironically, in an example of what has perhaps become a new hallmark of the Government—the failure of their attempts at spin and news management—the report happened to be published on the day when the Prime Minister presented a rather empty statement in the House on NHS modernisation. Hon. Members may recall that he offered little besides platitudes. However, one significant matter was on the agenda: the report on the Government's actions with respect to public appointments in the national health service.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter, telling the Prime Minister that he had
produced a system of appointments debased, corrupted and contorted by the crony culture that he has built all around him.
The Prime Minister did not even respond to that point. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) may be pleased to hear that his party leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), to his credit managed to wring a little more from the Prime Minister. After he had raised his concerns following the publication of the report, the Prime Minister began his response with the comment:
On that last point, the Secretary of State is announcing our proposals in response to what Dame Rennie Fritchie said.
That is all well and good, but the Prime Minister gave no details of his views on the matter or of the importance that should be attached to it.
When I was fortunate enough during the same exchanges to be called to put a question to the Prime Minister, I asked what action he would take to root out those who had been appointed other than on merit, and to appoint to NHS boards the best people for the job to ensure an adequate and appropriate standard of management. Frankly, the reply that I received was insulting. The Prime Minister said:
I shall simply refer to the following sentence of the Fritchie report.
He quoted not a sentence, but part of a sentence—a tactic that we have seen more often than we would like from the right hon. Gentleman. He quoted:
"The issue of…politicisation…is not new. The practice of inviting MPs to comment on the shortlists of candidates was first introduced by the Conservative Government…"—[Official Report, 22 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 986–94.]
Had the Prime Minister completed the sentence, he would have added the words:
but has gained a new momentum since the last general election.
At the very least, the Prime Minister's response was evasive, and it set the tone for the Government's reaction to an important public document that raised a
202WH
matter of public concern. The Prime Minister told us that the Secretary of State for Health would set out the Government's response to the report—but when? It was not later that day, when the Secretary of State for Health had the first opportunity to do so during debate on the Budget resolutions. The Government were hardly short of opportunities to put the matter before the House and stress the seriousness with which they regarded the commissioner's report. They were hardly short of opportunities to demonstrate their commitment to improving the process. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State did not set out the Government's response during the following month of April—nor in May, nor in June. I cannot help but think that he would not have done so in July had it not been for my good fortune in securing this debate.
We have already seen increasing press interest and speculation in the matter. A report in The Times suggested that the Commissioner for Public Appointments was "irritated" that the Government had not replied to her report, and reported that she had suggested that politicisation was still occurring in appointments to the new primary care trusts that oversee general practitioner services. Again, the Government do not appear to be taking those matters sufficiently seriously.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I suppose one of the reasons why the Secretary of State for Health would not have been keen to reply in May was that the Labour candidate in the Romsey by-election was Andrew Howard, who was my opponent at the general election. Following the general election, he was appointed as chairman of the Croydon and North Downs Community Health NHS trust, but he resigned after 18 months to fight the Romsey by-election for the Labour party, leaving behind a bad taste among the people at the health trust whom he had abandoned. I am not alleging that Andrew Howard would not have been up to the job, but the fact that he has been popping in and out of a political career has not done the service of that health trust any good. I hope that my hon. Friend, and perhaps the Minister, will comment on that.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an interesting and valid point. Perhaps, in the best tradition of political expediency, there has been a similar reason in each month since the report was published why the Prime Minister or Secretary of State for Health has found it inconvenient to respond to a report that has called into question the whole process of appointments in the NHS during this Government's term of office.
We saw little activity until Wednesday 5 July, when I heard that I had been successful in the ballot for a debate in this Chamber. Miraculously, two days later, on 7 July, the Minister sent a letter to the Commissioner for Public Appointments, partially responding to the report. The letter was placed in the public domain only yesterday by means of a written answer in the House of Lords, and the text of the reply was available only in the Library.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Will the hon. Gentleman remind me in reply to whom that answer was given? Is

203WH
he suggesting that there was collusion between a member of another party over that question in the House of Lords?
Mr. Brady: I am sorry; I did not hear the Minister.
Ms Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman know who asked the question in the House of Lords and to which party that Member belongs?
Mr. Brady: Yes, I do know, but I fail to see its significance.
Ms Stuart: Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling the Chamber to which party the Member who asked that question belongs?
Mr. Brady: I understand that it was Lord Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat Whip. I still fail to see the significance of the momentous point that the Minister is drawing to our attention.
Ms Stuart: It has been suggested that there was a connection between the timing of that question and our response. I have failed to establish a connection.
Mr. Brady: I now see what the Minister is driving at. Even if one leaves aside the obvious, well known and public connections that exist from time to time between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties—I shall leave it aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Minister will be aware that the Department of Health had another opportunity during the previous week, when I asked in a written question when a reply would be given to the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The response, which I received on 4 July, the day before the ballot for Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall, was that a reply would be given shortly.
Perhaps I am being uncharitable, but if Ministers had it in mind to sign a letter that was to be sent on 7 July, just three days later—they are not always punctilious about the timing of their written answers—would they not have either delayed the written answer so that they could give a substantive reply or said when a response would be given?
Mr. Philip Hammond: Will my hon. Friend remind me when the ballot took place that selected this subject for today's debate? Could that have influenced the timing of the Minister's letter?
Mr. Brady: Indeed; I draw what I think is the inescapable conclusion that it did influence the timing of the Minister's letter. The ballot took place on Wednesday 5 July. I say this in a charitable sense, because the Minister is an honourable lady and she used to live in Altrincham—I have a great affection for people who used to live there—but the reply was rather bland and anodyne. It did not add much to the sum of public knowledge, and it left Ministers with the flexibility to reply to the Commissioner for Public Appointments during July, or even during the summer recess, when they might have thought that they could sneak something out without scrutiny.
204WH
Ministers might have found further reasons why it was not yet possible to reply—perhaps because another great review, this Government's favourite tactic, was being undertaken—and might not have replied before the autumn. We would then have had the wonderful prospect of returning in the autumn and once again trying to encourage Ministers to reply. If they had the best interests of the national health service at heart, and if they took seriously the importance of rigorous and proper scrutiny, fair conduct and the proper application of the Nolan rules in the appointments process, they would have chosen to reply much sooner than yesterday.
Instead, however, a report in The Times—not a theological text, but generally reliable—suggested last week that the Commissioner for Public Appointments had not been invited by Ministers to discuss the contents of her report, which was published nearly four months ago on 22 March. Ministers have now given a partial reply, but it is somewhat disturbing that that reply should be sent before they had taken the trouble to speak to the commissioner and to discuss her findings in detail. What kind of a reply can that be?
I started taking an interest in the matter owing to my experiences locally. It was impossible to avoid noticing the way in which the Government operated a process of political appointment in my area. It was so obvious, determined and regular that it was plain to everyone, whether greatly interested in politics or not, that a deliberate politicisation of national health service management was taking place. The term of the chairman of the Salford and Trafford health authority was not renewed—she was effectively removed—and a Labour councillor from Salford replaced her. A Labour councillor from the borough of Trafford joined as a non-executive director, which meant that a third of the non-executive directors on the health authority not only supported the Labour party, but were active Labour party politicians. That was compounded by the situation in my local health care trust, the chairman of which was replaced by a Trafford Labour councillor. The Government were not content merely to give him a single companion; instead, they added two further Trafford Labour councillors as non-executive directors.
The borough of Trafford has always been an interesting political microcosm. It is a mixed borough, and there are sharp divisions between different parts of it, not least in politics. The political make-up of the borough is now broadly even. The Labour party has a narrow majority on the council, but in each of the past three years—the whole electoral cycle—more people in the borough have voted for the Conservative party than the Labour party. In the local elections this year, that was an absolute majority.
I shall not argue for proportional representation—immediately the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight perks up to contribute—on NHS boards. It would not be viable for the Government to argue that it was necessary to appoint three Labour councillors to the board of the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust to reflect the views of the local community. Doing so emphatically and demonstrably did and does not reflect those views.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am following the good case that my hon. Friend makes, and he is clearly as concerned as I am that there should not

205WH
be flagrant politicisation of appointments to the national health service. In his view, were the people who were not reappointed as chairmen and non-executive members of the health authorities in his area competent? In my area, we currently have an outstanding chairman, who is well respected across the political spectrum. He has done a wonderful job and has increased the morale of health service staff, but is threatened with non-reappointment, on grounds about which I have no idea. It would be a disaster for the continuing success of my trust if he were not reappointed later this year.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to raise that important matter. In the local instances to which I referred, able people were not reappointed. I shall not comment generally on those who replaced them, as I should make it clear, from a sense of even-handedness, that I am not saying that all political appointees are not up to the job.
Ms Stuart: I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the letter sent to him by the chairman of the north-west branch of the NHS executive, Professor Joan Higgins, who wrote:
We looked for the relevant experience, appropriate skills and the potential to make a success of this challenging new post. The two candidates whose names have been submitted both scored very highly on these criteria. There was certainly no intention to promote individuals with a particular political affiliation at the expense of better qualified candidates.
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there were better qualified candidates who were not promoted because they were not affiliated to the Labour party?
Mr. Brady: That is possibly so. I know of candidates of other political persuasions who, strangely, find that they are never called for interview or are called once and never again. That picture is reflected throughout the country. The Minister waves the letter in front of her but, in the case in question, I believe that there might have been people at least as well qualified, but with different political views, who were not offered the job.
The Minister raises an interesting case. An initial letter was sent to me on 11 April, in which my comments were sought on the shortlist for the appointment of chairman of the Trafford South primary care trust. I gave limited comments on the candidates because I know only one of them a little, but I commented on the process. I did not criticise the regional chairman, who was left to implement the rules given to her by Ministers and the Department of Health. I will not be diverted into a discussion of the political affiliations of the people involved in the process, because I do not know those of the regional chairman.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister is seeking to cite a particular case and has asked my hon. Friend to comment on it. Does he think that the Minister is in any way disputing Dame Rennie Fritchie's conclusion that less successful candidates have been brought forward to replace those already identified on merit? Dame Rennie's report was categoric about that, and the Minister's citing of an individual case will not alter those conclusions.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point and is right to underline the significance that the
206WH
commissioner's report attaches to the matter. The Minister has been bold enough to quote an example of an appointment, in relation to which an interesting situation has developed. I raised the issue of that appointment with the Commissioner for Public Appointments because I was concerned that it was evidence that the Department of Health had taken no action following her report of 22 March. I mentioned the fact that Members of Parliament were still routinely consulted on shortlists. One of those two candidates was a local Labour councillor who had already been appointed as a non-executive director of a health authority. We are getting into a compound situation in which such appointments are flowing thick and fast.
I was told by the regional chairman that the Labour councillor was the preferred candidate and that the process had been properly observed. I was left to conclude that that was the end of the matter and that the appointment would go ahead. I received no further communication until I received a newsletter from the health action zone, the front page of which told me that Professor Norma Raynes, a dynamic new chairman, had been appointed to the primary care trust. It is hard to understand what happened behind the scenes of that appointment. It was certainly a closed and odd process, in which the preferred candidate was not appointed. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me further when she replies, or write to me on the matter.
I am conscious of time and of the fact that several hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. However, I want to raise some specific examples. I want to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the competence or conduct of those in office. Last year, I was greatly concerned about the conduct of the Labour councillor who was appointed to chair the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust. That concern was shared by the medical advisory committee of the trust, which, as the Minister will know, complained that the Labour councillor had made a decision on party political grounds.
The decision in question related to the closure of wards, which was announced just one working day after the local elections. Statutory consultation would have been necessary prior to the decision, and it was explicitly stated that the decision should be kept quiet until after the local elections. I raised concerns about the matter, as did clinicians in the trust. In response to their complaint, an internal investigation was held. That investigation may have been thorough, but, ultimately, it sat on the fence a little. However, some of its comments were interesting. It stated:
a very real suspicion has been created in the minds of the senior doctors (who are actually very reasonable and feel they have a genuine grievance), and with some other senior staff who are not prepared to articulate this.
One can only speculate on why they are not prepared to articulate. None the less, when the decision on the chairman's term of office came up, she was duly reappointed.
I mentioned that story in an Adjournment debate last year on ward closures. I am pleased to say that, because due statutory process had not been followed, we managed to reverse the ward closures. I am therefore delighted that the three wards at Altrincham general hospital are now open.

207WH
I raise that issue because it relates to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. It shows the contrast between the reappointment of a Labour councillor whose conduct, at least in one instance, has been open to serious question, and the failure to reappoint other people who have done outstanding work for the national health service. I will give another example to show the contrast. It concerns a gentleman by the name of John Dutton, who has never been interested in politics or been a member of a political party, but is an active servant of the local community. He is a magistrate in Trafford, and I met him in that connection. His story gives rise to considerable concern.
Having been made a non-executive director of the Salford Royal Hospitals NHS trust in—I think—1996, John Dutton's appointment was terminated at the end of October 1999, despite outstanding service. Notably, he led a disabled access and disability discrimination programme, which became accepted as a leader in its field and was taken as model of best practice for many other hospitals. He was the chairman of the audit committee for three years, and the district auditor said that he had moved the hospital trust into the top three of his regional portfolio. His ability, commitment to the national health service and record of success in post could not be open to doubt. His only sins were that he was not politically affiliated, not a woman, and not a member of an ethnic minority.
In responding to concerns about the removal of capable members of trusts and health authorities, the Government claim that it has been necessary to increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities. I have no objection to that. Indeed, I support the increased representation of women and members of ethnic minorities in national health service management positions—but not under any circumstances, if those people are less able than those whom they replace.
Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has been extremely courteous in responding to my earlier intervention, so perhaps he would further say whether he is as concerned as I am that people who have given devoted service and outstanding commitment to the health service, and who are wedded to it, are being removed. He talked earlier about the process of appointment or reappointment. Is he not worried that the individual who has a major say in the north-west—the chairman of the north-west branch of the NHS executive—could be a member or strong supporter of the Labour party, as is my personal belief? She was appointed by the Government. I work closely with her; she is an able person, but might she not be prejudiced against people who do not meet what she perceives to be the Government's requirement in respect of appointments to such important positions? I am committed to my East Cheshire NHS trust and the work of its chairman, who is highly respected throughout the medical profession and political parties.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful again to my hon. Friend. The Minister challenged me on the political affiliations of Lord Clement-Jones. I do not know the political affiliations of the regional chairman, but perhaps the Minister does. Can she enlighten me?
My local experience led me to table some written questions, which yielded some important statistics. Between 1 May 1997 and 11 November 1999, a large
208WH
number of councillors were appointed to trusts and health authorities. It amounted to one in seven of all appointments—that was noted in the Fritchie report—and meant that there was at least one councillor on most NHS boards. There was always someone with a political allegiance to communicate with others with the same political view.
Of those councillors, 284 were Labour councillors—83 per cent. of the total—36 were Liberal Democrats and 23 were Conservatives. In 1997–98, 27.8 per cent. of all appointments were politically active. In the following year, 22.8 per cent. of all appointees were politically active and in 1999–2000, the figure was again 27.8 per cent. Of appointees who had a political affiliation but were not local councillors, Labour party supporters comprised 77.7 per cent. in 1997–98, 77 per cent. in 1998–99 and 62.3 per cent. in 1999–2000.
Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), we are all grown up. I fully accept, as did the commissioner, that there may be political appointments. That is not a new worry, but after exhaustive scrutiny of what has been happening, she found that the process had gained new momentum and that the NHS had become subject to systematic politicisation.
The only other evidence that was available on previous political activity came from a survey conducted in late 1995 and early 1996. It stated that 8.5 per cent. of appointees declared no political activity, while 8.9 per cent. were Conservative and 7.6 per cent. were Labour. Quite rightly, the commissioner notes that it is not possible to say whether that was representative of the preceding years.
Ms Stuart: As we are all being grown up, I point out that, judging from the success rate according to political activity of those shortlisted in the hon. Gentleman's region of the north-west for NHS appointments since 1 January 1999, someone who declares a Labour activity has a 39 per cent. chance of being appointed, whereas a Conservative has a 56.3 per cent. chance. Will he comment on that?
Mr. Brady: I am tempted to take that as a compliment from the Minister. Perhaps I am making some headway on the matter. I suspect that it would be more relevant to consider the large number of appointments of Labour party members and councillors in my region. If the Minister looks at the numbers involved, a rather different picture may emerge. The commissioner stated in her report that
Certainly the figures since the General Election reveal a large influx of appointees who were and are politically active, particularly on behalf of the Labour party.
That is not new, but it has gained momentum since the election.
Dame Rennie Fritchie uncovered in her report an appallingly corrupt political culture, which is prepared to appoint people to public office entirely on the basis of their political outlook, without reference to their ability—a clear breach of the code of practice that the commissioner was appointed to uphold. Political affiliation dictates appointment and the best people for the job may not be appointed. The commissioner noted that

209WH
many of the principles in my Code of Practice have either been, or risk being, breached in both their letter and spirit.
On political bias, the report states:
It is clear from the evidence presented to the Group that there have been examples of this, and that appointments have not always been made on merit… I would go further and conclude that the process has become politicised in a systematic way.
There are clear doubts about whether appointments have been made on merit. The commissioner was moved to comment:
Appointees are not honorary or "grace and favour", but full working members of the board.
If members appointed to NHS boards take the view that their appointment is a sinecure to reward them for other service, for loyalty or for keeping quiet, that is of particular concern.
I established from written answers that in March 1999 around £1.4 million was paid annually in fees via NHS boards to Labour councillors. Again, I do not claim that they were in all instances doing a bad job or were not fit for purpose, but as the commissioner pointed out in her report, in some instances they were—and that is wrong. The report states:
on occasion, the Government's goals for the representation of women and ethnic minorities have taken precedence in the process over the needs of a board.
I say in the strongest terms that, although increased representation by women and people from ethnic minorities is welcome, if those objectives take precedence over the needs of a board, the quality of NHS health provision will suffer for women, ethnic minorities, and the whole population. It is bad practice, which must be stopped.
It is disturbing that a recent written answer, which I received on 4 July, said that the process for appointments to primary care trusts is continuing in much the same tone. Not so many councillors are being appointed—I do not know whether that is because Labour is running out of councillors or because it is worried about the publicity that the process is attracting. Of those declaring political activity who were shortlisted for appointment to primary care trust non-executive director positions, 28.9 per cent. declared Labour party activity; of those appointed, 17.3 per cent. declared Labour party activity. Of the primary care trust chairmen, 30.6 per cent. of those shortlisted were affiliated to the Labour party and 23.5 per cent. of those appointed are Labour party supporters.
A week ago, a headline in The Times stated: "Milburn chided over NHS trusts". The article noted that there had been no response to the commissioner's report. Yesterday, however, there was a response from the Under-Secretary, which was sent to the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It was, at best, half-hearted. It is obvious that it was rushed out because the political imperatives were starting to catch up with Ministers.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend think that it is disgraceful that the reply came from the Under-Secretary, not the Secretary of State? Is not that an indication of how insignificantly the Government regard the matter? Does my hon. Friend share the worry of those who believe that combining the
210WH
role of chief executive in the NHS with that of Permanent Secretary means that integrity and propriety in public life will not be so carefully safeguarded?
Mr. Brady: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes an important point about the proper management of the national health service. As the debate is being held in this odd hemicycle, I had not noticed that my right hon. Friend was here; her very presence shows the importance that some former Secretaries of State attach to these matters. They are still prepared to devote their time and energy to proper management and structures in the national health service and Ministers could learn a great deal from their example.
I have annotated the Minister's letter; I do quite a lot on education policy and I have been accused of behaving like a school teacher. I have marked the hon. Lady's response because it is at best half-hearted and inadequate. It does not say what it means, which is typical of Ministers in this Administration.
The Government say that they will "implement immediately" several recommendations of the Fritchie report. On recommendation 4, their response is halfhearted. They say:
We already make it clear that nominees are treated in exactly the same way as candidates from other sources.
That suggests that what is recommended has already been done, but although it is in the rules, it is not being enforced or implemented. The response continues:
The Government accept that Members of Parliament should not routinely be consulted on short lists for appointment,
which is welcome. It goes on:
We agree that secondary appointments should be exceptional and subject to open competition.
They have agreed to publish the full guidance about NHS appointments on the internet, which is also welcome.
Under the heading
Recommendations on which action has already been taken
are recommendations followed by the action that the Government claim to have taken:
Recommendation 1. Ministers should commission a fundamental look at the role and purpose of NHS boards.
That is what they say is being done.
Recommendation 2. In the light of that review, Ministers should draw up fresh job descriptions.
The Government reject that recommendation completely; they state:
The job description and person specifications have been satisfactory in recruiting people currently on NHS boards.
That is not what the Commissioner for Public Appointments stated in her report; she found that the specifications were inadequate and resulted in people being appointed who were not fit for the purpose.
Recommendation 3 is that there should be a review of the appointments process. The Government responded as follows:
We have introduced a system of regular appraisal to assess the performance of those who have been appointed.
That does not answer the point. Recommendation 8 was not accepted, and nor was recommendation 12, although recommendation 13 was agreed to.

211WH
Recommendations 16, 22 and 26 were not accepted. They are listed under
Recommendations on Which Action Has Already Been Taken
but many of them are flatly rejected by Ministers who say one thing and do another. Those recommendations are followed by a list of
Recommendations Which We Do Not Intend To Implement.
With unusual candour, the Government say that they do not agree that local authorities should not be permitted to nominate people for such purposes. In response to recommendation 9, which questions whether having so many councillors on NHS boards is a good thing, they say:
Councillors constitute only 10.6 per cent. of non-executives on NHS boards.
That seems quite a lot.
I am conscious of the time. I wish that I had time to go through all of the requests, platitudes and drivel in the rather rushed reply from the Minister to an important, serious, thorough and rigorous report. It is sad that the Government have not taken the commissioner's report seriously. It is even sadder that they do not take the fundamental issue seriously and are not concerned about whether the right people are being appointed to do the best possible job in NHS trusts and health authorities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I have reserved the comments that I am about to make until this point because I wanted to make certain that I did not engage in the argument of the day. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) gave the impression in his opening remarks that this Chamber is somehow subordinate to other parts of the House. I must correct that for the benefit of all hon. Members present. This is as much part of the House as any other Chamber. Any right hon. or hon. Member seeking a 90-minute Adjournment debate, which this debate is, used to be free to apply for a 90-minute slot in debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is not possible at the moment to get a 90-minute slot any other way than in this Chamber under the system that the House has decided to operate.
11.52 am
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I shall be very brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has said a great deal, very effectively, about an issue that has become of increasing concern to many of us over the past three years. Perhaps I should make things even briefer by asking three questions. Where has the problem come from? How bad is it? What should we do about it?
On the origins of the problem, it is clear that the Government decided early on to put large numbers of councillors on NHS trust boards. At first, it seemed like a reasonable attempt to increase local representation, but soon people became concerned that it was a ruse to put a higher proportion of Labour and Labour-inclined people on trust boards. At the time, the Conservatives had been in power for so long that Labour was
212WH
disproportionately represented in local government. We heard that concern in our constituencies as early as late 1997.
Independently, Sir Len Peach, Dame Rennie Fritchie's predecessor, also became concerned. In particular, he noted that the consultation process for getting nominations from councillors to the boards had been sent to council leaders and not to chief executives. As a result, many Conservative councillors never got to hear about it and could not apply. As the ultimate in bias, they were not even given the opportunity to put their names forward.
I raised the matter with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the then Secretary of State for Health, when he came before the Select Committee on Health in February 1998. He denied that a slapdash approach had been taken to soliciting nominations impartially. I did not accuse him of political bias. I did not know whether political bias had been involved, but I was aware of widespread anxiety about at least the impression of political bias.
The then Secretary of State's response was that the issue
has only generated an impression of political bias with the Conservative Party
and that the suggestion had been generated
by the Conservative Party and most of the things that they have drawn attention to have been factually incorrect.
He dismissed my anxieties by repeating those words over and over again.
We now have some evidence, in the report. I shall not go through all the evidence, because I do not have time, but it is overwhelming. I draw the Minister's attention to page 15, which shows that, of local councillor appointments made between 1 May 1997 and 11 November 1999, the number of Labour appointments was 284 and the number of Conservative appointments was 23.
Is that a fair reflection? I am not suggesting that the figures should constitute an exact proportional representation of the current disposition of political forces in this country, but what possible justification can there be for 284 against 23? Might it be that Conservative councillors were of such poor quality that they could not be appointed on merit grounds, whereas Labour councillors were of such outstanding quality that they were all swept into appointments? It is absurd and disgraceful that such an appointment rate should have been allowed to persist.
The first of Dame Rennie Fritchie's conclusions has already been clearly set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. She says clearly and unequivocally that
the process has become politicised in a systematic way.
The Government have a great deal of explaining to do if, in light of those numbers, we shall not have to conclude that she is right.
Dame Rennie Fritchie's second major conclusion is that her code of practice for appointments has been completely ignored. The conclusion of the section on the code of practice, on page 33 of the report, states:
This assessment reveals that many of the principles in my Code of Practice have either been, or risk being, breached in both their letter and spirit.

213WH
That is strong stuff from the public appointments commissioner, and I am deeply worried that the Government have been rather cavalier in their response.
It is true that anxiety has been expressed about public appointments for many years and that many accusations have been made by Labour Members about Conservative appointments to trust boards and other quangos. In the past, the Conservatives appointed a disproportionate number of business men to such posts, and in particular to NHS trust boards. They did so with the worthy intention of trying to bring more business practice and understanding into the NHS, which was a valuable step forward. As Conservatives may be more plentiful in the business community than in other parts of the community, that may have resulted in some bias, but nothing could possibly compare with the figures—284 to 23—that I cited.
We desperately need, as a response from the Government, a clear statement that they will do what is required to restore public confidence on the issue. Public confidence has been badly compromised as a result of the findings in Dame Rennie Fritchie's report. In particular, it is essential that the Government get out of their state of denial on the issue—their conviction that nothing has gone wrong. We need to hear the Minister admit today that mistakes have been made in the appointments system—that there has been some political bias, and appointing on grounds other than merit—and that the Government will do something about it. The best thing that they can do is endorse the recommendations in Dame Rennie Fritchie's report. I hope that the Minister will feel able to do that, because it is the only way in which we can restore public confidence on this crucial issue.
12 noon
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing the debate. However, I am not too sure whether his concern is about the national health service or the scoring of party political points, which he did at tremendous length.
A long time ago, I served as a member of a health authority for some 10 years. I was nominated by our local medical committee, the British Medical Association and my royal college, as was my consultant colleague. We had nominations from the voluntary sector and from local authorities. That made for a broadly based health authority, which, although not very efficient, was certainly effective in meeting the criteria of involving the community that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, (Mr. Denham), the Minister of State at the Department of Health, mentioned.
The first warning signs went up under a previous Government when nominating bodies were told that they had to nominate more people to fill a post than the number of vacancies in it, to ensure an opportunity for central direction by the Secretary of State. I am pleased to say that the bodies that nominated me failed to heed that instruction because it was thought to override local interest. We then had one of the organisations that we in
214WH
the NHS suffered as time went on. The nature of health authority members changed dramatically and they became more akin to the non-executive members of public quoted companies. It was clear that the Secretary of State was seeking a different type of being to serve on that board. There was no longer a requirement to live in the area that one was serving, and all the concentration was on getting people with business and financial experience.
It is in the nature of such people that they do not have time to enter public life through the political process. Therefore, it may be true that no overt political activities were involved with those appointees. From my experience, however, it was also clear where their political allegiances lay. Today's debate is something of a sterile exercise. I am not surprised that the Government made changes after the last general election. They did so most inelegantly, somewhat brutally and at times stupidly. They overdid it, and I believe that they have recognised that things did not go well.
I am amazed at the tone of this morning's debate. It has been suggested that there is something disreputable about being politically active, that the political process should not be a route to making a contribution within the NHS. That is wrong. I welcome people of all persuasions taking an active part in public life rather than doing so through—
Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman says that people of all persuasions should participate. Does he think that participation of 284 Labour councillors and 23 Conservative councillors is participation of people of all persuasions?
Dr. Brand: I pointed out that the Government overdid it and that we were critical of them at the time.
I am concerned not about the politicisation of the process but about the continued patronage involved. That has gone on under succeeding Governments. Appointment to a national health body has become a second or even first career for some people, leading to well-paid appointments in quango-land. Those appointed have lost the independence of spirit and mind that comes from being democratically elected by a hinterland representing the community.
I shall differentiate between commissioning bodies and provider bodies. The democratic deficit in commissioning bodies is regrettable. The Government should rethink their response to Dame Rennie's report, which is extremely useful as a starting point for dealing with the issue. Commissioners of health services should be firmly based in the local community and democratically accountable, perhaps at local authority level and certainly at regional level. In provider trusts, it is right for a spread of expertise in the non-executive functions to be available to managers and commissioners. I welcome the fact that people from different backgrounds are being appointed on the merit of their contributions. Dame Rennie Fritchie's recommendations in that regard are extremely important.
In the past 20 years, the process has involved an unhealthy power of patronage. I applaud the many people who have made enormous contributions as non-

215WH
executive members of health authorities and trusts, but they have always had to look over their shoulders in exercising their functions. It is important that the Government produce a substantial response to the report, which also examines the role of NHS boards. Is it the purpose of the boards to control the bottom line—the financial outcome? Is it their prime function to guide officers and managers of authorities and trusts in providing the service mix most suited to their locality? I am sorry that we have not devoted more time to that important issue, instead of having a slightly cheap knockabout.
12.7 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I cannot agree with the final remark made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) highlighted two important issues: the damning conclusions of Dame Rennie Fritchie's report and the Government's contemptuous treatment of those conclusions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his interest in the subject. I know that his interest was originally stimulated by particularly nasty examples in his constituency of the practices that he described. My hon. Friend has done Parliament and the health service a great favour with his persistence in bringing such matters to wider attention, culminating in today's debate, which has forced the Minister to make a response, however interim.
It is somewhat ironic that although the Government came to office claiming that they would clean up public life, remove suspicions of impropriety and sleaze, and depoliticise the appointments process, they have presided over a massive increase in the politicisation of that process. They have introduced a culture of cronyism into the national health service and elsewhere. The Minister's interventions on my hon. Friend seemed dangerously close to displays of complacency. She appeared to suggest that there was no problem; that Dame Rennie got it wrong and that there is nothing to worry about.
My hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) recited many of the findings of Dame Rennie's report. I shall summarise the most important points. The report concluded that the process of appointments to national health service bodies had been politicised in a systematic way and that the code of practice, which is supposed to govern those appointments, had been ignored. It said that there were clear examples of a candidate's political association acting as the decisive factor in his or her early selection and appointment and found evidence of the parachuting in of candidates at the instigation of Ministers at a late stage in the process as a result of lobbying by Members of Parliament.
Those practices meant, as my hon. Friends said, that 83 per cent. of councillors who were appointed during the first three years of the Government's term in office spent the first two and a half years as Labour councillors. It is important to recognise that that is against the backdrop of a significant decline in the number of Labour councillors. Four or five years ago, the Labour party had great plurality in the total number
216WH
of local councillors, but the number of councillors from the two main parties is now almost equal. That makes the disproportion in appointments more shocking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West referred to the Prime Minister's partial quote of Dame Rennie's finding that politicisation of appointments is not new. We know and accept that. The Labour party identified politicisation in NHS appointments before the general election and said that it would do something about it. What it did not say is that it intended to accelerate that process and bias it in favour of one political party. Dame Rennie noted that the process
has gained a new momentum since the general election.
It has indeed taken a quantum leap. She also noted that, as a result of the process,
less successful candidates have been brought forward to replace those already identified on merit
on the grounds of promoting equal opportunities.
Real talent has been lost to the national health service. The NHS is too important to be a plaything of political correctness. The boards run one of the largest organisations in the country. They spend a budget which, over the next three years or so, will rise to £68 billion. That is a tremendous sum of money. They face an enormous task. Anyone who has talked to people who are engaged on the boards will know that the work load and demands are significant. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made the point that the process has driven many people from providing their expertise to the NHS.
Let me give an example of the way in which the Government, especially in their first year of office, treated people who gave their time to benefit the NHS. People in my constituency who had served on the boards for a long time and whose appointments were due for renewal were sent letters explaining that, because their appointments were coming to an end, they should refrain from participating in significant decisions in the period before their last day.
Mr. Tyrie: Thank you and goodbye.
Mr. Hammond: It was worse than that. They received no further communication, although in one case the retiring chairman of an NHS trust received a letter two weeks after his appointment had terminated informing him that the Secretary of State had decided to reappoint him. His reply was, "Too late, mate; I've already found something else to do"—another valuable talent lost to the national health service as a result of the Government's incredibly incompetent process.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend recall the head of a Newcastle trust, Ann Galbraith, who led for the NHS on the citizens charter team? She did not know that she was not to be reappointed until her successor telephoned to ask whether she could make arrangements for handing over.
Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are examples from all over the country. I do not want to cite dozens of individual cases because we do not have the time, but I would like to quote an additional global figure, which is telling, that neither my

217WH
hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West nor my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester gave, although I am sure that both of them are aware of it. The figure was produced by the Library and shows that of the 87 appointees to national health service trusts in the Greater London area from May 1997 to 3 April 2000 who had declared political allegiances, 76 had allegiances to the Labour party. That figure is shocking.
What staggers and worries me so much is that the Secretary of State already has enormous power to direct and to control the national health service, which is a hugely centralised bureaucracy. Yet the Labour party apparently feels it necessary to install a second shadow control network, almost like the system that used to operate in the red army, in which there was a formal command structure and a system of political commissars who shadowed decisions and checked on the political correctness of what was being done. Many chairmen of NHS trusts and health authorities find that it is not unusual for them to be in direct communication with politicians. Two systems of control now operate in the NHS—the formal one and the political one, which operates at a different level. That should give us great cause for concern as we proceed with the plans for the development of the NHS that the Government are to announce shortly.
I want to leave adequate time for the Minister to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, so I will ask just a couple of questions. When will the Government make a full response to the findings of Dame Rennie? Dame Rennie has made it clear that she regards the Minister's letter to her as no more than an interim response. Will the Minister tell us why it has taken so long to deliver even that inadequate interim response? Will she say why the Government were so reticent in talking about the issues after the Fritchie report was published and why they have chosen not to offer Dame Rennie the opportunity to discuss her findings with Ministers?
The Government's behaviour following the publication of the report has been a gross discourtesy to Dame Rennie and to Parliament. A report so damning of the Government has simply been ignored and only now, through the securing of this debate, have we dragged any response from them. We need to hear an assurance today from the Minister that there will be immediate action to implement the report's recommendations and that she will review the appointments that have been made under the flawed process since 1 May 1997. Further, she must ensure that all appointments were appropriate. She must assure us that, where they were not appropriate, and the postholders have not been performing the required function because of the way in which they were appointed, she will take steps to ensure that proper appointments are made in their place.
12.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing the debate. Unlike him, I am extremely proud to be in Westminster Hall, which provides us with extra time in which to discuss issues.
218WH
The hon Gentleman was extremely misguided to treat it as a secondary Chamber—it is as important as the House. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's longstanding interest in public appointments and I welcome the opportunity to respond to Dame Rennie Fritchie's comprehensive report. Time is short, but I want to respond to a couple of specific points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked when there would be a full response. I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) regards it as an insult that an Under-Secretary, and not the Secretary of State, wrote to Dame Rennie Fritchie. However, in that letter I made it clear that, as part of the national plan, we are examining the whole process relating to accountability in the national health service. The role of non-executive directors will be extremely important.
I recollect that, in a Select Committee, an Opposition Member who had formerly served in the Department of Health described the appointments process at that time as highly politicised, with civil servants involved at a great distance and outcomes determined by chance, because it was not possible to foresee what would happen. The implication that the world was well, holy and wonderful before 1 May 1997 and has now gone down the drain suggests the need for Opposition Members to get in touch with reality.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The hon. Lady would be well advised to consult the Nolan report. That was favourable about the new procedures for health authority appointments, which have been established in no small measure because of Dame Rennie Fritchie's work. My point was simply that the matter is of such importance that the Secretary of State should have responded to Dame Rennie.
Ms Stuart: As I have said, what we are doing is part of the development of the national plan. Dame Rennie Fritchie's report was extremely helpful to us. In our initial response, we outlined the areas in which implementation has already taken place. We disagree over one or two aspects of the report, but as the national plan developments become clearer, we shall work closely with Dame Rennie Fritchie on further development.
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: I should like to continue. Time is needed for a proper response to a one-and-a-half-hour debate.
To listen to the debate, one would think that serving on an NHS board is some kind of gravy train on to which Labour councillors have jumped, with decisions made in smoke-filled rooms. The record should be put straight. The vast majority of members who serve as non-executive directors are lay people who ensure that the needs of their community are represented. They carry out an extremely important function. There are 3,000 of those public-spirited individuals. I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) about the decline in volunteering to serve in such public capacities. However, I remind Conservative Members that, in the past three years, one in four or one in five of

219WH
them has responded to requests for nominations. If Conservative Members do not put names forward, they should not be surprised at not having any selected.
Mrs. Bottomley: Every name that I put forward was effectively black-balled. I put forward several names and every time the other individual was chosen. The hon. Lady might want to investigate that. The people whom I suggested were not, as far as I know, Conservatives.
Ms Stuart: That brings me to a useful point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, who said that presenting the choice of two names was a positive step. I am terribly sorry to come across the attitude among Members of Parliament—it has come up in a previous Adjournment debate—that, having made their choice of who should be selected, their wishes have been ignored. The process involves an independent panel and a proper review. On the basis of the assessment, a choice is made. Sometimes those who are involved will not think that the best person has been chosen, but the proper process will have been used.
The achievements in the appointments process since 1997 have been not insignificant, not least because a far greater number of women now serve on NHS boards. That number has increased from 39 per cent. before the general election to 48.9 per cent. Even more dramatically, the number of black people and members of ethnic minorities has increased from 5 to 12 per cent. We should be careful when we use words such as "merit" and "ability". If the definition of merit is having a white, middle-class background, it is hardly surprising—
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: No, I shall not, as I want to make progress.
An equally successful but more important change is the increase since 1997 in the number of appointments of people with a community background. The proportion of people who are appointed from the voluntary sector and who are primarily users or carers has increased to 20 per cent. We do not for one moment deny that our boards still require the skills of business people, but the need for far wider representation remains. Dame Rennie Fritchie's report should be considered with those increases in mind.
I remind hon. Members that an independent auditor's report has been produced by Ernst and Young, which was employed by the commissioner. The report found that
in 1999, 75% of applicants for posts on NHS boards in the Northern and Yorkshire and North West Regions had declared "no political activity".
It went on to state:
The data available suggest that the proportion of candidates declaring political activity at the application stage of the process are similar to the proportions declaring political activity at the appointment stage.
Before anybody is appointed or even shortlisted, an independent panel conducts a sifting and assessment process. It would be disingenuous to suggest that anybody is parachuted at the last moment without having gone through that process, as that is not happening.
Mr. Tyrie: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I realise that she does not have much time. She
220WH
is saying that there is no problem and that we are making all of this up. Will she explain the fact that 284 Labour councillors were appointed between 1 May 1997 and November 1999, while only 23 Conservatives were appointed in that time? Does she believe that that can be described as anything else but political bias?
Ms Stuart: It is important to remember the number of people who put forward their names. I would not be at all surprised if more Labour councillors were prepared to put their names forward and to enter the selection process after May 1997. I would like to hear not merely about disagreements, but about evidence of widespread and systematic abuse of the system in the interview and selection process. The Government are responding to the needs of the whole chain of accountability in the national health service. I deeply reject the notion that everything was fine before 1997. Dame Rennie Fritchie referred to the courtesy with which people who are retiring are treated and to delays in appointment. We have addressed those points and moved forward.
I should like to correct the impression that the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), wrote only to council leaders. An administrative error occurred when the first round of letters was sent, but now all of them go to council chief executives, so the opportunity to put names forward is shared equally among other parties.
Our response to the report lists a number of improvements that we have already put in place and others that we are considering. We agree with Dame Rennie's recommendation that Members of Parliament should no longer be asked to comment on shortlists for chair appointments. We inherited the practice from the previous Government—
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: No, I will not. There are two minutes left, and the hon. Gentleman spoke for 45 minutes. If he wants to hear an honest response, he should listen for a moment.
The practice of allowing Members of Parliament to comment on shortlists gave the impression that the process was politicised. We are happy to change it and are writing to hon. Members about it.
We part company with Dame Rennie on her view of local councillors, whose role we believe to be extremely important. They bring to their posts local knowledge of the community, which our NHS boards are supposed to reflect. There is no presumption, however, that being a councillor is an advantage in the interview and assessment process.
We will proceed with our proposals on the national plan. It is important that the right people are appointed, but we want more people from the regions to come forward as part of the plan. We shall announce further details, but we shall work closely with Dame Rennie to make that process more accountable and open, and to ensure that people see it as such.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I am sure that the Under-Secretary would not wish to

221WH
mislead the Chamber. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) spoke for 52, not 45, minutes.
Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did overrun, but only because I gave way generously to all hon. Members, including the Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I call Mr. Livsey.

Hyder
12.30 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the impact of the proposed takeover of Hyder plc on water, gas and electricity services. In the mid-1980s, the Liberals initiated a debate on the future of the water industry. When the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the late Nicholas Ridley, was challenged on whether he would privatise the water industry, amazingly, he said yes. He was then asked whether he would include that policy in the next Conservative party manifesto. Again, he said yes—much to the amazement of the Conservative Members sitting behind him, as he was announcing an entirely new policy off the cuff.
The Thatcherite juggernaut steamrollered on, and we have now reached a point when Hyder, one of the successor companies to the water authorities, could be taken over by a Japanese bank or an American power company. As for the Welsh assets, the choice is between a rock and a hard place. John Elfed Jones, chairman of Welsh Water, or Dwr Cymru, built up the company in the late 1980s. It was meant to be an enterprise icon for the new Wales, and it might have happened. However, once Mr. Jones retired, the Government's golden share was abandoned and the public veto therefore disappeared. Hyder was created by a new management team and in its early days that company, too, was successful.
We could dwell on why Hyder failed, but I do not want to speak of the past except to say that the Government levied a windfall tax of nearly £300 million, the regulators imposed full-value cuts on the company and the City forced it to borrow to buy Swalec. The Government and the City took £400 million out of the company, the regulators took another chunk, and the shares lost half their value; the company is now said to be £1.5 billion in debt.
After that debacle, Wales wants a phoenix to arise—a company based in Wales that will take over the water, electricity and gas businesses and which can provide services of good quality and value. I want the Minister to ensure that that will happen because the Government contributed to Hyder's downfall. The Welsh word "hyder" means confidence. I ask the Minister to give us confidence that the company will have a good and successful future.
Hyder has one of its headquarters in my constituency, where it has 60 employees. Its water division, Dwr Cymru, has 14 major reservoirs and associated land in my constituency. The three Taf Fechan reservoirs supply Cardiff, Talybont reservoir supplies Newport, Crai reservoir supplies Swansea and the four Elan valley reservoirs supply Birmingham and so forth. We want to be assured that the former massive public investment and the jobs that go with it will be in safe hands. Hyder employs about 9,000 people in its water, electricity and gas businesses. Their future must be secured.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, when the windfall tax was introduced, we were told that it was a victimless crime? However, it has put Hyder into an impossible situation and it is now up for grabs, with two companies

223WH
interested in buying it. Does he agree that if it goes wrong, the victims of the windfall tax will be those employees who work for the company and consumers in Wales who receive their utility supplies from it?
Mr. Livsey: I certainly agree that that is the case; the cause is partially the Government's, but it is not theirs alone. The Liberal Democrats believe that the successful new deal ought to have been financed differently.
The Minister will know that two takeover bids for Hyder are on the table—one from the Japanese bank Nomura and the other from Western Power Distribution, an American subsidiary of Southern Power that generates electricity. It distributes electricity in the west of England and has its headquarters in Bristol. WPD wants to run Swalec and arrange for United Utilities, which is based in Warrington, to run the Welsh Water business in conjunction with North West Water. There are serious reservations about competition regulations connected with the WPD bid. Those issues must be handled in the United Kingdom. Nomura International, through St. David's Capital plc, is bidding for Hyder, and it intends to make it a Welsh-based company, operating from its Cardiff headquarters.
All political parties in the Welsh Assembly have agreed a strategy, which must succeed in the interests of Wales, Welsh consumers, the company's employees and the company and its assets. I can do no better than to state that strategy. It says that any new company should:
preserve the integrity and identity of Hyder as a distinctively Welsh business and keep its headquarters in Wales…preserve the maximum number of jobs and, as a minimum, limit the number of job losses to those already announced by Hyder plc and agreed with trade unions.
It then states that it must be
committed to investment and development of the regulated and non-regulated businesses of Hyder plc
and that, as a minimum, it must
maintain Hyder's environmental record and implement the Dwr Cymru investment programme within existing price limits.
It states that it must
note that the Assembly has a duty under section 121 of the Government of Wales Act to promote sustainable development (and that the Assembly has powers to call in applications for planning permission for decision under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where an application raises planning issues of more than local importance).
Next, it states that a new company should
recognise the potential of Welsh water as an economic resource and acknowledge the wish of the National Assembly that the people of Wales should benefit from the use of this resource, especially when water is sold outside Wales…provide a high quality water and sewerage service for the people of Wales, and a high quality electricity service for the region of Wales that depends on SWALEC.
Finally, the strategy stated that the new company should
operate a fair pricing policy and consider the formula set by the industry regulators as setting the maximum charge to be levied, rather than the norm.
I cannot underestimate how important water is as a natural resource to Wales, especially as water will one day be in short supply worldwide. The First Secretary of the National Assembly endorsed the views of the Environment, Planning and Transport and the
224WH
Economic Affairs Committees, which drew up the statement that I just quoted. The Liberal Democrats in the Welsh Assembly endorsed that statement only too willingly.
The First Secretary has written to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the competition worries resulting from the Western Power Distribution bid. He endorses the Assembly Committees' calls for the bid to be repatriated to the United Kingdom from the EU competition authorities under the provisions of article 9 of European Community Council regulation 4064/89 as amended by regulation 1310/97; he also confirms that the UK should be enabled to take appropriate measures under the provisions of article 21. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter.
Our main concerns are the combination of two neighbouring electricity distribution businesses, Swalec and SWEB, and the fact that the United Utilities company, under its other aegis of North West Water, will be supplying water in two contiguous geographical areas. Those concerns are to the fore in Wales. The link between the two water companies—United Utilities and what is at present Dwr Cymru—will not be conducive to the promotion of competition in the water industry. Hon. Members will know that the Assembly issued a joint consultation paper with the Government on the subject earlier in the year.
The separation of the ownership of Dwr Cymru's assets from its operations, as well as the possible creation of a mutual company to own it, raises wider regulation issues. The resulting modifications that the Director General of Water Services proposed to the Dwr Cymru licence might raise the possibility of the Assembly using its powers of direction under section 13 of the Water Industries Act 1991. If it did so, the director general would have to consider whether he wanted to pursue the proposals by way of a reference to the Competition Commission and section 14 of the Act. No apparent implications from the bid give rise to competition considerations outside the UK. Such considerations in the UK are sufficient to provide grounds to seek repatriation under article 9. Wider measures may be appropriate under article 21, as well as public interest issues and concerns such as those identified by the Assembly Committee, which have been communicated to the commission.
The First Secretary and all the political parties in Wales believe that there is strong reason to refer the WPD bid to the Competition Commission. The Minister should be able to assure us that that will be done. The bid must be repatriated from the European Union competition authorities, in particular its electricity supply aspects. I have already mentioned those concerns as they affect the water industry. At present, it appears that the Nomura International bid satisfies UK competition criteria but the WPD bid does not. In the public interest, I ask that public documents relating to WPD's relationship with United Utilities are made available and placed in the Library. They have a material influence on how the company proposes to manage Welsh Water, given that there will be two water companies operating geographically side by side.
The deal is complex and it also affects other businesses and professional services operated by Hyder. Another factor that must be accounted for is that the United States controlling company, Southern Power, must

225WH
clear its bid with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. So far, it has not done so. There may well be conflicts with Southern Power taking over, through its WPD subsidiary, a water company, for example. That process must be monitored and examined in the United Kingdom not only by the Office of Fair Trading, but more importantly by the Competition Commission.
Will the Competition Commission exclusively handle the WPD bid for Hyder? What key points can the Minister assure us will be primarily considered by the Department of Trade and Industry in the investigation? I am especially concerned about those matters that will have a material influence on the final decision. Will the Minister give us the timetable leading to the conclusion of a Department of Trade and Industry decision? What time scale would that process have? Time is not on Hyder's side and an early conclusion of any investigation will give confidence to its customers in Wales, its work force and its shareholders and give security to its assets. Decisive action is required now for the benefit of all concerned.
12.45 pm
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) on securing this important debate, although the timing is inappropriate for me and I am constrained in what I may say in reply.
The hon. Gentleman has made a cogent explanation of his position that will appear in the Official Report and will, I am sure, be borne in mind by the relevant authorities. I am constrained because, as a Minister, I have responsibilities in relation to the competition process. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to respond to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am accompanied by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). He is listening closely to the debate, as Wales has a legitimate interest, and my hon. Friend the First Secretary will soon address the National Assembly for Wales on the matter. The Secretary of State, other Ministers and I have been in communication about the issues that my hon. Friend the First Secretary raised.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to the windfall tax; he may care to reflect that the tax was a consequence of the bungled privatisation of the utilities by the previous Government. That tax was not some wheeze dreamt up at the last minute; it was presented by the Labour party in opposition as a clear route for finding resources to help young people into work. Today, as we celebrate the lowest unemployment figures for 25 years, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that many of our constituents have benefited as a consequence of that tax. As it appeared two years ago, company managements have had time to reassess liabilities and put their companies into a position in which they can continue to operate.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Would the Minister accept that Hyder's situation is a consequence
226WH
not only of the windfall tax but of the City squeezing that company dry for dividend shares? One does not need to lay all the blame at the Government's doorstep.
Mrs. Liddell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to comment, especially in subjective language, on the behaviour of City institutions. Rather than talking about the past, we must deal with the situation as we find it.
The proposed acquisition of Hyder by St. David's Capital plc was considered by the competition authorities under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided, in accordance with the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading, not to refer the case to the Competition Commission. The Department announced the merger clearance on 7 June.
The bid by Western Power Distribution for Hyder has fallen, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to the consideration of the European Commission competition authorities under the European Commission merger regulations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs announced on 7 July that the United Kingdom had decided not to request the European Commission to refer the proposed acquisition by WPD of Hyder to the United Kingdom competition authorities under article 9 of the EC merger regulations, as it did not satisfy the relevant criteria in the regulation.
Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to reconsider that decision, because many issues will affect the United Kingdom? I drew her attention to them earlier, not least the fact that two electricity companies will be running side by side in the south, as will two water companies further north. Surely such matters should be considered within the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Liddell: The decision was made in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading and the sectoral regulators, and we must act within the terms of that advice. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the European Commission will decide by 14 July whether to initiate a detailed investigation of the case.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in which WPD proposes to procure certain services from United Utilities. I understand why he wants documentation relating to that matter placed in the Library, but he will appreciate that such information is commercially sensitive. The documents have been made available to the United Kingdom competition authorities in confidence and it is beyond my powers to place them in the Library, given that UK merger legislation protects such information from release unless the relevant companies agree to it being made public.
Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that such matters are in the public interest? A monopoly-type situation is being created, which it is in the public interest to investigate. Such documentation should be in the public domain, so that people can judge the matter for

227WH
themselves. The issues are more important than those of commercial confidentiality to which the right hon. Lady refers.
Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that Ministers can act only within the terms of what is available to them. It would not be possible for them to place such commercially sensitive information in the Library without the express permission of the two companies involved. The action that the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken is not at my disposal.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said on 7 July, the WPD proposal did not fall within the remit of the EC competition authorities. I confirm that the United Kingdom competition authorities, including the sectoral regulators, are examining carefully whether the transaction falls to be considered under United Kingdom competition law and whether considerations are on-going. Irrespective of the changes in ownership of the licensed utilities involved in the bids, the regulatory regimes will continue to apply. That is of direct relevance to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
I shall outline how the regulatory regimes operate. In response to each of the bids for Hyder, the Director General of Water Services and the Director General of Gas and Electricity Markets issued a joint consultation paper on the consequences of the bids for Hyder-regulated subsidiaries, Dwr Cymru and South Wales Electricity.
First, on the water issues, the Office of Water Services, the economic regulator for the water industry, is required to discharge the functions in the manner best calculated to ensure that the regulated utilities perform their functions properly and can therefore finance the performance of the company. Subject to that requirement, it must secure protection for water and sewerage customers on charges and the quality of service, promote efficiency and facilitate effective competition.
Ofwat considers that proposed mergers and those competition and regulatory issues raised before the Director General of Fair Trading are a legitimate area for the regulator to have in mind. Ofwat has to identify necessary licence modifications that deal with concerns that might arise from proposals. I am sure that the points made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will be taken into account.
As an example in relation to the bid for Hyder, Ofwat was interested in whether any prospective owner of DC would be fit and proper to assume the role of statutory water and sewerage undertaker, and whether DC's conditions of appointment might need to be strengthened so that any involvement as part of a larger group should not impede its ability to discharge its duties. In the bids by St. David's Capital and WPD, the director general secured the bidder's agreement to the modification of DC's conditions of appointment, which dealt with the consequences of its possible absorption into a much larger group than Hyder.
228WH
The WPD bid raises wider issues, because WPD intends to separate DC's roles as statutory undertaker and owner of the core assets from the day-to-day operation of the business. It proposes an initial contract with a company that is to be purchased by United Utilities, which owns North West Water, the statutory water and sewerage undertaker for the north-west of England. Ofwat considered in particular whether such a proposed operating arrangement would be acceptable.
As a result of negotiations with WPD on the issue and following a public consultation, Ofwat secured WPD's agreement that, if the bid were successful, DC's conditions of appointment would be modified to include a new obligation to replace the initial contract with a programme of competitive outsourcing acceptable to the regulator. As the DTI press notice of last week stated,
irrespective of changes in the ownership of the licensed water and sewerage undertaker (DC) owned by Hyder, the water regulatory regime will continue to apply to it.
The hon. Gentleman raised several other matters. If I am not able to answer them all in the few minutes left to me, I shall write to him. On the electricity issues, Hyder distributes through Swalec, so the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets also took an interest in the competing bids for Hyder. Ofgem's function is clear. It is to protect the interests of consumers, ensuring that they have genuine value and choice by promoting effective competition in gas and electricity markets. It also regulates the monopoly elements. Ofgem considers the competition implications of any proposed merger on its individual characteristics, taking into account the precedent that applies from previous policy statements. It consults the public and third parties, and examines the issue internally before making recommendations to the Director General of Fair Trading.
Ofgem considered the competing bids and took a balanced approach to the consideration of the merger. It applied similar conditions to the equivalent aspects of the offers, and plans to seek licence amendments and assurances from any successful bidder for Hyder. The hon. Gentleman made several points, which I shall ensure that the director general can consider.
I cannot comment on the two bids, or on some of the broader issues that the hon. Gentleman invited me to consider. However, I want to emphasise what all the regulators require from the bidders. They need to ensure that the regulated utilities will comply with their legal obligations and that the quality of service to customers is at least as good as that presently provided. Whoever owns Hyder must ensure that staff and systems are in place so that networks keep working, necessary investments for reinforcement and improvements are made, emergencies can be handled quickly and professionally, and customers continue to be at the centre of the business.
I have not answered all of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I shall happily answer those that I can legitimately answer, within the constraints of my position as a Minister, in a letter and I congratulate him on securing the debate.

Iranian Jews
12.59 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy: I am delighted to be able to lead this debate on the plight of Iranian Jews falsely imprisoned for espionage. I have a constituency interest and an interest in international affairs. The constituency interest is that I have the pleasure of representing the majority of Scotland's Jewish community. I also have the unconditional honour of representing a small number of holocaust survivors. My interest in trying to prevent the persecution of and discrimination against Jewish people, in this country and internationally, motivated me to apply for this debate.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to consider the plight of the Iranian Jews without considering the context of the domestic power struggle in Iran, between the moderates on the one hand and the conservatives on the other. I am worried that Iran's wider Jewish community, which numbers 25,000 I think, may be caught up in that power struggle. However, the purpose of today's debate is to focus on the 10 Jews who have been imprisoned.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned the more general context before moving on to the specific case. Does he not agree that this case is a powerful example of the wider concern about Iran's attitude to Israel and the Jewish community in general? For example, Iran remains one of the leading state sponsors of terrorist organisations such as Hamas which, as we know, wants to disrupt the middle east peace process. Furthermore, Jews in Iran are still forbidden to teach the Hebrew language.
Mr. Murphy: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who has raised the matter diligently during Foreign Office questions. Ayatollah Khamenei—a leading conservative who is involved in the power struggle in Iran—chose, on the first day of the new Christian millennium, to celebrate that date by demanding the destruction of the state of Israel. On the other hand, the reformist President Khatami was elected in May 1997—as Britain was electing a new Government, so was Iran—on a 69 per cent. popular vote. His slogan was "Iran for all Iranians". To many friends of the reformists in Iran, that slogan signalled a change in policy and approach.
Unfortunately, persecution continues. The domestic press in Iran is stifled, and, as we know, student demonstrations have been violently put down. The Bahai minority, who number 300,000, have been subject to violent and continued persecution. It is important to recognise where the 10 persecuted Jews fit into that context. Despite my hon. Friend's correct comments, the purpose of the debate is not to consider the wider issue but to focus on those 10 individuals.
Unfortunately, the analysis of the arrests, trial and sentences in The Economist was correct. It stated:
The sentences were severe enough to pacify Iranian hardliners but lenient enough to save Iran from diplomatic punishment.
Perhaps The Economist was right about the former point, but it must be shown to be wrong about the latter. Iran cannot escape diplomatic pressure and punishment
230WH
if the sentences are allowed to stand. The charges were false and the trial was a violation of human rights. I shall remind my hon. Friend the Minister of some of the details. In January 1999, 13 Iranian Jews and three Muslims were arrested, but no charges were publicly identified at that time. Six months later, in June 1999, the Iranian revolutionary court charged the Jews with spying for the
Zionist regime, the USA and World Arrogance.
The 13 Jews included a Jewish teacher, a chief rabbi, a kosher meat preparer, a cemetery attendant and a 16-year-old boy. I understand that the charges of spying for the United States of America were dropped, although I have no idea why. Perhaps they were dropped on the understanding that it would be difficult to spy for two countries at once.
The trial was flawed and fundamentally violated human rights. There was no physical evidence whatever. There were only confessions, which were not given in court. The solicitor, a respected former Iranian judge, complained that the alleged confessions were obtained after a period of solitary confinement. I have never been in that situation and I do not know how I would react. What would any ordinary human being do when asked to confess after a period of prolonged solitary confinement? The Jews were secure in the knowledge that they were being used as political pawns in a domestic power struggle. They had been denied access to a lawyer for prolonged periods. They knew that 17 Jews had been executed in Iran since the revolution in 1979. Under all those pressures and worries, perhaps the confessions were, in their minds, an attempt to receive leniency.
With all the mitigating circumstances, the lawyers strongly believed that the confessions should have been inadmissible. I find it absolutely astonishing that the solicitor, who had been appointed by the state, was not allowed access to the accused. It is incredible that the Jews were not allowed access to their solicitor, but television time was given for the alleged confessions to be aired publicly. The solicitor complained that he could not have access to the accused; the television journalists had no such complaint. That is no form of justice as I understand it.
I was absolutely amazed to learn that revolutionary court Judge Nourani was not only the prosecution; he also appointed the defence solicitor and handed down the verdicts. That sums up much of what is wrong in this case of trumped-up charges. One of the accused, Shahrohh Paknahad—I apologise if my pronunciation is not perfect—is a 30-year-old Jewish teacher, charged with passing military secrets to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. I have no idea how the Iranian Government reach the understanding that a Jew is passing military secrets to Saddam Hussein's regime. Even if they can make that leap of logic, the fact is that he was eight years of age at the start of that war. The charges do not bear even the most superficial examination, never mind the examination of a fair hearing.
Ultimately, 10 of the accused were found guilty and six were acquitted—three Jews and three Muslims. The sentences ranged from four to 13 years in confinement. The international reaction to the trial and judgment is a matter of considerable public record. The trial process was condemned by the European Union, the United

231WH
States and—I am pleased to say—strongly condemned by Her Majesty's Government. Our Ministers played a leading role in trying to secure a public hearing and a transparent trial. The reaction was in many ways even stronger when the judgments were passed. Some people had speculated that death sentences might have been passed and suggested that we should therefore be relieved that they were not. However, one can take no joy in the fact that these innocent individuals are faced with jail sentences of four to 13 years.
I was given a categorical assurance during Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs questions, when I asked whether the Government would do all in their power to ensure that the trial would be open and transparent, and that the accused would have access to legal advice of their own choosing. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had been told that those things would happen, but that did not occur. I believe that he gave those assurances in good faith. The source of the problem is not our Foreign Secretary, but the Iranian authorities and the Iranian Government, who misled the British Government and gave them false assurances. What do our Government intend to do in response?
Amnesty International condemned the trial process and the sentences as a violation of international human rights law, saying:
The proceedings in this closed trial fall far short of international standards for a fair trial.
In a letter to the President of Iran, the Council of Christians and Jews demanded that the trial be transparent and just and said that the accused would be in its prayers. The signatories to that letter are hardly radicals or people who would apply pressure without due consideration. They include the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. They are honourable people who do not take these actions without proper consideration. I can only hope that their prayers have been more successful than their letter to the Iranian President.
What action can be taken by this and other Governments throughout the world to secure a successful appeal process? International pressure helped to ensure that death sentences were not handed down. International pressure can help to ensure that these appeals are successful when they are heard. Britain is in a unique position for two reasons. First, we have now established diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level with Iran. Our ambassador in Tehran and Iran's ambassador here should be in no doubt of the strength of feeling that exists in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the House of Commons about this issue. We should use the channel of diplomatic relations to ensure that maximum pressure is applied.
Secondly, the UK and Iran are strong trading partners. Our economic ties with Iran are close. In 1999, Britain exported the equivalent of $244 million to Iran and we imported the equivalent of $36 million from Iran. The former Conservative Minister, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, recently led a trade delegation to Iran to try to forge new business links.
On 26 June 2000, the Iranian news agency reported that one of the leaders of that delegation, Mr. John Hill, said that the delegates would report back to British companies to tell them about their experiences of the improvement in the political climate. I do not doubt the
232WH
sincerity of his comments and there is no limit to my hope that there will be improvements in the political situation in Iran: that will be the hope of the friends of Iranian reform throughout the world. British business cannot ignore the persecution of these individuals, however, and the wider discrimination that occurs in Iran.
I make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister and to all Ministers for joined-up government, so that we can ensure that these innocent Iranian citizens can be reunited with their relatives. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will visit Iran in the near future, publicly to state Britain's view on the matter and our disappointment that our Government were misled earlier this year and to ask for assurances that the appeals process, unlike the trial itself, will be open and transparent.
I understand that our Government's position is that the people involved have been treated as pawns in a domestic power struggle. However, it is not good enough simply for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to apply pressure. In the spirit of joined-up government, the Department of Trade and Industry and other Government Departments should play their part to ensure that it is not only a political matter but an economic one and that Mr. Hill's comments and the efforts of Mr. Hanley in taking British trade to Iran and bringing Iranian trade here are not made in a vacuum that ignores the oppression of Iran's Jews.
We should constantly remind Iran that we shall consider the matter in a wider context. I understand that Iran wants to apply for membership of the World Trade Organisation, which is to be welcomed. If Iran opens up to international economies and liberalises its economy, that too is to be welcomed. We should make the case, through whichever Government Department is involved, that Iran's application for membership of the WTO will bring it under closer international scrutiny, including scrutiny of this case.
I make a statement not so much for our own Foreign Office but for Iranian representatives here in London. The issue will not go away. Members of Parliament from all political parties will continue to press the matter as long as those 10 Iranian Jews remain in prison. Indeed, questions on the matter have already been tabled for the next Foreign Office questions.
At stake is Iran's long-term standing in the international community. If the appeals are unsuccessful, the spirit of tolerance and international hope for a new, more tolerant Iran—an Iran "for all Iranians" as the President said very publicly—will be seen to have been put to the test and to have failed. The matter raises much wider issues than the fate of 10 Iranian Jews. Iranian justice and political reform are on trial. If the appeals fail, the Iranian justice system will be found guilty, not 10 Iranian Jews.
1.17 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Peter Hain): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) for having raised the issue of the Iranian Jews found guilty of espionage in Shiraz. I pay tribute to his energy in raising this matter and others. He is highly respected in his own constituency, especially among the large Jewish

233WH
community there, as well as for his energetic pursuit of human rights issues in Parliament generally. That is important, because his approach to the issue is part of a wider commitment to human rights across the globe. I agree that the Iranian authorities here in London will have to acknowledge that the issue will not go away.
As my hon. Friend knows and has, indeed, been fair in acknowledging, the Government are deeply worried by the news of the sentences imposed on 1 July on 10 Jewish and two Muslim defendants tried for espionage in Shiraz. I agree that, to use his words, the trial was "deeply flawed". We and our EU partners have consistently expressed our anxieties about the conduct of the trial, and in particular about its closed nature. He is absolutely right that, despite earlier assurances to us from the Iranian authorities—indeed, from Iranian Ministers—that the trial would be open, it was not. That is unacceptable.
Dr. Rudi Vis: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the trial would be fair because he had been assured that it would he. Is that assurance in writing? If so, should we not go through it line by line and ask the Iranian Government or the Iranian embassy in London what is their reaction to the trial not having been fair?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's close interest and, in particular, that of his constituents in the matter, and I am happy to respond to his question. The problem is that our interlocutors in the Iranian Government are Ministers. The court system is run by the revolutionary court, which is largely opposed to the reform process. So, to be open about it, there is a power struggle in Iran between the reformers in the Government, led by President Khatami, who has the overwhelming support of the people, and the entrenched interests that retain control of the court process. The assurances, which were given, accepted and represented in the House by the Foreign Secretary in good faith, got caught in the middle of that power struggle.
Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with Foreign Minister Kharrazi during the latter's visit in January and I pressed the matter with deputy Foreign Minister Sarmadi when we met in March. More recently, the FCO director for the middle east and north Africa raised it with the Iranian ambassador on 1 June, and the EU presidency in Tehran presented demarches on behalf of all EU partners to the Iranian authorities on 29 April and 23 May. The Secretary of State discussed the matter with members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews when he met them on 14 June. Therefore, we have been fully engaged throughout the process and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood for rightly commending our leading role in the matter.
Immediately after the announcement of the verdicts on 1 July, we issued a statement expressing our deep concern, which we have subsequently reiterated with Iranians in London and Tehran. I welcome the fact that no death sentences were passed; 17 Iranian Jews have been executed since 1979. The sentences are however extremely heavy, particularly given the nature of the charges and the character of the trial. It is important to
234WH
note that provision is made for an appeal to the Shiraz revolutionary court within 20 days of sentencing and, if need be, to the supreme court. We will continue to monitor the proceedings, on which the eyes of the entire world will be directed, closely.
We regularly raise our concerns about the plight not just of a single minority in Iran, but of the Bahais, students, intellectuals and others, many of whom are Muslims, who also face serious threats.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: What constructive action does the Minister believe that the Government or hon. Members can take to reverse the death sentences that have been passed on a small number of Bahais in Iran, where the Bahai faith is not formally recognised and they are afforded no state protection?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's close involvement with the Bahais, in Britain and internationally. We remain concerned at reports of the death sentences passed on three members of the Bahai faith in Mashad on 3 February. We and our EU partners have raised those concerns with the Iranian authorities. We welcome the news that one of the three, Mr. Khulusi, has since been released. We regularly raise with the Iranian authorities our serious concern about the treatment of the Bahais because persecution of individuals on religious grounds is unacceptable.
Mr. James Clappison: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: I have to make progress first.
In line with our policy of constructive engagement, we continue to raise our concerns privately with the Iranian authorities. Some hon. Members have argued that we should have no dialogue with Iran. We believe, however, that the best means of encouraging the forces most likely to promote human rights is through critical engagement—the pursuit of political dialogue wherever it can produce benefits. The reformist Government need to be able to show that progress on human rights can bring benefits to their country, through trade and other means. However, engagement does not mean suspending judgment. To engage with Iran, we have not refrained from raising the difficult issues. A number of positive developments support a broader relationship with Iran—a country with a population of more than 60 million, which is rapidly becoming a key player in the region. Its neighbours are seeking rapprochement, and Iran is playing an increasingly constructive role in regional issues, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
We also benefit from bilateral co-operation on drugs. More than 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets originates from Afghanistan, and most of it goes through Iran on the way to Europe. Iran has seized more drugs than any other country; last year, the Iranian authorities were responsible for more than 60 per cent. of the world's opiate seizures, but they paid a heavy price for the fight against the drug traffickers. More than 3,000 Iranian drug enforcement officers have been killed in confrontations with smugglers and their gangs in the past 15 years.
Our co-operation with the Iranians in the matter helps them and directly benefits people in Britain. We are developing that co-operation, especially in tackling

235WH
terrorism. I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) in that respect; we raise the matter continuously.
Despite the outcome of the Shiraz trial, which gives grave cause for concern, there has recently been progress on some aspects of the human rights situation in Iran.
The latest United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Iran, adopted on 17 April, and drafted and sponsored by the European Union, noted positive developments on human rights, including the recent elections, movement towards greater freedom of expression and progress on the status of women, although at the same time expressing its deep concerns on remaining issues. We continue to urge Iran to co-operate with the United Nations on such matters, including allowing a visit by Maurice Copithorne, a United Nations special representative on human rights.
The Iranian people want reform, as shown by the election in May 1997 of President Khatami, who advocates the development of an Islamic civil society based on respect for the rule of law. Since then, in municipal elections in February last year, and in parliamentary elections in February and May this year, the people of Iran have overwhelmingly shown their continued support for President Khatami: 80 per cent. of the electorate support reform, including the vast majority of women and young people. Sixty per cent. of Iranian citizens are under the age of 25 and they all want reform.
However, opposition to reform remains in some quarters. The closure of 18 pro-reform newspapers in the run up to the election is an example. However, the new, largely reformist Parliament, which first sat on 27 May, has already declared its intention to tackle the problem. New legislation is being proposed to safeguard the independence of the press and to curb the powers of intervention of the judiciary. We welcome the comments of the recently elected Speaker of the Parliament, who said that it
must seriously try to meet the wishes of the people…we are sure that the people are after freedom of expression.
The new Parliament also declared its determination to tackle economic issues and the need to streamline Government. It is not for us to intervene in the internal situation, but isolation is not the right policy if we want to engage the process of reform. Only through constructive engagement can we show our support for
236WH
the will of the Iranian people while maintaining our ability to raise concerns such as the trial, which I mentioned earlier, when they arise.
Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Earlier, he mentioned the Shiraz revolutionary court. Is there a risk of the court increasing the sentence or can it impose only a less severe sentence?
Mr. Hain: I do not think that it could increase the sentence; that would be unthinkable.
I am aware of the statement signed by hon. Members calling for a change in United Kingdom policy towards Iran. We and our European Union colleagues have continuing anxieties about human rights violations, which we regularly draw to the attention of the authorities. We must base our analysis on unbiased sources, however, such as the reports of Maurice Copithorne and the latest United Nations resolution adopted in April, both of which recognise improvements in Iran, rather than the propaganda of the National Council for the Resistance of Iran mentioned in the statement, which appears largely to have inspired it.
Some of my hon. Friends may not be aware that NCRI is dominated by the terrorist Mujahedin-e-Khalq organisation, the MKO, which claims responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks in Iran. The NCRI and the MKO are on the USA State Department's proscribed list of terrorist organisations. We do not recognise either of them, neither did the Opposition when they were in government. The MKO is despised by most Iranians—it is important that hon. Members understand that—as it supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war.
The Government believe that it is right to promote human rights, but we must choose the right way of doing so. That means responding to human rights challenges in a way that is most likely to help the people whose freedoms are being restricted. The way in which the case of the Shiraz defendants is dealt with through the appeals process will be a big test of that strategy and of the future of Iran and its people. The eyes of the world will be on Iran. It is important that the Iranian authorities respect the freedoms of those defendants.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Before we start the next debate, it may be convenient to allow the Minister to take his seat reasonably gently. If he wishes to, he may address the Chair from a seated position.

Policing (Public Events)
1.30 pm
Mr. David Heath: I sympathise with the Minister in his incapacitated state. My incapacity—such as it is—is my throat. I hope that it will last the duration of the debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that was raised with me by constituents, but has wider relevance. I shall talk about the policing of outdoor public events and, specifically, the traffic management role of police at one-day agricultural shows, Pony Club events, village fetes and the other voluntary or semi-professional events that are held each summer that many people want to attend, but which cause some disruption to local traffic and need to be organised with a little care.
The issue was first brought to my attention by Mr. Charles Bradley Hudson, whom I met at Wincanton races. I do not raise everything that I am told at Wincanton races on the Floor of the House, but the gentleman involved was responsible for stewarding the races and therefore had relevant expertise. He was concerned that police policy had changed and he thought that that would have knock-on effects for commercial organisations such as his and for voluntary organisations.
As I pursued the issue, I found that it was not confined to Avon and Somerset police, with which the Minister knows that I am familiar from my past career. The guidance given by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the public safety policy that it issued on 28 April 1999 mean that the issue is relevant across the country.
The policy represents a shift in police thinking, probably for good reasons. The chief police officers are anxious to use their human and financial resources to best possible effect, and the best use of a uniformed constable is not necessarily directing traffic. I understand that. I have argued for many years that we require additional police officers in Somerset and elsewhere and I understand the difficult decisions that police management must take.
There is concern, which is also expressed in the public safety policy document, about the liability of police officers in such circumstances. The point that has been repeatedly made to me is also made in the introduction to the policy document, which says:
the Police have no general duty to preserve public safety at any public event, except where there are imminent or likely threats to life.
That is clearly a statement of fact about the responsibility of the police. The introduction continues:
Legal opinion suggests that the responsibility for public safety rests with the organisers of an event, the owners of the land on which it takes place and possibly the Local Authority if the event takes place on a road. However, other persons or agencies who undertake actions regarding public safety at an event may assume a duty of care and, therefore, also become responsible.
In the past, the service—
the police service—
has taken the lead and undertaken actions to facilitate public events, acting for what they believed to be the public good. However, with the emerging spectre of civil litigation, a more
238WH
focused approach, confining Police action to those issues that are part of our core responsibilities and where there is legal authority, is becoming necessary.
The consequence of that view is that the police should not be directly involved with policing outside public events. That should be the responsibility of the event organisers, and the police should be employed only in the circumstances that I described earlier: where there is an imminent threat, or where there is no reasonable alternative. The outcome of that change of policy has been a withdrawal of police presence at outside public events this year. I understand some of the arguments for that, but I also want to explore with the Minister some of the consequences for others of that outcome and consider how that vacuum might be filled.
There is a vacuum in preparation and planning for events, in training and accreditation of people who take on the role of directing or assisting traffic movements and in terms of signage, liability and powers. During the past few months, I have addressed people in the various Government Departments who have partial responsibility for that area in an attempt to obtain some answers. Indeed, I received a helpful answer from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who said:
I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that each Local Authority has a Safety Advisory Group on which the police are represented and they consider the risks associated with any proposed site for an organised local event such as a horse show or agricultural fair.
Actually, that is not the case. I do not deny that the Minister was given that advice, but according to the House of Commons Library researchers, local authorities have not set up safety advisory groups. The Association of Chief Police Officers would like such groups to be set up, but there is no mechanism to make that happen. Indeed, the Local Government Association is wary of following that course. There is a question about which authority is responsible. The responsible authority for licensing a particular area to be used for an event will almost certainly be the district council, which is not the highway authority. Therefore, there is a dichotomy between the responsibilities of the various local authorities.
It would be extremely helpful to have a system that permits a proper exchange of views. That would cure some of the problems, but I suspect not all of them. I also wrote to the public safety committee of ACPO, chaired by Mr. Sean Price, the assistant chief constable of Nottinghamshire. He wrote me an extremely helpful letter and offered to meet me—an offer that I intend to take up to enable me to discuss these issues with him. He said that the intention was for the traffic management policies that emerge from those advisory groups to be self-policing, but I do not believe that that is the case. For example, I do not believe that the Frome cheese show, a significant one-day agricultural show, will be self-policing. However sophisticated the signs and cones, traffic management will not simply happen of its own accord; it will need direction and support.
The likely result of an absence of police, traffic wardens or some other uniformed presence is chaos. Chaos is good for no one and is certainly not good for organisers of events. There is also a potential danger to public safety if emergency vehicles, for instance, have to get through. That is what concerns me.

239WH
Mr. Price continued by referring to the point that I had raised with him about the training of those who control or who seek to control traffic. His opinion was:
As to the issue of training traffic management officers, I feel that in the light of what I have said above this becomes an unnecessary measure.
Again, he prays in aid the traffic management policy because he believes that that will be self-policing and that there is no need for stewards to be on the road directing traffic. First, I do not accept that premise and, secondly, people will in any case want to assist those attending their event. They will go out on the road and don orange jackets, but they will have not the slightest idea of what they are doing in terms of traffic management. They will not have training or accreditation because that is not available.
People whose job it is to organise events, such as Mr. Charles Bradley Hudson, to whom I referred, want their stewards to be trained properly and to be able to do the job properly. They want accreditation, which could best be provided by the police, to enable that to happen.
Adequate temporary signs could make a major contribution in the absence of police but, again, we have a little policy vacuum. Lord Whitty tells me that signs can be put up only with the agreement of the relevant traffic authority, which again puts the onus back on event organisers. He also tells me that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is reviewing and updating traffic sign regulations—the code of practice and guidance on the provision of temporary signs to special events.
That is all well and good, but to implement half a policy and then wait for the other half to come along is not a sign of what we have come to call joined-up government. The people caught in the middle are those least able to find their way through the jungle—those trying to raise money for charity and to organise events. I worry about the situation.
My final major point is liability. People who have no training or accreditation in directing traffic are personally liable for their actions. They have no power to stop vehicles. If a driver gets fed up in the traffic and does not like the look of the chap in the orange jacket, he could drive past irrespective of the consequences. That was confirmed by my local chief superintendent, Ted Allen, who told me:
In respect of a member of the public directing traffic on a public highway they have no legal standing and would do so at their own risk with any incident resulting being investigated accordingly.
There is a premium on people who are trying to improve public safety and to do a job for their local community, but who are liable for anything that happens as a result. What worries me is the duty of care that a person with that responsibility would have not to do something reckless or rash—for example, not to call someone forward in front of a moving vehicle. I understand the point; that liability is reasonable. I wonder, though, whether the organisers of an event have a more general liability for circumstances such as those that I have described. When an ambulance or fire engine needs to get through but cannot because a mess of traffic is blocking the road over which the organisers have no powers, are they liable for any injury as a result of their inability to direct traffic effectively? There is a difficulty in the situation.
240WH
I could mention in passing the Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Act 1994, but that is a different issue as it concerns road closures and smaller organisations. For example, I could mention its effect on west country carnivals—a matter of great importance in my part of the world, which has a superb carnival season and circuit. The new restrictions are justified in public safety terms, but they become very onerous for many event organisers. However, I do not want to divert the discussion into such matters.
I should like to leave the Minister with the final conclusion of ACPO in its policy document. It states:
The current policing dilemma is created by a number of conflicting issues, although the lack of legislation to regulate public events is a major factor. Inconsistency has resulted. This has the potential to cause disaffection between the police and the public and significantly damage community relationships, which are vital to the Police Service.
I agree with that view and I do not criticise the police for applying their resources in the best way possible to serve the local community. That is why I want to ensure that public events are supported by a proper policy framework and to avoid allowing a unilateral withdrawal of police support without ensuring that there is something to take its place. That requires the concerted action of the Home Office, the DETR, local authorities and the police. Such action should ensure that everyone understands where the responsibilities lie, how support can be given and how the events can be controlled in a managed way.
We should not allow well-meaning people, who are trying to serve their community by putting on events for the public good, to be put in the impossible position of not managing the traffic satisfactorily and in a way that the public will accept and, more importantly, of not ensuring public safety. I invite the Minister to consider the matter and to try to find ways in which the Government can help to resolve these issues, some which have been left open to discussion. No clear solutions are being evolved to many of the problems, either at local or national level.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for raising this important issue, which he has done reasonably and sensibly. His quotations from the Association of Chief Police Officers sub-committee on public safety policy were all accurate. The final paragraph of its study states:
The Police Service will, therefore, encourage the promotion of legislation to properly regulate and control such events in future.
We will discuss with the police their proposals for the proper and effective regulation of future events.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues and I shall try to deal with each in its turn. We all realise that the police have a difficult job and we have recently witnessed a number of public events in which their involvement was crucial. We have seen a number of instances of organised disorder, in which protest groups or others acting under the guise of a legitimate cause have sought to cause havoc on our streets or at public events. In the events of 18 June and 30 November last year and of 1 May this year, the police faced a difficult task in containing those groups and maintaining order in our streets.

241WH
Certain police roles are important and central to the handling of such events. The police are expected to prevent and detect crime, to prevent disorder and breaches of the peace and to ensure action is taken together with the other emergency services in the event of any major crisis. That work involves a good deal of preparation, planning and consultation, especially when it relates to sizeable events. The wider community and other agencies must also be fully involved in such work. The police always have a role to play in public events that are likely to result in problems of disorder or that might do so. As far as organisers and the general public are concerned, they also have a role in events that are less likely to result in serious problems, to ensure that they are properly policed and that the core functions and responsibilities of the police are properly attended to. Those functions are preventing crime and disorder, maintaining the peace and investigating offences, which are essentially operational matters. It is for the police to determine the level of resources that they can devote to particular events.
The police are not the only public organisation involved in ensuring public safety at organised events and it is not a core police task to organise or manage traffic or to organise the events themselves. That task falls primarily to the organisers of the event. Other agencies—in particular local authorities—must also play their part. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Association of Chief Police Officers has issued guidance on public safety policy, which clarifies the police role and the tasks of other agencies.
Over several years, a creeping involvement of the police in the management of public events had come about. They had taken over responsibility because the organisers of events had been willing to let them do so. The police therefore were organising traffic management schemes and sometimes advising on the layout and organisation of an event. Those are not core police roles, but the responsibility of the organisers. The police should by all means consider the extent of their involvement in advising on such matters, but it is for the organisers to deal with them.
The premise of the hon. Gentleman's reasoned and carefully argued speech was that the police are better trained to manage the types of event in question. The assumption behind that is that somewhere police officers are being trained in traffic management of more than a basic type—by which I mean standing in a street and directing traffic. As I understand matters, traffic control officers are trained in such traffic management techniques, but ordinary police officers receive only basic training on how to direct traffic.
Some of the events in question require considerable traffic planning. Specially trained traffic control officers would not normally be involved in that. They would be on the motorway, or dealing with large and complex incidents, or the transport of heavy goods. We would not expect specially trained officers to become involved in smaller events such as fetes or carnivals, often in rural areas. That brings us back to the ordinary officer with basic training in traffic management. There is no reason why an organiser of a public event could not investigate such training, assuming that it would be relevant—it might not—or obtain advice on traffic management
242WH
from other properly trained and skilled people. There are plenty of consultancies. Doing so might require resources and some of the organisations concerned might be charities, but it is the responsibility of people who organise events to ensure that they can do so properly and not to transfer to the police a responsibility beyond their core job of protecting society against crime and disorder.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister and I accept his basic premise. The difficulty is that the police officer, however well or badly trained, has one great advantage: the power of his office of constable and the fact that he is in uniform and that if he puts his hand up the traffic will, by and large, stop. That is an attribute that the volunteer or even the professional steward does not have. That is why some training is important. Some organisations find it difficult to provide that training for their staff.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right that a police uniform conveys authority and that a uniform worn by a steward may not do so. However, we need to ensure that the authority of the police is used in a way that senior police officers feel will best contribute to preventing crime and preserving order. A senior police officer might decide that the best allocation of resources would be to have a police officer on the beat patrolling a particular area, or to use him to investigate a particular crime, rather than making him spend the day directing traffic outside a rural fete. That does not undermine the importance to the local community of that fete, but it avoids placing an additional burden on the police.
When people decide to use their land for a car boot sale, a music festival or a garden party for their friends, they should not be able to call on the police to direct traffic because we have given them a statutory responsibility to do so. That would allow everyone to call in police resources to direct the traffic as they see fit. Too often, the police have taken over the virtual management of an event on behalf of the organisers. That is regrettable.
However, the hon. Gentleman raised a number of concerns. He said that safety advisory groups have not been established in all local authorities. We will have to discuss that with the Local Government Association and ACPO. He also suggested that there is a vacuum in training with regard to how to assist traffic movement and to sign appropriately. We shall also want to discuss that with ACPO.
The subject raises the issue of where power and responsibilities lie. Advice from ACPO properly indicates that there is, to some extent, a lacuna in legal provision. We are trying to engage with ACPO and local authorities to decide how to proceed, but this is not a simple situation. I do not want to create a lot of extra duties for police officers that give public authorities and private individuals the ability to take control of the placement of police officers. That power should remain in the hands of chief constables. I accept that responsibilities should be more carefully defined, but we must not transfer all the responsibility to the police because that would place substantial demands on resources.
The hon. Gentleman asked which authority would have responsibility. In some areas, such as the hon. Gentleman's and mine, the county council is the traffic

243WH
authority, but the authority that gives permission for events is sometimes a district council. We need to clarify which authority would be responsible. He said that if the police are not involved, public safety would be put at risk by the ensuing chaos. I do not accept that argument. The police in my area are often not directly involved in traffic management at an event and stewards are used instead. That happens in many parts of the country, but the practice varies from place to place depending on the resources that are available to chief constables. I do not envisage any great threat to public safety by allowing the police to be consulted and to give advice, but people who arrange private events must ensure that they are properly organised. It is their job to ensure that traffic is not disrupted. It is up to the police to ensure that if
244WH
public safety is at risk, or if a crime might be committed, they are there to do their job in the proper way, but they must decide how best to allocate their resources.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned liability. People should be aware that if people organise a private event they might be liable for the consequences. However, in the case of Wincanton, I understand that the Avon and Somerset police reviewed the role of their officers who attend race courses and a great deal of good work has been done in properly stewarding the Wincanton races.
We will consider the issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have given an appropriate response to an important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

WALES

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129851]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested as follows:

  (a) 107 (33 per cent.)

  (b) 65 (30 per cent.)

  On 1 July 1999, responsibility for most appointments to non-departmental public bodies in Wales transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. I have made no appointments since that date.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Territories Bill
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 496W, and 5 May 2000, Official Report, column 240W, if he will publish the Overseas Territories Bill in draft. [129261]

  Mr. Battle
  Our priority is to introduce the Bill into the House as soon as Parliamentary time becomes available. We will consider options for publication within that context.

  Mexico
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the conduct of the recent elections in Mexico. [129930]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government welcome the outcome of the Mexican Presidential elections and congratulate Vicente Fox on his historic victory. We will work to establish the same excellent relations with him and his administration which we have enjoyed under his predecessor, Ernesto Zedillo.

  We are particularly pleased that the elections passed off so smoothly and that there have been no allegations of serious irregularities.

  Yemen
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Yemeni Government on the death penalty passed by the Aden Tawaki Court on the Somali 540W
  national Mohammed Omer Haji for converting to Christianity unless he recants and returns to Islam and on Yemen's apostasy laws. [130075]

  Mr. Hain
  Our Ambassador in Sana'a raised the case of Mohamed Omer Haji with the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abdullah al-Sayedi on 9 July and made clear our concerns. We understand that Mohamed Omer Haji has not yet been sentenced. His case resumes on 12 July. We stand ready to raise the matter again with the Yemeni government.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129847]

  Mr. Hain
  Since 1 May 1997, Ministers in the Department have made

  (a) two paid appointments, of which none were women

  (b) 128 unpaid appointments, of which 42 were women (32.8 per cent.)

  The Department is committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. To that end, it has drawn up an action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments to 35 per cent. by 2000 and to 50 per cent. by 2003. The Department's latest plans, together with the Government's overall plan, were published on 24 May 2000 in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 2000–2003", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Colombia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States concerning possible repercussions for the environment of the use of GM fungicide on coca crops in Colombia. [130018]

  Mr. Battle
  We are not aware of the use of GM fungicides on coca crops in Colombia. No representations have been made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the US Government on this issue.

  The US Government are providing funding to the United Nations Drug Control Programme as part of its research into the possible use of Fusarium Oxysporum, a naturally-occurring fungus, in coca eradication programmes. Field trials on Fusarium Oxysporum have not yet been conducted in Colombia. Before these take place further research would need to be carried out inter alia to confirm that it is specific to coca and would not harm agricultural crops and other plant species. Field testing and any subsequent eradication campaign would also have to be approved by the Colombian Government.

  Ballistic Missile Threat
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the threat of attack on the UK by missiles launched from(a) Iran, (b) Iraq, (c) North Korea and (d) other states. [130019]
  541W
  Mr. Vaz
  Our current assessment is that there is no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK at present.

  We continue to monitor developments in this area closely.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the protocols for the European Convention on Human Rights, indicating the rights in each protocol and the members of the Council of Europe which have not ratified these protocols in each case. [129732]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is publicly available. Full details of the Protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights, and which Council of Europe member states have signed and ratified in each case, can be found on the website of the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.echr.coe.int).

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the election process in Zimbabwe. [130431]

  Mr. Hain
  We welcome the detailed EU and Commonwealth Observer Mission reports. Both made clear that the election campaign was marred by violence and intimidation. Despite this, about half of the electorate turned out to vote in polls which were conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner. For the first time Zimbabwe has a sizeable opposition in Parliament, and the result demonstrates a clear desire for change on the part of the people of Zimbabwe. The Movement for Democratic Change is proposing to mount legal challenges in 26 constituencies.

  The EU report has been placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129850]

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

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the revised business plan and budget of the New Millennium Experience Company. [125026]
  542W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 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.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will answer the question from the hon. Member for East Surrey (ref. 125026) tabled on 5 June, concerning the publication of the revised Budget and Business Plan of the New Millennium Experience Company. [128005]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: I have answered the hon. Member's question today, Official Report, column 544W.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who will receive the proceeds of the sale of the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement. [129033]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 11 July 2000, Official Report, columns 481–82W.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [129491]
  543W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  Neither my Department nor the Royal Parks Agency has a policy to remind staff who pay reduced rates of National Insurance contributions of the rules governing the payment of reduced rates.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what has been the value to date of National Lottery grant applications made by organisations in Gloucestershire; broken down by constituency; [129517]

  (2) how many Lottery grant applications have been made by organisations in Gloucestershire, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [129513]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The information requested is not available as not all Lottery distributors are able to break down applications by constituency or by county.

  The number and value of Lottery awards in Gloucestershire by constituency, according to my Department's National Lottery Awards Database, are shown in the table.

  Constituency

  Amount awarded (£)

  Total number of awards

  Cheltenham

  13,007,979

  80

  Cotswold

  15,880,770

  130

  Forest of Dean

  5,171,103

  137

  Gloucester

  21,698,878

  131

  Stroud

  9,653,239

  142

  Tewkesbury

  1,615,800

  69

  Total

  67,297,769

  689

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when he last met the Task Force on Tobacco Sponsorship; and what was discussed; [129534]

  (2) what alternative sources of sport sponsorship have been identified by the Tobacco Sponsorship Task Force; [129536]

  (3) which sports have benefited from alternative sources of sports sponsorship identified by the Tobacco Sponsorship Task Force. [129538]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: The Government have looked very carefully at how best to achieve an end to the advertising and promotion of tobacco at sports events in a way that will minimise any damage to the sports concerned. A Task Force of business and sponsorship, which I chair, exists to assist sports. All sports will be given up to July 2003 to secure alternative sponsorship, and the Government supported a derogation in EC legislation that those meeting the criteria for 'global events' will be allowed up to July 2006 if they agree to a reduction in expenditure and advertising.

  Seven sports have sought assistance to make the transition from tobacco sponsorship—rugby league, clay pigeon shooting, billiards and snooker, pool, darts, ice-hockey and angling. Over the last 18 months there has been extensive contact with the seven sports and the Task
  544W
  Force has been there to: make information available; offer advice to support the development of new marketing strategies; to make initial contacts with potential sponsors; and offer professional advice on how the sports can start to position themselves in a changing marketplace. The Task Force last met together on 18 October 1999. Since then, there have been further meetings between members of the Task Force and the governing bodies.

  The Task Force has now concluded the first phase of its work to identify the needs of the sports and ascertain how it can best assist them. Most sports have confirmed that it is too soon to be looking to replace existing contracts, and have indicated that the help of the Task Force can most effectively be targeted in the 12–18 months before these contracts lapse, which is the normal lead time for negotiating new sponsorships. It has been agreed with the sports therefore that there is no need for the Task Force to continue to meet on a regular basis. The Task Force has made it clear to all the sports that its assistance is still available in its second phase, as and when they require it.

  I have had recent discussions with the British Darts Organisation and the Ice Hockey Superleague, who have both indicated that they wish to continue to utilise the expertise of the Task Force. The National Federation of Anglers have taken up an offer made by the Chairman of the Virgin Group to use the Internet to assist with its marketing and promotion.

  Snooker, rugby league, clay pigeon shooting and pool have indicated that at this stage they do not require the assistance of the Task Force, preferring to wait until the lead in time before their tobacco contracts need to be renewed to see how the Task Force can best assist them.

  All the sports are aware that the Task Force is available to assist them at any time if they feel they need its help.

  Works of Art (Theft)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people have been dismissed from employment in the institutions holding the national collections for(a) theft and (b) attempted theft of works of art and artifacts since 1990. [130062]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have asked my officials to contact the National Museums and Galleries which are sponsored by DCMS to request information for a reply to my hon. Friend's question. I will write to him as soon as this is available, placing copies of my letter in the Library of the House.

  World Cup
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to place in the Library the full audited accounts of Sport England's contribution to the FA World Cup bid. [129832]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: Lottery money totalling £3.14 million has been allocated to the Football Association's bid to host the World Cup in 2006. The uses to which that money is put are closely monitored by Sport England, and details will appear in Sport England's Lottery Annual Report.

  Sport England's contribution to the bid is subject to the same general terms and conditions as other major Lottery grants. It is not a general Lottery condition to require

  545W
  published accounts. However, reference to the total costs of the bid will be made in the FA's General Annual Report and Accounts and I have asked the FA, in view of the interest in this matter, to make the detailed information available.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [130036]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: The percentage of valid invoices for goods and services paid within 30 days or other agreed payment terms by my Department and the Royal Parks Agency was as follows:

  Percentage

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  DCMS

  97.8

  99.6

  Royal Parks Agency

  98.0

  94.0

  Combined

  97.9

  97.3

  Football Arrests
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the arrests made at football matches, by offence, for each Premiership and Football League club, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [129000]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Total arrests

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1993–94

  1992–93

  Premiership

  1,534

  1,438

  1,759

  1,697

  1,723

  1,630

  1,647

  Division One

  851

  1,173

  891

  949

  1,227

  1,359

  1,347

  Division Two

  746

  468

  626

  506

  674

  782

  1,081

  Division Three

  363

  228

  301

  289

  226

  456

  513

  All League

  3,341

  3,307

  3,577

  3,441

  3,850

  4,227

  4,588

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish his annual report on the Social Fund for 1999–2000 and the Social Fund Commissioner's annual report. [130673]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State's annual report on the Social Fund for 1999–2000 (Cm 4755) was published today and has been laid before Parliament.

  The report records that total gross expenditure in 1999–2000 was £612 million. This included, 219,000 non-repayable grants and 1,950,000 interest free loans together worth £556 million and funeral, maternity and cold weather payments totalling £56 million. In addition, around 10 million people in over 7.5 million older households received winter fuel payments worth around £760 million.
  546W
  Information on arrests at, or in connection with, football matches is collated by the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The data currently available, which are shown, cover arrests by offence for the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. They have not been collated on a league or club basis in the past but will be in future.

  Data provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service on arrests by offence for the period 1996–97 to 1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Drink related offence

  1,338

  1,168

  1,113

  Disorderly behaviour

  832

  523

  413

  Threatening behaviour

  376

  312

  322

  Affray

  19

  65

  69

  Violent Disorder

  23

  52

  100

  Running on the pitch

  177

  243

  198

  Racial/Indecent chanting

  10

  33

  25

  Throwing missiles

  11

  31

  42

  Ticket touting

  173

  173

  213

  Assault

  19

  110

  133

  Breach of Exclusion order

  19

  19

  15

  Other

  580

  578

  698

  Total

  3,577

  3,307

  3,341

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were(a) arrested and (b) ejected from the ground at football matches at each Premiership and Football League club in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [128999]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on arrests at football matches is collated and analysed by the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Data are only currently available by Football League Division between the 1992–93 and 1998–99 seasons and are indicated as shown. Unfortunately, no data are obtainable on ejections from football grounds.

  The Social Fund Commissioner's annual report has also been published today and copies placed in the Library.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129854]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this, the Department has drawn up an action plan for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding public appointments. The latest plans, together with the Government's overall plan, were published on 24 May 2000 in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 2000–03", copies of which are in the Library.
  547W
  Since 1 May 1997, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a total of 57 paid appointments, including reappointments, of which 40 per cent. were women.

  Number of paid appointments

  Number of unpaid appointments

  Name of non-departmental public body

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Central Advisory Committee on War Pension

  —

  —

  5

  4

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  7

  10

  —

  —

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  11

  2

  —

  —

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  5

  4

  —

  —

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  8

  6

  —

  —

  War Pensions Committees

  —

  —

  106

  43

  Pensions Compensation Board

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Pensions Ombudsman

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  34

  23

  111

  47

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Braintree district council. [130672]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report has been published today in respect of Braintree district council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as their respective counter fraud activities.

  Inspectors found the Benefits Section at Braintree placed a strong emphasis on achieving high levels of speed and efficiency, which compared favourably against the performance of other councils. However, concern is noted that the high priority given to processing claims speedily had been at the expense of ensuring that all payments were secure and valid.

  The BFI considered the security of Braintree's benefits system needs to be strengthened in three areas: full compliance with the Verification Framework; fraud investigation; overpayment recovery and classification.

  The report notes that Braintree had introduced the Verification Framework eight weeks before Inspectors arrived for the on-site inspection. Although it was still early days, the report notes signs that its introduction was already paying off, by uncovering claims with undeclared income and capital. This was contributing to a reduction in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit expenditure. The council had also introduced other new security initiatives including the "Do Not Redirect" mail scheme and was using a Remote Access Terminal to access information from the Department and Benefits Agency.

  The report illustrates that the council is committed to customer service in their speed of processing claims for benefit. It is encouraging that they have also committed themselves to the Verification Framework which provides a minimum set of standards for ensuring that payment of benefit is made to the right person in circumstances that are checked for correctness.
  548W
  Similarly, there were 158 unpaid appointments made and 30 per cent. of these were women. The information is set out in the table.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for their proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Eden district council. [130674]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report has been published today in respect of Eden district council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as their respective counter fraud activities.

  The BFI reports that Eden District Council had a strong commitment to ensuring benefit payments were paid promptly and overpayments recovered wherever possible. The report notes a reasonable standard of verification was being applied to claims and Inspectors anticipated further improvement once the impact is felt of the council's implementation of the Verification Framework.

  Inspectors had a number of concerns, which included a lack of information that was necessary to support the council's benefit operations. It is reported that the combination of this and inadequate targets, measurements and procedural guidance meant that management were taking organisational decisions based on insufficient information. In addition minimal management checking provided little assurance that fraud and error was being prevented from entering the council's benefit system.

  The report illustrates that the council is committed to customer service in their speed of processing claims for benefit. It is encouraging that they have also committed themselves to the Verification Framework which provides a minimum set of standards for ensuring that payment of benefit payment is made to the right person in circumstances that are checked for correctness.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for their proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage of total staff this represents. [129145]

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

  This Department has recruited 467 New Deal employees as at 1 April 2000. This represents approximately 0.5 per cent. of total staff.

  Standard Interest Rate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to update the standard interest rate used by his Department to include lenders not currently covered in the calculation. [129474]

  Mr. Bayley
  There are no plans to alter the method of calculating the Standard Interest Rate.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce the three month delay in changes in the standard interest rate used by his Department. [129450]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have no plans to change the current arrangements, which give effect to changes as quickly as is practicable. Once the information is received from the Office for National Statistics of an alteration in the interest rates, the Department immediately sets in motion the procedures, to amend the relevant computer systems, and legislation. On the last two occasions that the standard interest rate was changed, in April and June 2000, it took six working days and five working days respectively from the date the Department received notification of the change in rates, to the date that regulations were laid. Regulations are laid at least 21 days in advance of their corning into force to allow for proper Parliamentary procedures to be followed. The same timetable applies when the standard interest rate increases as when it decreases.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the single organisation responsible for pensioners and pensions policy will have responsibility for attendance allowance. [128860]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will set out our plans for the new pensions organisation in due course.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a claimant's absence when visited by a housing benefit verification officer is considered a negative identification check if the visit is unannounced; and if he will make a statement. [130066]

  Angela Eagle
  No, if the claimant is not available when visited unannounced, the local authority would either make a further visit or collect the information in another way. A visit is not required to establish the claimant's identity.
  550W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons it is necessary for pensioners to comply with the requirements of the housing benefit verification framework. [130067]

  Angela Eagle
  The Verification Framework guidance is aimed at ensuring proper standards in the administration of Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit by local authorities. This ensures that the right amount of benefit is paid to any claimant who is properly entitled to it. The checks local authorities are required to make under the Framework apply to all claimants, no matter what their age or status.

  That said, as we announced in the Housing Green Paper, we are moving towards organisational changes, which will see services to pensioners being better tailored to their needs. This includes looking at whether there is a need to require pensioners to make claims as often as they have to at the moment. However, any change is still likely to need rigorous checking at the outset to ensure that the full and correct amount of benefit is put in payment.

  Anecdotal evidence from local authorities indicates that in some areas the introduction of the Verification Framework has highlighted a significant number of incorrect payments to pensioners. Although in many cases overpayments have been identified, there are also a substantial number of cases where underpayments have been established and rectified as a result of verification.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of both Widows Benefit and Housing Benefit in the latest year for which figures are available. [130063]

  Angela Eagle
  The information has already been published in both Social Security Statistics—May 1998 (table 3.12, page 82) and in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Annual Summary Statistics—May 1998 (table 3.10, page 15). The figures for May 1998 are the latest available.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage increase in(a) Widows Benefit and (b) Housing Benefit for the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will use a common index for uprating both. [130064]

  Angela Eagle
  Following the normal practice, Widows Benefit was uprated in line with RPI of 1.1 per cent. with effect from April 2000. Housing Benefit for non-pensioners was uprated by the Rossi index of 1.6 per cent. for the same period. Housing Benefit for pensioners was uprated by average earnings of 4.6 per cent. We have no plans to use a common index for uprating Widows Benefit and Housing Benefit.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average staying-on-in-education rate was of 16-year-olds in the Metropolitan
  551W
  Borough of Dudley between 1995 and 1998, (a) overall and (b) broken down by those who attended (i) schools and (ii) further education colleges. [128928]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Participation in education by 16-year-olds in England rose to 77.4 per cent. (provisional) at the end of 1999, from 76.2 per cent. in 1998. The Secretary of State recently launched a major £3 million advertising campaign aimed at encouraging this year's school leavers and others to stay on in some form of learning. The "Don't Quit Now" campaign is particularly aimed at those who left this year with few, if any GCSEs and are in danger of dropping out of education and training.

  Figures for participation in education in Dudley LEA are given in the following table; data for 1998–99 are not yet available. Figures for GST in Dudley TEC are also shown, as there is evidence that in TEC areas high rates of training compensate to some extent for lower levels of full-time education.

  Participation in education of 16-year-olds in Dudley LEA/ Dudley TEC, 1995–96 to 1997–98

  Percentage

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Dudley LEA:

  Full-time education

  60

  59

  57

  Of which:

  Schools

  6

  6

  6

  Further education

  54

  53

  51

  Part-time further education

  13

  17

  10

  Total education

  73

  76

  66

  Dudley TEC:

  Government supported training

  14

  15

  14

  Source:

  Statistical Bulletin 14/99: Participation in education and training by young people aged 16 and 17 in each local area and region, England, 1993–94 to 1997–98. Totals may not add due to rounding.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [129489]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) writes to staff identified as paying reduced rate National Insurance contributions each year, reminding them of the rules governing the payment of reduced rate contributions. This is in line with Inland Revenue guidance that employers may consider it worthwhile to have arrangements in place to issue a periodic reminder to these employees.1

  This exercise was first completed in October 1997 and now occurs at the beginning of each financial year.

  1Taken from "The Employer's Further Guide to PAYE and NICs" (CWG2), p.62.

  Musical Chairs
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement 552W
  on the proposal to limit the practice of the game musical chairs in schools, included in the document "Towards a Non-violent Society: Checkpoints for Early Years", launched by the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities. [129084]

  Ms Hodge
  We oppose any suggestions that musical chairs should be banned. Musical chairs is a reasonable traditional game which has been enjoyed by children for generations and should continue to be so.

  The publication "Towards a Non-violent Society: Checkpoints for Early Years" was produced by the Forum on Children and Violence. It was not guidance from my Department and was not produced, commissioned or distributed by the Department for Education and Employment. Although there are some useful tips in the document, the reference to musical chairs is not something we endorse. Newspaper reports suggesting otherwise were wrong.

  Neo-natal Hearing Screening
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what communication his Department has had with the Department of Health about developing the provision of language and educational support for children from zero to two years in preparation for the pilot project and the introduction of universal neo-natal hearing screening; [130099]

  (2) what communication his Department (a) has had and (b) plans to have with (i) local education authorities, (ii) teachers of the deaf, (iii) the teacher training authority, (iv) teaching unions and (v) organisations of and for deaf and hard of hearing people about (1) the launch and (2) the national roll-out of the neo-natal hearing screening pilot project; [130101]

  (3) when his Department will establish an advisory group on co-ordinating the development of language and educational provision in preparation for the (a) launch and (b) national roll-out of the pilot project for neo-natal hearing screening; and when it will announce the composition of the group. [130102]

  Ms Hodge
  Discussions between DfEE and DH have taken place at both ministerial and official level about neo-natal hearing screening, including the consequential need for educational services. Similarly, both Departments are in regular contact with key organisations in this field.

  The National Screening Committee advises Ministers on proposed screening programmes and follows set procedures for setting up pilot projects. These include establishing an executive group to represent the various interests to discuss and determine the practicalities of how the pilot projects will develop. When the National Screening Committee establishes an executive group for neo-natal hearing screening, it will include a representative from this Department.

  A key function of the executive group and indeed of the pilot projects is to provide an opportunity to explore all the implications of neo-natal hearing screening. During this process both Departments will contact and discuss issues with all the relevant bodies.
  553W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has conducted into the language and educational benefits of neo-natal hearing screening and effective follow-up support for deaf children from zero to two years. [130103]

  Ms Hodge
  At this time the Department has not conducted any research in this area.

  Osteopathy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the current cost to public funds of training an osteopath at the John Wernham College of Classical Osteopathy. [130014]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: The John Wernham College of Classical Osteopathy is not a publicly funded institution. The four year BSc. Honours degree course in Osteopathic Medicine, taught at the College under contract from a publicly funded institution, has been specifically designated by the Secretary of State for fees support and student loans purposes. The public fee rate of £1,025 in the 1999–2000 academic year applies to this course. Eligible students receive fees support subject to a means test and may apply for student loans.

  Head Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacancies there were for head teachers in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools between (i) June 1998 and June 1999 and (ii) June 1999 and June 2000. [130011]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: Information about the annual number of vacancies for head teachers is not collected centrally.

  Temporarily filled vacant head teacher posts1in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England at January in the years 1998–20002

  LEA maintained only3

  All maintained

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Temporarily filled vacant head teacher post

  Nursery and primary

  470

  400

  390

  Secondary

  60

  50

  90

  Temporarily filled vacant head teacher posts as a percentage of head teachers in post

  Nursery and primary

  2.5

  2.2

  2.1

  Secondary

  1.8

  1.6

  2.2

  1Temporarily-filled full-time permanent appointments. A post is included in this table:

  a. if there is no incumbent who is expected to return to the post;

  b. whether or not filled on a temporary basis, i.e. either without a contract or on a contract of less than one year;

  c. whether or not advertised;

  d. if an appointment has been made but not yet taken up.

  2Data are collected in January of each year.

  3Excludes vacancies in grant maintained schools.

  Head teachers have a key role in boosting standards in schools. We are establishing a National College for School Leadership to give a focus to school leadership
  554W
  development, and are designing a coherent package of training and development programmes for aspiring, new and serving head teachers.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to enable nursery schools whose numbers have increased above the full-time equivalent of 105 pupils after 20 January to receive an additional £3,000. [128797]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are no plans to pay additional School Standards Grant to schools to take account of increases in their number of pupils after 20 January 2000. This was the date of the annual Schools Census, and the allocation of available funds between schools was most effectively done by using data from that source.

  City Academies
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the expressions of interest he has received regarding the promotion of city academy Pathfinder projects; [129786]

  (2) how many schools have been identified as appropriate candidates for city academy Pathfinder projects. [129787]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A number of potential sponsors have had discussions with local education authorities about the possible location of City Academies.

  Circulars
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what circular documents are in preparation to send to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the next six months. [129785]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following the commitment made by the Secretary of State to cut by one third the number of documents and by a half the number of pages sent automatically to all schools in the next school year, this Department is reviewing all plans to send documents to schools from September 2000. When that review has been completed, I will write to the hon. Member with a list of planned documents and place copies in the House of Commons Library.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what instructions he has issued(a) through Government offices and (b) otherwise to training and enterprise councils to confine funding for modern apprenticeships to (i) 16 and 17 year olds and (ii) 18 to 24 year olds. [130087]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Planning Guidance for TECs/CCTEs, which is part of their contract, says that for 2000–01 the Department expects increasing numbers of 16–17 year olds in Work Based Training (including both Foundation Modern Apprenticeships and Advanced Modern Apprenticeships) and similar levels of starts for 19+ trainees compared with the previous year but focused on Advanced Modern Apprenticeships.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list Part C GM crop trial plantings in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [126883]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no requirement to notify the Department of releases of a GM crop which has a Europe-wide Part C marketing consent for cultivation. However, the industry body SCIMAC has agreed to provide location details for the GM maize being grown in the Farm Scale Evaluations under a Part C consent. All Farm Scale Evaluations sites are listed at www.environment.detr.gov.uk/fse/location/index.htm. None are in Shrewsbury and Atcham.

  The terms of the Government's agreement with SCIMAC precludes general cultivation of GM crops until after the end of the farm scale evaluations, however small scale plantings for trial purposes are permitted.

  Government Office running costs

  £000

  Government Office

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Total

  North East

  8,842.76

  8,687.15

  8,616.75

  8,618.84

  8,312.05

  8,221.62

  51,299.17

  North West

  9,983.71

  9,839.09

  9,442.59

  13,690.13

  13,048.58

  13,397.92

  69,402.02

  Midlands

  4,753.84

  4,349.95

  4,199.53

  12.24

  —

  —

  13,315.56

  Total North West/Midlands

  14,737.55

  14,189.04

  13,642.12

  13,702.37

  13,048.58

  13,397.92

  82,717.58

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  9,060.51

  8,765.04

  8,475.01

  8,683.92

  8,888.68

  9,183.87

  53,057.03

  West Midlands

  10,435.73

  10,040.37

  9,757.79

  9,474.35

  9,330.15

  9,794.44

  58,832.83

  East Midlands

  7,116.85

  6,616.67

  6,436.24

  6,754.39

  6,951.28

  7,176.97

  41,052.40

  East of England

  6,122.84

  6,168.97

  6,270.62

  6,269.43

  7,005.47

  7,391.26

  39,228.59

  South West

  7,574.14

  7,140.74

  6,825.73

  6,985.03

  7,796.87

  8,226.98

  44,549.49

  South East

  8,331.06

  8,406.18

  8,544.99

  8,561.40

  8,658.61

  8,952.79

  51,455.03

  London

  11,106.26

  14,106.47

  13,458.82

  13,238.12

  13,715.79

  13,747.10

  79,372.56

  Central Unit

  1,136.60

  1,696.34

  4,355.96

  3,095.29

  3,702.74

  3,129.92

  17,116.85

  Total

  84,464.30

  85,816.97

  86,384.03

  85,383.14

  87,410.22

  89,222.87

  518,681.53

  1Allocations for 2000–01

  Note:

  The North West and Midlands Government Offices merged during 1998–99

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people(a) are and (b) were in each of the last five years employed by each of the Government Offices for the Regions. [127993]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The information is set out in the table:

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  North East

  267

  261

  286

  269

  332

  North West

  402

  401

  383

  428

  445

  Yorkshire and Humber

  282

  251

  275

  274

  302

  West Midlands

  271

  275

  348

  325

  341

  East Midlands

  247

  222

  215

  218

  241

  East of England

  195

  178

  185

  182

  185

  South West

  227

  204

  196

  255

  218

  South East

  248

  215

  197

  224

  220

  London

  398

  350

  334

  329

  295

  Regional Government
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) is the current cost, (b) was the cost in each of the last five years and (c) is the projected cost of each of the Government Offices for the Regions. [127992]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The current running costs, and the running costs for the last five years for each of the Government Offices for the Regions, are set out in the table. The projected costs for the next financial year and beyond are the subject of negotiation between Departments, in the light of the recommendations of the PIU Report "Reaching Out".

  The increase in running costs for the Government Offices Central Unit (GOCU) reflects the transfer of functions to the unit by parent Departments. The Central Unit also hold a number of budgets centrally on behalf of GOs.

  Prior to 1996, this information was not collated centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  The increase in the number of staff in the Government Office for London reflects the transfer of responsibility for transport policy in London from DETR to GO-L and GO-L's work on the establishment of the GLA as a whole. GO-L is already declining in number and expects staff numbers to decrease further.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what functions are carried out by each of the Government Offices for the Regions; and what functions have been transferred from them to Regional Development Agencies. [127994]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The Government Offices for the Regions operate within a Policy Framework and a set of objectives endorsed by their parent Departments. The Policy Framework covers five areas of cross-departmental activity comprising

  557W
  Regeneration, Sustainable Development, Competitiveness, Social Inclusion and Partnership. The main departmental activities include:
  For DETR—Regeneration; land use planning in the regions; Housing in the regions; Countryside, integrated transport strategies, road scheme decisions; local transport priorities; statutory casework.
  For DTI—Promotion of national competitiveness policies; Regional; Selective Assistance; the Smart scheme; Business Links; Export Promotion; provision of regional economic intelligence, enterprise grant scheme.
  For DfEE—TEC and Careers Service contracting; National Learning Targets, European Social Fund and some education related activities.

  The Single Regeneration Budget and administration of Inward Investment activity (with the exception of GO-East and GO-London, which retain some residual responsibilities for inward investment activity) transferred from the Government Offices to the Regional Development Agencies. The GOs have a major role in sponsorship of the RDAs.

  The Government are currently reviewing the regional activities of all Whitehall Departments in the light of the PIU Report "Reaching Out", to ensure strengthened co-ordination of policy initiatives with a regional and local impact. All Departments whose responsibilities affect regional or local activities are committed to better co-ordination of key policies by involving Government Offices.

  South-east Planning Area
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what area of land in the South-east planning area is designated for its(a) intrinsic environmental value of international importance, (b) intrinsic environmental value of national importance, (c) landscape value and (d) cultural value. [129073]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Within London and the South East, areas designated for their intrinsic environmental value of international importance amount to 92,235 hectares designated under the Ramsar Convention and 98,800 hectares designated Special Protection Areas and candidate Special Areas of Conservation. Areas designated as being of national importance, namely National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, amount to 13,780 hectares and 135,600 hectares respectively. Over 7,000 square kilometres are designated areas of landscape value, namely Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the New Forest Heritage Area. In addition there are five World Heritage Sites and over 3,270 Ancient Scheduled Monuments.

  Motorcyclists (Penalty Notices)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to investigate the issuing of incorrect road tax penalty notices to motorcyclists; and if he will make a statement. [128778]

  Mr. Hill
  A recently publicised case involving a motorcyclist, where enforcement action was commenced when the motorcycle was in fact licensed, has led DVLA to review its procedures to ensure that this does not happen again.
  558W
  Before any action is taken by DVLA, the national vehicle register is checked to establish whether vehicles are unlicensed at the time of offence. This safeguard should avoid action being taken against motorists in the situation where a licence has been taken out, but the vehicle register has yet to be updated with the licensing details from the Post Office.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultation the Government and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will conduct with(a) local rail users, (b) local rail user groups and (c) local and regional authorities in the award of (a) new and (b) extended rail franchises. [129389]

  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director is operating an inclusive consultation process for franchise replacement. The Instructions and Guidance issued to him require him to consult, as appropriate, the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales, the Greater London Authority, local authorities, Passenger Transport Executives, regional planning bodies, Regional Development Agencies and Rail Passenger Committees (formerly Rail Users Consultative Committees). He is also encouraging bidders for replacement franchises to consult with these authorities and passenger representatives about the proposals in their bids.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to local authorities on(a) consulting registered social landlords regarding nominations, framing allocations policies and homelessness strategies and (b) preparing a corporate action plan to deal with homelessness and the prevention of homelessness; and if he will make a statement. [129258]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Code of Guidance on Parts VII and VII of the Housing Act 1996 includes guidance on section 167 of the 1996 Act, which requires local housing authorities to consult registered social landlords with which they have nomination agreements when adopting or changing a housing allocation scheme. The Code also includes guidance on framing allocations policies. The Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice; A decent home for all", proposes giving more choice to applicants for social housing, and improving the safety net for homeless households, including a multi-agency approach to developing homelessness strategies. The Government propose to issue a revised Code of Guidance on Parts VII and VII of the Housing Act 1996 later this year, taking account of the developing agenda on social lettings and homelessness as set out in the Housing Green Paper and responses to the consultation on this.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much discretion will be given to local authorities under the Housing Green Paper proposals to change the way in which allocations are made to social housing, to take account of housing problems in their own area; and if he will make a statement. [129257]
  559W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government consider that choice for those seeking social housing should be as wide as possible. However, the Housing Green Paper proposals recognise the wide variations in demand for housing in different parts of the country. Local authorities are responsible for local housing strategies and developing lettings policies which reflect local housing needs. We will wish to ensure that the framework for lettings schemes is flexible enough to deal with these local circumstances. We intend to consider responses to the Housing Green Paper and to consult with local government, Shelter and others before finalising our proposals.

  Open-air Concerts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the safety measures which apply to large open-air concerts, following the deaths at a recent concert in Denmark; and if he will make a statement. [129691]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has recently carried out a major review of guidance covering music events, including large open-air festivals. "The event safety guide: a guide to health, safety and welfare at music and similar events" was launched in October 1999. In addition, a revised version of HSE's guidance booklet "Managing Crowds Safely" is due to be published later this year. HSE will review the proposed guidance in the light of the deaths at the Roskilde Festival.

  Right to Buy
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the Environment, Transport and the Regional Affairs Committee that the right to buy legislation should be amended so as not to apply to settlements with fewer than 5,000 properties. [129692]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are considering the Committee's recommendations. Our Rural White Paper later this year will address the issue of affordable housing in rural areas.

  Trans-European Network
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what ports in the UK are included in the Trans-European Network transport network; and what(a) EU and (b) UK funds have been used for improving facilities at those ports in each year since 1994. [129466]

  Mr. Hill
  At present, no individual ports are specifically included within the transport Trans-European Network (TEN). Rather, projects at inland ports and seaports may be eligible for European Union (EU) TEN funding if they correspond to the specifications or criteria set out in Section 4 and 5 of Annex II to the TEN guidelines (Decision No. 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996).

  To date, EU TEN funding to ports has only been offered in relation to studies. Since 1995, when the TEN
  560W
  programme was introduced, the UK ports which have been allocated funding, and the total funds offered, are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Ports receiving funds

  EU funding

  1995

  None

  —

  1996

  None

  —

  1997

  Portsmouth; Great Yarmouth; Boston;

  0.70

  Port of London; Southampton;

  Felixstowe; Heysham

  1998

  Portsmouth; Sunderland; Tyne; Humber;

  1.60

  Heysham; Southampton; Harwich

  1999

  Great Yarmouth

  0.24

  The Government have not provided any funding for improving facilities at UK ports during the period 1994 to 2000.

  NATS
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the companies or organisations that have expressed interest in becoming the strategic partner in National Air Traffic Services Ltd.; and if he has received representations from them about forecast capital spending in NATS. [129763]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 14 June 2000,Official Report, column 640W.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the planning policy guidance is regarding development of playing field sites. [129795]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance note 17: "Sport and Recreation" emphasises the special significance of playing fields and that they should normally be protected. The Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998 requires referral to the Secretary of State of planning applications for development of local authority-owned playing fields or those currently, or in the previous five years, in educational use, where Sport England has objected but the local planning authority is minded to grant permission. The Secretary of State then has the opportunity to call in the application for his own determination.

  "High Hedges"
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish his findings on the responses to the consultation document, "High Hedges"; and if he will make a statement. [129817]

  Mr. Mullin
  There is nothing I can add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 20 April 2000,Official Report, column 613W.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he
  561W
  has to increase the resources available to tackle the investment backlog in council housing; and if he will make a statement. [129822]

  Mr. Mullin
  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.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at what weight on the highway piggybank trailer systems that have been proposed by the winner of the recent rail freight competition will run. [129995]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: The cement road tanker to be conveyed on the intermodal wagons will have a maximum weight of 40 tonnes to which the traction unit would be added when on the highway.

  Leasehold and Commonhold
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish a draft bill on leasehold and commonhold. [130168]

  Mr. Mullin
  As was announced in the Gracious Speech given on 17 November 1999,Official Report, columns 4–7, we intend to publish a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for consultation during this session. The leasehold reform aspects of the draft Bill are the responsibility of my Department, and those on commonhold are the responsibility of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. We now expect to publish the draft Bill for consultation during the summer.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many residential leaseholders there are in England and Wales. [130169]

  Mr. Mullin
  Estimates1from the Department's Survey of English Housing show that in 1998–99, there were 1,920,000 residential leaseholders in England. The Department has no information on the number of residential leaseholders in Wales.
  1Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many

  Line Closures July—December 2000

  Date

  Line

  Location

  Purpose

  8–9 July

  Central

  North Acton to Northolt/Ealing Broadway

  Trackwork

  8–9 July

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Stonebridge Park

  Engineering work

  15–16 July

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Stonebridge Park

  Engineering work

  15–16 July

  Central

  Bethnal Green to Leytonstone

  Leyton Trackwork

  22–23 July

  Northern

  Tooting Broadway to Morden

  Platform work

  22–23 July

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  29–30 July

  Metropolitan

  Wembley Park to Preston Road

  Track replacement

  30 July until 7.45am

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  5–25 August

  Victoria

  Victoria to Brixton

  Track work

  6 August until 7.45am

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  13 August until 7.45am

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  562W
  and what percentage of the (a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129842]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: The Secretary of State has made the following appointments to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department since 1 May 1997.

  Appointments to UNDPBS since 1 May 1997

  Women

  (a) Paid

  163 (25.2 per cent.)

  (b) Unpaid

  204 (27.3 per cent.)

  This Government are committed to increasing representation of women in public life. In support of this, the Department has drawn up an action plan for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding public appointments. The latest plans, together with the Governments overall plan, were published on 24 May 2000 in "Quangos, Opening Up Public Appointments 2000–2003", a copy of which is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the bidders on the short list for the PPP for the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [130189]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: On 5 July, London Underground announced that the shortlisted bidders for the two deep tube PPP contracts would be as follows:

  JNP (Jubilee, Northern and Piccaddilly lines): Tube Lines Group and Tuberail.

  BCV (Bakerloo, Central, Victoria and Waterloo and City lines): LINC and Metronet.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the line closures on the London Underground that are planned between July and December, indicating the(a) purpose and (b) duration of each line closure. [130192]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: This is an operational matter for London Underground. I understand they are only planning one major closure during this period. This will be the Victoria Line between Victoria and Brixton between 5 and 26 August. This is for trackworks.

  In addition, London Underground plan to carry out normal maintenance and improvement works involving some weekend closures, as shown in the table.
  563W

  Line Closures July—December 2000

  Date

  Line

  Location

  Purpose

  20 August until 7.45am

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  27 August until 7.45am

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  27 August

  Northern

  Camden Town

  Trackwork

  2–3 September

  Metropolitan

  Rickmansworth to Amersham/Chesham

  Track replacement

  3 September until 7.45am

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  9–10 September

  Metropolitan

  Moor Park to Amersham/Chesham

  Track replacement

  10 September

  District

  Hornchurch to Dagenham East

  Engineering work

  10 September until 7.45am

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  16–17 September

  Metropolitan

  Moor Park to Amersham/Chesham

  Track replacement

  17 September until 7.45am

  Bakerloo

  Queen's Park to Wembley Central

  Engineering work

  23–24 September

  District

  Turnham Green to Richmond

  Engineering work

  23–24 September

  Metropolitan

  Moor Park to Amersham/Chesham

  Track replacement

  30 September–1 October

  Metropolitan

  Rickmansworth to Moor Park

  Track replacement

  30 September–1 October

  Northern

  South Wimbledon

  Refurbishment of station

  30 September–1 October

  Bakerloo

  Piccadilly Circus to Elephant & Castle

  Engineering work

  1 October

  District

  Turnham Green to Richmond

  Engineering work

  7–8 October

  District

  Turnham Green to Richmond

  Engineering work

  7–8 October

  Metropolitan

  Harrow on the Hill to Northwood

  Engineering work

  14–15 October

  Bakerloo

  Piccadilly Circus to Elephant & Castle

  Engineering work

  14–15 October

  District

  Turnham Green to Richmond

  Engineering work

  14–15 October

  Metropolitan

  Chorleywood to Rickmansworth

  Engineering work

  21–22 October

  Metropolitan

  Harrow on the Hill to North Harrow

  Track replacement

  21–22 October

  Northern

  Colliers Wood

  Refurbishment of station

  21–22 October

  Bakerloo

  Piccadilly Circus to Elephant & Castle

  Engineering work

  22 October

  Bakerloo

  Paddington to Elephant & Castle

  Track work

  28–29 October

  Bakerloo

  Piccadilly Circus to Elephant & Castle

  Engineering work

  28–29 October

  Metropolitan

  Harrow on the Hill to North Harrow

  Track replacement

  4–5 November

  Central

  Hainault to Woodford

  Track replacement

  4–5 November

  Bakerloo

  Piccadilly Circus to Elephant & Castle

  Engineering work

  5 November

  Bakerloo

  Paddington to Elephant & Castle

  Track work

  11–12 November

  Metropolitan

  Harrow on the Hill to Northwood

  Track replacement

  11–12 November

  Northern

  South Wimbledon

  Escalator work

  18–19 November

  Bakerloo

  Piccadilly Circus to Elephant & Castle

  Engineering work

  18–19 November

  District

  Plaistow to Whitechapel

  Engineering work

  25–26 November

  Bakerloo

  Piccadilly Circus to Elephant & Castle

  Engineering work

  25–26 November

  Metropolitan

  Harrow on the Hill to Northwood

  Track Replacement

  25–26 November

  Northern

  Colliers Wood

  Refurbishment of station

  2–3 December

  Metropolitan

  Harrow on the Hill to North Harrow

  Track replacement

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what dates the final contracts will be signed for each part of the London Underground network; and what are the significant dates in the PPP process in the run-up to those dates. [130190]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: The Government have consistently made it clear that it will not give specific dates for completion as these would undermine the public sector's position in negotiations. The next steps towards the public private partnership are as follows:
  bids are due for the sub-surface lines contract by 15 September; and
  shortlisted bidders for the two deep tube contracts are required to submit final offers in the autumn.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning good-quality housing in the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal; and if he will make a statement. [130244]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Social Exclusion Unit has just completed an extensive 12 week consultation on the framework document on the National Strategy for 564W
  Neighbourhood Renewal. The consultation included over 70 events around the country and to date over 600 written responses have been received. Housing quality was raised at a number of the events. The written response is currently being analysed and it is too early to assess how many concern good quality housing. The results from the consultation will be reflected in the final strategy document to be issued later this year.

  Social Exclusion (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the coordination of Government policies on social exclusion in respect of Islington's voluntary sector. [128648]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The local voluntary sector has an important role to play in combating social exclusion. Local authorities, including Islington borough council, provide substantial funding to that sector. The extent of that funding is a matter for individual councils bearing in mind their statutory responsibilities, their priorities and the wishes of their electorate.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he
  565W
  will make a statement on the account that will be taken in the Government's proposed Rural White Paper of the effect on the rural economy of hunting, shooting and fishing. [128657]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government recognise that country sports, such as fishing, shooting and hunting, contribute significantly to the economy in some rural areas. We are taking account of this during the preparation of the forthcoming Rural White Paper.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Rural White Paper will be published. [128655]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Rural White Paper is being prepared in tandem with a White Paper on urban policy and we intend that both White Papers will be published when the House returns in the autumn.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of mortgages held on(a) fixed rate, (b) variable rate and (c) other terms in each of the last 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [130257]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department does not collect information on the totality of outstanding mortgages. It does, however, collect information on the numbers of "new advances" that are fixed rate, discounted variable rate and other variable rate. Figures were first collected in 1993 and the figures for 1993 and 1999 are as follows.

  Percentage of new mortgages by number

  Percentage of new mortgages by value

  Fixed

  Discounted variable

  Other variable

  Fixed

  Discounted variable

  Other variable

  1993

  57.3

  20.6

  22.1

  60.4

  19.6

  20.0

  1999

  40.2

  39.4

  20.4

  43.1

  37.4

  19.5

  Source:

  DETR 5% Survey of Mortgage Lenders

  Equivalent information on outstanding mortgages has been collected using ad hoc surveys of mortgage lenders carried out by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) in 1994, 1997 and 1999. Their findings were published in Housing Finance No. 24 (1994); News & Views No. 22 (1997) and Housing Finance No. 44 (1999).

  Drinking Water Inspectorate
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the tenth annual report of the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be published. [130471]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Drinking Water Inspectorate has published its tenth Annual Report today.

  The main features for 1999 were:

  a further improvement in drinking water quality

  a further increase in the number of discoloured water incidents but signs of the beginning of an improvement

  programmes in place as part of Periodic Review to meet required quality improvements

  implementation of Cryptosporidium Regulations.

  566W
  The Inspectorate has also published two leaflets for consumers. "How Good is the Drinking Water", will summarise the main points of the Report. "DWI Report on (Each) Water Company" gives brief details of the quality of drinking water supplied by individual water companies.

  Copies of the Report and leaflets have been placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the Short Term Training Team in Sierra Leone. [130626]

  Mr. Hoon
  The work of the Short Term Training Team is progressing well, with the recruits due to complete their infantry training before the end of July. In the light of the success of this training, and in order to provide further support for the Government of Sierra Leone, I have approved a second six-week course, which will run to early September. The training team for this course will be largely drawn from one Royal Irish, whose equipment will be transported by the RFA Sir Galahad, which will then return to the UK. The existing RFA, Sir Percivale, will remain in support. In addition, the Government will be providing some items of personal equipment needed by the trainees, including boots and ponchos, from surplus MOD stocks, as well as an additional 5 million rounds of 7.62 mm link ammunition to help to meet urgent operational needs. As with the previous batch of ammunition announced on 29 June, this will be delivered to Sierra Leone subject to the Government of Sierra Leone securing formal agreement from the ECOWAS Secretariat that this ammunition can be imported as an exception to their Small Arms Moratorium. In accordance with UNSCR 1171 (1998), this shipment will be notified to the UN Sanctions Committee. Its provision will also be subject to confirmation that it will be used only by regular SLA soldiers, in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights standards, and not by child soldiers.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129848]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following figures apply to appointments and reappointments made to Ministry of Defence non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) since 1 May 1997:

  (a) paid: five women; 19 per cent. of all appointments

  (b) unpaid: nine women; 17 per cent. of all appointments.

  These figures include appointments not made by the Secretary of State for Defence, such as appointments to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which are made by the Prime Minister. They exclude appointments made to bodies which have been declassified as NDPBs since 1 May 1997, such as the subcommittees of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.
  567W
  Within the overriding principle of selection based on merit, MOD is committed to increasing diversity in appointments to its NDPBs and raising the representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and disabled people in line with government-wide objectives.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the key buildings for which his Department(a) submitted and (b) did not submit green transport plans by March. [122608]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: The Ministry of Defence has approximately 340 key buildings and sites. Of these, stand-alone travel plans for 19 key sites have been submitted. The sites are:

  Royal Marines, Poole

  Victory Building, HM Naval Base, Portsmouth

  MOD (Navy) Headquarters, Ensleigh, Bath

  MOD (Navy) Headquarters, Foxhill, Bath

  Defence Helicopter Support Authority, Yeovilton

  Hydrographic Office, Taunton

  Defence Logistics Organisation, Andover

  Headquarters 2 Division (Army), Craigiehall, Edinburgh

  Headquarters Salisbury Garrison, Wilton, Wiltshire

  Headquarters 4 Division (Army), Aldershot

  Headquarters 5 Division (Army), Shrewsbury

  Headquarters Adjutant General, Upavon, Wiltshire

  Royal Air Force Stafford

  Royal Air Force Halton

  Royal Air Force Brampton/Wyton

  Royal Air Force Cranwell

  Royal Air Force Lossiemouth

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Farnborough/Pyestock

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Malvern.

  Travel Plans for the remainder of my Department's key buildings and sites were not submitted by March 2000. Plans for these sites will be produced as part of measures

  Date

  Detail

  Location

  32 Regiment RA

  1–16 May

  Battery Training—12 Launchers

  Salisbury Plan Training Area (SPTA)

  19–26 May

  Regimental Exercise—12 Launchers

  SPTA

  12–24 June

  Divisional Exercise—6 Launchers

  SPTA

  1 September–4 October

  Ex IRON HAWK—6 Launchers

  British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS), Canada

  39 Regiment RA

  30 September–6 October

  Battery Firing—12 Launchers

  Castlemartin

  6–16 October

  Regimental Firing-12 Launchers

  SPTA

  13 November–1 December

  6 Launchers

  Germany

  101 Regiment RA (V)

  8–9 April

  Regimental Firing—12 Launchers

  OTA

  16 June–1 July

  Regimental Exercise/US Exchange—12 Launchers

  OTA/SPTA

  30 June–1 July

  Artillery 2000–2 Launchers

  SPTA

  25–26 November

  Regimental Live Firing—12 Launchers

  OTA

  RMPA Programme
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 642W, on the RMPA Programme, what the procurement strategy for the Active Search Sonobuoy
  568W
  for promoting green transport initiatives within our corporate Environmental Management System (EMS), and where significant environmental impacts arising from transport activities are identified by site-based EMSs.

  However, it must be borne in mind that many of our sites are in locations that are relatively isolated and MOD Main Building is not just an administration Centre but also a 24 hour operational Headquarters.

  The framework for the corporate EMS was approved in April 2000 and an implementation programme is being developed during the current Financial Year. Formal implementation of the EMS will commence in April 2001.

  Friend/Foe System
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a decision on strategic identification of friend/foe system procurement; what response he will make to submissions made on behalf of Raytheon and their subcontractors; and if he will make a statement. [128931]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 4 July 2000, Official Report, column 128W.

  In accordance with departmental policy, the competing suppliers will be debriefed on the outcome of the competition.

  Live Firing Exercises
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what live firing exercises involving MLRS and(a) the Territorial Army and (b) the regular army have taken place this year; and if he will make a statement. [129133]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: The following live firing exercises using Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) have already taken place or are planned for this year:

  System (Service Requirement 903) is; and if he will make a statement. [129463]

  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.
  569W
  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 12 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question (No 129463) to the Secretary of State for Defence about the procurement strategy for the Active Search Sonobuoy System (ASSS) to meet SR(SA)903. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Under BAE SYSTEMS, as prime contractor for the Nimrod MRA4 programme, two consortia are currently conducting a risk reduction programme for ASSS and are in competition for the next phase of the programme, to develop and integrate the system into the Nimrod MRA4. Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd (TMSL) lead one of the consortia and Ultra Electronics Limited (UEL) lead the other. Once the competition has been decided the main Nimrod MRA4 contract will be amended to incorporate this development and integration activity to enable ASSS to be introduced by March 2005 concurrent with the introduction into service of Nimrod MRA4. We have already secured a commitment to, and maximum price for this work from BAE SYSTEMS.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there has been any delay in the Nimrod upgrade programme. [128704]

  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 12 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question (No 128704) to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Nimrod MRA4. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  You asked whether there had been any delay in the Nimrod upgrade programme. Following EAC approval for Development and Manufacture in July 1996, the Nimrod MRA4 contract was let with BAE SYSTEMS in December 1996 with an In-Service Date (ISD) of April 2003. Following technical and resource problems, BAE SYSTEMS advised the DPA in late 1998 that they could not meet this date. In May 1999, following extensive negotiations, the contract was re-baselined with an ISD of March 2005, a delay of 23 months, with the MOD securing various benefits in compensation.
  In the MPR 99 report, published on 6thJuly, the delay in the Nimrod MRA4 ISD is shown as 51 months. This derives from the method the NAO have used in the past to account for ISD slippage. As well as the 23 months described above, it includes an earlier cumulative delay of 28 months judged against the earliest estimate of when a Nimrod MR2 replacement aircraft was needed, but ahead of any meaningful Industry input. In future MPRs, ISD slippage will be measured against the most recent approval, which in the case of Nimrod MRA4 would be the Main Gate equivalent in July 1996. This will show the slippage to be the 23 months described above.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contract at BAE in Brough to build Nimrods. [129945]

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

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Ms Shona McIsaac, dated 12 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question (No 129945) to the Secretary of State for Defence about the contract at BAE in Brough to build Nimrods. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  570W
  The contract for the conversion of current standard Nimrods to the new Nimrod MRA4 standard was placed with BAE SYSTEMS, Warton, who act as the prime contractor. A significant proportion of the activity on this programme has been placed by BAE SYSTEMS' sites, including Brough. The facility in Brough is principally involved in the design and manufacture of various aircraft components and installation tooling to support the aircraft build programme which will be undertaken at the BAE SYSTEMS' facility at Woodford.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [129490]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Pay and Personnel Agency (PPA) is the payroll provider for the Ministry of Defence.

  It is not the current practice of the PPA to write annually to staff paying reduced rates of National Insurance contributions.

  We apply a number of checks to identify and act upon any changes of circumstances which affect the continuing payment of reduced rate National Insurance contributions. These systems were audited in March 1998 by Inland Revenue and DSS and they included a 100 per cent. check of all staff then paying reduced rates of contributions. No problems were identified with the systems in operation.

  BRNC Dartmouth
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sea-based training takes place at BRNC Dartmouth. [129803]

  Mr. Spellar
  All Naval Cadets joining BRNC undertake an extensive package of training in the 67 boats owned by the College. This training is carried out on the River Dart and surrounding sea area with some sailing and motor vessels ranging as far as France and the Channel Islands. The aim of this training is to familiarise the cadets with the maritime environment, and all cadets are required to prove their competence in a variety of craft.

  In the second term of the cadets' training a six week period is spent undertaking Initial Sea Training (IST) in an operational warship. The ship continues with her normal programme so, for example, cadets were onboard HMS Chatam while she was engaged on Operation Palliser (Sierra Leone). The aim of this period is to provide naval cadets with an experience of life as a junior rating, thus gaining an insight into the working conditions and lifestyle of the men and women they aspire to lead.

  Alliance Ground Surveillance
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the past year on the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance programme. [129804]
  571W
  Mr. Hoon
  NATO Allies remain committed to the definition of a NATO-owned and operated core capability of an Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) programme. This task is currently being addressed within the Alliance, with the intention of placing into service a NATO-owned and operated core capability in about 10 years' time.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyer programme. [130419]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have now approved the procurement of Type 45 destroyers, in line with our firm commitment to a modern and effective destroyer and frigate force. Subject to the satisfactory completion of negotiations, a contract will be placed later this year with the prime contractor, BAe Systems, for the first three of these ships, and including some major long-lead equipment for a further three, at an estimated cost in excess of £1 billion. It is planned that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAe Systems Marine, and the second ship by Vosper Thornycroft. The first of class is expected to be launched from the BAe Systems Marine Scotstoun yard on the Clyde.

  The class is to be named the 'D' Class and Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed to the first of class being named HMS Daring and the second HMS Dauntless. This revives two names that have served the Royal Navy well since the early 1800s.

  The ships will be equipped with the PAAMS Anti Air Missile System, a collaborative programme with France and Italy, and will provide highly effective area defence against aircraft and missiles. In addition, the Type 45 Destroyer will be a multi-role, general purpose platform capable of operations across the spectrum of tasks from peace support to high intensity warfare.

  The first of class will enter service in 2007. I expect an order for the second batch of ships will be placed around 2004.

  Construction of these new ships will sustain up to 3,000 jobs directly in the shipyards over the next 10 years and will sustain or create almost as many elsewhere in the defence industry.

  Sonar 2087
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to acquire sonar 2087 for the Royal Navy; and when the system will be in service. [129232]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: 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 12 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the plans to acquire Sonar 2087 for the Royal Navy and when it will be in service. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Two companies, Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd and Babcock Defence Systems Ltd, are currently competing for the Demonstration, Manufacture and Support contract for Sonar 2087.
  572W
  We expect to place a contract in Spring 2001. Subject to negotiations with the successful contractor, we plan to bring the equipment into service at the end of 2005.

  Defence Procurement Agency
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Procurement Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [125248]

  Dr. Moonie
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 June 2000, c. 237W]: I must apologise that my answer contained an erroneous figure for Key Target 2. The figure for average cumulative slippage of in-service dates at 31 March 2001 should have read 23.8 months, rather than the 20.9 months shown in the Official Report.

HEALTH

  Parkside Community Health Trust
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district nurses working for Parkside Community Health Trust who carry a clinical case load have been given discretionary award points under the recommendations of the pay review body in 1998. [125948]

  Mr. Denham
  In line with national guidance from National Health Service Executive, Parkside Health NHS Trust has developed guidelines for awarding discretionary points to its nursing and therapy staff. This was done in consultation with staff groups and their representatives. The trust has considered a total of 59 applications, of which 30 were successful. Of these, six applications came from district nurses, and two were given discretionary award points.

  Hospitals (South-west Surrey)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people live within two miles of(a) Farnham, (b) Milford and (c) Haslemere hospitals. [128502]

  Mr. Denham
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) centrally produce resident population data for health authorities and local authority districts.

  However, they do not produce population data below these levels, which includes population by trusts. Currently, the only population data available below health authority and local authority districts are ward level data, which are based on the 1991 Census.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the commitments given by the West Surrey Health Authority Chief Executive and the Chief Executive of the Surrey Hampshire Borders Trust concerning the future of community beds at Farnham Hospital in the "Right Balance" plans published in May 1998. [128495]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for local health authorities to decide on the configuration of services that best suit their local health economy's needs, based on the specialised knowledge they have of the local community.
  573W
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) state and (b) community in-patient hospital beds were available in (i) the South West Surrey constituency and (ii) the West Surrey health authority in May (1) 1997, (2) 1998, (3) 1999 and (4) 2000. [128504]

  Mr. Denham
  South West Surrey constituency approximates to West Surrey health authority in terms of geographical coverage so figures are given only for West Surrey health authority.

  Figures are calculated by annual number of bed days per year divided by days in year. State beds are all beds, whereas community beds are those in community trusts.

  Bed availability data are collected on a year-end basis; thus there is currently no published data for 1999–2000.

  Average daily number of available beds for NHS trusts located in West Surrey health authority

  All trusts

  Community trusts

  1996–97

  2,635

  356

  1997–98

  2,359

  314

  1998–99

  2,477

  819

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients had been waiting for in-patient treatment, excluding day cases, for more than one year on 31 March(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 in West Surrey health authority. [128507]

  Mr. Denham
  The table provides the total number of patients waiting for ordinary admissions for more than one year, excluding day cases, in West Surrey health authority.

  Total number of patients

  31 March 1997

  426

  31 March 1998

  751

  31 March 1999

  675

  31 March 2000

  763

  Thorotrast
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of cancers attributable since 1970 to the use of Thorotrast; [128327]

  (2) what advice his Department has given to health authorities and trusts since 1970 on tracing patients exposed to Thorotrast; and if he will make a statement; [128326]

  (3) what research his Department has commissioned since 1970 on the long-term effects of Thorotrast upon patients. [128328]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 5 July 2000]: We are not aware of any advice that this Department has given to health authorities and National Health Service trusts on tracing patients exposed to Thorotrast since 1970.

  No estimate is available of the numbers of cancers attributable to Thorotrast since 1970.
  574W
  The Department has not commissioned any research specifically on the long-term effects of Thorotrast since 1970

  Thorotrast was first used in 1928 and discontinued in 1955. It has not been used in the United Kingdom and the NHS since 1955.

  It is not known how many patients were exposed to Thorotrast between 1928 and its discontinuation in 1955 and no estimate of the number of cancers attributable to the use of Thorotrast is available. We are not aware of any formal programme for tracing patients exposed to Thorotrast. It is not known how many people alive today may have been exposed to Thorotrast four to seven decades ago.

  Bone Marrow Donors
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bone marrow donors have been recruited by the National Blood Service in the last year. [129266]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1999–2000 6,000 new bone marrow donors were recruited by the National Blood Service and entered onto the British Bone Marrow Registry. The target for 2000–01 is 10,000.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many samples are analysed each week for the purposes of registration as a bone marrow donor by(a) the National Blood Service and (b) voluntary organisations. [129267]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Blood Service currently types around 120 samples each week. This will rise to 250 each week by the end of 2000–01. We understand that the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust aims to recruit around 300 new donors a week.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of beta interferon in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) other EU member states and (c) the United States; and if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the cost in each country. [129244]

  Ms Stuart
  The annual cost per patient of the betainterferons in the United Kingdom is £9,320 (Betaferon), £9,490 (Avonex), £9,090 (lower dose of Rebif) and £12,070 (higher dose of Rebif).

  The Department has made no studies of the cost of treatment in different countries. As far as the prices of the beta interferon medicines are concerned, the Department has information both from the manufacturers and from contacts in the health authorities of other countries. Direct comparisons of prices of products of this type are misleading because they are often supplied direct to hospitals, making list prices less significant. Furthermore, some countries include distribution costs and some aspects of care within the list price while others account for them separately.

  Subject to these qualifications, it can be said that in general the annual cost of beta interferons in the UK is slightly greater than in other EU countries, reflecting currency movements since the products were introduced.
  575W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the guidance issued to health authorities on the use of beta interferons in multiple sclerosis pending further guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [130246]

  Mr. Denham
  Until guidance is available from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the guidance issued by the Department in 1995, Executive Letter (95) 97, continues to apply.

  Fritchie Report
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will publish a response to the recommendations of the Fritchie report. [129395]

  (2) when he will meet Dame Rennie Fritchie to discuss her report on NHS appointments. [129396]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: I set out the Department's response to the recommendations made by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie, in a letter to her dated 7thJuly 2000. It confirms our concern to ensure that appointments to National Health Service boards are made in a way which is seen to be both open and fair. Copies of the letter are available in the Library.

  GPs (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that GPs who retire in the period up to 2005 in(a) East Lancashire and (b) Pendle are replaced. [129612]

  Mr. Denham
  East Lancashire health authority is taking a number of initiatives in response to a study by Lancaster University relating to workforce planning for general medical and other primary care staff. The 1998 study projected data to 2003–04; these data will be reviewed in the near future and extended for a further period. Measures include:Promoting Personal Medical Services (PMS) pilots where appropriate. There has been a very encouraging response in applications for the third wave of PMS;
  Working locally through Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and with the Post Graduate Medical Centre at Manchester University to expand the number of training practices and the number of trainees in East Lancashire. Three locally trained general practitioners joined the East Lancashire list last year;
  The development of a recruitment package aimed at the National Health Service in East Lancashire, but with a focus on General Practice;
  Ensuring that retiring GPs give as much notice as possible (three months is the minimum) and to plan a phased approach to retirement where possible;
  PCGs are encouraging practices to review their skill mix and examine alternative options for patient care e.g. greater use of nurse practitioners.

  The health authority, together with Pendle PCG, is actively addressing the issue of GP retirement and subsequent recruitment. It is using all the above approaches, however, the deployment of one or more PMS pilots is regarded as a particularly appropriate solution for the area.

  Primary Care Groups and Trusts
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many primary care groups have been established in England and Wales; how many of these groups have been changed to primary care trusts; and what the estimated administrative cost is of establishing these organisations; [129475]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the procedures for transferring responsibility from community care trusts to primary care trusts in respect of the services to be provided by the trusts and in particular about the arrangements for transferring responsibilities to the Southend Primary Care Trust. [129476]

  Mr. Denham
  481 primary care groups became operational on 1 April 1999. Nineteen of these were approved for primary care trust status and began operating as 17 primary care trusts on 1 April 2000. Two primary care trusts merged. There are now 459 primary care groups and 17 primary care trusts in England covering a population of over 49 million.

  Information regarding local health groups in Wales can be obtained by contacting the Welsh Assembly.

  Primary care groups perform functions formerly discharged by their parent health authorities. They are funded to do so by the health authority from within existing resources in their unified budget allocations. Central support was provided to health authorities in 1998–99 to help them to establish primary care groups. This funding was released by the ending of the general practitioner fundholding scheme.

  In 1999–2000, health authorities receive £25,000 towards the cost of developing each primary care trust proposal which goes to consultation. Each primary care trust that is approved receives central funding towards its preparatory and development costs—£100,00 for a Level 3 primary care trust and £175,000 for Level 4 primary care trust.

  Every health authority is required to conduct a local consultation on each prospective primary care trust. The consultation typically lasts between six weeks and three months. A report is presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which includes details on the proposal itself, the health authority's view on the proposed primary care trust and its state of readiness, the proposed establishment and operational dates and a summary of the consultation results which identifies the community services, currently provided by the local community National Health Service trust, to be provided by the prospective primary care trust. These services reflect the views of the local community and other stakeholders.

  Information on the consultation process is contained in Health Service Circular 1999/207 "Primary Care Trusts: Consultation on Proposals to Establish a Primary Care Trust". Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Southend Primary Care Group became a Level 3 primary care trust from 1 April 2000 and will be consulting on moving to Level 4 from April 2001. The remaining six primary care groups within South Essex Health Authority are aiming to move to trust status in April 2001. This may

  577W
  then result in five Level 4 primary care trusts in South Essex. External consultants are currently facilitating a local review of how clinical and support services provision may change. Local priorities, including services to be managed by each primary care trust, will be included in the consultation documentation. The consultation is likely to run from 1 August to 31 October. No transfer of community services will be made until primary care trust Level 4 status is achieved following successful consultation with wide stakeholder support.

  Edgware Community Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services are now available at Edgware Community Hospital; how many people used each of those services in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [129948]

  Mr. Denham
  Services currently available at Edgware Community Hospital are:

  Adolescent psychiatry

  Cardiology testing

  Children's services

  Consultant-led outpatients services

  Day surgery

  Dietetics

  Birth Centre

  Intermediate care beds

  Mental health services for adults, including in-patient facilities

  Occupational therapy

  Pathology and blood tests

  Pharmacy

  Physiotherapy

  Specialist services (e.g. rehabilitation following brain injury)

  Speech and language therapy

  Urgent Treatment Centre for Minor Injuries

  X-ray and ultrasound.

  A primary care walk-in centre will open at the end of August 2000.

  During 1999–2000 there were 30,000 attendances at the urgent treatment centre, 80,000 outpatient attendances across a range of specialties, 3,200 attendances for day surgery and 28,940 diagnostic tests. 228 births took place at the Edgware Birth Centre and there were 219 admissions to the general practitioner admission unit.

  Jean Brett
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the case of Jean Brett, following the report by Conciliation Connections, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement. [130029]

  Ms Stuart
  The Conciliation Connections report recommendations were considered and accepted by Mount Vernon and Watford National Health Service Trust (now part of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust) at a public trust board meeting. As recommended in the report the trust has apologised, carried out an audit into the work of the consultant's department to ensure that no unnecessary operations were being performed and made an offer of compensation.
  578W
  Recently the Chief Medical Officer requested the Eastern Regional Office to review the file notes; the conclusion was that no further action be taken.

  Ritalin
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for Ritalin were issued in each year since 1991; and at what cost. [129959]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of prescription items and net ingredient cost of Methylphenidate Hydrochloride (Ritalin) dispensed in the community, 1991 to 1999

  England

  Prescription items (thousand)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  1991

  2.0

  11.7

  1992

  2.6

  16.5

  1993

  3.5

  25.7

  1994

  6.0

  52.3

  1995

  14.7

  253.0

  1996

  47.9

  811.7

  1997

  92.1

  1,636.5

  1998

  126.6

  2,402.8

  1999

  158.0

  3,100.3

  Notes:

  1. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed in the community, ie by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England.

  2. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  3. The net ingredient costs is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Capital Charges
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the capital charges regime for new NHS buildings. [130097]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently no plans to review the capital charges regime in the National Health Service.

  The NHS, in common with the Department and other Government Departments, is required to meet a cost of capital charge. This is currently set by Her Majesty's Treasury at 6 per cent. of the net value of relevant assets employed. New buildings are included in the calculation of net assets, and depreciation (the other component of capital charges) continues to be charged on all operational NHS buildings.

  The Valuation Office Agency is carrying out a review of the technique for calculating the value of specialist NHS buildings. Any consequent change in valuation techniques could be expected to impact on the absolute level of capital charges (through adjustments to new and existing building valuations), but not in the operation of the capital charges regime.

  Osteopathy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of osteopaths required in the NHS over the next 10 years. [130012]
  579W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: The Department does not make central estimates of the number of osteopaths required in the National Health Service. However, health authorities, NHS trusts and primary care groups may employ or contract with osteopaths if they consider it appropriate to do so.

  Nurse Consultants (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received the business case for an additional nurse consultant in intermediate care from a Newcastle consortium of primary care, acute care, health authority and the city council; and when he will make a decision. [129137]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: On 16 June 2000 we announced the second wave of nurse consultant posts. A nurse consultant in intermediate care at the Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Trust was 1 of the 91 posts that we approved. Details of the new posts are set out in "Making a Difference: Strengthening the nursing, midwifery and health visiting contribution to health and health care", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in the improvement of biometry equipment and techniques to enhance the accuracy of cataract operations. [130121]

  Mr. Denham
  There has been an encouraging improvement in the efficiency of cataract operations as a result of the introduction of the phacoemulsification technique whereby ultrasound is used to break up the opacified lens so that it can be removed through a thin cannula. We have allocated £20 million over two years to the modernisation of the equipment and facilities used in cataract operations.

  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a decision has been taken on when Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre, Erdington, will close; and if he will make a statement. [130429]

  Mr. Hutton
  In my reply to my hon. Friend on 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 329–30W, I announced that, while I had concluded that it was no longer appropriate for the Department to run such a child care facility as Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre, no decision would be taken on when the centre would finally close until suitable alternative placements had been found for the 12 children accommodated in the centre at that time.

  The Department and the management of the centre have worked closely with the local authorities and the Prison Service to identify the most appropriate alternative places. Suitable arrangements have now been made for all 12 children. The last child has now left the centre.

  I therefore propose to close the centre on 13 July 2000

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the President of the Council what arrangements are in hand to improve the accessibility of Orders in Council to hon. Members; and if she will make a statement. [130394]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Arrangements have been made for copies of Orders in Council approved since the beginning of the year 2000 to be made available to hon. Members in the House Library.

  Copies of the Orders approved at the Privy Council meetings in February, March, April and May 2000 have already been sent to the Library. Copies of the Orders approved in June 2000 will be available later this month. Thereafter, copies of the Orders approved at monthly Privy Councils will be available during the succeeding month.

  Copies of individual Orders will also continue to be available on request from the Privy Council Office.

  Government Bills
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the President of the Council how many amendments to Government bills tabled during the present Parliament by(a) Opposition spokesmen, (b) Opposition backbench hon. Members and (c) Government backbench hon. Members which had been selected were not debated on the floor of the House as a result of timetabling of the report Stage of Bills. [127857]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [pursuant to her reply, 6 July 2000, c. 292W]: The information contained in the table for the Financial Services and Markets Bill: Further consideration, 9 February 2000 should have read:

  Session 1999–20001

  Financial Services and Markets Bill: Further consideration, 9 February 2000

  Amendments tabled by Opposition spokesmen but not debated

  0

  Amendments tabled by Opposition backbenchers but not debated

  1

  Amendments tabled by Government backbenchers but not debated

  0

  1Up to 30 June 2000

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 July. [129788]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was of the prosecution of Christopher Bowman for selling beef on the bone. [126790]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  This prosecution was taken by North Yorkshire county council as the enforcement body under the Beef Bones Regulations 1997. The information requested is not available centrally.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Qinghai Project
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the independent Inspection Panel's findings that the World bank was not in compliance with its policies on environmental assessment in respect of the Qinghai Project. [128732]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We agreed with the World bank management's proposal to carry out further environmental studies following the findings of the Inspection Panel.

  Following board discussions on 6 and 7 July, the Chinese Government withdrew its application for funding for the Qinghai component of the project. It now plans to fund those activities itself. There will now be no international involvement in ensuring environmental—and social—standards are adequately met.

  Street Children
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her Department is working on the issue of street children. [130106]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My Department supports work which benefits the lives of street children in many countries, including programmes in Brazil, Ecuador, Kenya, South Africa, Russia, Bangladesh, India, Tanzania, Zambia and Uzbekistan. In addition to these initiatives, street children in many countries also benefit from our support provided both bilaterally and multilaterally through the United Nations Children's Fund, the ILO' s International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour, and Save the Children Fund Programmes.

  Primary Education
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries her Department is assisting in the development of primary education for children. [130107]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our bilateral support is focused primarily on the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Over the past two years, DFID has committed over £200 million to support the development of universal primary education programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. I have just approved DFID support totalling £61 million over seven years for the Malawi Education Sector 582W
  programme, which will provide increased access for all Malawian children to primary education of improved quality.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which she has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129845]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) five—of which two (40 per cent.) were women.

  (b) 64—of which 25 (39 per cent.) were women.

SCOTLAND

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129852]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this, the Government have drawn up an action plan for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding public appointments, to which my Department subscribes. The action plan was published on 24 May.

  During the period 1 April 1997 to 30 June 1999, 205 women were appointed to non-departmental public bodies in Scotland out of a total of 587 appointments. Women appointees represented 35 per cent. of the total appointments made in this period. 162 women were appointed to paid posts, representing 37 per cent. of all the paid appointments made in that period. Forty-three women were appointed to unpaid posts, representing 28 per cent. of all the unpaid appointments made in the same period.

  With effect from 1 July 1999, responsibility for most appointments to non-departmental public bodies operating in Scotland passed to the Scottish Executive.

  I have made one appointment to a non-departmental public body during the period to end 1999: the appointee was a woman.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [130043]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: In 1998–99, the Scottish Office, including its executive agencies and associated Departments, paid 97.8 per cent. of valid invoices for goods, services and works within either 30 days or the agreed payment terms. The corresponding figure for the first quarter of 1999–2000 was 97.6 per cent. The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  583W
  From that date until 31 March 2000, the Department paid 98.4 per cent. of valid invoices within either 30 days or the agreed payment terms.

  Information on the timing of payment in relation to the receipt of goods and services rather than receipt of invoices is not held centrally. Information on other agreed payment terms, which are relatively uncommon, is not held centrally. Payment of invoices from 1 July 1999 by the Scottish Executive is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [129480]

  Dr. Reid
  The former Scottish Office observed guidance issued by the Inland Revenue that periodic reminders should be issued. A reminder was issued to relevant staff in 1997 and a further reminder will be issued shortly to staff in my Department. The frequency with which reminders are issued is being reviewed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  GM Seed
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings prior to 17 April(a) he and (b) other Ministers have held on the subject of GM free seed purity. [124166]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: Prior to 17 April, MAFF Ministers held various meetings about GMOs at some of which the issue of GM free seed purity in relation to agricultural production was discussed.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice the Government have received from the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment on the possibility of contamination of seed imports with GM varieties. [126860]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: None. This particular issue is not within ACRE's remit.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations the Government informed about the contamination of Advanta rapeseed with GM varieties before 17 May; and on what dates. [126856]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: The Secretary of the Seed Crushers and Oils Processors Association was informed by my officials on 16 May that the Government would be making an announcement on this matter.

  Aquatic Environment (Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent measurements he has 584W
  made of the aquatic environment off the Sussex coast to identify the possible presence of radioactive material emanating from Cap la Hague. [124231]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: My Department, until recently, carried out regular monitoring and assessment of the radioactive contamination of marine foodstuffs and environmental indicator materials within the English Channel. This work transferred to the Food Standards Agency on 1 April this year.

  The results of this work were published in my Department's report "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment", the last of which was for 1998. The low levels of man-made radioactivity found in the English Channel cannot be attributed with any certainty to particular sources.

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of his Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking. [125159]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) The MAFF Smoking at Work policy has been in force since January 1994. Indications are that the policy has been successful. Support in the form of courses, videos and other material are available to staff who wish to stop smoking but, to date, no-one has taken advantage of this.

  (b) The Department's policy covers all offices throughout the estate. Suitably equipped, ventilated, smoking rooms are provided at all major sites.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money the Government have allocated for research into(a) organic farming, (b) biotechnology and genetic modification and (c) agriculture in total in the next three years. [127791]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department funds a wide and varied programme of research worth over £100 million per annum to support and inform our policies. Current and projected funding levels for my Department's research in the areas specified are:

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Organic farming

  2.1

  2.1

  Biotechnology1

  ca.24

  ca.24

  Genetic modification2

  ca.5

  ca.5

  Total agriculture

  90.9

  93.7

  1Research which uses modern biotechnology as a tool. Costs exclude expenditure on genetic modification.

  2Includes research on genetically modified food and non-food products and to underpin safety assessments of genetically modified organisms in the environment.

  Note:

  All figures are provisional

  A large amount of MAFF's biotechnology research has no relevance to genetic engineering, but focuses instead on areas such as the development of new tools for pest

  585W
  and disease diagnosis, biological control techniques, and other means of pest and disease control in plants and animals.

  Figures for research spending in 2002–03 and beyond are not yet available. These will be subject to Spending Review decisions, to be announced shortly, and on the outcome of the consultation on a new MAFF Research Strategy to cover the period 2001 to 2005, to be launched later this year.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the decrease in pesticide usage that would result from 30 per cent. of agricultural land becoming organic in the UK. [126310]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: It is not possible to calculate a meaningful figure. The use of pesticides varies markedly from crop to crop, and year to year, and the calculation would have to be based on assumptions about the use of the land that was to be converted. In addition, there are a number of pesticides available for use in organic agriculture but little information on the levels of their use. Some organic pesticides are permitted for use at higher rates than are the alternative conventional pesticides. On the other hand, some organic farmers seek to avoid the use even of these pesticides.

  Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the measures being taken by the Government to combat the spread of rabbit haemorrhagic disease in the United Kingdom. [128310]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Viral haemorrhagic disease of rabbits (RVHD) is endemic in wild and domestic rabbits in the UK. While the Government have no control measures against the spread of RVHD in the wild rabbit population, it remains an offence under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 to introduce live RVHD virus into rabbits deliberately, except under licence. The equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland is the Specified Animal Pathogens Order (Northern Ireland) 1999.

  The most effective way of controlling the disease in domestic or farmed rabbits is by vaccination.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research projects being(a) carried out and (b) sponsored by his Department into rabbit haemorrhagic disease, and state the nature of each project. [128309]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  There are currently no research projects on viral haemorrhagic disease of rabbits in the MAFF funded research programme. Work was done at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency between 1992 and 1996 and several scientific papers were published from this research.

  I understand that research is being done in some EU member states where commercial rabbit breeding is on a larger scale than in the UK. The Institute of Virology at Oxford University is also engaged in current research, but this is not funded by MAFF.

  Marine Research Vessels
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each of his Department's marine research vessels stating for each vessel(a) which port they operate out of, (b) the complement of crew, (c) the age, (d) the estimated years until decommissioning and (e) the research programme in the current year. [128306]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  MAFF has two Fisheries Research Vessels, operated by MAFF's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). The two vessels are the 72 metre long RV Cirolana and the 53 metre RV Corystes. Both vessels operate out of the port of Lowestoft.

  The Cirolana has a current complement of 17 crew. It was commissioned in 1970, and has been in operation for 30 years. It is expected to be decommissioned in 2003. Its programme for calendar year 2000 is for eight voyages. Five will support the science and management of marine fisheries, and three will support the science and management of the marine environment.

  The Corystes has a current complement of 16 crew. It was commissioned in 1988, and has been in operation for 12 years. It has a design life of 25 years. Its programme for calendar year 2000 is for 16 voyages. Eight will support the science and management of marine fisheries, and eight will support the science and management of the marine environment.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [129493]

  Mr. Morley
  Staff in my Department are paid via Chessington Computer Services Ltd. (CCSL) who are notified about National Insurance (NI) contributions by the Contributions Agency. All staff are notified by Office Notice as and when changes occur to NI contributions. The most recent Office Notice outlining the position of married and divorced women with reserved rights to reduced rates of NI contribution was issued in November 1997. This Office Notice will be re-issued shortly and every year thereafter.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public; [129634]

  (2) how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129616]
  587W
  Mr. Morley
  There is one MAFF Agency (Central Science Laboratory) with a touch tone telephone system installed.

  MAFF has touch tone telephone systems installed at three sites.

  South-west Regional Flood Defence Committee
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was allocated to the South-west Regional Flood Defence Committee for capital projects from grants through his Department in each of the last three years. [130002]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 23 March 2000, Official Report, columns 640–41W, which explained how grant is allocated to the Environment Agency and provided figures for the South-west RFDC for 1996–97 to 1998–99. For 1999–2000, the original Grant Earning Ceiling for the South West RFDC was £2.2 million and the estimated outturn is £0.9 million.

  In terms of actual grant payments, the sums paid in the last three years are as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1.4

  1998–99

  1.3

  1999–2000

  0.1

  The net amount of grant paid in 1999–2000 reflects(a) the relatively low level of the achieved capital programme and (b) the reclaim of grant paid in previous years on legal costs in the light of the settlement of a contractual dispute in the Agency's favour.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [130039]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: MAFF's standard terms of business are payment within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or the provision of goods and services, whichever is the later. Where other payment terms are exceptionally agreed, they are used to measure performance. Performance is measured against all supplier invoices paid. For 1998–99, 93.3 per cent. of invoices were paid on time; in 1999–2000 89.5 per cent. of invoices were paid on time.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the estimated cost of setting up a universal bank in sub-post offices. [129989]
  588W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on 6 July 2000, Official Report, column 252W.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Post Office was informed of the contents of(a) the Performance and Innovation Unit report on Modernising the Post Office network and (b) the proposals contained in his oral statement of 28 June 2000, Official Report, columns 907–20, on the Post Office network. [129985]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: By the nature of the Performance and Innovation Unit's study on modernising the post office network, the Post Office were closely involved in it throughout. However, they did not receive a copy of the report in final form or of my statement until after I stood up to make my statement to the House on 28 June.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms are employed to ensure that the full value of rural sub post offices to the local community and economy are taken into account in developing co-ordinated Government policy. [128654]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In preparing its report on the post office network, the Performance and Innovation Unit has assessed in detail the economic and social role and value of rural sub post offices in the local community. Its findings are reflected in the recommendations made in its report for a range of measures to protect and sustain the rural network.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Performance and Innovation Unit's work as it affects rural post offices. [128643]

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Performance and Innovation Unit's work as it affects rural post offices. [128653]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's report on the post office network emphasises the important contribution made by post offices to their local communities and, in particular, the need to protect the rural network against avoidable closures by providing financial support for a period. The Performance and Innovation Unit's report contains 24 recommendations, of which six relate specifically to the network of rural post offices, 12 relate to the network as a whole and six relate specifically to urban post offices. The Government accept all of them.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the first annual report on the state of e-commerce is to be published; and if he will make a statement. [130048]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: We will be publishing the first annual report in September, one year after the e-commerce@its.best.uk report was published. This will allow us to set out in more detail the Government's plans for taking forward the e-commerce

  589W
  and e-government agenda, in the light of the Spending Review White Paper which the Chancellor is publishing in the summer.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the armaments sales and transfer agreements involving Her Majesty's Government under the category of Government to Government in the last year for which figures are available, identifying separately those to which commission payments apply; what the accountability arrangements are for each agreement; and if he will make a statement. [129359]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK's main Government to Government supply agreements were described in Part III of the 1998 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. Table 8 of the report provided details of major equipment transferred between 1 January and 31 December 1998 by the Ministry's Disposal Sales Agency under this type of agreement. However, after publication, the Table was found to contain inaccuracies. It included details of two Jetstream aircraft for Uruguay which were not transferred until January 1999 and will therefore appear in the next Annual Report. The two entries for Brazil were also incorrect and should be consolidated into a one line entry for four River Class Patrol Minesweepers. The table also included details of the transfer of Harrier aircraft for India which were not handled under Government to Government arrangements.

  Table 8 of the 1998 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls should therefore read as follows:

  Destination

  Equipment

  Quantity

  Brazil

  River Class Patrol Minesweepers

  4

  Uruguay

  Wessex HC Mk2 Helicopters

  5

  Similar information in respect of 1999 transfers will appear in the 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls which should be published shortly.

  The Ministry of Defence does not employ agents nor does it pay commission to third parties in support of Government to Government overseas sales.

TREASURY

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his letter of 25 May concerning the effect of the minimum wage on household incomes of different income deciles, what estimate he has made of the gross gain for each decile of households; and if he will make a statement. [128037]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The National Minimum Wage has, for the first time, provided a statutory level beneath which pay cannot fall—removing the worst excesses of low pay in the workplace.
  590W
  It should be viewed as part of a comprehensive and coherent strategy to tackle poverty and encourage work—a strategy that combines targeted in-work tax credits with a minimum wage that is set at a prudent level.

  The estimates of the gross increase in earnings for households in each income decile are provided in the table.

  Average gross increase in earnings for households affected by NMW

  Decile

  Percentage of households gaining from NMW

  Distribution of affected households

  Absolute (£ per week)

  Percentage

  Bottom

  5.5

  11.4

  31.16

  39.9

  2nd

  6.7

  14.0

  22.19

  20.6

  3rd

  6.2

  12.8

  30.33

  21.5

  4th

  6.8

  14.1

  23.40

  10.0

  5th

  6.1

  12.7

  23.70

  7.6

  6th

  5.4

  11.2

  23.94

  6.0

  7th

  4.0

  8.4

  28.72

  5.1

  8th

  3.5

  7.3

  32.32

  5.0

  9th

  2.5

  5.2

  30.52

  4.3

  Top

  1.4

  3.0

  32.75

  4.0

  Total

  4.8

  100.0

  26.86

  8.5

  Landfill Tax
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the national tax forgone on landfill is represented by money actually set aside by environmental tests for allocation to environmental bodies since the start of the scheme. [128886]

  Mr. Timms
  From the introduction of the tax on 1 October 1996 to 30 April 2000 the maximum potential tax credit that could be claimed under the environmental bodies credit scheme equates to £305 million. Tax credits for the same period amount to approximately £224 million which represents 73 per cent. of the potential tax claimable. This percentage has been rising each year.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the 10 per cent. contribution to tax forgone required from landfill operators has been contributed by the operators themselves. [128888]

  Mr. Timms
  Around one quarter of the 10 per cent. has been contributed by the operators themselves.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of landfill operators eligible to establish environmental trusts to administer tax forgone under the terms of the landfill levy have actually done so. [128883]

  Mr. Timms
  The Landfill Tax regulations 1996 require that all environmental bodies are independent of landfill operators. There are 850 landfill operators registered for landfill tax. Of these, 494 or 58 per cent. have made contributions to environmental bodies under the scheme.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total amount of tax forgone set aside by environmental trusts for allocation to environmental bodies under the terms of the landfill levy has so far been allocated. [128884]
  591W
  Mr. Timms
  Ninety per cent. of the contributions received have already been spent or allocated to specific projects. The balance awaits allocation.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total sums of tax forgone so far allocated by environmental bodies under the terms of the landfill levy have been allocated to recycling. [128887]

  Mr. Timms
  From the introduction of the tax on 1 October 1996 to 31 December 1999, 11 per cent. of expenditure has been on recycling. In addition, some spending on education and on research and development has been related to recycling.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total tax requirement including notional tax forgone arising from the landfill levy is represented by the money set aside by environmental trusts for allocation to environmental bodies since the scheme began. [128885]

  Mr. Timms
  From the introduction of the tax on 1 October 1996 to 30 April 2000 credits have been subject to an overall cap of 20 per cent. of annual tax liability. Tax credits claimed have amounted to around 15 per cent. of the total tax revenue. This figure has been rising year on year—of a theoretical maximum of 20 per cent., in 1999–2000 the actual credits claimed were around 18 per cent.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total receipts were from landfill tax in Scotland in each of the years for which figures are available. [130078]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to provide the requested information as revenue figures are not collated or recorded on an individual site by site basis.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Dundee-based projects and organisations have benefited from landfill tax credits in each year since the introduction of the tax; and if he will list them. [130080]

  Mr. Timms
  Data from Entrust, the regulator of the environmental bodies credit scheme, show that there are two environmental bodies with registered addresses in Dundee which have received funding from the landfill tax credit scheme since it started in October 1996. These are Dundee Waste and Environment Trust and University of Dundee Concrete Technology Unit.

  There are five active or completed projects recorded as being carried out by Dundee Waste and Environment Trust. These are Mezieshill garden project; Baldragon Wood Wildlife Project; Restoration of Murroes and Tealing Parish Church; creation of public parks and amenities from derelict land in Dundee; and Lime System Development Project. The University of Dundee Concrete Technology Unit has received funding and has registered seven projects.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of landfill tax credits generated in(a) Scotland and (b) Dundee in each year since the landfill tax was introduced. [130079]
  592W
  Mr. Timms
  According to information held by Entrust the regulator of the environmental bodies credit scheme, contributions received by environmental bodies sited in Scotland have been as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£)

  Scotland

  1997

  5,573,789

  1998

  6,628,874

  1999

  7,803,971

  20001

  2,602,269

  Dundee

  1997

  181,173

  1998

  66,000

  1999

  30,000

  20001

  37,000

  1Part

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason heat pumps have not been included on the initial list of recommended technologies eligible for climate change levy tax incentives; and if he will make a statement. [129648]

  Mr. Timms
  The list was drawn up to include technologies with the greatest potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Six were identified initially on this basis. Two more have been added subsequently. The Government will keep the list under review.

  Office of Government Commerce
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his plans are for the Quinquennial Reviews of CCTA and PACE which are due in the next year.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) and Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) are part of the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) which became operational on 1 April this year. Since 1 April, key strategies for the new organisation have been developed, and a review has been put in hand to ensure that resources and the organisational structure support those strategies. The terms of reference for the review are:To review the present structure of OGC, covering its executive agencies and all other units; and to make recommendations on how best to align OGC's resources to deliver successfully its vision and strategies. The review will take into account the views of stakeholders including staff, central departments, other departments, customers and suppliers. It will also take account of requirements for Agency quinquennial reviews, in order to provide the specific reviews required for CCTA and PACE in the next year.

  In ensuring that the review will take account of the need for quinquennial reviews of CCTA and PACE, it will consider past performance, organisational options for service delivery and ways in which service can be improved. These issues are also relevant to the whole organisation, not just CCTA and PACE. Similarly, the organisational review will incorporate an independent input and will seek the views of both customers and suppliers about how the OGC as a whole can best catalyse the most efficient and effective use of the civil procurement budget.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs were killed as part of experiments in British research laboratories in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [129947]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In my reply to the hon. Member on 17 April 2000,Official Report, column 380W, in which I stated that members of the public often find it particularly difficult to accept that species that are kept as domestic pets or companion animals, such as dogs, are also used in research to find cures for illness. Such animals must be purpose bred and supplied by designated establishments and can only be used if there is no viable alternative for that particular procedure. I should emphasise that dogs are only used in about a quarter of 1 per cent. of all procedures.

  Table 1 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain records the number of scientific procedures performed on dogs and Table 1a records the number of dogs used by primary purpose of the procedure. Numbers for the last three years for which figures are currently available are:

  1998: 5,575 dogs used in 6,828 procedures

  1997: 5,891 dogs used in 7,490 procedures

  1996: 6,735 dogs used in 7,944 procedures.

  They are primarily used in pharmaceutical research and development, or in pharmaceutical safety and efficacy evaluations. The results of this work have produced medicines which have cured illness, saved human lives and added to veterinary science which has assisted animal care. The figures reflect a downward trend in this use.

  Swadlincote Magistrates Court
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to accommodate the local probation service and to provide its services in South Derbyshire, and at what cost, when the Swadlincote magistrates court closes. [130171]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is the responsibility of Derbyshire Probation Service to acquire new premises to accommodate its staff currently operating from Swadlincote magistrates court when it closes. The location and costs are not yet known, but we have given Derbyshire Probation Service an assurance that we will provide financial support to assist in acquisition of new accommodation in Swadlincote should that be part of the local strategy at the time.

  Departmental Grants and Payments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations and individuals received grants and payments in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 for services in support of the work of (i) the Probation Service, (ii) local authority social services departments and (iii) for education as defined in the relevant budget line set out in his Department's Annual Report 1999–2000; and how much money was paid in each such grant. [130115]
  594W
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: Information relating to those organisations directly funded by the Home Office in 1999–2000 for work in support of the Probation Service is as follows. Expenditure shown is the final outturn figure: figures for 2000–01 are available.

  Society of Voluntary Associates (SOVA): £230,000

  National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO): £441,6601

  National Offender Employment Forum: £50,000

  Inner London and Surrey Probation Services—Evaluation of Asset and Springboard Projects: £35,387

  Langley House Trust: £963,132

  Middlesbrough Prostitution Task Force: £1,000

  National Mentoring Consortium: £29,000

  Prisoners' Abroad: £90,000

  Venture Trust: £432,500

  Lucy Faithful Foundation: £392,826

  The remainder of the expenditure on that budget line (£177,495) was in respect of individual placements with various agencies for dangerous offenders.

  Total: £2,843,000

  1Amount shown represents project funding paid in addition to the core grant to NACRO which is shown under a separate budget line in the Home Office Annual Report.
  No direct payments were made by the Home Office under local authority social service departments or for education as defined in the relevant budget line set out in his Department's Annual report 1999–2000.

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Home Office Working Group on Gender Allocation, with particular reference to the membership, frequency of meetings, submissions received and expected report date. [130089]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The terms of reference and the membership of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People were announced, by means of a written answer on 15 April 1999,Official Report, columns 132–33W, by my noble Friend, the then Minister of State, Home Office, the Lord Williams of Mostyn. The Group met once every two months, under the chairmanship of a Home Office official, until January 2000.

  Submissions were received from 99 individuals and from the Beaumont Society, the British Medical Association, Change, the FTM Network, Northern Concord, the Gender and Sexuality Alliance, the Gender Identity Research and Education Society. The Gender Trust, Liberty, and Press for Change. Representatives of the last five organisations met the Working Party in January. Further written material was received from a number of these organisations and from the Evangelical Alliance Policy Commission.

  The Working Group's report is being carefully considered. It was presented to Home Office Ministers in April and is being circulated to ministerial colleagues in other Government Departments and in the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many football hooligans(a) detained and (b) arrested at (i) Euro 2000,(ii) Copenhagen in May and (iii) the Scotland versus England match last year (A) were added to the Category C list and (B) had restriction orders placed upon them; [128155]

  (2) how many of those football fans (a) detained and (b) deported at (i) Euro 2000, (ii) Copenhagen in May and (iii) the Scotland versus England match in Glasgow last year were (1) Category C hooligans and (2) subject to international restriction orders. [128154]

  Mr. Straw
  The police service in England and Wales ceased to designate individuals involved in football hooliganism by categories A, B, and C, some three years ago, and have replaced this by a more targeted, intelligence-led approach. International Football Banning Orders may be sought as a result of behaviour in jurisdictions outside England and Wales only where an agreement exists for that purpose ad the individual in question has been convicted in that jurisdiction of a football-related offence.

  No one has yet been made subject to an International Football Banning Order as a result of events at Euro 2000; it was not possible to impose International Football Banning Orders on persons detained or arrested in Copenhagen as a result of the decision of the Danish authorities not to prosecute such persons; and two people have so far received International Football Banning Orders as a result of convictions associated with the Scotland versus England match last year: additional bans will be sought on receipt of the necessary documentation from the Scottish Crown Office. None of those detained or deported as a result of their behaviour at these events last year were subject at the time to Restriction Orders or International Football Banning Orders.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 4 July 2000,Official Report, columns 170–73, on football hooliganism, if he will list the offences for which the 409 people arrested in Belgium and Holland were convicted. [129597]

  Mr. Straw
  Of the 965 England supporters arrested or detained during Euro 2000, 391 had previously been convicted of a criminal offence. The National Criminal Intelligence Service now advise that the convictions are as follows: 133 convictions for violence, 200 for disorder, 38 for the possession of an offensive weapon, 122 for criminal damage and 250 for other offences. Some supporters will have been convicted of more than one type of offence.

  On-the-spot Fines
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what external advice he has received concerning the compatibility of on-the-spot fines imposed by police with the European Convention on Human Rights; [129240]

  (2) what consultations he has carried out regarding the imposition of on-the-spot fines by the police; and if he will list the bodies he has consulted. [129242]
  596W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As I made clear in my reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald, (Miss Widdecombe) on 10 July 2000,Official Report, columns 432–33W, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed a number of ideas for tackling disorderly and anti-social behaviour at his meeting with chief officers of police on 3 July. These included the possibility of on-the-spot fines or fixed penalties. The purpose of the meeting was to open up discussion and to seek the views of chief officers on the options which should be further considered rather than to present ready-made solutions.

  The chief officers present broadly welcomed the idea of extending the fixed penalty system to a wider range of offences and I have asked my officials and the Association of Chief Police Officers to consider this option, and others, in the coming weeks.

  Any new measures would, of course, have to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Security Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all processing of personal data by the Security Service is covered by a certificate under section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998. [129613]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 5 July 2000,Official Report, column 235W.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements there are for the inspection of hostels used by asylum seekers under the dispersal programme. [129940]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is a twin track approach to the inspection of accommodation. First of all, officials in the National Asylum Support Service have signed a Service Level Agreement with the Property Advisors to the Civil Estate (PACE) part of the Office of Government Commerce. PACE officials are responsible for inspecting properties provided by accommodation providers and ensuring that housing conditions comply with the terms of the contract. Additionally, a Performance Monitoring Inspections Team has been established to carry out inspections in conjunction with PACE to ensure that the providers of accommodation comply fully with the contract in terms of effective housing management and access to support services.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what environmental and health and safety legislation applies to hostels used by asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement on the ways in which such legislation differs from that applying to houses in multiple occupation. [129939]

  Mrs. Roche
  All property must meet the requirements of the Housing Act 1985 or Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and meet all regulatory requirements, including environmental and health and safety obligations, whether under law or regulations issued by any public or local authority and any statutory or non statutory organisation or body.
  597W
  The provider is obliged through contract and specification to ensure that all necessary planning permission has been granted by the relevant authority. Where a house in multiple occupation scheme is in place the landlord must comply with the terms of the registration with the local authority.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department plans to take responsibility for all asylum seekers who have not yet received a final decision but who are currently supported by local authorities; and when the backlog of existing cases will be cleared. [130272]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have no plans at present to assume responsibility for the support of asylum seekers who have not received a final decision on their application and who are currently supported by local authorities.

  We are on course to make a substantial reduction in the backlog of asylum applications by April 2001.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the National Asylum Support Service, in commissioning accommodation for asylum

  seekers,

  is commissioning within grant levels set for local authorities. [130273]

  Mrs. Roche
  Contractual negotiations between the National Asylum Support Service and potential providers of accommodation to asylum seekers are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many port-of-entry applicants the National Asylum Support Service has accepted responsibility to support since 1 April; and how many in-country applicants there have been(a) nationally and (b) in London boroughs since 1 April. [130270]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Services (NASS) assumed responsibility for the support of those seeking asylum at ports of entry with effect from 3 April. From the same date they also assumed responsibility for those making in-country applications for asylum in Scotland and Northern Ireland. On 7 April NASS assumed responsibility for in-country applicants who made their application for asylum in Kent. Between 3 April and 10 July NASS has accepted responsibility for the support of 4,353 asylum seekers. These include all those who are eligible to receive support from NASS. It is not possible to break the figure down to show the number of port applicants receiving support. Since 1 April there have been 8,400 applications for asylum made in-country. Separate figures to show the number of applicants living in London boroughs are not available.

  Grants
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the beneficiaries of(a) community support grant and (b) family support grant in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01, giving the sums of money paid in each grant. [129525]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The Family Support Grant is a programme of funding for voluntary organisations which first became available in
  598W
  1998 when it was announced that £7 million would be made available over three years. The first £1 million of awards for 1999–2000 were announced in June 1999 and a further £3 million was announced in April 2000 for 2000–01. Additionally, it was agreed that the new National Family and Parenting Institute would receive £247,000 from the Home Office as part of a "joined up" funding package from five other Departments and the Welsh Assembly totalling £2 million over the three years. 1999–2002 Parentline Plus would receive £310,000 for each of the financial years in question in order to develop and expand the services already provided to parents by introducing a national freephone telephone helpline for parents.

  Funding under the open competition in both bidding rounds has gone to a range of national and local organisations across the country under three strands to help support infrastructure organisations and to promote innovative work with families. Each year a grant is made available to fund projects with a specific theme aimed at plugging gap areas in provision. In 1999 the theme was working with boys, young men and fathers. This year projects working on the parenting of teenagers have been funded.

  Grants paid out in the year April 1999–2000 are available for up to three years and for 2000–01 for up to two years. Grants given to voluntary organisation projects are listed; figures are given per project for both 1999–2000 and 2000–01 where applicable.

  £

  Voluntary organisations

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  National Council of One Parent Families

  39,511

  29,645

  Contact A Family

  31,500

  35,000

  Parent Network (two projects)

  90,000

  50,000

  Parenting Education and Support Forum (two projects)

  90,000

  99,000

  Family Policy Studies Centre

  43,169

  43,953

  National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations

  38,500

  35,000

  After Adoption

  38,831

  43,153

  Trust for the Study of Adolescence

  32,662

  43,837

  REU

  44,983

  0

  Baby Naming Society

  10,000

  0

  Fathers Direct

  45,000

  50,000

  CEDC

  22,700

  2,500

  Family Nurturing Network

  4,524

  2,591

  Parents in Partnership Parent Infant Network

  36,148

  35,137

  YMCA England

  43,997

  48,630

  Newpin

  45,000

  50,000

  Family Support Unit—East Birmingham

  7,288

  11,409

  The Warren

  31,360

  33,566

  National Children's Centre

  44,200

  45,775

  National Youth Agency

  30,000

  0

  Youthnet

  30,511

  0

  Thomas Coram Foundation

  30,000

  50,000

  Working with Men

  44,985

  48,270

  Ormiston Children and Families Trust

  20,100

  23,227

  National Children's Bureau

  12,150

  8,925

  Black Development Agency

  30,000

  30,000

  Divert Trust

  28,307

  32,689

  Gingerbread

  10,000

  20,000

  Families Need Fathers

  15,000

  0

  Norwood Ravenswood

  8,489

  0

  One plus One (one project jointly funded with the Department of Health, the other with the Lord Chancellor's Department)

  18,500

  17,000

  599W

  £

  Voluntary organisations

  2000–01

  National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations

  20,000

  Child Psychotherapy Trust

  15,176

  Working with Men

  22,926

  National Council for One Parent Families

  30,000

  REU (two projects)

  99,585

  Fathers Direct

  50,000

  Parenting Education and Support Forum

  14,000

  Family Policy Studies Centre

  38,786

  Family Rights Group

  34,284

  Peers Early Education Partnership

  49,415

  Newham Bengali Community

  50,000

  National Association of Child Contact Centres

  50,000

  Parents in Partnership Parent Infant Network

  47,227

  Family Welfare Association

  49,040

  Disability, Pregnancy and Parenthood International

  49,739

  Positive Parenting Publications

  50,000

  Family Planning Association

  50,000

  Health and Advocacy Counselling Services for Turkish and Kurdish Speaking Communities

  29,551

  Crime Concern/Daycare Trust

  44,500

  Divert Trust (two projects)

  92,364

  Leeds Animation Workshop

  50,000

  Norwood Ravenswood

  20,000

  Community Education and Development Centre

  34,000

  Ormiston Children and Families Trust

  2,453

  RPS Rainer

  50,000

  YMCA England—Parent Education and Support Unit

  50,000

  Trust for the Study of Adolescence (two projects)

  97,995

  Parentline Plus services to adolescents project

  45,000

  Young Voice

  35,000

  Barnardos Byker Sands Family Centre

  49,912

  After Adoption

  48,899

  NFPI befriending project

  50,000

  One plus One befriending project

  50,000

  Active community unit

  Community support grants

  Amount paid £

  1999–2000

  Age Concern

  60,000

  Age Concern

  24,520

  Age Concern

  49,797

  Alzheimer's Society

  7,292

  Arthritis care

  43,490

  Black Development Agency

  48,000

  Black Regeneration Network

  10,000

  Bright Red Dot Foundation

  100,000

  British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres

  47,363

  Business in the Community

  113,032

  Business in the Community

  50,000

  Business in the Community

  52,500

  Business in the Community

  35,906

  Cambridge Ethnic Community Forum

  19,572

  Children's Society

  19,013

  Community and Voluntary Forum: Eastern Region

  38,000

  Community Development Foundation-Community Forum

  30,000

  Commmunity Service Volunteers

  50,000

  Community Service Volunteers—RSVP

  154,000

  Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations

  42,000

  Dark Horse Venture

  28,500

  East Midlands Voluntary Sector Forum

  48,000

  Educational Broadcasting Services Trust

  15,000

  Halton Voluntary Action

  76,545

  Help the Aged

  30,586

  London Voluntary Service Council

  48,000

  Media Trust

  200,000

  MSF Union

  42,000

  National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  20,782

  National Association of Volunteer Bureaux

  50,175

  National Association of Volunteer Bureaux

  73,275

  600W

  Active community unit

  Community support grants

  Amount paid £

  National Centre for Volunteering

  36,211

  National Centre for Volunteering

  12,700

  National Centre for Volunteering

  20,700

  National Centre for Volunteering

  46,779

  National Mentoring Network

  35,000

  National Trust

  10,881

  National Youth Agency

  80,000

  North Tyneside Voluntary Organisations Development Agency

  84,375

  Nottingham and District Racial Equality Council

  10,000

  Oldham Development Agency for Community Action

  25,000

  Pabulum

  23,330

  Progress Trust

  38,183

  ONE20

  500,000

  Ravidassia Community Centre

  34,514

  RAISE

  45,380

  South West Forum

  48,000

  Somali Womens' Association and Welfare Group

  4,050

  Voluntary Action Camden

  112,500

  Voluntary Action Luton

  112,500

  Voluntary Organisations' Network North East

  10,000

  Voluntary Organisations' Network North East

  43,000

  Volunteers in Action Southwark

  12,760

  Voluntary Service Overseas

  43,000

  Voluntary Sector North West

  18,900

  Wolverhampton Voluntary Sector Council

  47,530

  Yorkshire and Humber Regional Forum for Voluntary and Community Organisations

  21,000

  Youthnet UK

  827,791

  Youthnet UK

  130,725

  2000–01

  Age Concern

  39,730

  Alzheimer's Society

  12,500

  Arthritis Care

  14,753

  Asian Health Agency

  68,000

  Black Development Agency

  58,000

  Black Regeneration Network

  58,000

  Bright Red Dot Foundation

  100,000

  British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres

  42,613

  Business in the Community

  258,354

  Business in the Community

  50,000

  Cambridge Ethnic Community Forum

  58,000

  Children's Society

  24,500

  Community and Voluntary Forum: Eastern Region

  58,000

  Community Development Foundation-Community Forum

  30,000

  Community Service Volunteers—RSVP

  114,000

  Community Service Volunteers

  60,000

  Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations

  58,000

  Dark Horse Venture

  21,000

  East Midlands Voluntary Sector Forum

  58,000

  Halton Voluntary Action

  276,429

  Help the Aged

  42,562

  London Voluntary Service Council

  58,000

  MSF Union

  50,000

  National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  32,084

  National Association of Volunteer Bureaux

  3,000

  National Association of Volunteer Bureaux

  56,100

  National Centre for Volunteering

  2,678

  National Centre for Volunteering

  122,739

  National Children's Bureau

  10,000

  National Mentoring Network

  25,800

  National Trust

  25,708

  National Youth Agency

  100,000

  North Tyneside Voluntary Organisations Development Agency

  270,000

  Oldham Development Agency for Community Action

  25,000

  Pabulum

  23,330

  ONE20

  710,00

  RAISE

  58,000

  Ravidassia Community Centre

  35,200

  Sandwell Volunteer Bureau

  60,000

  Somali Womens' Association and Welfare Group

  8,347

  601W

  Active community unit

  Community support grants

  Amount paid £

  South West Forum

  58,000

  Voluntary Action Camden

  270,000

  Voluntary Action Luton

  270,000

  Voluntary Organisations' Network North East1

  58,000

  Voluntary Organisations' Network North East2

  58,000

  Voluntary Sector North West

  58,000

  Wolverhampton Voluntary Sector Council

  58,000

  Yorkshire and Humber Regional Forum for Voluntary and Community Organisations

  58,000

  Youthnet UK

  13,125

  Note:

  The list does not include grants which are planned but have not yet been approved by Ministers or offered.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications were received in the last year for judicial appointments by(a) solicitors and (b) barristers for posts as (i) deputy district judge, (ii) assistant recorder and (iii) circuit judge; and in respect of how many of the applicants there were (1) no comments, (2) one comment and (3) two or more comments in relation to the informal consultation element in the selection process for each of (i) to (iii). [129949]

  Mr. Lock
  The numbers of barrister and solicitor applicants for the last year's competitions are as set out:

  Competition

  Barristers

  Solicitors

  Deputy District Judge

  64

  359

  Assistant Recorder

  573

  114

  Circuit Judge

  111

  35

  No "informal" consultation takes place for any of these competitions. However, in relation to the formal consultation process which takes place for each of the competitions, the relevant members of the judiciary and the profession are invited to submit their views on each candidate. In addition, for the Assistant Recorder and Deputy District Judge competitions each candidate is invited to nominate consultees. Candidates for Circuit Bench competitions have not hitherto been invited to nominate consultees, although they have been invited to do so for this year's competition. The only available statistics are for the Assistant Recorder competition, which show that up to 30 comments were received on each applicant.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129853]

  Jane Kennedy
  Of the non-judicial appointments made to our non-departmental public bodies since 1stMay 1997, nine (or 32 per cent.) of the paid appointments have been women and 305 (or 41 per cent.) of the unpaid ones have been women.
  602W
  This Government are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this, the Department has drawn up an action plan for increasing the numbers of women and people from ethnic minorities holding public appointments. The latest plans, together with the Government's overall plan, were published on 24 May 2000 in "Quangos: Opening Up Public Appointments 2000–2003", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Legal Services Ombudsman intends to publish her annual report for 1999–2000. [130675]

  Mr. Lock
  The Legal Services Ombudsman has today published her ninth annual report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CABINET OFFICE

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the level of regulation on business. [128651]

  Mr. Stringer
  The OECD has reported that the UK has one of the lowest levels of business regulation of any member country.

  Modernising Government Programme
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress in the modernising government programme. [128652]

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about progress on the modernising government programme. [128666]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Good progress is being made across the public sector: NHS Direct, the ONE project, internet access in libraries, and improved Government websites, as well as improved policies to tackle deep-seated problems like social exclusion.

  This is a long term change programme. There will be further changes made to improve services to the public. These will include changing address in one transaction and help with life cycle events.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the cost of the modernising government programme. [128656]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The modernising government programme is ongoing and integral to the work of every part of the public service. We are using specific funds, such as the Invest to Save Budget (totalling £230 million) and the Capital Modernisation Fund (totalling £1.1 billion) to assist in the process of modernisation. An example of the type of project that this money is going towards funding is the integration of services for pensioners at the Benefits Agency.
  603W
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on her Department's work in co-ordinating Government policy on the modernising government programme. [128659]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In July 1999 we published the Modernising Government Action Plan showing action in hand by the centre of government to promote and drive forward the commitments of the White Paper published earlier in March 1999. Progress against the Action Plan is reported regularly on the internet. The last update showed that over 90 per cent. of the activities were on course or had been delivered.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate she has made of the cost of salaries of special advisers in Government for the financial year 2001–02, on the basis that each adviser who is so entitled receives the maximum performance-related increment for that year. [128658]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The estimated total cost of Advisers in 2001–02 is approximately £4.6 million.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement following the publication of "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 2000–03". [128660]

  Mr. Stringer
  "Opening up Public Appointments 2000–03" was published on 24 May. It contains the Government's updated plan for increasing the participation of women, members of the ethnic minorities and disabled people in public life.

  The Government are keen to ensure that those serving on the boards of public bodies are as representative of society as possible. We are committed to the equal representation of women and men in public appointments and a pro-rata representation of members of the ethnic minorities. It also wants to encourage more disabled people to participate in public life.

  Government Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to make Government services more accessible and responsive to their recipients. [128661]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We have appointed consumer champions in all the key central government services, to find out and meet their users' needs. We have been working hard to ensure we consult the public better and more widely about policy and services.

  We are working to provide extended opening hours in the services where there is greatest demand, and we will provide electronic access to all services by 2005.

  Drugs Referral Scheme
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to ensure that the introduction of the drugs referral scheme does not 604W
  disadvantage those drug users who have not been arrested but who wish to receive treatment to break their drug dependency. [128662]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Arrest Referral Schemes play an important role in the Government's drug strategy, by putting drug misusers with problems in touch with the various treatment services available.

  The Government have recently proposed a National Treatment Agency to provide a cohesive central approach to treatment for problem drug misusers. This means the Department of Health and the Home Office working together to ensure that those requiring treatment are able to access services which have a positive impact on health and crime, regardless of their route of referral.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about the Government's strategy to combat social exclusion. [128663]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I can confirm that good progress is being made towards achieving the Government's targets on the four reports from the Social Exclusion Unit that have been published. These are on School Truancy and Exclusion, Rough Sleeping, Teenage Pregnancy and Bridging the Gap, which is about 16–18 year olds not in education, training and employment.

  The SEU launched a consultation framework version of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal in April. Over 18,000 copies of the consultation framework were disseminated. The consultation ended on 30 June. The SEU are currently reviewing responses and will set out an action plan for the National Strategy later this year.

  International Drug Trading
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent meetings she has had with foreign Government representatives to discuss strategies for combating the international trade in illicit drugs. [128664]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I hold regular meetings with foreign Government representatives to discuss respective drug strategies and share experiences of combating the international trade of illicit drugs.

  Over recent months, some of the key players I have met include: President Pastrana of Colombia, General Barry McCaffrey, the US Drug Tsar, and Anders Kompass, the UN High Commissioner.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the recent increase in the number of civil servants. [128665]

  Mr. Stringer
  Civil Service numbers rose by nearly 1 per cent. in the year to October 1999. Much of this increase is in front line jobs delivering the better public services to which the Government are committed.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to better co-ordinate the Government's response to drug-related crime. [128667]
  605W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As Minister with overall responsibility for driving the Government's drug strategy, I am aware of a wide-range of anti-drug initiatives being pursued at both national and local level to meet the Government's target for tackling drug-related crime. These are outlined in the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's First Annual Report and National Plan.

  Among more recent initiatives being pursued are:
  Proposals to extend drug testing across the criminal justice system to identify offenders who are committing crime in order to buy drugs.
  The national roll-out of the Drug Treatment and Testing Orders to direct offenders towards treatment.
  The allocation of £20 million in a joint funding initiative with the police to accelerate the development of arrest referral schemes to get drug misusing offenders into treatment.
  £1.8 million has been spent on anti-drugs initiatives by the Kirklees Drug Action Team in the last financial year.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to her answer of 14 June 2000,Official Report, column 665W, what procedure is followed in respect of a Minister who does not fulfil his duty under the ministerial code. [128668]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 19 May 2000,Official Report, column 286W.

  Internet
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress in introducing Government services which can be accessed via the internet. [128669]

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

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what policy initiatives are under consideration to address problems in rural areas. [128670]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  We are preparing a Rural White Paper for England, led jointly by DETR and MAFF, to set out the Government's vision for rural areas. As part of the preparation of the White Paper we are considering a number of new policy initiatives, which will be announced when the White Paper is published together with a White Paper on urban policy.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she proposes to introduce changes in the deregulation procedure. [128671]
  606W
  Mr. Stringer
  Changes to the deregulation order making power will be the subject of the Regulatory Reform Bill. This Bill was published in draft as Cm 4713 in April. The Bill will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Drug Action Teams
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what contribution is made by drug action teams to the delivery of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [128650]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Drug Action Teams (DATs) have a crucial role in the delivery of the National Drugs Strategy. They are the main mechanism for delivery on the ground, they work as a local partnership of the agencies involved in tackling drugs including Probation, Health, Education, Police Authorities and Local Authorities.

  Online Government Services
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she intends to publish information on the target set by the Prime Minister after the Knowledge Economy Cabinet meeting on 30 March to deliver all Government services online by 2005. [130470]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A report on progress by Departments and their key agencies is being published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House and it will be published on the website www.citu.gov.uk. The report contains information supplied by Departments based on all the services they deliver to the citizen and to business, as contained in their Public Service Agreements and Service Delivery Agreements.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123804]

  Mr. Stringer
  For the purpose of this answer my Department includes the Government Car and Despatch Agency, an agency within my Department, and the Central Office of Information, which is an agency which reports directly to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  The Cabinet Office regard it as good practice to publish the results of market and opinion research and in general will make public research considered relevant and important in framing major policy proposals and decisions, unless an exemption applies under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. For example, results of research carried out using the People's Panel are routinely placed in the House Libraries.

  The results of the following research have already been placed in the House Libraries:

  Assessing attitudes to the Change of Address Function

  Electronic Government: the view from the queue

  People's attitude to the Civil Service

  Women's attitudes to combining paid work and family life

  607W

  Citizen's Juries

  Active Ageing Project

  People's Panel—Improving Public Services Report

  Summary Report (first wave research)

  Summary Report, telephone wave 1 (second wave research)

  Parental Attitudes to Value Added Information in Performance Tables

  Listening to Women Focus Groups

  Telephone Wave 3—Gas Safety Study for the Health and Safety Executive

  Telephone Wave 3—Research Study conducted for the DfEE

  Telephone Wave 3—(for the Service First Unit)

  Telephone Wave 3—for DETR

  Biosciences Main Stage Survey

  Blue Pages Qualitative Report

  Delivery of Public Services 24 hours a day, seven days a week (24 x 7)

  Public Views on proposed new MAFF leaflet

  The Views of people aged 50+ towards Public Services

  Delivery of Public Services 24 hours a day, seven days a week (24 x 7)—Wave 4

  Public Understanding of The Citizens' Charter and the Charter Mark Award Scheme

  Assessing Attitudes to the Change of Address Function, Government Portal Research

  608W

  Attitudes to Public Services in Deprived Areas, final report for Social Exclusion Unit

  The Business Case for Charter Mark: MORI research study

  Public Understanding of the Citizen's Charter and the Charter Mark Award Scheme

  Business Case for the Charter Mark

  Better Government

  Better Government Renaming.

  I am placing the following documents in the House Libraries in response to the hon. Member's question:

  Criminal Assets Project

  Monthly research on public awareness and attitudes to Millennium Bug

  Better Regulation

  Direct Access Government

  Public Attitudes to Risk

  Qualitative Research with SMEs

  Local Government Regulation of Business

  People's attitude to the Civil Service.

  In addition, my Department has carried out three pieces of market and opinion research which I am withholding from disclosure in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

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 Morgan
Kenneth Owen Morgan Esquire, having been created Baron Morgan, of Aberdyfi in the County of Gwynedd, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Merlyn-Rees and the Lord Williams of Mostyn, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Baroness Noakes
Sheila Valerie Masters, DBE, having been created Baroness Noakes, of Goudhurst in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Harris of Peckham and the Baroness Wilcox.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to host a visit by the Minister of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany on Friday 14th July when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Tributes to the late Lord Runcie
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the whole House will have been saddened, as I was, to hear this morning of the death of Lord Runcie, our friend and colleague for so many years.
Lord Runcie first took his seat in this House in 1973 as Bishop of St Albans, and sat as Archbishop of Canterbury from 1980 to 1991 and thereafter as a life Peer. He was a man of great courage and deep conviction. He early in life shone academically and at sport. In 1941 he won a scholarship to Oxford. He studied there for a year and then enlisted in the Army. During the Second World War he served in the Scots Guards and, as all your Lordships know, in 1945 he was awarded the Military Cross for bravery under fire. That bravery continued throughout his ministry, particularly during his time as Archbishop.
His sympathies were always with the poor and the oppressed. He commissioned the Faith in the City report which drew attention to poverty in urban areas in days when perhaps consciousness of social exclusion was much lower than it is today. Lord Runcie was shown indeed to be far-sighted when urban deprivation and disadvantage became much more the
220
centre of political attention and debate. He ensured that the report was followed up by action, setting up the Church Urban Fund which has subsequently done so much.
It is sometimes said that Lord Runcie was thought of as a reluctant archbishop. He said. I think with a wry smile, that his misfortune was that he was always able to see both sides of the argument—not a universal experience in your Lordships' House! He ensured that the voice of the Church was heard clearly in all public debates, and his preaching of the Gospel, in which lie had such a deep belief, was always uncompromising and direct. He was not afraid of controversy when he thought that conscience required it. I know that he is remembered most fondly by his brother bishops as a man of faith and humanity; as a man of humour; and as a man who had a lively sense of the absurd.
Lord Runcie was a deeply caring pastor, which would probably have pleased him most to have heard. We shall all miss him here and I know that your Lordships will want to join me in sending our affectionate sympathy to Lady Runcie and to his family. His was a good life well lived.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition Benches, I endorse the worthy, warm and full tribute paid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the late Lord Runcie. As the noble and learned Lord said, Lord Runcie had been a Member of this House since 1973 and was held in great affection and much respect on all sides of the House.
I did not have the privilege of knowing him closely, although, as is well known, he served with bravery and distinction in the Scots Guards along with a former leader of the Conservative Party in this House, the late Lord Whitelaw. He also shared with my immediate predecessor, my noble friend Lord Cranborne, an enthusiasm for owning and breeding pigs.
One has only to cite his war service—I wonder whether there will ever again be an Archbishop of Canterbury who holds the Military Cross—and also his rare private enthusiasm to have a sense of the range of the man which went far beyond his tiring achievements in the Church of England and in public life. He was a man of courage, wisdom, clear spirituality and distinguished scholarship, leavened always with common sense and good humour.
I cannot speak with full authority of his time as a skilful leader of the Anglican Church in a testing period but, in all the challenges he faced, his integrity and burning desire to bind people together never failed. In the wider world he had a deep insight into the importance of the orthodox tradition in Christianity and of those common threads from the early centuries of the Church that bind Christians of all denominations. He was known and respected across the whole Christian world.

221
People inside and outside the Anglican Church will miss him. But, above all, our deep sympathy goes to Lady Runcie and to his family at home.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, from these Benches I add to the tributes paid by the Attorney-General and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I hope the House will forgive me if I say just a few words of personal tribute because Lord Runcie was a friend of mine throughout my life.
We first met in 1948 when he came to Oxford University almost directly from a long service in the Scots Guards, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, carrying with him a Military Cross about which he never spoke. Together we discussed for many hours whether he should enter the Church. He did not doubt his Christianity; but he doubted even then whether he was fit to enter holy orders. That was a mark of the modesty of the man.
We met again and saw a good deal of each other when he became Bishop of St. Albans in 1970. Shortly after he became Bishop, he opened, I believe, one of the very first churches in Pin Green—an area of Stevenage for which I was Member of Parliament—which allowed for almost the first time in this country the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Free Churches to share one building for their services. Today, under the shadow of Drumcree, that was a model that stood as a beacon in the world and is still one well worth following.
Subsequently, as we all remember, when he spoke at the service held with regard to the Falklands war, he had the courage to bring the Argentinian dead within the scope of his mercy—surely a proper thing for a Christian leader to do.
Then, at the time of Faith in the City, when the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, acted strongly in Liverpool to bear out that witness, I was the Member of Parliament for Crosby and saw something of the remarkable example that the Church set out in one of the poorest cities of England. Again, many of us know that Lord Runcie entered into controversy and was attacked and criticised for Faith in the City. But he never at any time yielded or gave way on his belief and commitment to the concept of helping the poor, which he believed was central to the Christian faith.
Finally, in 1987, when Terry Waite insisted on going out to the Middle East to try to rescue the five hostages being held by the guerrilla forces of Iran, he went despite the Archbishop's strong advice. For years afterwards the Archbishop not only prayed for him but took into his employment my former political adviser, John Little, who travelled around some of the most remote souks of the Arab world seeking the release of the hostages.
Lord Runcie said,
"The Christian voice must be loud and clear on the great political issues of the time: on race relations, unemployment. disarmament and the proper distribution of the world's resources".
222
He was a man who did not recognise the meaning of the word "hypocrisy" but lived his faith completely and every day.
In April this year he said:
"I am dying cheerfully".
I believe that he did die cheerfully and I believe, in the immortal words of John Bunyan, that the trumpets will sound for him on the other side.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, as Convenor of the Cross Benches, I associate Cross-Bench Peers and myself with the eloquent and well deserved tributes expressed on all sides of the House to Lord Runcie. I also express our very sincere condolences to his wife and family.
Lord Runcie sat on these Benches. He was an archetypal Cross-Bencher with a wide and sympathetic understanding of all points of view. I can say how much Cross-Benchers enjoyed the presence of Lord Runcie among us. He was always ready with a smile and friendly greeting. On many occasions in the past he impressed me with his wit and humility, not least when he was referring to his time during the war in the Scots Guards. He served with distinction and, as has been mentioned, he was awarded the Military Cross in 1945.
He bore his last illness with great strength. He deserves your Lordships' admiration and praise. He will be greatly missed.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, it was with great sadness that I heard the news earlier today of the death of Lord Runcie. It is a great privilege for me to pay tribute to him in the House on behalf of these Benches and to associate myself fully with the other tributes we have heard from all sides of the House.
Archbishop Robert, as I knew him then, consecrated me at the end of July 1986 in Southwark Cathedral as Bishop of Lynn to serve in the diocese of Norwich. It was a wonderful day for me and my family, enhanced for us all by the customary invitation to stay for the night before the consecration service as guests of the Archbishop and his wife at Lambeth Palace.
My previous 25 years of ordained ministry had been spent entirely as a parish priest, so I had never even been to Lambeth Palace, let alone stayed the night. It could so easily have been intimidating and over-formal for us, but the warmth and friendliness of Archbishop Robert and his wife Lindy and their daughter Rebecca, who I remember was the waitress for the evening dinner, put us all entirely at ease and made us feel at home. That lovely occasion remains one of our family highlights, even 14 years on. I also remember with deep appreciation the personal talk that the Archbishop had with me in his study on the eve of my consecration. He was natural, very human and deeply reassuring.
Lord Runcie was comfortable with all sorts and conditions of men and women. He was gracious and generous in his dealings with others and had a

223
delightful and very witty sense of humour. His after-dinner speeches and his farewell tributes to retiring members of General Synod were always a great joy. Many were the anecdotes that circulated during his long and fruitful ministry. He was sometimes indiscreet, which some enjoyed and others thought improper for an archbishop, but for me it showed his wonderful humanity and how deeply he loved people, with all their faults and frailties. He had a great memory for people whom he had met and particular things they had shared with him. They would often be surprised following their meeting with a postcard or a letter.
In all the various ministries that he graced during his 50 years of ordained life, he always exemplified a true and deep understanding of priesthood which enabled him to relate pastorally and naturally to countless men and women, not only in our own Church of England and with our ecumenical partners, but throughout the Anglican communion. He had a great love and respect for fellow Christians in other countries and spent much of his time visiting and encouraging the Churches there, giving a high priority to the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in our world-wide and expanding communion.
Among his many contributions to the life of our Church and nation, at least two stand out in importance. One, as we have already heard, was his initiative in achieving the publication of Faith in the City and the setting up of the Church Urban Fund that followed from it. That was a highly significant recommitment to the people of the inner cities which gave our Church a renewed confidence in its task of mission, particularly to those who are poor and often on the margins of society.
The other important contribution was his invitation to Pope John Paul II to pay a historic visit here in 1982. I still remember those wonderful pictures of two great Christian leaders praying together in Canterbury Cathedral. We are all very grateful for all that has flowed from that meeting in the years that have followed.
My Lords, you do not need me to tell you that the job of Archbishop of Canterbury is probably the most difficult in the Church of England. It is certainly the busiest, the most demanding and the one with the most expectations thrust upon it. Lord Runcie had his share of criticism, not least for what was called his caution on certain issues. He was cautious about the ordination of women to the priesthood and about the proposed covenant of the Church of England with the Methodist Church. However, that was not because he had no opinion. It was because he had a deep love for unity—the unity of our Church and nation—and felt great pain at any action that could lead to disunity or schism. In the best sense of the words, he was a liberal catholic. He was not woolly or indecisive, but open and ready to listen to all points of view, able to understand both sides of most questions, always able to affirm an opinion that he did not hold himself and always approaching any
224
issue from a profoundly theological point of view. For Archbishop Robert, life did not easily fit in to rigid categories.
As we have heard, he was also a very courageous man with a fine war record. His stand during the Falklands war did not find universal favour, but it won him much respect. His long battle against cancer for the greater part of his retirement was another example of his courage, which he coupled with great cheerfulness and the maintaining of such a full diary that few of us were aware of how serious his last illness was. He was a very fine man and a greatly loved and respected archbishop with a deep Christian faith.
I thank God, as we all do, for the life and ministry of Lord Runcie and join other Members of this House in assuring Lady Runcie and her family of our sympathy, thoughts and prayers today and in the days to come.

DNA Evidence
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v. Weiz and the Attorney-General's Reference No. 3/1999 on 26th May, whether they will refer to the Law Commission the question whether the statutory restrictions on the use of DNA to be found in Section 64(3B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be maintained or relaxed; and, if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Department (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the judgment of the Court of Appeal raises important issues in relation to the use of DNA profiles in evidence. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering whether there is a case for amending the existing statutory provisions in Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I shall let your Lordships know what conclusion he reaches. We do not feel the need at present to seek advice from the Law Commission on the issue. I am advised that the Attorney-General has been granted leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal and that the appeal is due to be heard on 23rd October 2000.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have two questions—or perhaps two and a half—for the Minister. However, first I should like to set out the foundation of the questions, namely the nature of the statutory restriction. In a few words, it provides that if a person is acquitted or the case against him is dropped, any fingerprints or DNA samples must be destroyed and that if they are not destroyed, they cannot thereafter be used. My first question is whether the Minister agrees with the Court of Appeal that in the two cases referred to in my question, the result of the statutory restriction was that a person "very probably guilty"—I use the Court of Appeal's words—of a brutal murder and a

225
person "very probably guilty" of a rape of the utmost gravity were acquitted. My half question is whether the Minister also agrees that the reverse can happen to an innocent person, who could be found guilty because he was deprived of the ability to use the DNA samples.
My last question is simply whether, in the light of the words of the Court of Appeal and in the light of those two cases and the repercussions in relation to the other cases, the authorities or Parliament wish to revisit Section 64 of the Act. That is not a matter for the court. There can be no doubt as to the serious consequences which justify the course which I have suggested.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have a great deal of respect for the noble and learned Lord but, as this case is still subject to the judicial process, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the wide-ranging issues which the noble and learned Lord has raised in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was the Minister who took the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill through your Lordships' House. Does not the fact that dangerous criminals may be released onto our streets and innocent people put into prison unnecessarily as a result of the provision to which the noble and learned Lord referred suggest that it would be a good thing to revisit this question? As referring a matter to the Law Commission is rather like placing a paper boat on the upper waters of the Nile and waiting for its emergence in the Delta, would it not be sensible to reconvene the Criminal Law Revision Committee and refer the matter to that committee?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the case is going to the House of Lords. The concluding sentence of the judgment indicated that Section 64 of PACE could be revisited. As I indicated earlier, that is exactly what Ministers are minded to do. We are looking into the issue as a matter of great urgency. We recognise the fullness of the issues which have been raised this afternoon.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is absolutely right in not commenting on the detail of the case prior to its consideration by the judicial authorities? Does he agree also that this is, perhaps, one of those Questions which is best taken away from Question Time and considered in other ways?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in fact the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend are suggesting that this matter should be considered in other fora. But is it not the case that the question to be considered is what the law should be whereas the courts are currently considering what the law is now?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the point. But it is right as a matter of public policy that we
226
should consider those matters for the future. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made that plain.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ME
3.13 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the Chief Medical Officer's task force on chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis is expected to report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer's working group on CFS/ME is expected to report in the summer of 2001.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. However, is he aware that in the intervening period, there is no consensus on the treatment for ME? More and more cases are coming to my attention every day in which local authorities are invoking Section 47 of the Children Act, which indirectly accuses parents of abusing their children. In fact, it seems that the abuses are on the part of the local authorities. Parents are accused of having Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy. They are hounded into forcing their children to have treatments which make them more sick. Families are cracking up under the strain.
The noble Lord knows that I have already raised this matter in relation to South Wales. I still have not received an answer from the Welsh Office. Will he look into the possibility of holding an inquiry into the way in which local social services departments are handling those children?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am well aware that there is no agreed method of treatment for that condition. That is why the work of the working group is so important and it is right that it is taking time to reach conclusions.
As regards the child protection issues which the noble Countess has raised, it is not appropriate for me to comment on specific cases, but I assure her that the working group is considering the principles involved. It is my hope that good practice guidance will result in improved management and understanding of the circumstances in relation to children.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that the working group is to take a year longer than originally expected to reach a conclusion, it seems that further research on this matter will be held up. There is only one piece of research of which I am aware, carried out by the University of Manchester, into the causes of ME and it appears that that will be held up by the delay in the publication of the report. Will the Minister assure the House that research will be commissioned in the

227
meantime both by the MRC and the Department of Health, if necessary, so that we can tackle the ME issue rather more urgently than we appear to be doing at present?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it would be wrong to suggest that the working group is taking too long and is being too slow. There are extremely complicated issues. It is well known that there are many differing views about the causes and treatments of that very distressing condition. It is right that the working group should take its time to reach its conclusions.
As regards research, I can tell the noble Lord—and I am happy to write to him with the details—that the NHS Research and Development Programme has supported research projects on CFS/ME to a total cost of £221,000.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the absence of a known cause for this distressing condition and a diagnostic test for it, clearly more research is needed? Meanwhile, the NHS must focus on making resources available to ensure that that evidence-based treatment which is available, which seems to improve the majority or 75 per cent of patients—namely, cognitive behaviour therapy visited in a cautious way—should be made more freely available.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a very important point. I acknowledge that that has shown to be an effective treatment in certain cases. But before further guidance is issued to the NHS, it is better to wait for the outcome of the working group's deliberations. Certainly, we should then hope to take forward from the working group any subsequent advice which needed to be made to the NHS about treatment. And if the working group puts forward suggestions for further research, we shall consider those very carefully.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that almost two years ago I raised the question of a particular case in the House with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, when she was the Minister? I was assured at that time that the results of a judgment in the Birmingham courts, which said that the parents were the prime people to give consent to treatment, would be handed down to social services departments.
In view of the length of time that the task force is going to take to respond, will the Minister instruct social services departments to lay off those families and to allow them to treat their children as they wish, instead of forcing them into treatments which do not suit them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that the high profile of some of the cases to which the noble Countess referred has resulted in the courts deciding in favour of parents and the right of the individual to consent to treatment.
228
I shall take away the suggestion made by the noble Countess to see whether it is appropriate for guidance to be issued to social services departments. But, in the long term, I believe that it is better that we allow the working group to finish its deliberations and then we shall be in a much stronger position to give overall guidance to the NHS.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the foundation today of the Life Neurological Research Trust, which has been set up in memory of Baroness Wharton? It will fund research into Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, encephalitis and other encephalopathies?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was not aware, but I pay tribute to the organisation and to the work of the late Lady Wharton in your Lordships' House. I shall be very interested to discuss with the noble Earl the details of that trust.

Multiple Sclerosis: Beta Interferon
3.20 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make any decisions regarding treatment of multiple sclerosis in the light of recommendations from NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, NICE has not yet made any recommendations concerning Beta Interferon for the treatment of the distressing condition of multiple sclerosis. It is consulting interested parties, including patient groups, on its provisional conclusions and will carefully consider all comments before coming to a final view.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend open to persuasion that Beta Interferon is the only hope for some MS sufferers, but that there is also a need for a wide range of treatments from drugs to physiotherapy and dietary advice? Does he agree that NHS provision at present is patchy and sometimes on the inadequate side, and that a multi-disciplinary approach is the best way forward for dealing with this distressing disease?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the NICE recommendations are provisional. Interested parties, including the Government, can make comments to NICE, which will consider the results of such consultation before coming to a final decision. At this stage, no such firm recommendation has been made.
On the more general concern of my noble friend about the provision of overall services to those who suffer from multiple sclerosis, I recognise that there are elements of patchiness in the support that the NHS provides. That is one reason why, alongside the review of Beta Interferon, we have asked NICE to produce

229
clinical guidelines on the management of the services in the NHS, which I am sure will lead to a much more consistent approach.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that NICE will consider the report in the journal Pharmaco Economics that the long-term use of Beta Interferon can save money by slowing down the onset of MS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, one of the advantages of the process by which interested parties are able to comment on provisional recommendations is that it enables any new evidence to be put to NICE for consideration. I am sure that NICE will consider any new evidence that is available that will enable it to come to its final recommendation.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the provisional conclusions of NICE were to be confirmed, that would fly in the face of the carefully considered advice given by the Association of British Neurologists which is entirely in favour of giving Beta Interferon to patients with the relapsing and remitting form of the disease, as at present it is the only effective treatment? Surely those provisional recommendations must have been made on financial rather than scientific grounds. Does he also agree that if that provisional conclusion were to be accepted, it would perpetuate the worst features of postcode prescribing by recommending that existing patients receiving the drug could continue to have it but that no new patients could have it prescribed under the NHS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are discussing a provisional recommendation of NICE. I believe that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to give a definitive government view on that recommendation. The Government are preparing to make a submission to NICE that will ask a number of questions about the recommendation and raise a number of technical issues. I believe that we need to await the final recommendations of NICE before the Government can come to an absolutely firm conclusion on these issues. In relation to existing users of services, we have said that existing users of Beta Interferon will be able to remain on that treatment as long as they derive benefit from it.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a reported 30 per cent reduction in relapses has an enormously beneficial impact on the MS sufferer, not the least of which is that it increases the opportunities for resuming gainful employment? Does he also agree that the early and direct involvement of MS patients in the appraisal process is essential to a proper appraisal of the benefits of Beta Interferon?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, I well understand the comment made by my noble friend. My understanding is that the provisional
230
recommendation made by NICE points to evidence of what it described as "modest clinical benefit" in relapsing/remitting MS and that that may suggest one relapse avoided in a two-and-a-half year period. Clearly, that is a factor that NICE has had to take into account, but we need to await its final recommendations.
I agree with the involvement of users in the appraisal process by NICE. Patients' user groups are involved as interested parties in being able to bring their views to the attention of NICE. The board of NICE contains non-executive directors who bring an outside perspective. We encourage as much communication as possible between NICE and user groups on such important matters.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister know whether there will be any right of appeal if patients are turned down for drugs such as Beta Interferon?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if recommendations are made by NICE, there is a process of appeal by interested parties which would certainly involve user groups.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that clinical effectiveness should properly be the remit of NICE, while priorities in funding must be decided by accountable politicians? Given that this is only the second, and in fact an interim, report from NICE in vast and fast-moving area, is he satisfied that NICE is sufficiently well funded to do its job properly?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, NICE receives about £10 million a year to undertake its functions. I believe that the organisation has some high calibre people and that it is up to the job that we have given it. I believe that it is reasonable to ask it to look at both clinical and cost-effectiveness. It is absolutely right as a principle that we should seek to use the resources in the most cost-effective and clinically-effective way possible. I agree that the issue of resources and affordability is an issue for Ministers, but it is absolutely right to ensure that we focus our resources on what is best and that that should involve some judgment of cost-effectiveness.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and its implications, which are extremely important and which the Minister seemed to dismiss?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not believe that I dismissed the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton; I thought that I answered it. In such circumstances, the views expressed in your Lordships' House are always brought to the attention of Ministers.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to look at the procedures of NICE in the

231
future, both in regard to taxanes and Beta Interferon? We have a situation where a provisional decision has been kept highly confidential. It is therefore difficult to find out on what that decision was based. The appeal then takes place in a cloud of secrecy based, we assume, on some kind of commercial confidentiality excuse which does not appear to be valid. Will the Minister look carefully at that situation over the next few months?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes. There will come a time when we will need to review the whole NICE process in order to make judgments in the light of experience. I certainly accept that we need to review the issue of whether or not the provisional recommendation should be made public.

Broadmoor Hospital
3.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What policy exists at Broadmoor Hospital in respect of the possession of mobile telephones by patients.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, patients at Broadmoor Hospital are not permitted to have access to mobile telephones.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Can he explain, if patients are banned from having mobile telephones and, I assume, tape recorders, cameras and the like, why those items were found among patients' belongings in Broadmoor? Also, why have two nurses been suspended? That may or may not have anything to do with those banned pieces of equipment. But what on earth is going on in Broadmoor?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord refers to an incident that occurred in May when a patient alleged that other patients were arranging to produce photographs and tape material about high profile Broadmoor Hospital patients which, it was stated, were to be sold to journalists. As a result of that allegation a ward was searched and a number of prohibited items were found, including a mobile phone and camera. I agree that that is an extremely serious matter. As a result, the hospital is undertaking an inquiry, chaired by a member of the hospital's board. That will be completed, I hope, by early September and will be considered in open session by the full hospital board.
Lord Laming: My Lords, at a time when there is concern over the incident referred to, will the Minister take this opportunity to acknowledge that in
232
Broadmoor there are some remarkable members of staff who are doing outstanding work with some extremely dangerous patients?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am happy to reiterate that sentiment. All too often we hear about the problems in special hospitals. Indeed, the series of inquiries that have taken place over the past 10 to 15 years indicated many difficulties. But we should not underestimate the dedication of the staff in dealing with incredibly difficult situations.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Laming, and the Minister in relation to the staff at Broadmoor. The Minister did not mention the review of security procedures in Broadmoor recently carried out by Sir Richard Tilt. He made a number of recommendations, one of which was that almost one-third of patients currently in Broadmoor did not actually need to be there and that if more secure regional units existed they could be housed there. That would mean that those who need top security in Broadmoor could have it. Can the Minister comment on that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with those comments. Sir Richard's report was extremely helpful. It made over 80 recommendations in relation to security issues, all of which the Government accepted. We are speeding on to implementation over the next couple of years. There is no doubt that we need to move patients on from high security hospitals when they no longer need to be there. We have changed the funding system so that there is no longer a perverse incentive for the health service not to take patients from Broadmoor and similar hospitals. We are also ensuring that, through the expenditure of an additional £25 million over a three-year period recurrent, the movement of patients no longer needing high security will be facilitated. We need to press on with that.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister say how extensive the support is for staff in Broadmoor? How much money a year is spent on the training of staff? Also, what is the ratio of staff to prisoners?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have details of the training budget, but I shall make inquiries in that regard. The latest information is; that there are 422 patients in Broadmoor; a whole-time equivalent staff of 1,276 and a budget of £49.2 million. Training is extremely important. It is also important to integrate the special hospitals with the rest of' the health service. We will then see a better flow of staff moving from mental health services in general into the special hospitals and vice versa. Approval has been given to create a new mental health trust in West London which will incorporate Broadmoor Hospital and which I am sure will help the support for staff in their training and development.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords a recent report, Finding and Keeping by the Sainsbury Centre for

233
Mental Health, reveals serious mental health understaffing and staff demoralised by increased bureaucracy and the risk of violence. What plans do the Government have to remedy that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad to pay tribute to the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. Clearly, as part of the general improvement that we wish to make to mental health services, including the publication of a national service framework of mental health and the additional allocation of £700 million to enable work to start in improving mental health services, we need to incorporate developments in the workforce. As part of our general approach to workforce planning, we are increasing training places and I fully expect mental health services to benefit from that.

Human Rights: Joint Committee
3.35 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on:

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments);

to report to the House:

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved;

and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and
to report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:
234

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order: or

(c) that the order should not be approved,

and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to seek their concurrence.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
3.36 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—

Government Resources and Accounts Bill

  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES' ACCOUNTS: AUDIT
  (" .—(1) Subject to subsection (7), this section applies to any non-departmental public body, unless otherwise provided by any order made under subsection (8).
  (2) On the prescribed date for each non-departmental public body to which this section applies, subsections (3) to (6) shall have effect in relation to that body.
  (3) Every non-departmental public body shall prepare accounts in respect of each financial year and shall send them to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  (4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine accounts sent to him under this section with a view to satisfying himself—

  (a) that the accounts present a true and fair view, and

  (b) that any public money provided to the body has been expended for the purposes for which the money was paid.

  (5) Where the Comptroller and Auditor General has conducted an examination of accounts under subsection (4) he shall—

  (a) certify them and issue a report,

  (b) send the certified accounts and the report to the department which is responsible for the non-departmental public body, and

  (c) if he is not satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (4)(a) and (b), report to the House of Commons.

  (6) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall lay a copy of the accounts and reports referred to in subsection (5)(b) before the House of Commons.
  (7) Subsections (3) to (6) do not apply to any body to the extent (but only to the extent) that any of its accounts are or become subject to audit—

  (a) by the Auditor General for Scotland, or

  (b) by the Auditor General for Wales.

  (8) The appropriate Minister may by order designate a non-departmental public body as one in relation to which this section does not apply for so long as the designation remains in force.
  (9) An order under subsection (8) shall be made by statutory instrument, and shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
  (10) In this section—
  "the appropriate Minister" means, as regards any non-departmental public body, a minister in the department which is responsible for that body;
  "non-departmental public body" means a body—

  (a) which is not a government department or comprised within a government department,

  (b) which exercises public functions of a governmental nature which might otherwise fall to be exercised by central government, and

  (c) an officer of which has been designated by a government department as its accounting officer in respect of the preparation of its accounts,

  but does not include any such body which is a company registered under the Companies Act 1985; and
  "prescribed date" means, as regards each non-departmental public body, the first day of the first full financial year of that body commencing after the expiry of the term of appointment of the person who is the auditor of the body when this section comes into force.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall say a brief word about the previous proceedings. We have made it clear throughout discussion on this Bill, both in Committee in the Moses Room and on Report, that we are strongly in favour of the Government's proposal to introduce resource accounting. But we have some reservations in relation to the scope of the Bill as it now stands, and Amendment No. 1 seeks to improve it, as does the second set of amendments.
  It is important to remember that control of money has always been the basis of parliamentary authority in relation to the executive. That is certainly so in relation to auditing arrangements. They are matters which should have the attention of all Members of Parliament. It is a question of the relationship between the executive and Parliament, both in the other place which normally has primary responsibility for financial matters, and your Lordships' House. As has already been pointed out, this Bill is one of the few Bills—only the third since 1866 or so—which gives an opportunity to put right a number of matters which are cause for concern, and it is important that we do not miss that opportunity.
  Perhaps I can say a few words in relation to previous comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We are considering these amendments against the proposal to have a so-called "Sharman Committee" and a steering group. I welcome the strong membership of the steering group. But we are still unclear about the relationship between the committee and the steering group. On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the task of the steering group was to steer. That did not really get us very much further forward. It would be helpful if we had some idea as to what the relationship is between the steering group and the Sharman committee.
  At all events, although we look forward to studying the results from those inquiries, it is important for us to take this opportunity to improve matters with regard to the proposals now before us. Again, on a previous occasion the Minister questioned why we wanted to change something that has been the same since 1866. But, of course, that is precisely what the
  236
  Government propose to do and we certainly welcome that move. We see no reason why we should not go further as far as concerns these amendments.
  The amendments and the following group have received strong support not only from the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee but also from the all-party membership of that committee. We are seeking to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General audits all non-departmental public bodies, as he does at present in respect of all departments and executive agencies. This has been recognised by the present Government because all the new NDPBs they have established have been audited, or scheduled to be to be audited, by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is, I believe, common ground in all parts of the House that the present arrangement is a hotchpotch. The amendment seeks to clear up the situation and ensure that in future, once the contracts of the existing auditors with some of the NDPBs expire, the process should be taken over by the NAO.
  Having listened most carefully to the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I have to say that we on this side of the House—and I believe that this applies to other parts too—do not find them convincing. We believe that we should ensure that all the NDPBs are audited by the NAO and, in turn, referred to the PAC. The evidence in favour of this is very strong. As I said, the chairman of the PAC and his committee members are strongly in favour of such a move.
  In evidence to the PAC, the Chief Secretary said that there was a presumption that the audit should be carried out by the NAO. Moreover, when speaking on the gas and electricity Bill, the Minister said that to have such matters audited by the NAO would improve transparency, openness, certainty, clarity, and so on. Indeed, I believe that that applies to previous statements of Lord Chancellors on other legislation Therefore, we do not see why we should not take this opportunity to sort out the matter and thereby ensure that future arrangements are more satisfactory.
  However, I should stress that that does not mean that in very exceptional circumstances a non-departmental public body should not be audited by outside auditors rather than the NAO. Indeed, our amendment makes provision for such an eventuality. If the Government feel so strongly that that should be so, they can appoint a different auditor, subject to approval by statutory instrument. The present arrangements are not satisfactory. Although it is true, as the Minister said during previous debates, that all NDPBs are accountable through Ministers, there is a difference between the situation where the auditor reports to the Minister and he, in turn, reports to Parliament and one where the NAO carries out the investigation, reports to the PAC and directly to Parliament. If you like, there is no ministerial filter in that respect.
  The Minister argued previously that the situation where one size fits all is not satisfactory. However, except in the most exceptional circumstances—

  237
  provision for which is made in the amendment—we see no reason why it should not all be done by the NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  There are three amendments in this group. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 seek to cover some of the points made by the Minister during earlier debates. I should stress strongly that Amendment No. 1 takes into account the comments that he made; namely, that the previous amendment was defective because it was the Treasury and not the sponsoring department that would become accountable. We have revised our amendments to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General will send the certified accounts and report to the sponsoring department and then, in turn, to the PAC. That is in line with present practice. I hope that the Minister will accept that we have met that particular point.
  The other problem that concerned the Minister was the question of definition; in other words, how does one determine the situation with regard to a NDPB? While, on balance, I believe that Amendment No. 1 is entirely satisfactory, we have put forward two alternative forms for doing this by reference to the Executive NDPB annual report—I have with me a copy of this year's report CM 4657—which clearly would provide a possible set of definitions. Subject to what the Minister may say in that regard, my personal feeling at this stage is that Amendment No. 1 is satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will accept it. However, if he does not, it is a matter of some concern to Parliament and, as such, I believe that we ought to take a decision on it. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I wish, first, to reiterate from these Benches our general support for this Bill and for its main purpose; namely, to shift from cash accounting to accrual accounting. We believe this to be an extremely important shift and we are very pleased to see it.
  I recognise that this amendment is about the issue of audit and that the prime purpose of the Bill is not. As I said, it is about shifting from cash accounting to accrual accounting. Nevertheless, in putting forward this amendment about auditing, it is important for us to recognise that Bills on the subject of the way in which accounts are made to Parliament come very rarely before Parliament. Indeed, this is the first such Bill we have had since 1926. Moreover, the Government have already diluted its purity by adding a considerable element to the end of the Bill about partnerships in the UK which, again, has nothing to do with accounting and accrual accounting.
  As I said on Report last week, we on these Benches do not find the question of who should audit NDPBs an easy one. Indeed, as I made clear, it is the central issue to be considered in the review of public sector audit arrangements chaired by my noble friend Lord Sharman. I sought assurances from the Minister last week that the Government would take seriously the findings of that committee and act on its
  238
  recommendations. As far as he could, the Minister gave me such assurances. However, as he acknowledged, no government can give unconditional assurances on such issues when recommendations have still not been made. Inevitably, also, action would lie with the Treasury.
  Since our debate last week, I have had discussions with a large number of people about these issues. As time has gone by, I have become the more convinced that at the end of the day we need to go back to first principles. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the root of this amendment, and of the subsequent amendments regarding access is about the powers of Parliament vis-à-vis the executive. If Parliament is to maintain its sovereignty it is essential that it has the power not only to make appropriations but also to ensure that its will is done—that those appropriations are allocated, as Parliament has willed, and that people obtain the best value for money from them.
  From these Benches we have long taken the view that under successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, the power of the executive has increased, is still increasing and ought to be diminished. Although I recognise that the Sharman review will go over the same ground—that is, the area of audit—there is nothing in this amendment that would prejudice that review. As I argued at Report, it provides an insurance policy that the present most unsatisfactory hotchpotch of arrangements will be tidied up. That being so, we have decided that the underlying issue—the reinforcement of the role of Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny vis-à-vis the executive—should be the deciding factor. On those grounds we on these Benches add our voice of support to the amendment.
  Lord Freeman: My Lords, I support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Higgins and associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Baroness. When one reads the 1999 report on non-departmental bodies, it is striking to note how many there are and the size of their public expenditure. I believe that it is now in the order of £12 billion per annum and that there are some 90 major public sector bodies.
  This Bill provides an opportunity to make sure that we have a consistent practice in terms of audit and accountability to Parliament. I well understand that the Minister has argued—and perhaps may argue again—that it would be more convenient to wait until the appropriate opportunity arises to change the auditors. However, now is the time to change. We have the Bill and we are introducing a most welcome method of accounting in the public sector. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have mentioned the principle of resource accounting and the need to change from the old-fashioned method of cash accounting. In my judgment noble Lords should accept the principle of resource accounting being applied uniformly throughout the public sector, including for all non-departmental public bodies.

  239
  There are two simple reasons for accepting Amendment No. 1 and the principles enshrined in it. I am sure that my noble friends Lord Lane of Horsell and Lord Shaw and many others on these Benches would agree with that. First, the National Audit Office stands in a different relationship to the public sector than either the Audit Commission or professional firms. The National Audit Office provides the information to the Public Accounts Committee to exercise, through Parliament—principally through the House of Commons—control over public expenditure. That is a vital link. We should extend the powers and capabilities of the National Audit Office.
  The second reason is allied to the first. In five, 10 or 15 years' time—when the Minister will, no doubt, remember these debates with interest and will reflect on what has been said—we shall move into an age where we measure output and performance and ask the National Audit Office to comment on the effectiveness and efficiency of the public sector in spending the money that we give it. A single body such as the National Audit Office can develop those skills and apply them uniformly.
  This is almost the end of a long process to reform the basis of public accounting which began some seven years ago. We are not quite there yet. I conclude by making a plea to the Minister that he will use whatever influence he can exert over his colleagues to ensure that we do not end up in the muddle of parallel accounting involving both cash and resource accounting. If we are to change—I hope sincerely that we can do so quickly—let us move with some boldness and clarity to resource accounting once and for all.
  Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman said in the debate last week that the C&AG's independence was diminished by his reliance on negotiating his way into a number of bodies to provide the assurance to which Parliament is entitled. That is the absolute nub of the situation. The C&AG must, as of right, have the ability to act at a time that he feels appropriate to seek the assurances that he is pledged to give to Parliament. I support entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend have said. I believe that we should support the amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on Report last week we had a full debate on the amendments which were then tabled by the Conservative Opposition. Although I made it entirely clear that we did not agree with the amendments—I shall make it clear that we do not agree with the thrust of the change that is proposed—at least we dealt with amendments which had some kind of internal coherence and some kind of relationship to the speeches made in support of them.
  The three amendments we are considering in the group before us today are so much more irrational and extreme that it is difficult to conduct a rational debate on them. They are not only worse than the amendments we considered last week. They are in stark contrast to the clear provision the Government have already made in the Bill to deal with this issue.
  240
  The provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 25—this has not been mentioned once today by Opposition spokesmen—allow the Treasury by order, following consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General, and subject to affirmative resolutions by both Houses of Parliament, to make him the auditor of a public body even where the current legislation governing that body currently prohibits the Comptroller and Auditor General from being the auditor. This, of course, could not apply to companies which I shall mention in a moment.
  This provision will enable any recommendations which the review of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, makes concerning the auditor of non-departmental bodies to be implemented without primary legislation. I believe that that is the assurance which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, sought last week. Of course I cannot say in advance that we shall agree with every recommendation that the review group makes as I do not know what they will comprise. However, we can implement them as we have subsequently included provisions in the Bill to make that possible.
  At Report the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, somewhat uncharitably described the review of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, as a red herring. That is not the case. The review is an opportunity, such as we have not had before, to consider in detail and on a case by case basis what represents the most appropriate audit arrangements for these bodies. The Government believe that the results of the study of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, will provide the basis for future policy in this area and in the other areas to be covered by the review.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me again about the steering group. I cannot go much further than I did on the previous occasion we discussed this matter. The job of the steering group is to steer. As to the relationship between the steering group and the review group, I can hardly comment on that as the steering group meets for the first time later this month. At that stage the detailed relationship will be worked out. It seems absurd to pre-empt the results of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, through amendments of the kind proposed.
  I also remind the House of the considerable powers that the Comptroller and Auditor General already enjoys in relation to non-departmental public bodies where he is not the auditor. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, have heard me make that point on several occasions. Therefore, I address my remarks to the noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Shaw, as it appears from their remarks that this point is not clear. It is simply not true to say that unless the C&AG is the auditor of a particular body, that body is not properly accountable to Parliament. It is certainly not true to say—as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, appeared to suggest—that somehow non-departmental public bodies will not be subject to resource accounting. If the noble Lord seeks an assurance on that point, I give it to him gladly. The C&AG has inspection rights in respect of all non-departmental public bodies. That means that he already has the access needed to investigate and to

  241
  report to Parliament on any irregularity or impropriety discovered at a non-departmental public body.
  Most importantly, under the National Audit Act 1983 he has the right to carry out value-for-money studies at all of these bodies. In many respects it is these studies rather than matters arising from routine financial audit which are the most important form of parliamentary control. Value-for-money reports of both departments and non-departmental public bodies normally account for about 40 of the 50 or so hearings held each year by the Public Accounts Committee. That means that even where he is not the auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General already has the powers to hold these bodies properly to account.
  Turning to the amendments, when Amendment No. 3 was tabled I thought that it was an attempt to correct the manifest defects in Amendment No. 1 and that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would speak to that amendment instead of to Amendment No. 1. The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 1 is similar to the one tabled on Report. The only change seems to be one of relieving the Treasury of the duty of presenting the accounts. It does not respond in any way to the concerns that I expressed at Report stage about the deficiencies in its definition of a non-departmental public body.
  Amendment No. 1 is deficient because, as the tabling of Amendment No. 3 recognises, the definition of a non-departmental public body is defective. It is too wide and could lead to bodies such as National Health Service trusts being caught. It is definitely open to legal challenge—and the result of that could be that the courts and not the Treasury will decide which bodies the Comptroller and Auditor General can audit. That may not worry noble Lords, but certainly it will not be Parliament making the final decision.
  I cannot say that the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 3 is any kind of improvement. Indeed, it seems to me to be a good deal worse—even from the point of view of the Opposition. It gives up any attempt to define a non-departmental public body; instead it relies on a listing of those bodies which the Government decide to include in any particular year in a particular command paper. This approach would leave it entirely in the hands of the executive as to whether a particular body is included or not. Under this proposal, Parliament will have no say over which bodies are to be audited by the C&AG.
  As definitions adopted by the Government change over time, bodies may be included or excluded, with the possibility of consequent disruption to their audit arrangements. Is that really what is intended? It is even possible that at some point in the future a government will decide to stop publishing the document and information would rapidly become out of date.
  The publication referred to in the clause is not designed as a comprehensive listing of NDPBs. It lists 89 bodies—20 of which report to the Scottish Executive or Welsh Assembly—but there are more
  242
  than 200 executive NDPBs. So the listing covers only a third of all NDPBs, those spending more than £15 million a year. I do not see how relying on this document will fulfil the aim of ensuring that the C&AG is the auditor of all such bodies. The fact that the Opposition have been forced to rely on a listing of NDPBs contained in a document published by the Government highlights the impossibility of adequately defining these bodies. Relying on a government publication will remove parliamentary control.
  Amendment No. 2 is even more extraordinary. It is entirely new, and it seems strange to bring forward such an important new clause at Third Reading in the second Chamber. It would appear—although the drafting is unclear to the point of unintelligibility—to make the C&AG the auditor of all the subsidiaries and associates of NDPBs, assuming that the undefined reference to government executive non-departmental public body means NDPBs. These are mainly the trading and commercial arms of bodies such as the national museums and galleries. These bodies are set up as companies. As a matter of company law, the C&AG cannot audit companies—which at least Amendment No. 1 recognised. No such exclusion is included in this proposed clause. It is simply not possible without a change in company law.
  As I said earlier, because the proposed clause is so loosely drafted it would require the C&AG to become the auditor not only of subsidiaries but of associated companies—even if they were a small minority. It does not seem to be a recipe for encouraging public/private partnerships or for dealing with the issue of the burdens on business, which noble Lords opposite appear to have ignored. So this clause, too, is highly defective.
  Even if it were right to impose a blanket access on all NDPBs—which I think is the fundamental objective behind all of the amendments—we have shown that it is not necessary for scrutiny; we have shown that it is not necessary for parliamentary control; and we have shown that even the Comptroller and Auditor General himself does not believe it is necessary. There has never been a comment from any of the value-for-money studies that the Comptroller and Auditor General has been held back by lack of access.
  Even if any of the points raised have any validity—which they do not—each and every one of the three amendments is hopelessly defective. Amendment No. 1 is hopelessly defective, as I said, because it does not provide an adequate definition—and, heaven knows, noble Lords opposite have had three goes at this and still they have not come up with anything useful; Amendment No. 2 is hopelessly defective because it covers not only all subsidiaries but all associates, including companies—which is nonsense in company law; and Amendment No. 3 is hopelessly defective because it relies not on a definition of an NDPB but on a government command paper. This House cannot in conscience agree to these absurd amendments.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am somewhat astonished by the hyperbole and the passion exercised by the Minister in replying to these amendments. We are

  243
  seeking to do something quite simple. We are saying that government bodies, in particular non-departmental public bodies, should be audited by the National Audit Office rather than by outside auditors. The Government and the noble Lord have made it clear on various occasions that they believe that is the right approach.
  At the moment we have got what has been described time and time again as a "hotchpotch". We are seeking to clear up that mess and to ensure that there is consistency between the various public bodies which, as my noble friend Lord Freeman pointed out, are spending vast amounts of public money. So far as concerns Sharman, I merely used the expression "red herring" in relation to this amendment. I find it difficult to think of any reason why the noble Lord, Lord Sharman—if he should report on this aspect of the matter—should come to the conclusion that there should be an arrangement whereby the vast majority of public bodies are audited by the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General but some are not. If there is some extraordinary argument why a particular body should not be so audited, then Amendment No. 1 makes provision for that.
  I accept a number of the noble Lord's points so far as concerns Amendment No. 2—it is a poor thing, but mine own—and Amendment No. 3 also has various problems. But, in your Lordships' role of asking another place to think again, this is something which it is itself concerned about—particularly the PAC—and it is appropriate that this matter should go back for further consideration. I believe that what we are seeking to do is entirely justified; it will lead to an improvement in our practices and increase parliamentary responsibility and authority in relation to the executive. That being so, I therefore beg leave to seek the opinion of the House so far as concerns Amendment No. 1.
  4.9 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 129.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Coe, L.

  Astor, V.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Attlee, E.

  Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Denham, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Byford, B.

  Elles, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Camegyof Lour, B.

  Elton, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Feldman, L.

  244

  Fookes, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Freeman, L.

  Northover, B.

  Geddes, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Park of Monmouth, B

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Greaves, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Prior, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Roper, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Russell, E.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Jacobs, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Liverpool, E.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Luke, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Taverne, L.

  McNally, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Trcfgarne, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Naseby, L.

  Waniock, B.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Newby, L.

  Wright of Richmond, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Elder, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Bach, L. [Teller]

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L

  Berkeley, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Gavron, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Blease, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Brett, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L

  Brookman, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Grenfell, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Healey, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Desai, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  245

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Richard, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Laming, L.

  Serota, B.

  Layard, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Longford, E.

  Simon, V.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Symons of Vemham Dean, B

  Mishcon, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Parekh, L.

  Varley, L.

  Patel, L.

  Warner, L.

  Paul, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Peston, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  4.19 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
  Clause 8 [Comptroller and Auditor General: access to information]:
  Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 5, line 31, leave out ("of a government department's accounts").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 9. We moved a similar amendment on Report. At that stage the Minister told the House that the amendment did not address the concerns he had expressed in Committee. I must ask the Minister to think again. I suggest to the House that a number of points require further consideration. I shall take those points in turn. First, the Government said that the amendment would significantly increase the C&AG's right of access. It did not. It translated existing negotiated practice into statute. That is an important point which was not addressed by the Minister in reply to my previous amendment. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Shaw make that point also. Secondly, the Government said that the amendment would allow the C&AG to follow public money wherever it went. But the amendment limits access to documents to which the NDPBs can obtain access. Thirdly, the Government said that it would lead to the duplication of work of other departments. As I understand it, it is not the C&AG's intention to
  246
  have a programme of routine monitoring. The power of access will be exercised only for a specific purpose. The Minister also suggested that the powers would deter contractors from coming forward to compete for PFI work. Such contractors do come forward in numbers despite the fact that the Government have already agreed to give such contractors access.
  The Government had a further objection. They said that the provision would increase the right of access of the C&AG far beyond what is reasonable. As my noble friend Lord Freeman pointed out, the C&AG is effectively the servant of Parliament and it is for Parliament rather than the Government—in practice, civil servants—to decide what he reasonably needs in order to carry out his work for Parliament. Our amendment is designed to extend the C&AG's statutory rights but—I repeat this point—only in a way which replaces negotiated access. The Public Accounts Committee has already stated that it wants access to be more robust and more consistent. I quote the words of the ninth report of the Public Accounts Committee:
  "In order to examine the accountability of departments, the C&AG needs matching statutory rights of access so he can give Parliament independent assurance that public funds have been spent properly".
  As I stated on Report, the present regime of negotiation is time-wasting, somewhat unseemly and threatens our independence. The Government have already agreed that the C&AG should have a right of access to contractors, but the terms of access have to be written into each and every contract. Quite simply, such terms are often missed. The Minister mentioned the Housing Corporation and the disposition of its funds. The C&AG has already reported individually on the handling of funds by a number of housing associations. That is a matter of established practice.
  I return to the question of overlap. The C&AG is seeking statutory powers which will have the effect of saving time and effort. They will avoid the possibility of errors in drafting contracts and will be used only in specific instances where there is a specific purpose. To the question, "How do you know they will?", the answer is, "The C&AG is, like any other public body, accountable to Parliament for the efficient use of his time and resources". At Report stage, the Minister gave the example of the supplier of paper clips. The extent to which the paper clip supplier has made available his records to the government department or NDPB with which he contracts will, under our amendment, be available to the C&AG, but no more than that.
  The Minister has difficulty with the matter of access to documents which are held or controlled by a non-departmental public body on the ground, inter alia, that it is difficult to define what an NDPB is. That sounds like inhibiting the C&AG from making proper investigations because, through a difficulty with definition, it might result in his straying into places where he should not. I suggest that the question of definition is not insurmountable and could be solved with the co-operation of the C&AG. I would also point

  247
  out that the inclusion of "accounting officer" in Amendment No. 9 expressly corrals the extent of powers of access to NDPBs. I beg to move.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House with a lengthy speech. We discussed this matter at considerable length in both Grand Committee and on Report. We have consistently supported the Opposition on the issue of access. As I made clear on Report:
  "The Comptroller and Auditor General has audit responsibility, but at present he does not have all the powers necessary to fulfil that responsibility".—[Official Report, 4/7/00; col. 1434.]
  He has to rely on government departments for access to documents which are relevant to the pursuit of his duties. It is important that he has those powers. We therefore support the amendment.
  Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I support the amendments brought forward by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. Clause 8(1) of the Bill states:
  "For the purposes of an examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General of a government department's accounts—
  (a) he shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to any of the documents relating to the department's accounts".
  I suspect that those words will be interpreted as meaning freedom of access only to those documents relating to the financial regularity of the account. But the duties of the C&AG run much wider than that, not least in looking at the value for money aspects of a department's activities. For example, at Question Time yesterday I asked the Minister this question:
  "My Lords, is the Taylor report available to the Comptroller and Auditor General?"
  Perhaps I should have asked, "Will it be available after the Bill becomes law?" The Minister replied:
  "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".—[Official Report, 11/7/00; col. 130.]
  As I understand it, the Taylor report concerns the smuggling of tobacco. Is the Minister saying that there will be no circumstances whereby the Taylor report might be relevant to any future investigations of the C&AG? I find that difficult to accept. If, in fact, the C&AG felt that the report was relevant to his inquiries, my fear is that the department might refuse to make it available. If that were to be the case, perhaps I may refer the Minister to a debate in the other place on 24th October 1985. In that debate I referred to a meeting of the PAC where the basis for certain actions had been contained in a letter from the Permanent Under-Secretary of State. At that meeting we asked why the letter had not been available. We were told that it referred to a certain helpful report submitted privately to the Secretary of State for Defence by the then Mr Peter Levene, now, happily, with us as the noble Lord, Lord Levene. It was submitted by him when he was in a position in industry and before he became a member of the staff of the MoD. Since that report influenced the ministry's decision, the C&AG had felt it right to demand sight of it. The PAC agreed and suspended
  248
  its own inquiries until the report was produced. It was produced at our next meeting. At the end of that debate, Mr Moore, then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said:
  "My hon. friend the Member for Scarborough also mentioned what is known as the Levene report. All I can say is that there is no reason to suppose that any similar reports in future will not be released".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/85; col. 493.]
  Perhaps I may deal briefly with the amendment to Clause 8 which would give the C&AG access to all information to which the European Court of Auditors has access in relation to the United Kingdom. I was a Member of the European Parliament when the European Court of Auditors was set up in 1977. I was also Rapporteur for the Financial Regulation of 1977.
  In setting up the Court of Auditors, it was obvious that much of the revenue and expenditure transactions of the Community were nationally based. Therefore, the more that the various national audit bodies could become involved in working with the European Court of Auditors, the better; otherwise, the Court of Auditors would have—and has had—a quite impossibly large task. There must be a continuing need for the European Court of Auditors to seek to establish as much co-operation and confidence as possible in the work of each of the national audit authorities.
  In this country we are blessed with a first-class National Audit Office under the leadership of an outstanding C&AG. It would go greatly against the interests both of this country and of the European Court of Auditors if we did not assist in achieving the utmost co-operation between the two bodies.
  If the C&AG was in a position to act on behalf of the European Court of Auditors when required, that would also remove the resentment that I have already heard expressed; namely, "Why should the European Court of Auditors be allowed to come nosing around our affairs?" Of course, occasions will arise when it must do so, but wherever possible, it would be much more acceptable if it could seek the assurances it requires through the good offices of the C&AG. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am faced with the difficulty—this happens from time to time—of having to decide whether to respond to the speeches or to the amendment. It is clear that the speeches that have been made—I have listened to them with great care—bear no relationship to the amendments before us. However, before I try to respond to the amendments, which I believe is my duty, I should say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead.
  I believe that I was wrong in what I said yesterday and I am glad to have been given an opportunity to correct it. I was taken by surprise by his question about the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Taylor report on tobacco smuggling. From Section 8 of the National Audit Act 1983 it is quite clear that the

  249
  Comptroller and Auditor General has separate rights of access to value for money studies, and that such access is not limited to financial information.
  Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I am grateful for that reply.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall take advice as to whether there is any other way in which I should put the record straight. However, it is clear that I was wrong on that occasion.
  Perhaps I may now turn to the amendments. The Opposition have responded to the point I made on Report; namely, that additional access is not needed for the purpose of auditing departmental accounts. Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General himself admitted that in giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. However, the Opposition have responded in the most extraordinary way: by removing the requirement that the clause should apply to departmental accounts, which is what is meant in Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
  That will not make matters better; it will make them very much worse. These amendments would divorce this clause from the subject matter of the Bill, which is government accounts, and instead turn it into a general power of access for the Comptroller and Auditor General. By referring in general terms to "examinations", it would apply both to his value for money examinations carried out under the National Audit Act and to the audit of accounts. The amendments appear to be a way of changing the National Audit Act by stealth. This Bill is not, and never has been, a replacement for the National Audit Act 1983. It seems extraordinary to be proposing at this late stage of the Bill—at Third Reading in the second House—amendments which open up entirely new topics and suggest sweeping changes which have not been subject to any debate or consultation and which are not based on any evidence of problems of access.
  Amendment No. 8 would give the Comptroller and Auditor General access to any body to which a department or one of its NDPBs—I shall not labour the point about the definition—has, or can obtain, access. Furthermore, it repeats an amendment discussed on Report. The effect would be to allow the NAO access to a very wide range of businesses and even individuals who have financial dealings with government.
  Amendment No. 7 would give the Comptroller and Auditor General the same rights of access as the European Court of Auditors has in the United Kingdom. I must admit that I am astonished that a member of the Conservative Party, who has trumpeted his concern for UK sovereignty, would wish to make the access rights of Parliament's auditor partly dependent on the rights enjoyed by a European body under the European treaties. That surely represents a unilateral surrender of parliamentary sovereignty.
  250
  It is clear that the intention behind the amendment, contrary to what was said by the Official Opposition at earlier stages of the Bill, is to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to be able to follow public money wherever it goes. That is confirmed if we look at Article 248(3) of the European Treaty which states:
  "The audit shall be based on records and, if necessary, performed on the spot … including in the premises of any natural or legal person in receipt of payments from the budget".
  That would give the C&AG access to, among others, every farmer in the country. Perhaps I may point out that Article 248(3) is very clear that the Court of Auditors should co-operate with other auditors and with national governments in exercising these rights. The amendment contains no such safeguards.
  How can we reconcile the sweeping powers of access conferred by Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 which, if the other amendments in this group are accepted will no longer even be tied to the audit of departmental accounts, with the concerns expressed by the Government and, as I mentioned on Report, by the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses; namely, that additional powers for the Comptroller and Auditor General could result in additional burdens on business, over-regulation and an overlap of functions? The simple fact is that they cannot be reconciled. As I said earlier, if my noble friend Lord Haskins were in the House today, he would be horrified at the suggestion.
  Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would not have the effect, as the Opposition would have us believe, of simply entrenching in statute the C&AG's existing access rights, thus putting him on a par with the Court of Auditors. What they will do is to give him extensive rights of access, unrelated to the audit of departments' accounts, to anyone who has financial dealings with government.
  It has been said already that this clause is not essential to the central purpose of the Bill, which is the introduction of resource accounting. However, by introducing the clause, we sought to take the opportunity to make provision to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the access he needs to carry out the audits of departmental accounts. The clause as it stands already ensures that he has that necessary access, so additional amendments are unnecessary.
  This was the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, at an earlier stage. I understand that point. However, as I said when we debated this on Report, the Comptroller and Auditor General has already audited the first "dry-run" sets of resource accounts. Although he qualified many of these, he did not once do so on the ground of insufficient access. Even more tellingly, on 7th June the Comptroller and Auditor General said, in giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, that although he would like additional access, he does not need it in order to audit departmental accounts. I think that that in itself renders Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 redundant.
  The Government have responded to a number of the key concerns expressed by the Comptroller and

  251
  Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. At Report stage in the Commons the Government tabled a completely redrafted version of this clause to take account of those concerns. In particular, we have added what is now Clause 8(2)(b) to give the Comptroller and Auditor General a statutory right of access to third parties which hold departmental financial records. This deals with one of the major concerns expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PAC that over the past few years many departments have contracted out the operation of their accounting and other information technology operations. As a result, the Comptroller and Auditor General needs a statutory right of access to do his audit of departmental accounts. The new subsection recognises that and provides him with that power.
  More generally, the Government have accepted that the whole area of audit and accountability needs to be carefully looked at. That is why we have set up the review under the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. We recognise that Parliament must be satisfied that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the powers he needs to do his job on behalf of Parliament. But that must be balanced against legitimate concerns that to give the Comptroller and Auditor General further powers may result in additional burdens on business, over-regulation and an overlap of functions.
  These are wide-ranging and complex issues. The Government do not believe that they can be adequately dealt with during the passage of a Bill that is concerned with reforming the way the Government do their accounts and, therefore, deals only with audit issues to the extent that they impact on those accounts. The study chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, can look at these issues in the detail they require and deserve. The Government believe that that review provides the necessary basis. The Government have as much interest as Parliament in ensuring that the Comptroller and Auditor General delivers independent and high quality audit scrutiny.
  The new amendments tabled by the Opposition are so different from those tabled on Report that I must appeal directly to the Liberal Democratic Party. I understand its support for the previous amendments, but I do not see how it can conceivably support these amendments. We were told that the amendments tabled on Report were necessary to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out his audit of departmental accounts. Although we understand that, we do not share the view of those who have sympathy for that proposal. But the amendments that the House is being asked to consider today are of a completely different order. They break the fundamental link between the clause and the subject-matter of the Bill.
  At this very late stage we are being asked to consider changes which would make this clause a general purpose right of access for the Comptroller and Auditor General that would cover his value for money examinations as well as his audit of accounts. The amendments raise entirely new issues which have not
  252
  been the subject of previous amendments, debate or consultation at any time during the passage of this Bill. We cannot accept them.
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the Minister has, quite understandably, coupled Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I have listened to his comments on European legislation and shall study them. I do not intend to press that particular amendment. I should like to uncouple Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Amendment N o. 8 is the nub of our case in this matter. I do not believe that the Minister has addressed the question of negotiation and time-wasting. We have built safeguards into this amendment which applies only to documents to which an NDPB has or can obtain access. We have also built in a provision about the position of the accounting officer. This amendment is fundamental to the Bill. We seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 4.
  4.44 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 122.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Addington, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Astor, V.

  Greaves, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Hanham, B. [Teller]

  Attlee, E.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Barker, B.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Bradshaw, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Byford, B.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Carncgy of Lour, B.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Crathorne, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Luke, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Denham, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  McNally, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Elton, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Ezra, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Falkland, V.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Newby, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Glentoran, L.

  Northover, B.

  253

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Selsdon, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Peel, E.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Strange, B.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Prior, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Redesdale, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Roper, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Russell, E.

  Warnock, B.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Healey, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Bach, L. [Teller]

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Billingham, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Blease, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Borrie, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Brett, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Layard, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Christopher, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Crawley, B.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Desai, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Elder, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Peston, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Richard, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Scrota, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Simon, V.

  Haskel, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  254

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Warner, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  4.54 p.m.
  The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 5, line 32, leave out ("of the documents relating to the department's accounts") and insert ("relevant documents").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 5, line 38, leave out from ("documents") to end of line 42 and insert ("—

  (a) which are held or controlled by a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body, or

  (b) which are documents to which a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body has, or can obtain, access.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 6, line 2, at end insert—
  ("(4) The rights of access conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercisable in relation to any document relating primarily to accounts which—

  (a) are subject to audit by the Auditor General for Scotland or the Auditor General for Wales, and are not also subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, or

  (b) are subject to audit under section 2 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 or section 97 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and do not relate to a body specified in section 98(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  (5) In this section "relevant non-departmental public body" means a non-departmental public body which is one for which the department whose accounts are undergoing examination is responsible; and for this purpose "non-departmental public body" means a body—

  (a) which is not a government department or comprised within a government department.

  (b) which exercises public functions of a governmental nature which might otherwise fall to be exercised by central government, and

  (c) an officer of which has been designated by a government department as its accounting officer in respect of the preparation of its accounts.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Commencement]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 15, line 14, leave out ("19") and insert ("20").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, unlike the rest of the Bill the clauses relating to Partnerships UK are to come into force as soon as Royal Assent is achieved. Therefore, when we added at Report stage the clause enabling the devolved administrations to invest in Partnerships UK, now Clause 20, we should also have amended the commencement procedures. Due to an oversight, for which I apologise, we failed to do so. The amendment corrects that oversight. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the 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.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  4.55 p.m.
  Report received.
  Clause 2 [Meaning and location of "interception" etc.]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 4, line 32, leave out ("address or other") and insert ("traffic").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to start today's proceedings by recording my gratitude to all noble Lords opposite for the constructive way in which they have approached debates on this Bill to date. I know that some noble Lords have had considerable difficulties with the Bill as regards its drafting and introduction. I know also that the importance of this Bill and of early Royal Assent are well known to noble Lords opposite. In the light of these potentially conflicting concerns, I have greatly appreciated the spirit in which noble Lords have approached the difficulties. That was particularly the case as regards a number of amendments to Part III of the Bill tabled at short notice by the Government at Committee stage. I know that these amendments were moving in the direction favoured by noble Lords opposite, but none the less the amendments were tabled very much at short notice and I was grateful for the general tolerance of that fact.
  Things have been no less easy in respect of the short time period between Committee and Report stages. Again, I have particularly appreciated attempts by noble Lords opposite to explain their position to us and indeed to give us prior warning of amendments, where possible. I hope that noble Lords believe that we on the Government side have been able to return the favour although I still feel some need to express apologies for the late tabling of some of our amendments.
  I must also mention the codes of practice supporting the Bill which were published on Monday of this week. I had undertaken to publish them in advance of Report stage. I regret that it was not possible to publish them sooner. I also regret the imperfect state of the preliminary drafts: there is still some considerable amount of work to be undertaken. None the less, I hope that the publication of the drafts is appreciated as giving considerable information as to the Government's intentions in this area.
  There are still issues to be resolved and the drafts were published before consultation with key constituents was possible. In particular, these drafts have not been shared with colleagues in industry before publication. Experience tells us that we would normally expect to amend the drafts, possibly in some significant areas, once we have had the benefit of input from experts in industry. We have greatly appreciated that input all the way through the Bill. None the less, I hope that the effort in publishing them at this time is helpful and appreciated and that the general input of the codes informs the deliberations of this House rather than confuses it.
  There are some particular areas in the codes which we know require further informal consultation before we can release them for formal consultation under Clause 69 of this Bill, once enacted. These are in addition to the issues that may well be of most interest to industry. I am aware that we also require further work in consultation on the provision affecting legal, medical and spiritual confidentiality. That is one issue which is relevant to all four codes. Separately, we do appreciate the need to develop further appropriate wording to reflect the well developed arrangements which already exist between agencies and telecoms operators regarding the supply of communications data. In this respect, the extant ACPO codes are rather more developed than the codes we were able to publish on Monday. But I can give a commitment that we shall be seeking to develop the codes published on Monday more in line with the ACPO codes on communications data, perhaps explicitly reflecting higher levels of authorisation for particular types of access to communications data.
  That concludes my opening remarks in respect of the debate on this Bill. I look forward to further debates today and tomorrow. I record once more my gratitude to noble Lords opposite for helping us with the background to some of the amendments that have been tabled in order that we can have a positive and constructive debate on the main issues.
  In moving government Amendment No. 1, I speak also to Amendments No. 2 to 4, 6 and 99. These cover the definition of "communications data" which has been the subject of much debate and press interest, particularly since the Government introduced the amendment to tackle dial-through fraud. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was the first to voice his concerns, and his views were supported by industry representatives as well as other noble Lords.
  During the debate on Chapter II on 19th June, I undertook to return to the House with a new definition of "communications data" which reflected the

  257
  distinction more clearly. Since then a great deal of work has gone into producing a refined definition which could address the needs of all interested parties. At the time of that debate I explained that the new definition would have to satisfy three elements. It would have to include in what manner and by what method a person communicates with another person or machine, but exclude what they say or what data they pass once the connection has been established (that is, content of communications) and still allow dial-through fraud to be investigated properly.
  We believe that the amendments more closely defining "traffic data" as a sub-category of "communications data" which stand today in my name do just that. They ensure that the definition cannot be interpreted to include any content of communication or interaction with websites.
  Because the new definition is necessarily fairly complicated, it may assist noble Lords if I explain what each part is designed to achieve. For all of the data in paragraphs (a) to (d) to count as communications data, they have to meet the test in Clause 2(5)(a)—that is, they have to be comprised in or attached to a communication for the purpose of a telecommunications system by which the communication is being transmitted. The first two parts are relatively self-explanatory: new paragraph (a) covers subscriber information; and new paragraph (b) covers routing information. New paragraph (c) is the provision covering data which actuate apparatus—this is the part designed to address dial-through fraud. New paragraph (d) catches the data which are found at the beginning of each packet in a packet switched network which indicates which communications data attach to which communication. Finally, the tailpiece to the new definition puts beyond any doubt that in relation to Internet communications, traffic data stop at the apparatus within which files or programs are stored, so the traffic data may identify a server but not a website or page.
  I hope that that careful explanation helps to expedite the debate. I trust that it is clear and uncomplicated. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are grateful for the Minister's remarks. Perhaps I may refer to them as the noble Lord's "apologies" for some of the difficulties with the Bill. I am grateful also for his understanding of our severe difficulties in dealing with the Bill. For those us who are neither lawyers nor electronics experts, trying to translate the arguments of one group of persons to another and to draft amendments capable of being discussed in your Lordships' House has been a great test.
  The Minister referred to the codes of practice. We are also grateful to him for publishing them although in a highly draft state. Nevertheless, it is still valuable to have sight of them at this stage.
  258
  The Bill is also in a fairly highly draft state although we are moving towards the end of our consideration of it. It is still being severely criticised by a wide range of bodies and companies, not only those operating in the field of the Internet, and so on, but also charities, organisations and trade unions of every kind. For that reason, we and others outside the House appreciate the willingness of the Minister and his colleagues radically to amend the Bill. The attitude of the past few days has been in sharp contrast with that of Mr Charles Clarke at the end of consideration of the Bill in another place when he expressed the view that your Lordships' House would be offered only minor and technical amendments. We are a long way from that.
  We are all agreed—I mentioned it at Second Reading—that dial-through fraud needs to be tackled. That is part of the basis of what is being done. But we also recognise that the Government have moved very considerably in terms of the definitions by introducing the new definition of "traffic data", leaving other types of communications data subject to the full rigours of the remainder of the Bill. Although it does not divide data into quite as many different categories as many, including myself, would have wished, that is a move in the right direction.
  We have some detailed comments. It might be helpful if we discuss those in separate groupings. I do not think that that will take more time; it may make our debates more logical.
  On the main amendment describing traffic data, while we can criticise it in detail we welcome the move in principle. We are all agreed on what should be achieved by these definitions. As the Minister said, we wish to exclude content from traffic data or other data which can be got at readily. We understand the need to get hold of what are properly called "traffic data".
  Lord McNally: My Lords, I share the understanding the noble Lord expresses for the Minister's dilemma. I think that we all take the attitude that we would not have started from here—but here we are. There has been an element of the politics of the souk as the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House, with offers and counter offers. In the end I believe that what we are doing is to the credit of this House.
  The Bill emerged from the Commons with concerns expressed by civil liberties groups and the industry. We hope that we are edging towards a better Bill. The purists may find fault with the Minister's attempts to define "communications data", but it is a definition that we can live with. It is moving in the right direction and in the right spirit. Perhaps by the end of our proceedings we shall have a Bill with which we are all satisfied. But that will be the case only if we continue in the spirit of listening not because the Opposition parties want to score points but because even at this stage, and after considerable movement by the Government, there are concerns which we want to explore.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was expecting there to be more interest but in a sense I am grateful that there is not. I am grateful for the kind comments

  259
  made by noble Lords and for their tolerance and forbearance in respect of our changes to the Bill at this late stage.
  We are perhaps victims of our own strategy because we promised to be a listening government in this exercise as in many others. We have kept to that promise and have tried to capture the sense of concern expressed by the industry and reflected on all Benches in your Lordships' House. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, this is the House at its best looking in detail at a piece of legislation, finding it wanting in some respects and the Government able and willing to try to accommodate those real and genuine concerns.
  I trust that the amendments meet with your Lordships' satisfaction and I commend them to the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
  Page 4, line 40, leave out ("addresses and other") and insert ("traffic").
  Page 4, line 42, leave out subsection (6).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 5, line 16, at end insert—
  ("(9A) In this section "traffic data", in relation to any Communication, means—

  (a) any data identifying, or purporting to identify, any person, apparatus or location to or from which the communication is or may be transmitted,

  (b) any data identifying or selecting, or purporting to identify or select, apparatus through which, or by means of which, the communication is or may be transmitted,

  (c) any data comprising signals for the actuation of apparatus used for the purposes of a telecommunication system for effecting (in whole or in part) the transmission of any communication, and

  (d) any data identifying the data or other data as data comprised in or attached to a particular communication,

  but that expression includes data identifying a computer file or computer program access to which is obtained, or which is run, by means of the communication to the extent only that the file or program is identified by reference to the apparatus in which it is stored.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
  Line 5, leave out ("apparatus or location") and insert ("or apparatus").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, although we have accepted the generality of Amendment No. 4, a detailed point was raised with me that I believe is worth putting before your Lordships' House. It concerns the use of the word "location".
  Your Lordships will appreciate that mobile telephones are becoming increasingly more sophisticated. The location of some of the newest ones can be tracked through global positioning systems or other electronic means. That means that if the location
  260
  is regarded as traffic data, which can readily be obtained by the police and other authorities, the police will be able to follow someone carrying one of the new mobile telephones without troubling further.
  I can see that that would be a great facility for the police but it could also be highly intrusive in following someone from shop to shop or from home to another location. It is not in the nature of ordinary traffic data—for instance, a telephone number—but it is a highly intrusive power.
  I am not saying that the police should never be allowed to use it; the whole Bill provides a framework for giving different levels of authority to different types of information. The question posed by the amendment is where the location of a particular mobile telephone, and hence of a particular person, should fall in the categories of information to be revealed.
  Amendment No. 4 suggests that it should he placed in the lowest category of traffic data, and therefore readily obtainable to the authorities, and that arty invasion of privacy involved should not be considered. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, I believe that the Minister can use his favourite word, "proportionality", in respect of the amendment. It has been pointed out to me that in some cases the ability to track the movement of a mobile telephone could be most important; for example, in the movement of drugs. One can there see the point of the power. However, another scenario put to me was of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, meeting Mr Portillo privately. The ability to track that would be an outrageous intrusion into his private activities.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am happy to meet Mr Portillo and I frequently do —and I do not mind who knows!
  Lord McNally: My Lords, the scenario put to me was even more lurid, but I shall go no further. In any event, as we all know, Mr Portillo prefers land lines to mobile telephones when he is plotting something.
  Returning to proportionality, one can well understand that the authorities may need such powers in relation to a serious investigation into drugs. If that were the case, surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, argued, a higher rather than a lower category of authorisation should be required. It would be interesting to know why the Government have opted for the lower category.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I fully recognise the concerns put forward by my noble friend Lord Cope. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister the Government's intention behind the use of the word "location". It is conceivable that there could be an oversight by the Minister or there could be a deliberate attempt to include data on the location of someone carrying a mobile telephone.
  Accessing information about the position of a mobile telephone transmission bears comparison with the planting of location devices on vehicles. It would

  261
  be helpful if the Minister could remind the House about the regime for attaching location-giving devices to vehicles.
  The proposal raises other issues. I can understand the Minister's intention in Amendment No. 4 that the word "location" should convey "address". But with modern e-mail communications and other types of data transmission, location and address rapidly diverge. One could use the same e-mail address to transmit from a fixed point or from mobile points at will.
  I believe that my noble friend Lord Cope has put his finger on an important issue and it would be interesting to hear whether the Minister intended to mean that the location data from mobile telephones should be able to be accessed through the lower category of permission. If not, I am sure that we can come up with a compromise that might clarify the issue. However, I believe that the Bill, as it is proposed to be drafted within the amendment, leaves open a very wide door.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I wonder whether the amendment, which my noble friend rightly has put forward, takes account of the ever-onward movement of the technologies which are moving far faster than can legislators. I think in particular of the wireless access protocol which is now progressing here in its third generation. That will give people with mobile phones access to both e-mail and the Internet, wherever they may be, and of course to the i-mode system in Japan, which many Japanese argue is superior to the WAP and, indeed, may eventually replace it. I know that it is controversial and those who invest their money in the WAP would not like to hear that. However, it is a possibility and things are moving very quickly.
  In Japan—it will happen here, too—something in the region of 60 million people have mobile telephones, of whom approximately 15 million are already on the i-mode Internet e-mailing system. All those people move about all the time. There is no question of their location existing for more than a second. By definition, they are using mobile telephones for mobile business and mobile activity. I wonder whether the drafters of the Bill have understood that the vast majority of e-mail traffic will not take place in fixed locations but will be among people who are on the move in a totally interconnected world.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendment. I believe that it will enable us to understand each other better on this issue, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
  I turn to the amendments which relate to the new definition. Amendments Nos. 5 and 29 would exclude the word "location", as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, explained. However, there are—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, put his finger on it—many circumstances, not only in criminal investigations,
  262
  where the giving of the location of a person is critical. Let us take, for example, a person who makes a 999 call, perhaps from a telephone box, or even a child who makes a call to the emergency services from his home. Callers are not always in a position to describe their location accurately, yet the communication service provider possesses the information and passes it on to the appropriate emergency service.
  There is, of course, another side to the argument in relation to calls to the emergency services. The fact that the location of telephone boxes can be passed quickly to the police acts as a very effective deterrent against hoax callers. The information is no less useful when it comes to mobile telephones. I am sure that we have all read about injured mountaineers who are rescued on the strength of the information which the telephone company is able to give regarding the location of their mobile phones.
  I realise that the concern expressed by noble Lords focuses more upon the way in which location data may be used as a surveillance tool rather than as an aid to emergency services. I also recognise that the use of location data should be properly regulated. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made the point very well and it is a topic to which we shall return when we discuss amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I believe that I shall be able to offer some reassurance on that score.
  As I indicated in my opening remarks, we are considering the appropriate level of authorisation for types of communications data. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right to refer to the issue of proportionality and of getting the balance right, particularly in terms of investigations. That issue is already addressed in the non-statutory agreements between ACPO, Customs and the telecoms industry, and authorisation must be sought at the level of Assistant Chief Constable. That is what we intend to put in the code of practice and I believe that that is the appropriate level to which the matter should be referred.
  I hope that what I have said about the amendment is sufficient to show that location needs to be included in the definition. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that this view was shared by those who drafted the European convention on cyber crime, on which the definition is in part based. Therefore, I trust that those reassurances and comments will help the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to withdraw his amendment. I believe that they should.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 5, line 17, leave out ("References in this section to") and insert ("In this section—

  (a) references, in relation to traffic data comprising signals for the actuation of apparatus, to a telecommunication system by means of which a communication is being or may be transmitted include references to any telecommunication system in which that apparatus is comprised; and

  (b) references to traffic").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 5. line 19, at end insert—
  ("and in this section "data", in relation to a postal item, means anything written on the outside of the item.
  (10A) The Secretary of State may by order modify the provisions of subsections (5), (9A) and (10).
  (10B) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (10A) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 32. Together, these amendments make the new definition capable of amendment by the Secretary of State, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Our difficulty here is that in order to define communications data with sufficient specificity to avoid including content of communications data, the definition has become rather more complicated than I suspect many of us would prefer. However, the more complicated a definition, the greater the chance of it being overtaken by technical developments. For that reason, we have sought to leave the Government some flexibility in order to ensure that if the definition becomes badly out of date it can be amended through a relatively simple procedure but still with the oversight provided by the affirmative resolution procedure.
  I wish to make two further points. First, I want to state for the record that the definition is intended to cover communications data and not the content of communications. Any amendment to the definition would be carried out only in that spirit. I believe that that needs to be understood. Secondly, none of us can predict how advances in technology might affect the definition—a point acknowledged, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. It may move in such a way as to allow intrusion into privacy to occur in a manner that we cannot possibly envisage at present. In those circumstances, a power to amend the definition may be seen more favourably. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8:
  Line 4, leave out subsections (10A) and (10B).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 8 and 33 with Amendments Nos. 7 and 32. Although I had previously suggested that they might be degrouped, I believe that it would be helpful to discuss them together.
  There are two parts to Amendment No. 7 and its friend. The first part is, if I may say so, an extremely neat definition of "traffic data" in respect of mail and distinguishes it from "contents". It states quite simply,
  "'data', in relation to a postal item, means anything written on the outside of the item".
  So far as I can see, that is a perfect distinction to draw between "contents" and "traffic data". However, that part of Amendment No. 7 and its friend are entirely uncontroversial.
  More controversial is the power to which the Minister referred to modify those provisions. He explained that it was intended that the power should be used only in order to preserve intact, as it were, the exclusion of contents. I am paraphrasing, but not inaccurately, I hope.
  We would support subsequent modifications that became necessary to ensure the continued exclusion of content, but that is not how the power is written. Sometimes, powers are written to give a one-way ticket for the statutory instruments, not a two-way ticket. For example, in tax law it may be possible by order to alter a particular allowance or tax either upwards or downwards, but not necessarily in both ways. The amendment does not say that the Secretary of State may, by order, modify the provisions of the subsections to preserve content from inspection. It says only that he may modify the provisions—in any way. The order-making power could be used very widely to make it easier for the police and the other services to obtain much more data.
  That is an important potential distinction. At one end of the scale is material that can be obtained readily by the police. In the middle, higher permission is required, from the chief constable or the assistant chief constable. At the top of the scale, the Secretary of State's warrant is required. Only a statutory instrument stands between those very different powers. That is what led us to table the amendment. The question is whether the Minister's word that the power will be used in only one way and not the other is sufficient for your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, the amendments have to be seen against the background of two facts. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has just said, the government amendment could swing both ways. It would not be so bad if we had overall confidence in the Government's instincts in these matters, but given the genuine public concern about the implications of the Bill, the House is right to pause and think whether the Secretary of State should have such powers in secondary legislation.
  Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, the problem with the Bill is that it is being enacted against a background of rapidly developing technology. We often see the phenomenon in broadcasting legislation, but it is perhaps even more evident in this case that the Government want as much flexibility as possible in secondary legislation, because they know darned well that the technological

  265
  background against which they are legislating will have changed dramatically within years, or maybe even months.
  There is a balance to be struck. How much do we trust the Minister's assurances—which I am sure are made in absolute good faith—about why the amendment is necessary? As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has rightly pointed out, it does not just give flexibility to underpin the meaning of the present legislation; it leaves a loophole for the Secretary of State to broaden the remit. That is a matter of real concern and the Minister will need to be eloquent to convince the House.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, as an aside, when I send an item by recorded delivery, the post office counter clerk peels off a sticker with a barcode on it and sticks it on the outside of the envelope. Is that barcode
  "written on the outside of the item"
  and do all the other records that the post office keeps that use that barcode to track the item and its final delivery count as communications data, which will be available under this section?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asks a puzzling riddle. I am not sure that I have the answer. I suppose that the answer must be yes, but I shall ponder on it.
  I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally, for the way in which they have approached the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has clearly understood our intent. I have made it clear that we do not intend the definition to cover the content of communications. That is the spirit in which we seek this extra flexibility. We are not conspiring to find a way of gaining access to further information about the detailed content of communications at some later date. I hope that I have expressed that sufficiently forcefully to offer some reassurance.
  I entirely understand the spirit in which the amendment to our amendment has been proposed. I am prepared to look again at our wording to try to add some further clarity about what we are after. I cannot give an absolute commitment to come back with something, but I appreciate the point that is being made. It should be crystal clear that we are not after the content of communications. However, we need the flexibility, because, as has been said many times, the rapid pace of technological change could create new difficulties in the future.
  I would prefer to persist with our amendment at this stage and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to withdraw the alternative version on the basis of my undertaking to have a closer look at the wording to see whether there is anything else that we can do to add an extra level of clarification. However, I cannot make an absolute promise.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in the light of that generous offer from the Minister and the assurances
  266
  that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, leaving open the possibility of returning to it at a later stage should that prove necessary.
  Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
  The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 5, line 22, at end insert—
  ("( ) For the purposes of this section "general reception" shall have the same meaning as in section 1(7) of the Broadcasting Act 1996.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Minister will recall that we debated the issue at some length in Committee. Indeed, it gave rise to a host of questions about what is deemed to be included in the phrase "general reception". For example, as the Bill is currently drafted there is uncertainty about whether subscription broadcasting or encrypted broadcasting fall within the term. As my noble friend Lord Goschen asked in relation to a later amendment, should we infer that it includes an e-mail system based in interactive television and using television signals? My noble friend Lord Lucas put his finger on the issue by explaining how, on a strict analysis of how the technology operates, pager messages and mobile telephone traffic could well be deemed to fall within the definition.
  My major complaint is that the drafting is sloppy and unclear. I freely concede that the Minister offered the comfort that:
  "We do not agree that communications for reception by a closed network come within the provisions for general reception. We are clear that the term 'general' means available to all. However, it specifically excludes those on a closed network".—[Official Report. 12/6/00; col. 1422.]
  That is fair enough. I do not doubt for one moment that assertion but, to my mind, that is not what the Bill currently provides. In the absence of a generic definition on the face of the Bill, it remains open to interpretation.
  I acknowledge too that the Bill has been drafted with the aim of providing some element of future-proofing. I do not decry that. Because of the Bill's focus on the new technology, it is a worthy aspiration. But that should not be delivered via the expedient of legislative uncertainty; hence my amendment.
  I acknowledge that it has its imperfections. My researches to date have not yet unearthed a truly generic definition of the phrase in existing statute. However, the Minister helpfully advised the Committee that,
  "In Section 1(7)".
  of the Broadcasting Act 1996,
  "we are told that 'for general reception' means for general reception in, or in any area in, the United Kingdom … the phrase here has the same meaning".—[Official Report, 12/6/00; cols. 1421–2.]
  In other words, the amendment delivers no more and no more less than the Government's position on the issue, as espoused by the Minister. That being so, I could reasonably anticipate that the noble Lord might be well disposed towards it. I beg to move.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in Committee, we had an interesting, if somewhat confused, discussion about this issue. During the course of that, we were unable to reach a definitive view on the meaning of "general reception" or "general broadcast".
  I welcome the initiative taken by my noble friend Lord Northesk. If the Minister does not like the definition which my noble friend proposes—I have no idea whether or not he does—it is incumbent on him to find something equally good, if not better.
  The fact is, as we have said, the world of electronic communications is changing so quickly that the question of whether something is for general broadcast or general reception can easily be argued both ways. We need more clarity on this issue.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 seeks to clarify the phrase "general reception". In Committee, I relied on the Broadcasting Act 1996 definition which would mean,
  "general reception in, or in any area in, the United Kingdom".
  I also said in Committee that we believed this phrase to be used and well understood in legislation, and that no amendment was necessary. We have given the matter very careful consideration but our view remains the same.
  In response to the noble Earl's amendment, I should say first that it does not provide a definition of "broadcast for general reception". That is because the Broadcasting Act does not do so—and we do not believe that we should try to do so either.
  In our view, broadcasting for general reception implies that the transmission is intended to be received by anyone who wants to receive it. Whether to receive it is an individual's own choice. A person may, for example, choose not to buy a TV receiver or not to buy a digital decoder; but the transmission is there for him if he wants it.
  The question arises of whether pager messages and mobile telephone base station transmissions fall within this category. We believe that the answer is no. A paging message has to be addressed to a particular number or group of numbers and is received only by a person or group of persons whose pager is programmed with that address number. Other people, even though on the same pager system, will not receive the message unless it is addressed to their pager number also. The same is true for mobile phones: many people call on the same system, but a call will be received only by a phone with a number to which the message is addressed.
  Finally, I should confess that I referred in error to Section 1(7) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 when I responded to the noble Earl's amendment in
  268
  Committee. Although the definition of "general reception" was indeed originally contained in that subsection, the same definition is now to be found in Section 1(1A). I hope that I have made the position plain and, on that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I remain uncomfortable about the issue but, at this time, I fear that I may have to resign myself to living with the uncertainty for a little longer. I may try to return at Third Reading with a definition of "general reception" which would satisfy both of us.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if, before Third Reading, the noble Earl wants to share his thinking on that, we shall be more than happy to explore any further views he has on the subject.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that suggestion and I hope that I shall be able to take it up. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Power to provide jiff lawful interception]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 7, line 6, at end insert—
  ("( ) Conduct taking place in a state hospital is authorised by this section if it is conduct in pursuance of, and in accordance with, any direction given to the State Hospitals Board for Scotland under section 2(5) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (regulations and directions as to the exercise of their functions by health boards) as applied by Article 5(1) o and the Schedule to The State Hospitals Board for Scotland Order 1995 (which applies certain provisions of that Act of 1978 to the State Hospitals Board).").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. These amendments are minor amendments to take account of different terminology used in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are not adding or making policy changes. We are merely ensuring that the same regime of lawful interception can be practised in both those countries, as, indeed, will be allowed in England and Wales.
  Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 relate to hospitals in Scotland. The current Clause 4 referring to high security hospitals would not have authorised similar conduct within the state hospital at Carstairs in Scotland. The state hospital is the Scottish equivalent to our high security hospitals. We have discussed this matter with the Scottish Executive and the amendments that we have tabled will ensure that an equivalent regime can operate.
  Similarly, Amendment No. 12 adds the term "young offenders centre" in subsection (8)(a) to ensure that the equivalent institution in Northern Ireland is able to operate in exactly the same way as prisons, young offender institutions or remand centres in the rest of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House with Scottish links

  269
  will be very glad that the Government have at last recognised the differences and have included them in this.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
  Page 7, line 17, at end insert ("; and
  "state hospital" has the same meaning as in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.").
  Page 7, line 19, after ("institution") insert (", young offenders centre").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Maintenance of interception capability]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 14, line 23. at end insert—
  ("( ) A person shall not be liable to have an obligation imposed on him in accordance with an order under this section by reason only that he provides, or is proposing to provide, to members of the public a telecommunications service the provision of which is or, as the case may be, will be no more than—

  (a)the means by which he provides a service which is not a telecommunications service; or

  (b)necessarily incidental to the provision by him of a service which is not a telecommunications service.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have sought at every opportunity to emphasise that interception is a method of last resort, and is used sparingly. The purpose of Amendment No. 13 is to clarify that commercial and other organisations which provide a telecommunications service as a means of accessing a further service of theirs will not be subject to any order under Clause 12.
  I give an example to explain what that means in practice. A bank may decide that it will offer a telecommunications service to its customers, as a means of providing access to its banking service. As a result, customers are able to communicate with that bank, perhaps by e-mail, and make transactions or check the balance of their account. Where such a service is provided, the effect of the amendment is to exclude its provider from any obligations imposed under Clause 12 to develop or maintain an interception capability.
  The amendment also puts outside the scope of Clause 12 a telecommunications service that is necessarily incidental to a different service. There may be businesses now, or in the future, which offer a telecommunications service only as part of a wider, non-telecommunications operation. The telecommunications aspect might be an integral part of the business; but only as a necessary off-shoot of the non-communications business. Clause 12 will not cover such a service.
  With regard to the specifics of what the order made under Clause 12 will contain, my honourable friend Mr Clarke explained in another place that there was a three-stage process towards reasonable intercept capability. The Bill is the first stage. It sets out the principle that some service providers should maintain
  270
  an intercept capability. This is an established principle that has been long adhered to by public telecommunications operators.
  The second phase will be an order laid before Parliament for the establishment of a reasonable capability. That order can be made only after consultation with those likely to be affected and must be approved by each House. It will set out what kind of businesses are proposed to be covered. The order cannot go beyond the meaning of "public telecommunications services" in the Bill. In particular, it can apply only to telecommunications services that are
  "offered or provided to a substantial section of the public".
  And it will oblige the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and to justify the interpretation that he places on those words. Within the class of businesses that could be covered in theory, the order will reveal exactly which parts of the communications sector are to be covered.
  The third phase will be the serving of individual notices on communication service providers. Those will state the capability that they are expected to provide and the time-scale for provision. The individual notices will result from a dialogue between the Government and the service providers themselves. The notice will take account of the circumstances of each provider and will be consistent with the order passed by Parliament.
  I hope that this amendment will be welcomed by all sides of the House. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am happy to see this amendment. It removes the question as to whether ATM networks and other such matters would be liable under the Bill. Perhaps the Minister, now or later, can satisfy my curiosity as to which side of the line JANET falls.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall have to satisfy the curiosity expressed by the noble Lord later!
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 14, line 23. at end insert—
  ("( ) The person to whom a notice is given may refer the notice to the Technical Advisory Board to consider the technical requirements and the financial consequences and the Board shall report their conclusions on those matters to that person and to the Secretary of State.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 14, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17. To some extent we discussed this matter in Committee, but I have no hesitation in returning to it.
  We propose that there should be a technical advisory board and that the board should consist of six representatives, chosen by the Secretary of State, of the kind of companies affected by this legislation such as Internet service providers and others, and importantly some of their customers, banks and so on. There

  271
  should also be six representatives of what one may describe as the users of interception: the police, Customs and Excise, the security service and others. It is intended that the board should be balanced.
  In Committee we suggested that the interception commissioner should be a member and should chair the board. We have not retabled that proposal, but equally we have not necessarily abandoned it. Speaking for myself, I am not desperately concerned about the details of the board. The figure of six may be varied—certainly upwards—although I do not believe that it should be too large. Who should chair the board is also a matter for consideration. What is important is the principle.
  We have in mind two jobs for the technical advisory board. The first is to consider the technical aspects and feasibility of orders put by the Secretary of State, under Clause 12, on the basis of which black boxes will be inserted in Internet service providers and others. That is a highly technical matter. The Government commissioned the Smith report from external consultants in order to look into the matter and to open it up. Within the industry that report has been quite widely criticised, but the great value of it to all of us who have taken an interest in such matters, is that it has exposed this difficult and continuing problem. One thing that we can be certain about is that technology will develop at a rapid rate in the future.
  It is not just a matter of the Secretary of State laying down an order and a whole series of black boxes springing up in the appropriate parts of the economy; on the contrary, I believe that successive Secretaries of State will find themselves having to propose to Parliament further orders as time goes on. I believe that it would be in the interests of all if a small group, such as the technical advisory board that we propose, should have the statutory duty, as suggested in our amendment, to consider this matter on a continuing basis. As a result I believe that a much greater understanding would grow up between those in the electronic communications industry and the users that I have described—the police and other authorities. Each would have a much greater understanding of what should be achieved and the best ways in which to do that.
  The second job of the board would be to consider what may be called appeals from individual Internet service providers or others who are required by a notice following a statutory instrument to install a black box within their set-up. The amendment that we tabled in Committee suggested that all such notices should be vetted by a technical advisory board—or as we then called it, a technical approvals board—and that all such notices should be approved. It was said to us, particularly by BT, that people would not want such a notice to be seen by others in the industry. That is understandable and, in due course, that view may be shared by others. As a result we have made it an appeals procedure so that the ISP can, if it wants, ask the technical advisory board to look at its notice to see whether it is technically feasible and sensible to do it in a particular way.
  Internet service providers and others who will be affected by this point differ greatly in their size, their technical capacity, and so on, and in future they will differ even more. As a result, every notice will be quite different.
  In Committee, the Minister's view seemed to be that no one in the industry was supportive of this idea. If that was his view, I hope he has been thoroughly disabused of it now. The Internet Service Providers Association and Linx, the London Internet Exchange, have confirmed to me that they are in favour of a technical advisory board, along the lines suggested in the amendment, as have the CBI, the Federation of the Electronics Industries and others who have considered the matter. They all favour it because of the potential complexity and obtrusiveness of the black boxes as a method of looking at e-mails and other traffic. It is sad to say, but the Government have succeeded with this Bill, and particularly with this black box proposal, in frightening a large section, not only of the electronics industry, but also of the whole of the economy, including banks and others involved in international business.
  From the start we have all accepted, as do those who comment from outside, that it is valuable and important for the police and others to be able to tap telephones and now to tap e-mails to capture criminals, terrorists, paedophiles and others. But it is a question of balance and a question of how far we go with the regulatory framework. I am sure the Minister will recognise the phrase,
  "If our regulatory framework is excessive or poorly conceived, we all suffer from the resultant red tape".
  That comes from the Prime Minister's foreword to the White Paper on regulation and regulatory impact. The Prime Minister went on,
  "I have therefore decided that no regulatory proposal which has an impact on business, charities and voluntary bodies should be considered by the Government without a thorough assessment of the risks, costs and benefits, a clear analysis of who will be affected",
  and so forth. He made clear that that applied to both primary and secondary legislation.
  I realise that a sort of impact assessment was done in the case of this Bill. But it has been hugely criticised and was certainly not discussed in the way intended as far as I can gather from the White Paper. So this remains an extremely important matter for the whole future of e-commerce in this country. If we do not succeed in reassuring electronic business in this country—and that is every business these days—e-commerce will not have a future in this country, certainly not the future the Prime Minister and others in the Government envisage for it.
  We all want our country to be in the forefront of e-commerce. This proposal is perceived as threatening that. The Minister may say it is only a perception. But it is the way in which the Bill is drawn and the lack of reassurance in it that gave rise to that perception. And that perception continues to grow the more we discuss the Bill. In the end, it is perception that matters. It is the perception of these

  273
  things that decides whether or not companies invest here and whether or not companies here expand their e-commerce business.
  We have all read—I am sure the Minister has—of companies even in the past day or two saying that, if this Bill is not amended, they will move the centre of gravity of their operations overseas. Those are serious companies and I believe that there are others who hold the same view who have not gone public. It is those perceptions we must change. One of the important amendments which would help to change that perception is the introduction of the technical advisory board on the lines set out in Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, eloquently and pertinently explained the reasons for this amendment. I can think of no better way of changing the external perception of the Government's attitude to this Bill than if the Minister were to stand up and accept this amendment. It is over 50 years since the late Douglas Jay suggested that the man in Whitehall knows best. If ever there was a Bill that proved that the men and women in Whitehall may not know best, it is this one. There is no doubt that if the Government had got closer to industry and used the great expertise that is out there earlier, this Bill would have been in a better shape earlier.
  What strikes me about Amendment No. 14—I confirm the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that industry wants such a statutory body—is that it gives the Government the opportunity of repairing earlier omissions. Instead of wasting money on external consultants, they have the opportunity of obtaining the advice of industry experts.
  Like so many, I started out with a vague idea of what was being proposed. But when it became clear that the Government had almost a blank cheque for the technical impositions that they could place on service providers, that seemed to me to be extremely unfair and reckless. It was a question of one side thinking up requirements and the other side having to pay for it and work out how to implement it. That is not the way to obtain technical co-operation. However, the proposal for a technical advisory board offers the Government two great prizes. First, it offers industry expertise in ensuring that effective measures are introduced. Secondly, it wins industry confidence. I should have thought they were two worthwhile prizes for the Government to seize now.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lord Cope. The stakes are extraordinarily high at this point in the development of the e-commerce industry, an industry in which the United Kingdom takes a strong leading role.
  The Minister has asserted on a number of occasions that he feels that the United Kingdom is taking a view towards e-commerce security which will be followed
  274
  by other countries. I am not entirely sure that that is true. Indeed, I would be surprised to see wide international agreement surrounding the approach that the United Kingdom has taken. But we on these Benches have always said that the more international agreement we have, the better. However, if the Government are determined to push ahead with this Bill on their own, there is a danger, as the Minister will be tired of hearing, that this business could evaporate. It is extremely mobile internationally. The Minister simply does not have the power to control. If he puts excessive regulation on the business in this country, it will move overseas. We have already seen those indications.
  Amendment No. 14—it is difficult to argue that it is unreasonable—adds a layer of comfort to the Bill. At least with the technical advisory board there will be an avenue of appeal; there will be an area to which ISPs can go and discuss the technical obligations being imposed on them by government. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, it is clear that industry knows a huge amount about its business, unlike the Government. The Government, by definition, cannot move as fast as the e-commerce industry. I believe it will be of great assistance to the departments and agencies for which the Minister is responsible to have that level of input.
  If companies do not wish to use the board; if they prefer to have private discussions with the agency looking to impose this burden, then so be it. But at least they have an alternative avenue.
  Clearly the fact that my noble friend includes "financial consequences" in the amendment is extremely important. When we come on to later amendments to Clause 13 we will discuss the financial burdens—they may be very high—which may be imposed by the Bill. We look forward to the Minister giving us more clarity about the Government's approach towards co-operating with industry. There is little for the Government to lose. They may say it is another layer of bureaucracy. That is true. But if the Government are determined to drive ahead on their own, they need this safeguard. If they do not accept this safeguard, there could be substantial losses to our economic well-being.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on Amendment No. 17. But before I do so perhaps I can say something on Amendment No. 14.
  In moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that BT was worried about these notices being public rather than being used individually. I understand that there are issues of commercial confidentiality, but that will have a bearing on how the proposed technical advisory board operates. If the users are to fall under paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 17, some of them may be competing ISPs. Such matters will have to be taken into consideration when the composition of the board is decided.
  As I said in Committee, among those defined as persons affected by Clause 12 I hope to see mention of ordinary citizens, not just ISPs. It is bad enough to

  275
  have all the users of interception as regards paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 17, but if they got into cahoots with all the ISPs I would be even more frightened. That would just be a ganging up on ordinary consumers and citizens. Whatever happens to the amendment and whatever shape the technical advisory board takes, I hope that it will look after the interests of ordinary citizens because they should be protected.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has made a very pertinent point upon which I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us. I strongly support the comments made by my noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Goschen about the need for a board of this kind. It would give some reassurance as regards meeting the problems raised by the legislation.
  I apologise for not taking part in the Committee stage; indeed, I regret it. However, the Report stage will allow me to express fears that I suspect are increasingly widely shared, as the general public become aware of what is proposed and how the whole slant of the Bill, which I recognise has been accepted by parties on both sides of the House and in the other place, is really in favour of a bureaucratic hierarchical order of the kind that is actually being swept away by technology. We are moving into a network world in which this kind of attempt by such central authorities will, in five years' time, look as absurd as did the attempts of the old authoritarian governments of the 1960s and 1970s who tried to keep a grip on their societies in eastern and central Europe. In the end, they were swept away not only by politics but also by technology. I believe that technology will carry this whole process along far faster than government officials or bureaucrats recognise.
  It is perfectly obvious that this is a global phenomenon. The e-mails that everyone is involved in sending and in dealing with, the operations of the ISPs and of the Internet portal and vortal providers, and so on, are done on a global basis. Every day millions and millions of e-mails travel across the Atlantic and into other parts of continental Europe, as well as into Asia. Who will advise on the interface, the link-up and the logic of a link-up between what this Bill attempts to do and what is going on elsewhere in the world? It is not merely a question of finding that if we do not have the proper interface we shall fall behind as an island. In fact, this technology does not take any notice of borders, nations, islands or national boundaries.
  If we attempt to provide the kind of control and authoritarian intervention which is hinted at by the Bill and we are not in line with what is going on in the United States, in the rest of Asia or, indeed with what our continental partners are doing, we shall look a crowd of fools. Indeed, we shall look absurd. We shall find our efforts both ineffective and damaging. Therefore, it seems to me essential that such a board should at all times examine very closely what is going on in the rest of the global system of which we are just a part. We are just an individual element—a cluster, if you like—in the network system, which is the global Internet web. Unless we have a body of this kind
  276
  keeping its eye on such matters, we shall be in grave danger of passing legislation that is not only damaging locally but also highly ineffective. Indeed, it may interfere with the general advance of the global information system, which, if properly understood and harnessed—although it has its dangers—could be of great benefit to all mankind.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: My Lords, I had not intended to speak during the Report stage and must apologise to the House for doing so because I did not speak in Committee. That can be put down partly to inexperience as I am very new in this place and partly, quite frankly, because I had not understood some of the implications of this Bill as regards some of my activities. I must declare an interest at this point in that I chair two of our top 20 companies, both of which are huge investors in Internet-driven companies, spending about £2 billion this year. I personally invest in a number of rather smaller companies.
  However, those companies all have in common—this is most important—the fact that they will ultimately be paying for this regulation. I suspect that the Minister has been lobbied by the people immediately affected. I have to admit that large companies like the ones I run have not really understood the implications involved. Despite all the publicity, I believe that that is an important point that Her Majesty's Government should take on board.
  I should make it plain that I am hugely supportive of the purpose of the Bill. I believe that the UK is an extremely good place in which to do e-commerce. With the odd exception, I think that this Government have been pretty darned good at maximising and optimising that development. However, I have a real worry that a miscalculation on costs could lead to accidents that we would really regret. Since I became all worked up about this, I have read very widely. I have read the debates that took place on the subject both here and in another place. I have also read as many of the lobbying documents as I could find. It seems to me that there is complete disagreement about the cost implications of the legislation. It is my judgment that no one knows what the cost to the economy will be. I strongly support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that, in any event, it will be different this time next year: the technology will have changed and goodness knows what it will be like!
  Having declared my interest, I should like to share with noble Lords how this legislation will affect my businesses. It is possible that it will be all right and that the Home Office, with the help of the Government—I am not being at all sarcastic—has got the costs in perspective; in other words, there will be a marginal addition to the cost of doing business, and that is fine. However, some people may not feel confident about that. It is not a case of either of the businesses that I run suddenly saying, "Hey, unless this changes, we will be leaving the country and going to America". It will not be like that.

  277
  One of my businesses is a very large international business and the market leader in its field world-wide. A majority of its profits and activities lie outside the UK, but the UK gets a huge benefit from its British domicile. But if we have a relative cost disadvantage in this country, the business will melt away into other countries. Indeed, not even the chairman will know about it. It will happen in the process of doing business and the Government will not have the luxury of any warning.
  My other business is a largely UK business in the financial services industry. It is a business that is poised to internationalise. The situation there would be rather more abrupt and spectacular if the people working for me suddenly realised in six months' time that there would be huge cost implications as a result of this legislation. There would be more formal moves outside the UK because we are already discussing with partners in different countries how we operate. At present, the UK will get the benefit of that; but if we are loaded with cost, the chances are that we shall relocate certain activities abroad.
  I have to be honest and say that I do not know whether the proposed technical advisory board is the right way to deal with this issue. Although it would add another level of bureaucracy, I must say that it sounds rather sensible. However, unless the Minister and the Government are really confident, on advice, that they have the costs in perspective, I urge them, please, to find a way to ensure that, when they are gone and other people are gone, there is flexibility to control the situation. Indeed, they should do that if they have a scintilla of doubt that there could be huge costs involved. The suggested technical advisory board could be one way of achieving that aim.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should like briefly to refer to a point already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in relation to the amendment so tellingly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was open and "liberal" enough—dare I say it?—to say that the precise composition of the technical advisory board is not written in stone in his mind.
  Although there is talk in the amendment of there being six members on the board appointed from the providers of technical services and six from the agencies which will use the powers under the Bill, there should be representation from the consumers of these services, not just the voluntary sector consumers but consumers generally. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on one of his earliest interjections. Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 will deal more directly with the important points that he raised.
  Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Stevenson I did not get involved in the Committee stage. I declare an interest as managing director of one of the larger ISPs in the UK and a
  278
  NASDAQ quoted company. In Committee the Minister mentioned that industry had been fully consulted on the implications of the Bill. I beg to differ. I have spoken to a number of colleagues who run similar large ISPs who are horrified at the potential consequences of the Bill. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it is essential that the Government gain the confidence of industry with regard to the Bill.
  Amendment No. 14 is concerned with technical requirements. My noble friend Lord Stevenson mentioned financial consequences. I mention also legal consequences. Every ISP has to provide clients with service level agreements. The installation of a "black box" has severe implications from a security angle which would affect the guarantees in service level agreements. I do not resist the Bill, but I totally support and endorse the amendment which would help to win the confidence of industry.
  Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I too urge the Government to accept the amendments that we are discussing. Rather than repeat the arguments that have already been made this evening and in Committee, I ask the Government to explain how they would envisage the measure working if the committee of experts is not in place. Given the pace of change of technology that a number of speakers mentioned in Committee, it seems to me inevitable that disputes will occur if the Minister simply imposes obligations on persons,
  "as it appears to him reasonable".
  On occasion companies will dispute that those obligations are reasonable. They will say that the obligations are technically impossible and that they cannot be delivered in the way that is envisaged. I believe that some mechanism will have to be put in place to resolve such disputes. Therefore, is it not far better for the Government to accept such a mechanism and a committee of experts in the first place?
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I have entered the discussion rather late and I am starting to realise the horrors that might be involved. As access to the Internet speeds up at an extremely rapid pace, if the black boxes do not keep up with that and cannot monitor the traffic fast enough, presumably the Government will either have to give up the idea, persuade people to spend a fortune on developing them, or not monitor the traffic.
  I may be able to develop a way round the black boxes. My main e-mail currently resides on a server probably based in Seattle as an American service provider provides my mail box. I assume that my communication goes straight across the Atlantic and is downloaded over there. That provider will not have a black box. If I get a cheap link from one of the telecoms providers to take me across the Atlantic for 3p a minute, presumably I can get round the black box by

  279
  linking into an American ISP over the telephone line. I would love to know whether that is possible as it would solve a lot of problems.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, some matters are beyond me and that is probably one of them.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I make the following point. I am well aware that we are on Report. The noble Lord cannot just dismiss the point made by the noble Earl. That matter is absolutely key; namely, that Internet traffic can be routed via overseas ISPs to evade cost, as well as regulatory and technical burdens. The noble Lord must address that issue.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall endeavour to do that. However, at this stage I wish to focus on the issues that have been raised in the debate and on some of the underlying issues. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, invited me to set out the Government's broader thinking, not least on issues of cost. I wish to discuss that before I turn to the amendments relating to the possible creation of a technical advisory board.
  In Committee, I was pressed to make a more general statement about the Government's intentions with regard to the implementation of Clauses 12 and 13. It is right that I should respond to that matter now. Our response is not to alter the legislation significantly. We do not believe that that would be appropriate in this case. However, we can and do intend to give a greater indication of our strategy in approaching the allocation of costs and the implementation of an intercept capability. I wish to tell the House what we have in mind.
  I start with Clauses 12 and 13 as currently drafted. The matter of the allocation of costs is dealt with in a Clause 12 order. I need to correct something for the record. The order itself will not deal with costs. However, the Secretary of State, in presenting the order to Parliament, will in practice have to explain the position on costs. This is partly because Parliament will expect that and partly because the Secretary of State will have to show that he has discharged his duty under Clause 13(3).
  As many have pointed out, Clauses 12 and 13 necessarily contain a great deal of flexibility. That is important in order to ensure that the provisions can apply to a range of technologies and over a number of years. For both those reasons—that technology is changing and that we wish this legislation to have a certain longevity—we need to retain flexible arrangements. Noble Lords will note that Clause 13 requires the Secretary of State to pay marginal costs. We have defined what we mean by this at various stages. On the question of other costs, Clause 13 allows a Secretary of State to pay all or none of the costs involved. We regard that flexibility as essential but it has none the less drawn some criticism. It is the uncertainty that that creates which I now seek to address.
  280
  I start with a resume of the current position in terms of an intercept requirement. We have set this out elsewhere. The communication service providers meet the cost of developing and maintaining the reasonable capability, identifying the relevant communication and delivering it to an agreed handover point within their network. The Government are responsible for meeting the cost of invoking an interception, transmission of the product from the handover point and any additional assistance beyond the reasonable capability.
  That is the current situation. However, the Government appreciate that the emergence of new technologies—significantly Internet protocol—brings new considerations to bear. In addressing these new considerations, the Government must also bear in mind the need to ensure equity across the entire industry in the new arrangements.
  The Government have estimated that costs to communication service providers not presently covered, but who will be covered under the Bill, will not exceed £20 million over three years. As is well known, that estimate was published in the regulatory impact assessment when the Bill was introduced in the other place in February.
  None of the research since that time has caused us to alter this view. We stand by that estimate. We are aware that alternative estimates exist—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made the point very capably that estimates have varied greatly—but we have not yet seen a reason to move from the £20 million estimate. Having said that, we do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on these complicated and difficult issues—we cannot—and we intend to ratchet up the level of our discussions with industry contacts to reflect that point. But we must go with the best estimate that we can make at this stage.
  We have given careful thought to the way to approach the requirement under Clause 12. It should be noted that Clause 12 requires the Government to return to Parliament with an order before Clause 12 can be implemented. This order would contain more details of the capability to be required and it would be accompanied by more indications on the allocation of costs. The time at which that order is brought before Parliament will depend upon the progress that the Government can make with industry on technical considerations. In advance of the appearance of that order, and to aid today's debate, I shall now outline our strategy.
  We start from the current position, which I outlined earlier, and I can move on to say that the Government will set aside an amount of money over three years, from April 2001 to 2004, to ease the introduction of the additional burden. We will set aside £20 million far that purpose.
  I should outline the approach that the Government will take on allocating the money. First, the Government expect to fund most of the development of the capability for the interception of traffic transmitted as Internet protocol and for the building of any necessary equipment. Some people have

  281
  estimated developmental costs at around £½ million; others have estimated that the costs will be higher. We shall work with industry colleagues on this development and, depending upon the extent to which the technology is genuinely different for interception or to which the technology is similar to that which the industry might itself need—for example, for record keeping or for audit purposes—the Government will pay either for the development of the capability or make a contribution. Part of the money we have set aside will be for this purpose and it will be the first draw on that money.
  The rest of the money would, exceptionally, be available to service providers who require help with the installation of a new intercept capability due to new technology. Primarily, we are thinking here of the integration of the Internet protocol interception capability. My first point is that most service providers will not be approached with a requirement to install a capability. There may be some planning and consideration costs for smaller companies, but we genuinely do not think that these will be significant for larger companies. Where installation requirements are significant in terms of the size of the company, the Government will make a contribution. We have said many times that we expect these companies to be small in number. That view continues to be the case. Once installed, the CSPs will be responsible for ensuring that the Internet protocol interception capability is updated to intercept new services they offer and changes within their network.
  I should at this stage divert to answer a couple of frequently asked questions. Some people assert that, as the coverage will not be universal, all that criminals will need to do is use a service provider that does not contain this capability. Others say that as the requirement will not be universal it will necessarily create inequities in the communications market. We reject both of those assertions.
  As to the first assertion—that criminals will simply use service providers that do not maintain a capability—we do not expect that criminals will know which service providers maintain a capability. A more significant point is that criminals have, one presumes, known for some time that it is possible to intercept telephones—but this does not stop them using telephones. It is also the case that, while all public telecommunications operators may be required to maintain a capability, only a small number are called upon to do so in practice—yet we have shared with this House many times the significant results from interception at present—£185 million-worth of drugs was seized in this way in 1998. Current successes are ones that the UK as a whole simply cannot afford to lose.
  As to the second point, that this will create inequities in the market, we reject this too. This will not be the case. The same criteria will be applied to all service providers regardless of the situation. The criteria will be; is this a new requirement on the service provider; how significant is the cost in terms of the overall size and turnover of the company?
  282
  In practice, we do not expect to approach the smallest companies in this way. However, the smaller the company, the greater proportion of its costs the Government will meet, up to and including the entire cost of installation. None the less, if considerations are appropriate, we believe that it may be possible to reimburse some of the larger companies for some of the costs of installing a capability to intercept traffic carried over Internet protocols.
  I should highlight one point: this money is all intended to be focused on the costs of developing, building and, in some cases, integrating the equipment for Internet protocol interception rather than on maintaining the capability. It would all be for the costs over the three years starting from next April. Once installed, and if the capability continued to be required, we would expect service providers to maintain and upgrade equipment; and, indeed, we would expect service providers to continue to maintain and upgrade equipment which already exists. I hope that that is an indication of how the Government expect to spend the money. We would approach the task by working with industry, with the intention of allocating the money only in respect of new requirements due to new technologies and loaded towards the smaller companies, although not exclusively for their benefit.
  Parliament can expect more detail on these issues to be set out in the order which must precede any requirement under Clause 12 of the Bill. The money will cover the period 2001 to 2004. We do not think that it is possible at this stage to give an indication of our intentions beyond 2004. Further technological considerations may well by then have affected the equation, a point made very ably by a number of noble Lords. But we undertake to monitor the experience of the system we will put in place and to review and consider the cost issues—and to return to Parliament if necessary—at the end of that three-year period.
  We believe that our practice continues to be consistent with international practice, and this is something that particularly we will keep an eye on over the next three-year period. For example, under the Telecommunications Act 1998 in Holland, Internet service providers are required, we understand, to pay the costs of providing the IP stream. This may prove more onerous than our regime in some circumstances.
  Secondly, we also believe that there are benefits for industry from the use of interception. This is partly because of the potential and social costs of the drugs menace. It has been estimated, for example, that 50 to 70 per cent of the estimated £1.5 billion a year spent on drugs is raised through acquisitive crime. Perhaps more directly, industry may well appreciate the savings in national security terms gleaned from interception. Significant terrorist bombings have caused huge and extensive damage to business, not least in the City. Interception is one of the key weapons in the armoury available to prevent such bombings happening again. Evidently there is a business interest as well as a wider society interest in ensuring sufficient interception capability.

  283
  Finally, our third argument is that to expect industry to pay at least a contribution towards these costs is a decision based on pure economics. Both government and industry should have an interest in minimising the costs involved. We do not believe this efficiency will best be achieved if industry has no financial stake in the matter.
  We accept that considerations of the new technologies, the diversification of communication service providers and the emergence of small companies bring new considerations with them. We do not expect that we will approach the smallest and newest companies with a requirement to install a capability. But we shall approach some companies and focus on the nature of the technology that they are operating and on the overall impact on their business plan that the expenditure will have before allocating an appropriate contribution—more details of which we expect to be available to accompany the draft order to be brought before Parliament.
  I hope that I have outlined our strategy with sufficient clarity. We shall make some money available; we expect it to cover the vast majority, if not all, of the costs incurred in the three-year period from 2001 when focusing on those companies which are installing an interception capability over IP and for which this expenditure would be significant. With the reassurance that these matters must return to Parliament in secondary legislation before they take effect, I ask that noble Lords will accept this indication of our strategy as sufficient reassurance as to our intentions in respect of the use of Clauses 12 and 13.
  I turn to the amendments on the technical advisory board. I am conscious that I have taken some time in making my earlier statement. I trust that noble Lords will continue to bear with me as I respond to the important points that have been made. It is fair to say that there is probably not a great deal of difference between the position of the mover of the amendment and that of the Government. The difference is probably more the means of achieving what is sought.
  The issue of a technical advisory or approvals board has been discussed at great length at all stages of the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. What has come through clearly, and I think very clearly in this debate, is how all sides agree on the importance of there being close dialogue between government and the industry on reaching agreement on what will constitute a reasonable intercept capability. Certainly, we have always stressed our commitment to that dialogue and we have all along maintained that it would make no sense to forge ahead without having industry alongside in tandem. I can see no virtue in that. We know that from our long experience of close co-operation with the public telecommunications operators which, most would agree, has worked very well over many years.
  I should like to assure noble Lords that the Government's expressed scepticism about the necessity of setting up such an advisory board on a statutory basis is not due to inertia or any form of "bloody-mindedness" on our part. Indeed, we have
  284
  given the matter very serious consideration since it was first proposed. Our most important consideration has always been that the industry itself expressed initial scepticism. Much of the advice we received from industry was that, if there was to be a body at all, it would favour a non-statutory advisory group, much along the lines of the arrangements which we already have in place with telecommunications operators. I can confidently say that industry has not been of one mind—this point has been acknowledged in the debate—on the proposal to set up a statutory body. Indeed, it still does not speak with one voice on the matter. I think that is a fact.
  British Telecom has informed us that it sees no good reason to change the existing arrangements, which have always worked perfectly well. That was its comment. The communications company, NTL, has also expressed to us its hostility to any changes to the current practice such as the noble Lord proposes in his amendment. Cable & Wireless has informed my officials of its view that the current structure works well and that it can see no benefit to be gained from making the changes suggested here. Only this morning, my—
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, might it riot be the case that these huge players have all the access they currently require for bending the ear of government?
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: No, my Lords, that is not the point. The point they are making is that the arrangements which they currently operate work perfectly well. The arrangements are perfectly acceptable to them. If noble Lords will hear with me, I shall continue and perhaps offer some further understanding of our position. My officials learned from Vodafone today that it is generally happy, as were the others, with the current arrangements and can see little advantage in instituting a statutory body. That is not to say that a voluntary set of arrangements would not be acceptable to all four of those major players.
  It is because of this lack of agreement within the communications service provider industry that, as a sensible compromise, we expressed our willingness to consider involving some kind of existing non-statutory group as an appropriate substitute for what is being proposed. That is in addition to all the procedures we have set out in the Bill to consult with industry and Parliament at each and every step.
  I trust that the House will permit me a few moments to remind noble Lords what these steps are. First, we stated on the face of the Bill that any requirements placed upon industry should be properly considered and reasonable. Secondly, we set out in the Bill clear consultative steps that needed to be taken before any notice was served on a communication service provider. The Bill itself is the first step in that consultation exercise. An order-making power to be approved in both Houses by the affirmative resolution

  285
  procedure is to be the second step. We have always maintained that we would consult industry before proceeding with this further legislation.
  The third step is to be the final notice, where we would discuss with each individual service provider what would be the most appropriate form of intercept capability to maintain. That is a detailed discussion with each service provider. It is a more than adequate consultation process between government and industry on what amounts to a reasonable intercept capability. A statutory board could become, as noble Lords recognise, a further bureaucratic layer and an unnecessary addition to what has already been provided for.
  As I have previously suggested, we have always worked with the view that consultations with industry, and resulting subsequent requirements to be placed on Internet service providers, would follow a similar process to that which already exists with the telecommunications industry. We are not asking anything here of Internet service providers that has not previously been asked, and continues to be asked to this day, of telecommunications service providers.
  There are genuine reasons for our opposition to the setting up of a statutory body. We think that those reasons still hold considerable weight, particularly when some very important parts of that industry expressed directly to us their opposition to a statutory body. I am not suggesting that there are fundamental disagreements on the way in which the Government should consult with industry. I am happy to say that all sides agree that there should be a standing body made up of industry and government representatives to advise the Secretary of State on these matters. There is little disagreement on what the body should do or on the need to set it up quickly so that it can have a meaningful input to any order made under Clause 12.
  The only major remaining question is the one which has been raised by virtue of the amendment: whether the body should be statutory or non-statutory. It is not a matter about which we need to become too exercised, but it is clearly one about which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, feels strongly. Indeed, other noble Lords have expressed their strength of view. It would be remiss of us in government not to recognise that very genuine concern. I can say that the Government will consider further whether an advisory body should be set up along the lines suggested by these amendments. I can give that firm commitment.
  However, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that we shall need to consult further with industry because of the sharp divergence of view that I have explained to the House, and particularly in the light of the fact that there is no universal support for a statutory body. I ask noble Lords to allow the Government to reflect further and to return at Third Reading with our considered position. In the event that the Government were to accept that, on balance, the best option was to have a statutory board, I suspect that lack of time would not allow us to do any more
  286
  than provide an order-making power. However, as I hope that I have made clear, we have not yet reached that position.
  Perhaps I may set out what I am saying to the House at the conclusion of the debate. We recognise the strength of view; we recognise that there is a clear divergence as to whether a non-statutory or a statutory body is the best way of moving forward. There is a shared view about what should be covered in such a board's considerations. That is where the common ground lies. That is the Government's position as we see it.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he will take the matter away and give it consideration. Will he also speak to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate? We have heard some immensely powerful speeches from noble Lords who think that they will be affected. Will the noble Lord come back to the House before Third Reading so that those of us who are interested will know what the position is?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am more than happy to continue that process of consultation with all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It is important that I do so in order that we can better formulate our thinking. We shall need to have further discussions, particularly with those companies that have offered us their view that they do not favour the statutory route. They may well require some persuasion. We shall reflect on their comments as well. But we shall consult in detail with the industry in its entirety because we believe that to be the right way forward. We have always made that plain.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in response to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the Minister said that he does not always understand these matters. From time to time we have all experienced that reaction. The noble Lord went on to discuss costs. We shall return to that subject later in our proceedings when we reach Amendment No. 18. Therefore, I shall not at this stage say much in detail on that matter. I simply reflect on the fact that the Government have not revised their estimate from £20 million even though others have estimated the cost involved in the first few years to be as high as £650 million. The figure of £20 million was the only hard thing about costs that the Minister had to say. He said a good many soothing words but each was covered by saving phrases such as "We will consider without commitment" and so on. Those kinds of saving phrases are insisted on at intervals by Her Majesty's Treasury, as some of us know only too well when we have been in the same position as the Minister trying to explain such matters away.
  I turn to the amendment itself, which deals with the question of the advisory board. The Minister rightly said that the matter had been discussed a great deal, not only in our previous debates at Second Reading and in Committee but also at various stages of the Bill's passage through another place. Yet, at the Report stage in this House, the Minister is saying,

  287
  "Give us time to reflect further on this matter. We need to think about it. We will consider whether there should be a statutory board or a non-statutory board". We do not know whether there will be a board of this character, although, from the general flavour of the noble Lord's remarks, we seem to have dragged the Government a good deal further towards that idea over the course of these debates.
  The Minister mentioned some large telephone operators which were not in favour of a statutory board. With respect, I mentioned large numbers of ISPs and those directly involved. They are very much in favour and have confirmed that to me in the past few days. The Government's attitude seems to be, "Just hang on. We will fob you off one more time". I do not feel that that is sufficient. I feel that we should ensure that the Minister and the Government consider this issue carefully by pressing the amendment.
  6.52 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 130.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Elton, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Erroll, E.

  Astor, V.

  Falkland, V.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Flather, B.

  Barker, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Blackwell, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Freeman, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Greenway, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Byford, B.

  Hanham, B.

  Caithness, E.

  Hanson, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Henley, L.

  Coe, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Craigavon, V.

  Howe, E.

  Crathorne, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Inglewood, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Kimball, L.Kingsland, L.

  Denham, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  288

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

  Lawson of Blaby, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Rennard, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Renton, L.

  Luke, L. [Teller]

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

  Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Roper, L.

  McNally, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Russell, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Monson, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L

  Selsdon, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Newby, L.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Stevenson of Coddenham, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Northover, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Taverne, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Tordoff, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Waddington, L.

  Patten, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Peel, E.

  Walmsley, B.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Walpole, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Plumb, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Alli, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Amos, B.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Gavron, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Bach, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Billingham, B.

  Grabiner, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Blease, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Brett, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Carter, L.[Teller]

  Hayman, B.

  Christopher, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  David, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Desai, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Elder, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  289

  Laird, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Layard, L.

  Richard, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Serota, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Sewel, L.

  Simon, V.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Warner, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Winston, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Rea, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  7.3 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 14, line 35, at end insert—
  ("( ) the Technical Advisory Board,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 15, line 3, at end insert ("; and
  (c) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of any functions in relation to this Chapter of the Interception of Communications Commissioner;
  but before determining for the purposes of the making of any order, or the imposition of any obligation, under this section what arrangements he considers necessary for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (c) the Secretary of State shall consult that Commissioner").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I should like to move Amendment No. 16. During the Committee's deliberations on the Bill, we gave a commitment to consider how best to ensure that the interception commissioner and his staff are able effectively to scrutinise any interception equipment designed and maintained in obedience to a notice served under Clause 12. Amendment No. 16 is designed to deliver on that commitment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, spoke to Amendment No. 50A during the debate in Committee, an amendment which would have enabled notices to specify what should be done to provide the commissioner with reliable and verifiable technical means of fulfilling his duties. I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that this amendment goes wider than that.
  First, it may apply to both orders and notices made under Clause 12. Secondly, it does not restrict the additional material they may contain only to ensuring reliability and verifiability: it enables them to deal with any matter which may facilitate the carrying out of the commissioner's duties. I hope that the amendment will be welcomed by the noble Lord and by all sides of the House. I beg to move.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, speaking on my own part, I am entirely content with the way in which the Government have dealt with this issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 17:
  After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—

  TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD
  (". There shall be a Technical Advisory Board consisting of—

  (a) up to six members appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons affected by section 12 of this Act, and

  (b) up to six members appointed by the Secretary of State representative of persons specified in section 6(2).").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Grants for interception costs]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 15, line 12, leave out ("may, if he thinks fit,") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. These are simple amendments to Clause 13, in which the Secretary of State is empowered to make payments. In two places we wish to replace the word "may" with "shall" and the word "appropriate" with "fair".
  In Committee we had what was for some noble Lords a somewhat misleading debate on this matter. The Minister was trying to be as helpful as possible, but, when referring to Clauses 12 and 13, he said that he,
  "could offer some assurance to Members of the Committee that the allocation of costs would be addressed very clearly in that order".— [Official Report, 19/6/00; col. 59.]
  He was referring specifically to the order to be made under Clause 12. He went on to say, most helpfully, that he would consult in detail on how it would work and that he would bring forward the relevant legislation.
  However, when one looks at the provision covering the order in Clause 12, it does not in fact refer to costs at all. Subsection (1) refers only to obligations and says nothing about costs. When discussing the order, the Minister confirmed that the Secretary of State would have to have regard to subsection (3) of Clause 13. That is perfectly correct, but the order will refer only to obligations. It will not refer to costs incurred by the industry. The Minister said only that when the Secretary of State brings forward the order he will have to refer to costs. However, that is all that he will have

  291
  to do: he will need to talk about costs, but they will not form a part of the order. We feel it is important that Clause 13 is strengthened to take account of that.
  The Minister has already put the Government's view on costs in our previous debate, which was helpful. I shall comment on it only briefly. The Minister said that not all ISPs will have black boxes. Although that may be true, one of the difficulties we face is that the Government seem not yet to know which ISPs will have black boxes and which will not. It is certainly the case that the industry does not have a clue. Indeed, the industry does not even understand how this is going to work unless a universal system is put in place. If that is not done, businesses will simply bypass the system.
  We know, after holding discussions with ISPs, that they employ different systems; some are linked, some are compatible and some are not compatible. This area is different from that of telephone systems and exchanges which for a long time have contained equipment for interception. However, it has always been possible to fit such equipment at source; namely, at the exchange. The same does not apply to the Internet industry.
  Internet service providers are diverse. Some companies are large while others are quite small. The Minister stated that, in the case of small ISPs, the Government would try to be more generous. However, while we acknowledge those kind words, we must return to the point that we have only the Government's own estimate of costs at £20 million spread over three years. That estimate has not been in any way agreed by the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, who is the chairman of a large company involved in this technology, remarked that, "Nobody knows what it will cost". I think he is right. It is all well and good for the Government to declare that £20 million will be made available over three years, but one knows exactly how government systems work. The money will run out after the first year. A company will come along after that and be told by the Government, "We are very sorry. This is what we promised and we cannot go back to the Treasury".
  We know that costs will be incurred by the industry to maintain and upgrade the equipment. Clause 13 contains no "right of appeal" against those costs unless one opts for judicial review. Noble Lords know how expensive and time-consuming is that process. The powers contained in Clause 13 have been described by some as a form of "Internet tax". The Government might consider that a little unfair, but that is how the provisions are perceived.
  If we are to satisfy some of the concerns expressed by the industry, we must look again at Clause 13 where it states:
  "The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, make such payments".
  That is too wide. The industry must know that the Secretary of State will do it. Noble Lords will be aware that, with the best of intentions, Ministers express an intention. However, it is only an intention—not
  292
  something that is to be found in primary legislation. Therefore, the amendments to which I have spoken are necessary for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I support entirely the words of the noble Viscount. These amendments are absolutely minimalist. To contend with the immense underlying unease about the sharing of cost, if it be shared, these amendments could not be more modest. If the Government are not prepared to accept these amendments, we shall be on a collision course, not least because there is no requirement under the clause to lay any kind of order. In any event, the amendments do not impose on the Secretary or State any specific requirement but merely tighten up to a significant, but not excessive, degree the objectivity of the judgment that he or she must bring to bear in deciding what grants to make under the clause.
  I shall be grateful if in his response the Minister can confirm my impression that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a few minutes ago were intended to reassure the House that the recommendations of the Smith report with regard to these wonderful black boxes—namely, that the Government would pay for the design and software development—have been taken on board by the Government. The noble Lord did not make specific reference to that, and I should be grateful if he would deal with the matter in his response. Plainly, that is germane to the burden which business may be called on to shoulder.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that paying for the initial development of the software and so on is one thing? The Minister was not even specific about that because his comments were hedged about with all kinds of subsections. The Minister said specifically that the Government would not pay for the upgrades at all. In times of rapidly changing technology, upgrades can in some cases be the expensive bit.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am delighted to confirm entirely what the noble Lord says. That is another reason why these minimalist amendments should be accepted without demur.
  7.15 p.m.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that if the Government are not prepared to accept these amendments we shall have real difficulties. These amendments still provide considerable scope for interpretation. The word "fair" cannot be pinned down and defined very well. If the Minister uses that as his only defence, I suggest that it is a self-defeating argument which will encourage my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench to return with much stronger amendments than the ones we are considering tonight.
  I welcome the initiative of the Government in trying to inject additional clarity into their approach to funding the equipment, the running costs and the whole process of interception. It was helpful that the

  293
  noble Lord came before the House and said what he did. It was very strange that at previous stages of the Bill the Minister was unable to make any comment on the Government's approach to funding. However, by putting forward the figure of £20 million he has set more hares running than he has managed to corral. As we have heard around the Chamber at this and previous stages of the Bill, there are greatly differing estimates of the cost of installing the interception equipment. The figure of £20 million may be a very small percentage of the overall cost and put the burden fairly and squarely on the operators. Like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and my noble friend Lord Cope, I find it difficult to square that with the Government's more generic statements about their approach.
  I am at a loss to understand the noble Lord's argument about the number of ISPs to which these provisions will apply. The noble Lord approaches the matter in a vague manner and makes the generic statement that we should not worry because it will involve only a few, without saying which ones it is likely to be. He says that perhaps it is just a sample. I do not see how the Minister can make such vague statements and yet come up with a specific funding proposal of £20 million. If the provision is to apply to only a small percentage of ISPs, £20 million may or may not represent a significant percentage of the cost. The provision may apply to many more ISPs than the noble Lord indicates. The Minister puts forward no evidence at all to justify his stab (if I may so describe it) at the number of ISPs which will be required to install the equipment. We are groping in the dark. The noble Lord simply lights a very small candle and tells us not to worry because it will show us the way. My noble friend's amendments are modest. The amendments inject a greater degree of clarity about the burden on the Secretary of State and I wholeheartedly support them.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made a very good point in his speech on the previous group of amendments. He said that it was important that both the ISPs and the Government shared the financial responsibility for the decisions that would be taken. I believe that that is what we should try to achieve. Clearly, the ISPs must bear part of the cost. They have considerable ability to keep down the costs and need an incentive to do so. Anyway, if they did not have to contribute, they would merely trot off to any good defence contractor and find out how to turn costs into high profits. It is entirely right that the ISPs should make a fair contribution.
  Similarly, the Government must be bound by financial responsibility and should not be able to cast unquantifiable costs on to the ISPs and bear none of it themselves. If the cost turns out to be £300 million, the Government must go for budgetary approval for a sum that bears a proper relationship to that cost. A sensible proportion that comes to mind is half. Therefore, if it is worth £150 million to the Government, perhaps they are right to ask for a similar
  294
  contribution from ISPs. The present wording of the Bill does not do that. Under Clause 13, the Secretary of State has get-out after get-out after get-out. The first amendment merely removes one of those get-outs and leaves him with a pretty full set of flexibilities. The word "appropriate" is incapable of judgment, except that it is quite clear that it can be biased far more in the Secretary of State's favour than is appropriate. We should, therefore, insert a word such as "equitable" or "fair" which implies something closer to 50:50. The Bill would then be exactly in line with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, expressed himself in his previous speech, which surely can be no bad thing.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I simply ask: how can the Government quantify these costs when they cannot define the scope of the Bill, as we have already heard in debate this evening and, I am sure, also in Committee? It is not clear to what extent the provisions are to be applied and how they will work, given the fact that a great many service providers and operations are located, at least partially, overseas. One thinks of the simple operation of transferring information and messages from local files to remote sites through the appropriate transfer protocol. In many cases that is done through remote sites which are deliberately not sited in the UK either because the technology has originated in America or because of low cost high quality provision elsewhere. India, for example, already provides remote site storage for a vast range of information and collects e-mails and website transfers through the necessary protocols on a colossal scale. Where will it come into the equation? What part of its operation will be addressed by this Bill? What costs will it have to pay?
  Unless we can begin to answer these questions the debate about costs is in the area of fantasy. I do not see how this House, let alone the general public or industry, can be asked to plunge ahead with legislative provisions which are so stratospherically vague and unrelated to any definition of scope which could seriously give us a basis on which to compute the cost of this operation.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, I make one further appeal to the Minister. I thought my appeal made during the previous debate had almost succeeded. The Minister teetered on the edge of making a sensible decision, but then he was dragged back, presumably by the Treasury. Looking from the outside, the words "shall" instead of
  "may, if he thinks fit"
  and "a fair" rather than "an appropriate" to the reasonable person appear to be addressing the word "confidence" as regards industry. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that the Government stick grimly to the figure of £20 million. They hysterically rubbish any larger figure and in the process cause deep consternation in industry. I want to see this Bill finish up in good shape. These are not destructive

  295
  amendments in any way, but make the Bill much better and they will raise much greater confidence in industry.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this debate is a reflection on the previous one and the comments that I made about costs. I accept that that is right. I made a statement on government policy and the way in which we believe we should develop our thinking in this area. The issue of costs revolves in part around a sense of trust. Perhaps it is because there has been a hyping of the debate that a view is emerging in some quarters that £20 million will be far too small a sum of money to cover the set up costs which we have made plain we shall cover. We do not see the exercise as being as extensive as some have imagined. It is that imagining that troubles me most in this debate.
  I shall go over some of the points that have been made during the course of this discussion as briefly as I can. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me to correct something that was said during Committee stage. I gave that correction during an earlier debate, but I am not sure whether the noble Viscount picked it up. If it helps the House I shall repeat it for the record. It concerns the allocation of costs and how they will be dealt with in Clause 12.
  I said that the order itself will not deal with costs, but the Secretary of State, in presenting the order to Parliament, will in practice have to explain the position on costs. That is partly because Parliament will expect it and partly because the Secretary of State will have to show that he has this duty under Clause 13(3). That is the correction. I wanted to put the matter right. I believe that the noble Viscount raised the matter with officials. He was right and I was wrong in what I said in Committee. I apologise to the House for that. It was not a deliberate error on my part and neither was I seeking to mislead. It was simply an error. It is only right that we put it on the record and get the matter corrected.
  I turn to the amendments. There is good and bad news here. I am sure that the noble Viscount will be pleased to hear that we are happy to accept the suggested substitution of the word "fair" for the word "appropriate", as drafted. We have always said that we would he willing to look at this in a positive light, as we do at all times, in order to try to improve the Bill. Our initial view was that fairness could have been a factor to take into account in any event if one has the appropriate test to comply with. Nevertheless, if the Secretary of State is to make a payment we are happy to agree that he cannot make one that is less or more than a reasonable Secretary of State would consider to be fair.
  Furthermore, Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 will ensure that the payments made to one operator are fair in relation to the payments he is making, or proposing to make, to other operators for an equivalent service. We are happy to accept Amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
  296
  I am sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount as regards Amendment No. 18, which requires that the Secretary of State "shall" make payments to communication service providers rather than "may". As regards Clause 12, we discussed at some length the issue of costs which may be incurred by industry and how the Government intend to alleviate them. I do not wish to detain the House by repeating that debate except to say that we have given our commitment to provide the sum of £20 million over the next three years to help Internet service providers who are required to maintain such a capability.
  Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have previously amended the Bill to set out explicitly our commitment to pay the marginal costs incurred by communications service providers as regards processing each interception warrant. These marginal costs include the cost of providing staff, the overheads incurred and also the cost of transporting the intercept product to the intercepting agency. All these costs are currently, and will continue to be, met by the Government in addition to the extra £20 million to which I have just referred. I do not accept that it is now necessary to go any further than the commitments which have been given. I trust that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 18.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his agreement to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. I am also grateful for what he said about the order-making power in Clause 12, which, as I believe we now both agree, will not refer to costs, but that at the time the Secretary of State will explain it. That is helpful, but it makes it more important that we get Clause 13 right.
  The Minister gave his commitment to £20 million and I accept that. But it is his commitment, and not one which is in the Bill. It is something separate. If the noble Lord accepts Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 the effect will be that the Secretary of State may, if he sees fit, make a payment and if he does so it has to be fair. It is not said that the Minister has to accept it because unless we include the word "shall" he does not have to make the payment at all.
  The Minister said that the Bill revolves around trust. I accept that and that the Minister is an honourable person. But tonight we are not debating trust; we are debating legislation. What matters is passing good legislation in this House. I accept the Government's assurances, but we need to make sure that the legislation we pass in this House is correct. On that basis I accept the noble Lord's generous offer on Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, but I shall have to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 18.
  7.28 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 119.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Astor, V.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Liverpool, E.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Barker, B.

  Luke, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Biffen, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Blaker, L.

  McNally, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Newby, L.

  Byford, B.

  Newton of Braintree, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Noakes, B.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Northover, B.

  Coe, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B,

  Craigavon, V.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Crathorne, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Denham, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Elton, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Rees, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Rennard, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Renton, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Roper, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Goschen, V.

  Seccombe, B.

  Greaves, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Hanson, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Taverne, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Trefgarne, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Inglewood, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Jacobs, L.

  Young, B.

  298

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Alli, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Amos, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bach, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Layard, L.

  Blease, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brett, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Burlison, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Chandos, V.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Christopher, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Molloy, L.

  David, B.

  Morgan, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Desai, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Elder, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Rea, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Richard, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Gale, B.

  Sewel, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Simon, V.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Warner, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Hollick, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  7.38 p.m.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.

  299
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed.

Millennium Dome
7.40 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up a committee of inquiry into the financing and operation of the Millennium Dome.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this short debate suggesting that the Government should set up a public inquiry into the operation and finances of the Millennium Dome. In doing so, I am supporting the Government's own supporters in the House of Commons. Forty-six Labour MPs have signed a Motion calling for a public judicial inquiry. Of course I know that Sir John Bourn of the National Audit Office is holding an inquiry, but only into the last loan made to the Millennium Dome. That inquiry will not be in public and will be restricted in scope.
The case for an inquiry is simple. The original budget was the astonishing figure of £758 million. But more than £600 million of public money from the lottery has been spent, which is considerably more than forecast. Where has all that money gone? As the Motion tabled by the Labour Members of Parliament recognises, £758 million in a public/private partnership could have been spent on many different things. The same sum of money could have bought 10 new hospitals; paid the salaries of 50,000 new nurses for a year; bought 35,000 kidney machines; or built four Royal Opera Houses.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is widely liked and respected in this House and it would be wrong to blame him for all that has gone wrong in the project. We know who is to blame—or if we did not know, we were informed in the Sunday Express on 26th May, when it was reported that no less than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a way to which we have grown used under this Government, blamed Peter Mandelson and his vanity and obsession about following in the footsteps of his grandfather. When Mr Mandelson experienced his Luciferian fall from grace, it was possibly the luckiest thing that every happened to him. But it was bad luck on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who stands before us tonight as the sole shareholder.
I have of course visited the Dome and I have to say that I was impressed at least by the beauty, scale and sweep of the building designed by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers. I admired it. As regards the inside, I kept remembering the Prime Minister's words:
"In this Experience I want people to pause and reflect on this moment, about the possibilities ahead of us, about the values that guide our society … It will be an event to lift horizons. It will be a catalyst to imagine our futures".
What was he thinking of? Was he thinking of the sign stating "Money this Way"; or was he thinking of the educational value of asking people to vote on whether
300
the Prince of Wales should marry Camilla Parker-Bowles; or to vote on whether the future will be better than the past? The audio visual gimcrackery was not much above the level of Skegness 20 or 30 years ago.
The silliest remark ever made by the Prime Minister was that Britain is a young country. You can say many things about Britain—that it is an enterprising, innovative, forward-looking country—but the one thing you cannot say is that it is a young country. But in the Dome, Britain had to be rebranded so there is nothing in it that is historical. There is no English language zone about the contribution of the English language to civilisation. There is nothing about the great figures of English history. There is nothing about the fact that Britain invented almost all sports in the world other than basketball. New Labour wanted a monument to themselves and, disastrously, they have succeeded.
No amount of assertions by the noble and learned Lord that the Dome attracts more visitors than any other paying attraction in this country can disguise the fact that it has been a financial disaster. The noble and learned Lord's formulation is, with respect, rather facile as more and more non-paying visitors are being invited in school parties to the Dome, so that he can stand up in this House and say that more and more visitors are going there. It has almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Dome ought to have more visitors than any other paying attraction after £538 million of public money has been injected into it. The main point is that the budgets have been hopelessly wrong, visitor numbers have been miles below the original estimates, and the project has been bailed out three times by the Millennium Commission. But to the Government it remains a tremendous success.
The new chief executive, Mr Gerbeau, in an interview in the Sunday Telegraph last weekend, said that he was told by the Government when he took over that the Dome was on budget. Two months later, according to the report, he discovered that it was £26 million adrift. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
The Government continue to assert that everything is fine, but it is not. Chris Smith, acting not as Minister but as chairman of the Millennium Commission, had to give a direction to the commission's accounting officer, Mr Mike O'Connor, on the last loan of £29 million. The Secretary of State, in a letter dated 26th May, stated:
"When such a direction is made, it is reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General".
Mr O'Connor, the director of the Millennium Commission, made it clear that in his opinion the £29 million did not represent value for money.
That was the very same Mike O'Connor who, in an interview in Sunday Business on 26th December last year, with great foresight said:
"If I thought something was poor value for money or imprudent I'd ask for a direction in writing … and take that to the Audit Office … This is rarely done … and it is our way of saying something is wrong".
"Something is wrong" are the magic words that have not been uttered. It would be much appreciated if tonight we could face up to the difficulties.
Will the Minister answer the question which he was repeatedly asked by the Select Committee this afternoon: will the last loan of £29 million mean that the New Opportunities Fund for education, environment and health projects will have £29 million less when it takes over the Millennium Commission's money?
What we would like to hear in the Minister's reply is realism about the project. On 12th January this year, I asked the Minister to confirm that the daily average of visitors to the Dome was around 10,000, reaching only 20,000 to 25,000 at the weekend, and was way below the target figures. At the time, he declined to confirm my figures and replied that,
"The operational level of numbers coming in is entirely satisfactory for January".—[Official Report, 12/1/00; col. 626.]
"Entirely satisfactory"? Only three weeks later, it was announced that the Millennium Dome needed to borrow yet another £60 million from the Millennium Commission, of which £32 million was released immediately. If everything was "entirely satisfactory", why was that loan necessary on top of the £50 million already extended because of the poor advance ticket sales?
As it turned out, the figure for January was extremely bad; 344,620 paying visitors. On an annual basis, that would have meant 4 million visitors instead of the 10 million to 12 million expected. The average number of paying visitors a day in January was about 11,000, which was well below the target of 27,000. That was January and of course it was difficult; it was early. However, my point relates to the lack of realism in replying to the question.
The Dome must be judged not by whether it is the most popular destination but whether it achieves the targets which have been set for it. The more the Government repeat that it is a great success, the stronger the case for an inquiry. It simply is not true that it is a great success. People are entitled to know why successive business plans have not been met.
I have given the Minister notice of specific questions that I would like him to answer. First, the simple question is: what, on reflection, does he think went wrong? Secondly, the commercial income is obviously much lower with only 6 million visitors now expected instead of 12 million. Is that gap in commercial income fully covered by the loans that have already been made from the Millennium Commission? Will the Minister guarantee that the loans made will be repaid and that there will be no further loans? Will he guarantee that there will be no further finance put in by the back door? In particular, will he guarantee that the money which would have gone to English Partnerships to regenerate urban wastelands will not be used to subsidise the Dome? A Minister was quoted as saying:
"The voters have never heard of English Partnerships. They don't care two hoots if it doesn't get the money".
That was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend. If that did happen, that would be using taxpayers' money by the back door.
The Millennium Dome should have been a great inspiration. The Great Exhibition of 1851 was a remarkable celebration of Britain's creativity, of the greatness of the arts, and of manufacturing and commerce in this country. No comparison between the Great Exhibition and the Millennium Dome is possible because no comparison would be appropriate. Sadly, the epitaph on the Millennium Dome will be the words of the Deputy Prime Minister:
"If we can't make this work, we're not much of a Government".
We shall be interested to see whether the Minister can seriously maintain that this project is working.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue this evening. It is not a new issue for discussion in this House. However, in the context of his speech, I was interested to listen to what he said. One would not dream that the Administration of which he was at one time a Minister was the initiator of the Dome and of what happened on the peninsula.
I believe that it is wrong to take the Dome in isolation. One must consider that the whole peninsula on which it was built was polluted. Certainly, private sector funding alone would never have cleaned it up. The noble Lord said that he has visited the Dome. I wonder whether he went to the peninsula before any of the development took place. Now it has jobs and the Jubilee Line. I believe that it is questionable whether the nine stations on that line would ever have been built without the initiative of the Dome.
I declare an interest as chairman of a housing corporation. I am interested in housing in London, and London in particular has a serious problem with regard to affordability. There will be 3,000 mixed tenure houses on the peninsula, 1,400 of them in the Millennium Village and 20 per cent of them affordable houses for people in London who need homes. I believe that if one considers the jobs, the houses that have been built and the regeneration that has taken place, the whole project sits very comfortably with any kind of economic assessment.
However, the noble Lord is right when he talks about examining the taxpayers' money that has been spent. All noble Lords in this House, of whatever party or whether they are Cross-Benchers, must support accountability and questioning where public money has been spent. More than 1,000 questions on the Dome have been asked in both Houses. There have been five Select Committee appearances with regard to the Dome—that is, before independent committees in the other place. There have been three debates in this House and, I believe, two debates in the other place. The Houses of Parliament is where questioning of Ministers should take place. However, in my view, on this issue alone the level of questioning has almost reached overkill.

303
The noble Lord began by speaking specifically about a public inquiry into the issue. I should have been more convinced about the sincerity of a commitment to a public inquiry as the right way to achieve public accountability if the track record of the previous Administration had been better. There was no public inquiry into the "Marchioness" disaster, which had far more impact on the people of London and this nation than has the Dome in money terms. There was no public inquiry into the BSE scandal, and we are still paying for that in terms of money, of jobs and, indeed, of people losing their homes. There was no public inquiry—indeed, no inquiry of any note—into the Stephen Lawrence murder in London.
I question strongly whether there is a need for an inquiry into a matter on which Parliament—the elected body and, indeed, this place as a second Chamber—continually has placed Ministers under questioning on how the money has been spent.
The noble Lord was right to refer to the Select Committee which sat this morning. The Minister on the Front Bench this evening appeared before that committee, and that is the right way in which to deal with this matter. Politically, it may be easy to argue for an inquiry because it may attract much criticism of the present Administration. However, I believe that in the pecking order of priorities of people in the country, this matter is not a priority. The questions have been asked, the inquiries have taken place and Ministers have answered, as they should do. They should be accountable and I hope that they will continue to be accountable over this issue in the right and proper way.
When all is said and done, nothing but positive news has come from the peninsula. It has been good for London and it has certainly been good for Britain. Last week I was privileged to attend the 4th July party at the American Ambassador's house. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, may have been there, too. If he was, I wonder whether he read the brochure that we were given. The inside of the front page of that brochure opened with the words—I paraphrase:
"We are delighted to he associated with the Millennium Dome".
There were very positive words about the Dome. Certainly they were very positive so far as concerns Britain's position in international tourism and our standing in the international scene.
However, that is simply a side benefit. The real benefits to be derived are the jobs, people's homes and the regeneration. The Dome is a lasting monument to the Millennium. I utterly reject the need for a public inquiry into the matter. I hope that the Minister will do the same, because the inquiry has been taking place continually and no doubt will continue to take place.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for initiating this debate, if only to allow us to get some views about the Dome off our chests this evening.
304
I passed a church in Stockwell yesterday which had a big sign outside to which I felt that I could relate. It said:
"God knows all about you but He still loves you".
I believed that that would form an apt basis for my few words tonight about the Dome.
I know all about the Dome —or, at least, a great deal—but I still believe in it. Few public projects have come under such great scrutiny. The Channel 4 programme, for example, on the creation of the Dome and its zones was riveting. We have no shortage of figures on the Dome. I have a pile of press cuttings and, indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, made clear, 1,000 questions on this subject have been asked in the recent past, and we know what the Lottery money paid for.
As PY Gerbeau pointed out from his continental perspective, the Dome is the ultimate political football. Political passions have been permanently on the boil and often at variance within each party, not least in my own party. One would believe that this was as important an historical issue as whether we supported the Boer War or Suez.
Yet the irony is that it had strong all-party backing from prominent individuals at the time of its inception. Michael Heseltine in particular, to his credit, on the Tory side was one of the begetters of the Dome. Of course, there have been mistakes. Perhaps the greatest were: giving free tickets or discount packages to the core target audience of children of school age, whose parents happily would have paid; the New Year's Eve arrangements clearly stick in the minds of newspaper editors and prominent television executives; and the marketing budget allocated was probably insufficient at the time. Perhaps there should have been a guiding creative spirit or ringmaster, but that in itself is a very high risk.
However, a huge number of things about the Dome went right, not least completing the Jubilee Line on time, which the pessimists doubted would happen. A record amount of sponsorship was achieved in teeth of considerable scepticism. Above all, the Dome and its contents were completed on time.
This speech is not delivered with 20/20 hindsight in any form. I have backed the Dome as a concept from its inception and I believe that the benefits that it has brought far outweigh the drawbacks. I have lived in London all my working life and the one thing about which I am quite passionate as a politician is the regeneration of our inner city. In that respect the Dome has been a triumph in bringing major benefits in terms of new transport links, land reclamation and employment.
However, the Dome is also a triumph as an experience. When I visited it last summer, I was impressed by the work in progress and I was even more impressed when I went back this spring with my family. I was fortunate in being the guest of a sponsor, but I do not believe that my judgment or that of my family would have been any different had I been a paying visitor. I am in good company. Some 85 per cent of visitors surveyed said something similar.

305
PY Gerbeau yesterday challenged the public not to be put off by the adverse publicity and to see for themselves. I recommend that course of action. In a three-hour visit, my family and I saw the main show and the body, journey, work and learning zones. All were stimulating and great fun. The eating facilities were excellent and the architecture of the Dome was magnificent. The management of the queues was excellent, too.
I disagree with the distinguished architect, the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, who says that there is an element of dumbing down. The Tate Modern is an entirely different enterprise. The Dome has a serious underlying educational purpose that it achieves superbly. I look forward to going again soon. My message to those who have not been is to get there before the end of the year or they will regret it.
For those reasons and others, I fully support the injection of an additional £29 million grant from the Millennium Commission. It would have been folly to allow the Dome to fail. That could have led to the need to dispose of it at a knock-down price, had a major effect on the economy of south-east London and, above all, deprived 4 million people of the chance to experience the Dome. Massive compensation would have had to be paid to sponsors and others. It was far better to ensure that the Dome remained in operation in its current form until the end of the year and then have an orderly handover to whoever wins the right to take over.
It is unnecessary to call for an inquiry when the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is already conducting one and an inquiry has been initiated by Sir John Bourn and the National Audit Office into the finances of the Dome. How many inquiries do we need? That does not mean that the Minister should not answer a number of questions on the Dome. Indeed, a search of parliamentary Questions reveals that he has probably been doing little else since the beginning of the year.
There were many unforeseeable aspects of the Dome. That is showbusiness. Ask Sir Cameron Mackintosh or Harvey Goldsmith. Even the most brilliant impresario cannot guarantee that the public will file through the door. As the New Millennium Experience Company is at pains to point out, the Dome is still the attraction with the biggest paying audience in the country, with 3·2 million people having visited to date. It is second only to Disneyland Paris in Europe. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that those are figures to be easily disparaged. The course on which the Dome now seems to be set is welcome and the undertakings that have been made not to go back to the Millennium Commission for more money and to put into effect £24 million of cost reductions are wholly welcome.
My favourite comment from a visitor to the Dome was that those who did not enjoy it needed to check their pulse. It may be that in the debate on the Dome we all need to check our pulse. There has been an attempt to turn disappointment and some ill luck in to
306
a scandal. It is no such thing. There may be disagreement on whether the money should have been spent in the first place, but that is an entirely different matter. I suspect that when we look back, some commentators and politicians will be seen to have become rather over-excited about the Dome. I wish the Dome and its new management well.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I shall speak in a similar vein. When the Government came to power and picked up the plans from their predecessors, I had no strong feelings for or against the project. The Government decided to go with it, so I felt that it was right that we should seek to make a success of it once we had made that decision.
There have been problems, as we are only too well aware. The number of visitors has disappointingly fallen short of the original targets, but there are some reasonable explanations for that. It is fascinating that we have an 85 per cent satisfaction level among those who have been, yet adverse publicity continues to deter others from going. That is the kind of issue that we should inquire into.
I was not surprised that the Dome ran into problems with public relations and media response. My wife was never in favour of the Dome—she felt that we should have been building hospitals instead—but she was aghast to see some of the media coverage during November and December last year, before it opened. I particularly recall "Watchdog" on BBC1 spending about 20 minutes attacking the Dome, claiming that people would have problems getting there because the Jubilee Line would not be finished on time and raising a host of other issues. Even though she was opposed to the project, my wife felt that that programme would significantly reduce the likelihood of the people who watched it going to the Dome.
I congratulate the Minister on the work that he has done in difficult circumstances. The Government are to be congratulated on delivering the Jubilee Line on time. I agree that without the Dome we would probably still be overspending on that project and it might well still not be completed. The overspend on the Jubilee Line is phenomenally higher than any overspend on the Dome. If we are going to have an inquiry into something that has been really expensive, I suggest that we look at the Jubilee Line well before we come to the Dome.
I also congratulate the Government on the regeneration that has been effected in the region, particularly the number of jobs that have been created. I particularly congratulate them on finishing the Dome on time. That was a marvellous achievement, given the relatively short time in which they had to work.
There have been problems from the beginning, but the events of New Year's Eve were the real killer. Many of our influential opinion formers suffered the indignity of having to queue—an unforgivable thing to require them to do—for two hours before they were

307
able to get in. That sealed the Dome's fate when it came to publicity in the media. If we are to have an inquiry, I would welcome one on how a relatively small number of people—who are in many respects unaccountable—can so influence the course of events, primarily through our highly competitive populist media. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, knows from his personal experiences that when the media set their minds on a particular target, they do not let go until they have delivered.
We are not going to have an inquiry. Given all the inquiries that have already been undertaken into the Dome, there is no case for another. We have not had public inquiries in the past on issues that have cost this country phenomenal amounts of money. How much did the poll tax and all the policies that went with it cost this country? What about Black Wednesday in 1992, when we had to withdraw from the exchange rate mechanism? How much did that cost? How much gold did we sell on that day? We had no inquiry and we will never know. The same is true of BSE.
There have been exhaustive inquiries on the Dome from a range of standpoints. Enough has been done. We should be seeking to encourage more people to go there and raise the visitor numbers. Happily, during the past few weeks the numbers going to the Dome have gone up significantly. If there is a fall-off in the autumn, I suggest that we might see what would have happened if the Dome had been open free of charge, in the same way as the Tate Modern is. Perhaps we could open it free of charge in November and December and see what the response is. We could learn some lessons from that. The French have not charged people for a variety of attractions to celebrate the millennium. There is often a case to be made for public service enterprises being offered for free. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will respond to that.
I repeat: no further inquiry, thank you very much indeed.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I am grateful to my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for giving us an occasion to debate the Dome once again. It is a scandal that there is so little to show for £750 million of expenditure. It is a tragedy that there is no lasting legacy commensurate with the lasting legacy of 1851, which left us the South Kensington museum complex, the Albert Hall and the Albert Memorial. Successive generations have benefited enormously from that lasting legacy. I do not see such a lasting legacy from the Dome and that peninsula.
The tragedy arises from a confusion of objectives from the start. Michael Heseltine sold the idea and really believed that it was going to be a souped-up trade fair with lots of electronic wizardry. That was very much the concept and he persuaded industrialists to support it on that basis. Others, like the noble Baroness, looked on it as a measure for environmental recovery.
I remember, when I was environment Secretary, sponsoring two garden festivals to recover polluted land. One was in the city of Stoke, with the great works
308
there. The second was in South Wales. I must say to the noble Baroness that we spent not £750 million but about £20 million on recovering polluted land and building a lot of social housing on that recovered land. So I am saying that the amount of money that was spent is disproportionate to the benefits which will arise.
That confusion of purpose was intensified when Peter Mandelson came on the scene because he clearly wanted a pleasureDome. He wanted a souped-up Xanadu. That was until he went to Disneyland and realised that it takes three years to build a ride. That just could not be done in the time-scale and no one would put in that sort of investment for something which would exist for only a year.
Today we have the culture Secretary, Chris Smith, appearing before the Select Committee—I believe that the noble and learned Lord also appeared before it—saying that he was always against it and strongly opposed it. Such frankness could well lead to his imminent departure from the counsels of our nation.
But once again there has been confusion and difficulty at the very heart of government over this matter. There was some of that also in the Conservative Party. The trail goes back quite a long way. I do not deny that.
As a result, a committee of enlightenment was set up. Simon Jenkins, Michael Grade, Sam Chisholm from Sky, and Alan Yentob from the BBC were summoned to it. That committee was to devise what was to go into the Dome. It is not surprising that such a committee identified the intellectual emptiness at the centre of the Dome. There is a vacuum there. Therefore, it is not surprising that one has ended up with a vacuity surrounded by frivolous and shallow diversions.
Perhaps the greatest example of that is the Zone of British Identity. One would have thought that the Government would know what the British identity was. We had "Cool Britannia", a warmer version and then no Britannia. But they could not identify the British identity. So what did they do? They held a public opinion poll with focus groups asking people, "What is the British identity?"
Fortunately, the only person who never listened to those focus groups was Gerald Scarfe. I visited the Dome and I really tried to like it. The wonderful models by Gerald Scarfe were the best part of it. But they were totally unacceptable to the views of this Government. They were absolutely brilliant. They are the enduring elements of what I saw under the Dome.
I have had some dealings with the Dome because I am the chairman of the Museum of British History. Our objective is to build a museum in the centre of London which will tell the whole history of our country from Roman times to today—a very modern museum. We are still pursuing that objective. So I approached Jennie Page and the committee looking into all this and I said, "Don't you want to celebrate a little of our past 1,000 years?" because we should be proud of those thousand years. Never again in our history shall we have such an influence upon the

309
history of the world and the development of the human race than we have had in the past 1,000 years. Over the past 1,000 years we have given to the world the English language, the elements of democracy, the rule of law, the industrial revolution and tremendous inventions which have helped people, such as penicillin and DNA.
I thought that the Government would want to celebrate some of that. But no, my friends and officials went to a meeting and they were told very simply that a decree had come out from Caesar Augustus: no history under the Dome. We were told that there should be no history. The Government wanted nothing to do with the past. That is typical of them.
The Prime Minister has treated his own party in that way by cutting off the roots and he is now quite happy to extend that treatment to the rest of the nation and not worry about the past. The world started in May 1997. The Government are the victim of their own rhetoric in these matters.
As I have said before, this is a Government of adjectives. They are full of promise and low on performance. As regards the Prime Minister, it was all gong but no dinner. That was the real problem from the start. The Government had no real idea of what they were trying to achieve.
It is amazing that in the course of the past two or three days, some who are more natural supporters of the Labour Party than of the Conservative Party have expressed so explicitly their contempt for the Government's attitude, not only to the Dome but to culture in general. VS Naipaul, who is no Conservative by any stretch of the imagination, yesterday described the Prime Minister as a cultural vandal. Today, Doris Lessing referred to the very philistine nature of this Government. Being a Conservative, those are words which I should hesitate to use against this Government. But they strike home.
The Dome has cost £750 million, £600 million of which was public money. Hospitals have been mentioned. The Government are launching a new type of school, city academies based on the city technology colleges which I launched in 1986. They hope to establish 500 of them. The Dome money could have been used to establish those 500 city academies. Would not that have been a better lasting legacy by which to remember the millennium? Would not that have been a better legacy to deal with the problems of our inner cities rather than having that extravagant and frivolous waste of money?
8.17 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is customary on these occasions to thank the noble Lord who introduced the debate and I do so because we have had a very interesting debate thus far. But there is one aspect in relation to which I regret this debate. I feel that it is yet another of that drip-feed of constant criticism and nagging about the Dome during a period when we are not talking in retrospect about its past; we are talking about its working present, when we are still seeking to ensure that as many of our fellow citizens
310
and others can benefit from the investment which our country has made in the Dome. And yet here we are again lamenting the fact that it exists. That surely cannot be good for the development of its work; nor does it do anything except to indicate the price that we have paid for the disasters at Stratford among opinion-formers on that fatal evening, 31st December last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, indicated that there is no history in the Dome. But there is an obvious question. Could it have been the case that Britain would not mark the millennium with a significant project? On one site we could have built 30 hospitals and on another the 500 city academies, or whatever. But would that really have marked the millennium? Of course, those are desirable projects. But we all know that when it came to the question of marking the millennium something distinctive had to be created which represented a looking forward towards the future, towards the new millennium.
In some respects, the Dome fulfils that position admirably: first, in terms of its architecture. Is it conceivable that the Britain of my noble friend Lord Rogers and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in an age of significant architectural achievement would make no effort to construct a building of significance in this year? The Dome is exceedingly attractive. I regret the decision not to leave it open in the evening late enough for people to appreciate just how beautiful it is at night, because there is no doubt at all that one of the advantages of visiting the Dome in the winter months has been to see it in its full glory. From October onwards, I look forward to that being possible.
As regards the question of cost, do noble Lords opposite suggest that the grand projects of the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Sydney Opera House were not beset by complaints about the costs involved? Of course they were. But are those buildings now looked upon as great extravagances and a waste of money because there were critics at the time who regarded that as the appropriate way to respond?
I was one who had hoped that the millennium project would be sited in the Midlands, which would have been convenient for the towns that I represented in the north-west. I believed that there were good arguments for increasing participatory attendance from that dimension.
However, I recognise that siting the Dome at Greenwich has provided a tremendous opportunity for regeneration of one of the poorest boroughs in the country. We should look upon it as a permanent development and an improvement of an area which in many respects was a declining and a depressed area of London.
We all recognise that the Dome was seen as the acceleration of the Tube extension project. Over the years people have returned from abroad and commented on Tube systems elsewhere, particularly the 50 year-old Moscow metro. They have talked about their glories compared with the poor London Transport extensions and architecture. I delight in the

311
fact that we have a stretch of the Tube system that is truly an outstanding architectural achievement and brings credit to the country.
I also appreciate the decision to prevent access to the Dome by car, which I understand has caused difficulties for some. I believe that that is a step towards the future. With the congestion that we can all see in terms of private transport, we must accustom ourselves to investment in public transport. If people are to enjoy themselves in our cities, they have to be able to use public transport, as I believe that they do increasingly.
One inescapable fact that critics of the Dome cannot deny is the overall approval rating of its visitors. A figure of 85 per cent is an approval rating in which most entertainments would delight. I believe that there is an element of intellectual snobbery associated with this issue. There is a sector of London's patrician class that feels that if the Dome does not sell a message that reads well in the Spectator, somehow it falls short of expectations and desires.
The Dome is meant to be for mass participation. The whole of our nation is meant to benefit from the Dome. Already millions have attended and we expect many more. We recognise that there is over-hype with regard to the original expectations of attendance. Surely the point is that the vast majority of our fellow citizens who visit the Dome show that approval and in those terms the Dome is successful. Intellectually it is vastly superior to the only project that remotely matches it in terms of attendance, namely Disney, which is entertainment and does not have the intellectual dimension of the Dome.
I visited the Dome with people from Oldham and large numbers of schoolchildren from Oldham. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, indicated, some areas are less stimulating than others. Of course, there was criticism, but sufficient numbers of visitors had sufficient entertainment and stimulation in the Dome to make the whole day a great success. That is the story of this project. I believe that by talking it down we do the nation a disservice.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lamont for giving me my first opportunity to debate the issues surrounding the Millennium Dome. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that it was important for the Dome to succeed. That was important for tourism, for the regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula as a whole, and for the reputation of this country. There is nothing wrong with the original concept, but I take note of what my noble friend Lord Baker said, that he is disappointed with the content.
I, with my husband, have visited the Dome as a paying customer. I have always encouraged others to visit it; those whom I have encouraged have remained my friends. Whatever they thought of their visit, they are still talking to me. I believe that one should encourage others to go there and make up their own minds about it. I do not need sheep to bleat at me to tell me that much.
312
The debate initiated by my noble friend is not about consumer surveys; it is not about opinion polls. It is about the proper matter of the financial control and corporate management of the project, and whether they have been exercised in the right way having regard to the public. Many millions of the public's money have been expended on it.
Over the past three years my concern has been that the finances of the Dome have been marked by a lack of transparency. It may be completely unintentional but, at times, what has being going on has left me mystified. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to the vast number of questions that have been asked. I shall carry on asking, because sometimes the answers are so vague that one has to continue to draw teeth.
In relation to some of the confusion surrounding I he figures, noble Lords have quoted the amount of the millennium grant. The noble and learned Lord., Lord Falconer, told us on 2nd November last year in this House, that the Millennium Commission grant was £399 million. That is fine. He said that there was not a penny of overspend in relation to that. This week the Minister for Tourism in another place, Mrs Anderson, in a Written Answer, said that the Millennium Commission grant is £525 million. That does not appear to square with the extra drawdowns, loans, grants and whatever that have been made between November and now, so I am confused.
If we take this week's figure of £525 million as a grant, what happens to what we were told about loans along the way? If there is a loan, will it all be repaid? How much will be repaid? How much will go to English Partnerships and how much will go hack to the Millennium Commission? As my noble friend Lord Lamont said earlier, the amount that will go to English Partnerships will determine whether taxpayers will, in the end, pay something towards the running of the Dome. If English Partnerships does not receive its full due, in some way the taxpayers will subsidise the Dome peninsula as a whole.
If the Millennium Commission does not receive its full due, in the long term the New Opportunities Fund will be the loser. Of course, I accept that current projects do not lose out, but there has to be the possibility that future applicants which may have expected to benefit will not. In other words, who do the Government intend to be the losers, the taxpayers or the New Opportunities Fund, or both?
Recently there has been concern about the extent of political intervention. My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned the issue of a million free tickets for school children. I am the last person to say that children should not receive free tickets to visit something like the Dome as a millennium experience. But I am the first person, as someone who talks to the tourism industry, to say that if a political decision is to be taken to ask the NMEC to give out a million free tickets, that should be part of the business plan.
So I ask the Minister what impact assessment did the Government make of the impact on the Dome's finances before they made that request to NMEC? Did they make that impact assessment fully known to

313
NMEC before they asked it to do that? I ask that because, when Jennie Page gave evidence to the Select Committee in another place, she made the point to the Government that if one million free places were given away that that would impact on costs. Subsequently, she said that it blew about a £40 million hole in the Dome's finances.
What is the Minister's estimate? This morning in the Select Committee, I believe he referred—I stress, if the report is correct—to a £41 million revenue contingency fund that was used to pay for that political decision. Can he tell the House how much of that £41 million contingency fund was used to subsidise the results of giving a million free entries to school children?
My noble friend is also right to point out that when M Gerbeau was appointed in February as the new chief executive, the Government told him—as M Gerbeau told us at the weekend—that,
"this thing is on budget".
Yet two months later, after looking into the figures, he found that they were £26 million adrift and had to make another application for a grant.
My noble friend has asked questions with regard to the National Audit Office and its investigation into the £29 million grant. The investigation kicked in as a result of a letter of direction being issued. I would be interested to know if the NAO is also dealing with previous grants and loans made to NMEC.
These are all serious questions that deserve an answer. This is the first time a request has been made for a committee of inquiry to be set up. In view of the confusing and confused answers that have come from the Government over the past year, I am not at all surprised that my noble friend has asked for that.
8.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for raising this matter and giving us an opportunity to debate the Dome, and I thank noble Lords who participated in this short but interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, also for writing to me and giving me advance warning of the questions that he intended asking at the end of his speech, for which I am grateful.
To put the debate in context, perhaps I may say that the period of the Dome's life has been a period during which it has encountered storms and difficulties. All those who have been involved with the Dome throughout the whole of its life have made mistakes. In a project of this size, complexity and uniqueness, it would be inconceivable for that not to be so. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put his finger on it when he referred to similar projects and said that it was inevitable with a new and unique project that people would think one thing and then change their mind and think another.
But the Dome project has also achieved a lot. Since it opened on 1st January 2000 it has received over 3 million visitors, of which 2.7 million were paying
314
visitors. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was wrong when he suggested that the reason the visitor numbers are keeping up is that so many school children attend free. Those 2.7 million paid. They came not because they were offered a free place but, like so many noble Lords who spoke in the debate today, because they wanted to come.
The Dome has consistently received high visitor satisfaction ratings. The figures speak for themselves. Independent polling consistently revealed that 85 per cent of visitors were satisfied with their visits; 91 per cent rated the customer service as excellent and nearly four out of five said that they would recommend the Dome to their friends. I am genuinely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, is one of the 15 per cent who did not enjoy it, and genuinely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, recommends it to her friends.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I would not like to be misrepresented. I made it clear that I always ask people to go with an open mind and to make up their own mind. I do not encourage them to go as such or give them a recommendation. I do precisely what the Government want us to do; that is, I never comment on individual zones but leave my friends to make up their own minds.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that was a courageous intervention by the noble Baroness. In evidence before the Select Committee, Peter Middleton of Namura described what the Dome had accomplished so far as, "a tremendous achievement". Many of the storms that have eddied around the head of the Dome spring from the original estimate of visitor numbers given in the business plan which was prepared under the previous government. That plan estimated 12 million visitors. We were not on the way to reaching that figure and by May it was apparent that a major reduction in the estimate was required. That resulted in the revised budget on which the Dome company is now operating. That budget is based on four months' trading.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, asked for realism. We have now got a budget based on the actual trading experience, something we could not have had before. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, when we have something as unique and innovative as this, it is difficult to judge how many people will come. It is possible to indulge in an orgy of hindsight, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, did. But one must make judgments and be brave about those judgments in order for a project like this to occur.
My hope is that the original estimate being wrong will not overshadow what has been achieved. The Dome is now the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the United Kingdom. It has high customer satisfaction figures and is the fifth most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the world. As my noble friend Lady Dean said, we must also remember that the Dome is about much more than the creation of a successful visitor attraction in Greenwich.

315
When the Millennium Commission chose Greenwich as the site for the Dome, it did so in part because of the regeneration factor that it brought. Locating the Millennium Experience on the Greenwich Peninsula has been a key decision that has helped regenerate a derelict and contaminated site that had lain idle for more than 20 years in the fifth poorest borough in the whole of England. English Partnerships transformed that site into an area that has already begun to flourish with a variety of new developments, including the Dome, innovative community facilities and fresh ideas which are creating an exciting new urban quarter for London.
In evidence to the Select Committee last month, a representative of Greenwich council estimated that the number of jobs which would be created by the Millennium Experience would be in excess of 30,000. As has been mentioned in the debate, the Legacy Competition is now in its last stages and will provide a permanent future for the Dome. There is a short list of two strong bidders who came from a long list of 70. That is indicative of the fact that the market believes that there is a real opportunity in relation to the Dome.
It has been a stormy road and I am sure that the storms will continue. Indeed, as there have been difficulties, so we see the likes of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, standing up painfully and making sure that nobody could now associate her with the Dome, contrary to her position previously. But I believe that the prize of a successful exhibition for the year, a permanent legacy and a regenerated Thames Gateway is attainable and worth fighting for. I believe that in time the project will be judged a success, just as it is judged a success by 85 per cent of the people who visit it.
Perhaps I can deal with the points made by noble Lords in the course of the debate. First, the accountability and public inquiry issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has in a sense already been answered. It is dealt with by parliamentary accountability. Since May 1997 over 1,100 parliamentary Questions have been answered; there have been five inquiries into the Millennium Dome by the Select Committee in another place; this is the third debate in this House and there have been another two debates in the other place. The National Audit Office is also looking into various aspects of the Dome. It was always envisaged that we would investigate expenditure of public money, which should be completely accountable, by the procedures of Parliament. I have no reason to believe that they are not working.
The next question the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, asked was what, on reflection, I felt had gone wrong with the project. For all the reasons I put forward, I believe that the project will be judged a success. The problem relates to the original visitor estimate of 12 million. Around that hinges many of the controversies surrounding the Dome. Although that was a wrong estimate, it should not detract from what the Dome has achieved.
316
The noble Lord asked also whether the shortfall in commercial income, originally put at £194 million, is now fully covered by the loans that have already been made by the Millennium Commission. I can put the position shortly. The 1998 corporate plan figure for commercial income was £194 million. That included a £25 million contingency. The June 2000 business plan, which is the current business plan, estimates £86 million based on trading performance and a projected total of 6 million paying visitors. That figure contains no contingency. Therefore, the loss in commercial income, if one ignores the contingency, is £83 million. That money is covered by an additional Millennium Commission grant, cost savings and legacy proceeds, so it still balances at £758 million.
The noble Lord's third question was whether I could guarantee that there will be no finance of any kind put into the Millennium Dome by the back door. I understood that question to be associated with question five; namely, whether I could guarantee that money that might have gone to English Partnerships will not be used to subsidise the Dome. There is competition at present to buy the Dome and there are two short-listed bidders. Once a bid is accepted, a division of the proceeds will take place reflecting the contribution of English Partnerships, which owns the land, and the Dome company to the joint venture representing that which has been purchased by the bidder. That will be done on an objective assessment of how the proceeds should be divided.
The noble Lord's fourth question was whether I could guarantee that the loans from the Millennium Commission will be repaid. The position in relation to the amount of money provided by the Millennium Commission is as follows. There was a £399 million grant that was not envisaged to be repaid. In addition, there was a £50 million cash flow facility, with an additional £89 million being made available of which it is envisaged £13 million will be repaid. That makes a total sum of grant from the Millennium Commission of £525 million.
I believe that I have answered specifically all he questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I do not have time to answer all the other questions raised during the debate. But, as regards any specific question raised, I shall write to noble Lords in response.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bull
8.41 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 13.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 15, line 16, leave out ("an appropriate") and insert ("a fair").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 20 were grouped with Amendment No. 18 with which, as the Minister may remember, we managed to scrape a lucky vote. Therefore, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("fair").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20A not moved.]
Clause 14 [General safeguards]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 16, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The arrangements for the time being in force under this section for securing that the requirements of subsection (2) are satisfied in relation to the intercepted material or any related communications data must include such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers necessary for securing that every copy of the material or data that is made is stored, for so long as it is retained, in a secure manner.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam, I move Amendment No. 21. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, raised in Committee the question of material that is lost or stolen. He expressed the view that such material would not be disclosed or otherwise made available and may, therefore, be outside the scope of Clause 14(2).
We have reflected on the helpful points that the noble Lord made, and now put forward this amendment in the hope that an explicit requirement to store intercepted material and data securely will reassure those who are concerned that it might otherwise not be so stored. I should add that the storage and handling of intercepted material already involves the highest levels of physical, technical and personnel security. None the less, I hope that this amendment will be welcomed by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said and am most content with the outcome of our discussions.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we, too, welcome the amendment and thank the noble Lord for introducing it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Extra safeguards in the case of certificated warrants]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 17, line 19, after ("is") insert ("in an external communication and is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have the dubious pleasure of moving this amendment. It follows one put forward in Committee. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for the letter that he wrote to me on 4th July in response to the questions I raised on 19th June. I have to say that the letter is extremely clear—at least, as clear as it reasonably can be—and helpful in terms of the specific questions that were raised on that occasion.
The amendment before the House tonight seeks simply to insert the words, "in an external communication" into Clause 15, which, itself, provides extra safeguards in the case of certificated warrants under Clause 8. The latter allow—and allow only—general trawling for communications data of different kinds for external communications. I suspect that we are dealing here with the central passage of the Bill as regards public concerns. The extent to which any government and agencies serving under the state can utilise the powers under this Bill, especially vis-a-vis warrants under Clause 5 onwards, continues to give a great deal of angst.
I should point out at once that this amendment is still in the nature of a probing amendment. I would apologise for that were it not for the fact that we are all grappling and groping to some extent with some of the more complex parts of this measure. Indeed, when taken in conjunction with all the other clauses to which it relates, I suggest that there is no more complex clause than Clause 15.
Certificated warrants, which I call "trawl warrants", are to be applied only, as I said, to external communications. The reason being that one must differentiate between the use of targeted interception warrants for domestic policing—analogous one might think to letter opening—and the use of trawling or mass-surveillance warrants used for intelligence and national security purposes which, for some, has Orwellian implications.
Depending on the nature of the communication link intercepted, it will be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to capture simply external communications. If one takes, for example, a trunk under-sea cable or microwave beam that physically leaves the United Kingdom and is intercepted somewhere under the ocean, there is no way that one can catch in one's net external communications only; indeed, we would say that one is bound—or almost bound—to catch with it internal communications that are supposed to be proof against the trawling procedure under all circumstances. That is the basis upon which the anxiety persists. As I said, the amendment is a probing one. After hearing the Minister's response, it may be necessary to have further meetings to explore matters further.
So we are talking about lawfully examining internal communications "captured" by a trawl of this kind, which will produce mixed-up, bulk information. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to the problem—it is not a new one—in his first Interception Commissioner's report. He sanctioned a non-statutory innovation that he considered would lawfully permit, first, the examination of that inadvertently captured internal material; and, secondly, the trawling for purposes broader than antiterrorism. Anti-terrorism trawls are the one exception to the rule that there shall not be trawling for internal communications. In that second category one would be trawling for purposes which include national security, serious crime and economic well-being, as listed in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, christened that mechanism an "overlapping

319
warrant", by which he meant an ordinary, non-certificated warrant which names the addresses or premises targeted with the interception—which is what is required—and allows the interception of any communications, internal or external, from those addresses.
There appears, however, to be what might be called a cart before the horse problem concerning the broader trawling. The question is: how can an overlapping warrant specify addresses, as are required by Clause 8 of the Bill, until those addresses have been identified by the broad trawl which is prevented by the Bill? That, of course, creates the paradox that you have to do that which is not permitted in order to do that which may be permitted. That is an unresolved problem whereby the practice of using these overlapping warrants is utilised.
The construction and meaning of Clause 15(3) in particular is, I suggest, still obscure to the House, certainly to these Benches. It seems to create a wholly new kind of certificate which one might call an "override certificate" that can be attached—admittedly for a three-month period only—to a certificated warrant: that is to say, one certificated under Clause 8. The effect of such an override certificate is in practice to sanction a trawl through bulk captured material obtained through a Clause 8 certificated warrant allowing search for an entity—the relevant words in the Bill are "referable to"—or a person inside the United Kingdom for the purposes of national security, serious crime, economic well-being and anti-terrorism.
I refer to future overlapping warrant procedures. It appears from the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that they are to continue. The letter states:
"There will he cases in which a warrant complying with Clause 8(1) cannot be put into effect in any other way, for example, when a person in the United Kingdom chooses, perhaps in an attempt to avoid interception, to use a foreign Internet service provider".
As I say, the totality of that remains obscure to us.
However, would it be correct to interpret what the Minister wrote and what is in the Bill as the following? If a target of the security or intelligence services is using a foreign Internet service provider, that Internet service provider, being foreign, cannot be served with an interception warrant but the target's communications within the United Kingdom may still be picked up by GCHQ bulk trawling, for example, on the under-sea cable. In that case, an e-mail sent by the target to a person within the United Kingdom would still he an internal communication, even though routed via a foreign ISP. The Minister made it clear in his letter that a UK-to-UK transmission via foreign parts was none the less still an internal communication. If I am correct, that would tend to fall outside the scope of a Clause 8(4) warrant which is limited to external communications. That overlapping warrant would still be required in such a case. I apologise if this is complex and difficult to follow but I am afraid that is the nature of the case.
Even if that is the case, several problems remain. First, would it not be better to put overlapping warrants on a clear statutory basis—the Minister's
320
letter makes it clear that those are to continue—and legitimise them on the face of the Bill? The Government may argue that, assuming overlapping warrants are lawful, there is no extension of the purposes for which the trawling of internal communications may be effectively accomplished under the Clause 15(3) procedure. However, we believe that acceptance of Clause 15(3) unamended creates statute law which broadens the allowable purposes within the Bill—which are confined to anti-terrorism—for internal trawling.
It is possible that overlapping warrants can lawfully be used for some kinds of internal trawling but not others, depending on interpretations of the key words, "address", "premises", "factors" and "referable to". All this is totally opaque at present. If Clause 15(3) represents either a practical or legal extension of powers, in future it will be and remain solely for the interceptions communications commissioner to ensure fair play.
I believe that these problems are compounded by the intention confirmed in the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that in future under the Bill certificated warrants may be served on Internet service providers rather than just on telephone companies. I should like to know whether that is correct. If bulk collection from Internet service providers' networks is undertaken, the captured traffic will be a completely mixed trawl of internal and external communications which it will be possible to separate only by reading the whole catch.
If the Government do not wish to accept the amendment, which seeks to put plainly on the lace of the Bill limits and safeguards—I anticipate that the Government will face difficulties in accepting it—is there any way in which the anxieties of firms, individuals and charities can be assuaged in terms of the oversight of these mixed catches of internal and external communications? The Minister may say that the interceptions commissioner has the power and duty to ensure that there is fair play in that regard. However, the anxiety at the extent to which the Bill constitutes a Trojan horse into confidential information which should remain confidential is at its most acute over that measure. We see the problem that in a trawl you cannot select only Dover sole. However, on the other hand, how do you guard against the information which you are not seeking to collect being scrutinised by those who ought not to scrutinise it and, worse still, utilised for purposes wholly outside the ambit and intention of this part of the Bill? I apologise for my discursive and, I suspect, unfollowable attempt to explain the amendment. However, I have done the best that I can. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the explanation of the amendment was slightly lengthy but, I think, absolutely necessary. It is a hideously complicated provision. It is difficult to understand how we got into the position we are now in, let alone how it is proposed to develop it in the future and in particular through this Bill.

321
My underlying assumption is that the distinction between internal and external communications goes back to the days when people were primarily concerned about spying. It was quite all right then to have a powerful scrutiny of external communications because they might contain spying items, whereas with internal communications we were spying on our own people, which was not done—or, at least, done to a much lesser degree. That subsequently became extended so that we could spy on our own people for counter-terrorist purposes because we are all against terrorists and terrorism is a growing threat. I do not mean that idly—it is quite true—but one can see how, historically, we have got to the position where external communications can be much more thoroughly scrutinised, and communications being examined for anti-terrorist purposes can be much more thoroughly scrutinised, than ordinary internal communications. There is a considerable acceptance that this is the rationale behind it.
But now, of course, we live in a different age—an age when it is possible to trawl over vast numbers of communications exceptionally easily for key words, for addresses, for people's names and so on. The power of computers is basically such that it enables us to do this. There must be a great temptation, a great desire, on the part of those whose job it is to catch criminals—whom we all support—to use these powerful mechanisms for the purposes we all want to see.
But, at the same time, we do not want to reach a position where people are being monitored all the time. It is 16 years since 1984; the book of that name was obviously written a good while before that, but it gives an insight as to how things might be if governments are allowed to monitor our lives too much.
The first question arising out of these provisions, and the one to which the amendment draws attention, is whether it is regarded by the Home Office as lawful to use overlapping warrants. It seems to be accepted that they have no statutory basis; on the other hand, they seem to have an excellent legal pedigree in the form of, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I assume that the answer is, yes, they are regarded as lawful at the moment.
But, on the face of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, this part of the Bill represents an extension of the powers beyond what they are at the moment, either statutorily or non-statutorily. Is that the Government's intention? Are the Government attempting by the phrases used in the Bill to extend the powers beyond what they are now and not only to extend them to different forms of communications—to e-mail and so on—but to extend them in nature beyond what they are now? What is the intention of this?
I do not think that anyone would object to the powers being extended from what they are now—even if it is legally a bit uncertain—to cover different forms of communications such as e-mail and so on, but we would be concerned at a different level if the Government were setting out to extend the powers
322
beyond those currently available for telephones and more conventional means of communications. That is the importance of this.
I am not entirely convinced that the amendment is necessary. The Bill is so complicated that it is difficult to be sure whether trawling is intended by the Bill to be confined to the same things that it is confined to now for telephones and so on. If not, at the very least we should be told. We should then give consideration to whether that is what we want to do and whether Parliament is prepared to give that authorisation to the agencies which do such sterling work on our behalf.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have enjoyed listening to the contributions from the Opposition Front Benches. Both noble Lords seemed to be striving extremely hard to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and to find some way in which what is written plainly and clearly in the Bill should not be true. It is absolutely obvious what is in the Bill—at least it is to me—and that is, yes, trawling becomes legal. The Home Secretary has to renew the warrant every three months, but he can trawl on grounds of economic well-being and serious crime, as well as terrorism, to any extent that he wishes.
I do not think that this particular Home Secretary is going to go after a police state in a big way, but we can be certain that we are going to go after the people who start the riots in the City and the football hooligans. That is exactly what the clause permits. It is absolutely obvious that the economic well-being of the UK is affected by both groups. We have lost the ability to stage a major football tournament because of football hooliganism, and the economic well-being of the UK is affected. The reputation of the City suffers from these annual riots, and the economic well-being of the UK is affected. Under those conditions the Secretary of State can go trawling for any group of people that he chooses as long as such a group is reasonably rationally coherent—and certainly the people indulging in both those activities must come under that category. Under this Bill we have the ability to trawl in any way at all as long as it is referable to that kind of thing.
If this is not what the Government intend, I have got the wording wrong. But as they have defended the wording through quite a long parliamentary process, one has to assume that that is what they mean to do. Sometimes this Government do things they do not mean to do—I do not suppose they meant to get Mr Livingstone as mayor of London—but this is an occasion when what they are doing and what they are intending to do must surely coincide.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have done so with great knowledge of the subject. At least they sound as though they have. I shall try from the Dispatch Box to equal that, though I am not sure I shall succeed. I should like to try to respond to the points raised in the debate. With due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, he asked a whole range of questions with which, frankly, had I managed to follow them in close

323
text form, I would have struggled. Outside the arena of the House I shall undertake to look at Hansard, work through them with my officials and provide him with answers. He helpfully said that he saw this as a probing amendment. What I may be able to add to the debate will probably explain in plain terms what we are trying to do.
As we understand it, the amendment—I will be frank about this—would render unworkable the arrangements for interception and selection of external communications. It is just not possible to ensure that only external communications are intercepted. That is because modern communications are often routed in ways that are not all intuitively obvious. Noble Lords who have contributed to the debate understand that. An internal communication say, a message from London to Birmingham—may be handled on its journey by Internet service providers in, perhaps, two different countries outside the United Kingdom. We understand that. The communication might therefore be found on a link between those two foreign countries. Such a link should clearly be treated as external, yet it would contain at least this one internal communication. There is no way of filtering that out without intercepting the whole link, including the internal communication.
Even after interception, it may not be practicably possible to guarantee to filter out all internal messages. Messages may well be split into separate parts which are sent by different routes. Only some of these will contain the originator and the intended final recipient. Without this information it will not be possible to distinguish internal messages from external. In some cases it may not be possible even if this information is available. For example, a message between two foreign registered mobile phones, if both happened to be roaming in the UK, would be an internal communication, but there would be nothing in the message to indicate that.
It is still the intention that Clause 8(4) warrants should be aimed at external communications. Clause 8(5) limits such a warrant to authorising the interception of external communications together with whatever other conduct is necessary to achieve that external interception. Whenever such a warrant is signed, the Secretary of State must be convinced that the conduct it will authorise as a whole is proportionate—my favourite word—to the objects to be achieved. His decision to sign will be overseen by the interception of communications commissioner.
The next layer of protection is the certificate. Anything that is not within the terms of the certificate may be intercepted but cannot be read, looked at or listened to by any person. Beyond that are the safeguards set out in subsection (2) of Clause 15. Except in the special circumstances set out in later subsections, or if there is an "overlapping" Clause 8(1) warrant, selection may not use factors which are referable to an individual known to be for the time being in the British Islands.
Amendment No. 23 would extend the prohibition on selection by factors referable to individuals in the British Islands to cover also premises in the British
324
Islands. It would occasionally have perverse consequences. For example, let us suppose that a foreign terrorist group was planning to blow up a prominent London building—say, the House of Lords. In the absence of any other leads, the agencies would no doubt be searching for any messages mentioning the House of Lords. But that would clearly be a selection factor referable to premises in the British Islands. It does not seem right for that, which would not involve intercepting any communications to or from the House, to need special authority.
As noble Lords can judge from that response, it is a very complex matter. Other points were raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether the intention is to extend the powers. The simple answer is from existing new communications, yes, but beyond that, certainly not, no. I hope that clarifies that point. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, sought some reassurance for himself, and the public perhaps, about the commissioner's role. I can say that the commissioner has the responsibilities to which the noble Lord referred. That much is clear. The commissioner will also be anxious to reassure the public that his oversight of the matter has been both effective and thorough. He has to discharge his duties in those terms.
We would be very concerned if these amendments were passed. As I said at the outset, they would render the arrangements unworkable both for interception and the selection of external communications. They would provide a very difficult situation for those agencies that need to undertake that work. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that he would perhaps like to have further discussions on these matters. I am certainly happy to facilitate that outside the Chamber. We view these matters very seriously indeed.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I listened with great interest, as I am sure did other noble Lords, to what the Minister had to say. I accept that I cannot fairly expect the issues raised in the debate to be answered here and now in all particulars. I welcome the noble Lord's agreement to discussions outside the Chamber. In all the circumstances, it would be best to proceed by that route. I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 23:
Page 17, line 32, at end insert—
("or otherwise than according to a factor which is referable to premises in the British Islands").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I omitted to refer to Amendment No. 23. It is grouped with Amendment No. 22. Fortunately, it did not matter because the Minister replied anyway to what I might have said.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bull

  ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE IN COURT OF AN INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION
  (" . Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 16, 17 and 18, nothing in this Chapter shall render admissible as evidence in court the contents of an intercepted communication in circumstances where the original communication would not itself have been admissible.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we move to a very different matter—the question of legal privilege. The Bar Council of England and Wales, through its Law Reform Committee, has looked at the Bill. It has produced an expert memorandum which contains some interesting points. The Law Reform Committee is concerned about the question of legal professional privilege. Even those who are not lawyers support the proposition of legal professional privilege. Lawyers and their clients are in a special position. If a client is to be properly defended, there must be legal privilege. I am sure that I do not differ from the Government in saying that we would want to preserve that in the new circumstances provided by the Bill.
  According to the advice I have from the memorandum, there seems to be an absence of protection for privilege. Clauses 16 and 17 do not address that issue. They appear to be derived from similar provisions in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Even the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council described them as,
  "poorly drafted, and difficult to understand".
  It suggests that they are probably aimed at preserving the secrecy of the fact that the interception of a communication has taken place. I support the idea that interception of communications—the way it has been done and the fact that it has been done—will often need to be preserved as a secret by the agencies indulging in it. However, Clause 17(1)(a) would appear to make the content of intercepted communications admissible in,
  "proceedings for a relevant offence",
  notwithstanding the fact that the original communication was the subject of legal professional privilege. If that is so—I rely on the committee of the Bar Council for this opinion—the state could intercept communications even between a solicitor or a barrister and his client and then use the contents of those intercepted communications at the client's trial as evidence against him. There does not appear to be an express saving for legal professional privilege. That is described in the memorandum as "an alarming omission" as it goes not just to the issue of privacy but also to the right to a fair trial and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Information obtained by surreptitious means should not receive less protection than that which the original communication was entitled to. That is what led the committee of the Bar Council to suggest to me and to other noble Lords the insertion of the amendment into the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to this point. It was raised with me only recently. I nevertheless took the precaution of giving at least an indication to the Home Office of the seriousness of the matter, as it comes from an important source. I beg to move.
  Lord Grabiner: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, understates his talents. He says that he is not a lawyer. However, I have always viewed the noble Lord as something of a closet lawyer. His legal talents are certainly evident on almost every occasion that he stands at the Dispatch Box.
  I do not think that the noble Lord said anything with which essentially I would disagree. The question is whether it is necessary to utilise this amendment in order to deal with the problem. The short point is, in essence, whether legal professional privilege would be implicit as a matter of common law. If the answer is that it would be, it would not be necessary to incorporate an express provision in the Bill to cover the problem. If, on the other hand, that is not the position, I would respectfully agree that it would be necessary to introduce an express clause to that effect.
  I must confess that I have not undertaken that research. However, my expectation would be that the common law would step in and that legal professional privilege would be implicit. If such material was sought to be adduced at trial, it would be objected to on precisely that ground, would not be admissible and would be excluded, regardless of the fact that no express provision to deal with it was contained in the statute. However, I suspect that the point should be examined carefully. We must be satisfied that that is the position before reaching a final decision on whether the amendment would be appropriate.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I concur with what has been said, save that this Bill is such a particular measure and has given rise—and will, I suspect, continue to give rise—to such widespread concern that it may be that, even if a common law entitlement to privilege does obtain, given some of the provisions, such as those contained in Clauses 51 and 52, it would be sensible to write it onto the face of the document.
  This measure, perhaps more than most, will be examined closely by foreign firms and foreign lawyers who may not be fully acquainted with the extent and grasp of our common law. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, that this needs to be looked at carefully. However, when the Law Society, the Bar Council and the professional body for Scotland all sing the same tune, there may be something in it. Indeed, a

  327
  whole series of later amendments address broadly the same point. It will be interesting to hear what the Government have to say by way of reassurance here.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, in Committee we debated at some length the justification for Clause 16, which keeps intercepted material out of legal proceedings. The noble Lord's amendment appears to bolster the effect of Clause 16 by saying that no intercepted communication is rendered admissible if the original communication would not have been admissible. We agree with the sentiment, but the Government hold the view that this amendment is unnecessary.
  First, nothing in Chapter I renders anything admissible in evidence. Except for Clauses 16 and 17, the Bill is not about evidence. Furthermore, Clauses 16 and 17 make interception inadmissible. Thus, anything that would otherwise be admissible remains admissible under the Bill—except intercept product and anything which would otherwise be inadmissible remains inadmissible under the Bill. For example, the Bill does not change the rules about hearsay, corroboration or similar fact evidence. However, I do not think that anyone is suggesting that that fact should be placed on the face of the Bill.
  The Bill does not re-write the rules of evidence. If something is inadmissible at common law because it is legally privileged that remains the case for all parts of the Bill. There is a separate question as to whether legally privileged material should be considered at all under any part of the Bill. That is something which we intend to address in the statutory codes of practice. The preliminary drafts, which have been placed on the Home Office website, deal with the subject only tentatively. We welcome comments on what the codes should say.
  Our starting point—I believe that this will attract the support of the House—is that proper communications between lawyer and client deserve proper protection from third parties, including the state. In normal circumstances it should be no part of the task of law enforcement to listen to lawyers' communications in order to find out about their clients. That principle must be balanced against other factors, such as the possibility of legal communications being listened to accidentally and that some lawyers may abuse their professional position. We want to get the balance right and to that end look forward to working with the Bar Council, the Law Society of Scotland and others.
  It is true that in rare cases, as described particularly in Clause 17(1), intercept material may be adduced in evidence; in other words, it is treated like any other intelligence product. However, that fact does not override the protection given by common law to legally privileged material. If it did so it would require an express provision in the Bill and there is no such provision. The Government are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and others who have spoken in this debate. We hope that this response is of comfort both
  328
  to the noble Lord and to those who have been concerned to approach him with regard to this amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, described me as a closet lawyer. I am not quite sure how to take it, but, coming as it does from such a distinguished lawyer, I regard it as an intended compliment. I tried to make clear in moving the amendment that in this particular instance I was merely a mouthpiece for lawyers and altogether a lower form of life, perhaps the noble Lord would believe, than even a closet lawyer.
  I pay careful attention to the speeches of both the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, and the Minister, in particular their observations on the common law. I have the highest, if distant, respect for the common law and never cease to be amazed by it. I am again amazed this evening that the common law can extend to a Bill dealing with such a modern subject as this. Perhaps one should not be surprised by that. The Minister also stated—I paraphrase his response—that nothing in the Bill said that such material would be admissible which, by a series of double negatives, meant that the common law applied.
  The noble Lord also made the extremely helpful observation that a good deal of this matter would be addressed in the draft codes of practice and that the Bar Council and others could contribute to that discussion. I believe that that is the right way to carry forward the discussion. The Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland have also raised other questions about legal privilege but not, as far as I am concerned, the particular aspect of it dealt with in this clause. There is a way to discuss this further perhaps in more appropriate fora even than this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.30 p.m.
  Clause 20 [Lawful acquisition and disclosure of communications data]:
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 23, line 29, after second ("is") insert ("expressly").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment just adds the word "expressly". It is really an excuse to draw from the Government some further information on the effects of Clause 21(3) and (4). I am not sure whether initially it would have been obvious to the Minister that that was the purpose of the amendment. I thought that Clause 21(3) was covering a situation where the police would consult BT's telephone directory reverse look-up facilities. But looking at the draft code, that appears to be wrong. At paragraph 9.4 it says that it will only come into effect when the,
  "telecommunications operator is not capable [when] accessing the data by a notice would not be possible [and] when it would be likely to prejudice the investigation".
  I have two sources of puzzlement in this confluence of the code and the Bill. First, I am extremely puzzled as to how an officer will be able to do anything which an ISP cannot. Are we breeding in secret a new breed of electronic policemen? How is it envisaged that such a thing will be possible?
  The second aspect I am concerned with is that the confluence of Clauses 20 and 21 would be that if an officer was sent out to collect such-and-such communication data, it would seem to allow him to indulge in any conduct which he felt was reasonable in order to obtain it. He might go to "James Bond" lengths of breaking in and burgling or whatever might amuse him. But he would be exempt from prosecution. His actions would be made legal by the terms of Clause 20. I suspect that I am failing to understand how the code and the Bill work together on this particular aspect. I look to the Minister for enlightenment, but I shall be prepared to accept that it might arrive tomorrow. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was most intrigued by my noble friend's introduction of his amendment. As far as I was concerned, at least half of his speech was heavily encrypted. No doubt the Minister will be able to find the key, decrypt it and give an answer.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment was so heavily encrypted that the Minister is entirely puzzled. We had looked very closely at the noble Lord's amendment and decided that the addition of the word "expressly" would have no impact or effect at all. Therefore, the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to probe the confluence of meanings in Clauses 20 and 21 had entirely escaped us.
  The noble Lord was generous enough to say that perhaps we could provide him with an answer tomorrow. That is how I would like to leave it. On those terms, I ask him to withdraw his amendment. Perhaps in future he could be a little clearer as to what he wants to probe and where. We shall be more than happy to oblige.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, this noble Lord is always very happy to be clear about what he is after, but it generally takes a little more time than he had on this occasion. I apologise to the Minister and to his officials for having caused them to hunt around needlessly for an explanation which would have eluded them in any case. I shall pass to the officials my notes on this amendment and perhaps we can reach some agreement at another time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 23, line 42, leave out ("address or other") and insert ("traffic").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and the others grouped with it were originally part of the first set of amendments under the original grouping. I have spoken to them in what I said during that debate. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the earlier debate on the definition of "traffic data" covers the point in the amendments. The wording is remarkably similar to the first few amendments we discussed today. By inserting the provisions in Chapter II, they do not have the same effect as in Chapter I. Indeed, in some senses it is the reverse effect. Nevertheless, it is a useful introduction into the Bill of the distinction between "traffic data" and "communications data" even though these amendments mix up the two. It is a useful change to the Bill which I and others appreciate.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did not ask the Minister a follow-up question on the extent to which the web will be caught as traffic data. I understood the noble Lord to say that the query will end at the apparatus which contains within it the information on the web page which is sought. The traffic data will contain the identity of a box. It may be quite small, stored in racks of similar boxes in the premises of an ISP. The communications data will contain the physical address of that box. One will be able to deduce the premises the box occupies. From a knowledge of the web, one may be able to deduce either that that website occupies that box exclusively for its own use, that it is part of a much larger website, or that it is a box which stores a number of similar websites. It can be difficult to specify what is in that box. We are talking about an individual box, not simply the premises of an ISP. I shall not know simply that the communications data have gone into, for example, Demon's headquarters; I shall know which box we have accessed.
  With regard to my next amendment, it would help me if the Minister would tell me the level of detail regarding the identity of the end point of traffic data under the definition. Given the way ISPs operate, I am unable to satisfy myself as to how it will operate in practice.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I did not make it plain when we discussed the issue earlier. The tailpiece of the new definition puts beyond doubt, I think, that in relation to Internet communications, traffic data stop at the apparatus within which files or programmes are stored. To clarify the noble Lord's point, traffic data may identify a server but not a website or page.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 24, line 11, leave out subsection (5).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 24, line 22, at end insert—
  ("(6A) In this section "traffic data", in relation to any communication, means—

  (a) any data identifying, or purporting to identify, any person, apparatus or location to or from which the communication is or may be transmitted,

  (b) any data identifying or selecting, or purporting to identify or select, apparatus through which, or by means of which, the communication is or may be transmitted,

  (c) any data comprising signals for the actuation of apparatus used for the purposes of a telecommunication system for effecting (in whole or in part) the transmission of any communication, and

  (d) any data identifying the data or other data as data comprised in or attached to a particular communication,

  but that expression includes data identifying a computer file or computer program access to which is obtained, or which is run, by means of the communication to the extent only that the file or program is identified by reference to the apparatus in which it is stored.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  [Amendment No. 29, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, not moved.]
  On Question, Amendment No. 28 agreed to.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 24, line 22, at end insert—
  ("6A) Where the communications data in whole or in part comprises data as defined in section 20(4)(a) or (b), the designated person shall first obtain a certificate from—

  (a) any judge of the Crown Court or the High Court of Justiciary;

  (b) any sheriff;

  (c) any justice of the peace;

  (d) any resident magistrate in Northern Ireland; or

  (e) any person holding any such judicial office as entitles him to exercise the jurisdiction of a judge of the Crown Court or of a justice of the peace,

  stating that access to the communications data is necessary and proportionate having regard to the sworn statement of the designated person as to the circumstances of the matter.
  (6B) If the designated person reasonably believes that the special circumstances of the case are such that obtaining a certificate under subsection (6A) would cause an unacceptable delay to the issuing of a notice or authorisation under this section, the designated person may issue such notice or authorisation without obtaining a certificate but must then make a prompt report to the Interception of Communications Commissioner as to the circumstances of the matter.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment provides us with an opportunity to discuss the level of authorisation which should be appropriate for traffic data. We are trying to understand what the new definition implies as regards the knowledge which can be gleaned from communications data. In earlier debates, we agreed that location is included and that with modern and future mobile telephone systems it will he possible to track an individual who is carrying a mobile telephone in real time to an accuracy of about 10 metres from one's position in the UK.
  We have improved the limit as regards a person's wanderings on the web, but tracking down to an individual's box gives someone a good deal of
  332
  information. These days, a box might contain only 20 or 30 gigabytes of hard disk. That can easily be used in a reasonably complicated website. People at the low end, such as me, share servers, but the next step up, which comes quickly, is to co-locate. You put your own server in an ISP's premises, which will usually involve the box being identifiable. It will be possible to know that someone has visited a site and, given that a site is virtually homogeneous, it will be possible to know what someone has done. You will not be able to track a person inside the shop but you will be able to tell which shops in the street he has entered.
  That level of data about someone's life requires a reasonable level of protection. The amendment does not deal with the ordinary data, the reverse directory or the mass volume of requests for communications data which involve identifying the owner of a telephone number, or a website or an individual. It deals with a smaller number of requests for detailed information about a person. Given the increasing ability to identify what a person is up to from the data which will be available under this heading, we should look at a level of authorisation that goes beyond that of the average police superintendent because we shall have a multiplicity of agencies which can look at communications data. Given that we are not dealing with a high volume of cases, I have suggested that the standard recipe of a magistrate's warrant should be required.
  I am happy to listen to any suggestions put forward by other noble Lords or the Government. My basic point is that we should apply a higher test to such data than is applied to someone's telephone number. The data are wider and more private and personal than the data to which we are used to giving our average policeman access. We ought to take care of the citizens' liberty. I beg to move.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I want to identify myself with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Unless the Government have a clear response to the issues, there is much to justify the amendment.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. My noble friend's amendment raises an important issue and I look forward to hearing the Government's response.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that we have been round this matter once already. Although I understand the issue of sensitivity, I cannot agree that the level of judicial authorisation should be as the noble Lord suggests. I know that that is the intention behind the amendment.
  Perhaps I should repeat the arguments that have been made here and that were made also in another place. I believe that the matter comes down to sheer practicalities. Although I entirely accept the noble Lord's analysis of the capability of the new technology, I do not believe that he fully appreciates how great a problem it would lead to if we were to

  333
  follow the course of action that he suggests. The sheer number of applications for communications data would make it wholly impractical.
  The intention behind the amendment is clear and I accept the point about it being a more intrusive form of communications data. I trust that the clarification on offer will be reasonably reassuring.
  Earlier in the debate I explained that during the first three months of the year 96.8 per cent of all communications data requests by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise had been for subscriber details—the most basic level of check—and 2.9 per cent of the remainder had been for itemised billing inquiries—
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord but it seems that he has missed a point in this amendment, which is that it does not cover that data. It covers only the remaining data. The proposed authorisation relates only to data which are not subscriber data. That is why it says that it relates only to (a) and (b) and not (a), (b) and (c).
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the further clarification. However, as I understand the drafting of the amendment, it would have that far wider impact. I take what the noble Lord says at face value but I consider that it would lead to a chaotic situation. I do not believe that he appreciates the effect of his amendment.
  Perhaps I may complete the point that I was making. I referred to the fact that 2.9 per cent of the remainder had been for itemised billing inquiries and the remaining 0.3 per cent for other services, none of which is more intrusive than those carried out by a surveillance team. That equates to a total of 18,940 requests. That is what I put on the record when we last discussed this issue. It is the 0.3 per cent of requests for other, more intrusive, types of communications data which I want to address.
  Already under the non-statutory arrangements agreed between the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies and the telecommunications industry access to "more intrusive types of communications data" must be authorised at a more senior level within the agency, whereas "intrusive communications data" must be authorised at assistant chief constable level. I believe that that is the right approach and that it should be reflected in statute, both in the order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 24(3) and in the code of practice. Different levels of authority are not shown in the preliminary draft of the code because defining the different levels of communications data in a future-proof manner will require further work, including input from the industry.
  I believe that that should provide sufficient comfort to the noble Lord. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw his amendment. I am, as ever, open to further representations. If he wishes to pursue the
  334
  matter further between Report and Third Reading, he can do so and I shall be more than happy to look again at what he said.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, of course, likewise, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. However. I believe that his figures have made my case for me. He says that 0.3 per cent of approximately 19,000 interceptions by Customs and Excise in a six-month period would fall under the heading of my amendment. If my calculation is correct. 60 of them—10 per month—would require a magistrate's warrant. That seems to me to be entirely reasonable.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that we have already established a sufficient level of seniority for that most intrusive form of interception to be authorised?
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall consider that before Third Reading. The Minister has made his case and I plead for time to consider it. We are arguing not about whether some data should have higher-level authorisation but about what that higher level should be. If I feel that I have a further case to make to the Minister, I shall do so before or on Third Reading, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 24, line 23, leave out ("References in this section to") and insert ("In this section—

  (a) references, in relation to traffic data comprising signals for the actuation of apparatus, to a telecommunication system by means of which a communication is being or may be transmitted include references to any telecommunication system in which that apparatus is comprised; and

  (b) references to traffic").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 24, line 25, at end insert—
  ("and in this section "data", in relation to a postal item, means anything written on the outside of the item.
  (7A) The Secretary of State may by order modify the provisions of subsections (4)(a), (6A) and (7).
  (7B) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  [Amendment No. 33, as an amendment to Amendment No. 32, not moved.]
  On Question, Amendment No. 32 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Obtaining and disclosing communications data]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 33A:
  Page 24, line 44, leave out paragraph (h).
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. Clause 21(2) specifies grounds such as the interests of national security, economic well-being,

  335
  public safety, the prevention of crime and public health. Paragraph (h), down at the bottom, effectively says, "Anything that we have left out we can add in by order of the Secretary of State".
  I realise that the Secretary of State would have to come to Parliament to gain approval for such an order, but he could make one on almost any basis. I should like an explanation of what possible basis there could be. The power is wider than it should be and I question the need for paragraph (h). Why do the Government think that it is necessary? I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, the amendment requires a short debate, similar to one that we had in Committee on the purposes for which surveillance can be used under Part II. It rehearses comments from the 18th report of the Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. As we explained in Committee, the comments in the 18th report have to be read in conjunction with the Committee's 21st report, which says:
  "In its comments on the powers in Clauses 21(2)(h), 27(3)(g) and 5(3) the Committee invited the House to consider whether those Clauses should he amended to limit the apparently wide powers to correspond with the use that Ministers intended to make of them and added that, in any event, all the powers should be subject to affirmative procedure. The Government accept the latter recommendation but reject the first on the ground that the Human Rights Act 1998 effectively limits the powers. The Minister will be obliged to make a statement that an order is, in his view, compliant with that Act. The Committee sees affirmative procedure as giving appropriate Parliamentary control and does not wish to continue to press for amendments to the Clauses".
  I repeat those final words:
  "and does not wish to continue to press for amendments to the Clauses".
  The Government tabled amendments in Committee to institute the affirmative procedure for such orders. We were grateful that the Committee did not press for further amendment to the clauses. As we said in Committee, the powers in the Bill will be limited by the Human Rights Act 1998 as a matter of law, not simply as a practical limitation. The Secretary of State may make no order that is incompatible with the convention. It is our considered view that to state in the Bill that the convention rights must circumscribe any use of the orders would add nothing to the situation in law.
  We can then go on to consider the legitimate purposes for which Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits interference with the rights protected by that article. There are only two which in some form we have not included in the Bill. Those are, first,
  "for the protection of morals",
  and secondly,
  "for the rights and freedoms of others".
  We could now, or at some future date, simply add those purposes to the list in Clause 21. But we should not want to do that. They are both too wide-ranging in their purposes. And in their raw form, they are both vague and unclear. Citizens affected by those powers should be entitled to expect more detail on the reasons for which their rights are being interfered with; for
  336
  example, we might, in the future, want a power to be exercisable by a regulator for the purpose of protecting the rights of pensioners or consumers. If so, it would be better to say that rather than to use the catch-all phrase,
  "to protect the rights of others".
  So any extension of the powers should be more specific, if possible.
  Your Lordships will notice that that is the approach that we have adopted for some of the purposes already listed in the Bill. They do not follow exactly the wording of the convention rights. They are tailored to be as narrow as possible within the convention rights and to meet the requirements of the investigating agencies in the modern age.
  We believe that it may be possible to add purposes in the future which are narrower than those left open to us; that is, "for the protection of morals" or "for the rights and freedoms of others". If we can conceive of narrower purposes in the future, we should be allowed to add them because they speak for a better approach than one that is too broad.
  These are important issues and they are inextricably linked with the implementation of the Human Rights Act. As a matter of law, it will not be possible for any Secretary of State to make an order that is incompatible with the convention. That is what the Human Rights Act guarantees and that is one of the great benefits of the Human Rights Act which was passed at the instigation of this Government a few years ago. In the light of this situation, the danger perceived in this order-making power simply does not exist. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this probing amendment but I now ask him to withdraw it.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee looked at this matter which is subject to the affirmative procedure. The committee looked at it from a powers point of view. I was asking the noble Lord to explain the Government's thinking as to why they might need that power. I have been given an explanation. The noble Lord explained that it will be limited by Article 8 and so on and why the Government need the power. That is extremely helpful and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 22 [Form and duration of authorisations and notices]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment: No. 34:
  Page 25, line 41, leave out from ("authorisation") to end of line 43.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. As the Bill stands, both authorisations and notices to access communications data may, subject to the other requirements placed by Clause 22, take such form and be granted in such a manner as the authorising officer thinks fit.
  Government Amendment No. 34 would remove that subsection relating to authorisations to access communications data, which we now believe is unnecessary. Although it would have provided extra flexibility to authorising officers, we believe it is better to provide central guidance, including standard forms where possible, in the code of practice. That will also be beneficial from an oversight point of view.
  Amendment No. 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would have precisely the same effect in relation to notices served upon holders of communications data, and for that reason I am happy to accept it. Although a specimen notice does not appear in the preliminary draft of the code which we have published, we have made it clear that following consultation regarding the precise form of the notice, a specimen will be included in the draft which goes out for public consultation.
  I believe that the noble Viscount and I are as one. Our amendment will be helpful and effective and the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount adds to it. We are happy to accept his amendment. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am always delighted to be as one with the Minister. I am extremely pleased that he considers that Amendment No. 35 adds to his amendment. This is an important issue. In paragraph (f) we were concerned that there were wide powers that were not subject to the scrutiny that existed on the previous amendment that we discussed.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  10 p.m.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 26, line 8, leave out paragraph (f).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Interpretation of Chapter II]:
  Lord Grabiner Lord Grabiner moved Amendment No. 35A:
  Page 27, line 25, at end insert—
  ("( ) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, before explaining the purpose of this amendment, I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for not having discussed it with them in advance. Yesterday I briefly mentioned it to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. It has only just come to my attention that it may be appropriate to use this Bill to deal with this point rather than for it to be dealt with through the exemption procedure under the data protection legislation or in the Finance Bill, or by way of delegated legislation under paragraph (f) of Clause 22(2). So there are other ways in which the matter could be dealt with.
  The purpose of the amendment is to give effect to one of the recommendations that I made in my report on the informal economy to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in March this year. The amendment would provide a primary statutory authorisation that would enable the Inland Revenue to conduct reverse searches of telephone
  338
  number databases; in other words, the Inland Revenue would be able to obtain the name and address of a person holding a certain telephone number.
  I should say something about the background. Currently the Inland Revenue has wide powers to access information from outside government, for example, details of payments (names, addresses and amounts) made by a business for the supply of services; names and addresses held on statutory registers, for example, vehicle registration details from the DVLA; and full particulars of interest credited to bank or building society accounts in the United Kingdom.
  If Inland Revenue investigators were entitled to reverse search in the way that I have described, they would be able to follow up advertisements for goods and services that give contact telephone numbers but not personal details. We are all familiar with advertisements in local newsagents, local newspapers and, unfortunately, advertisements in telephone kiosks. It would be possible for the Inland Revenue to check whether the subscriber was registered for tax or perhaps claiming statutory benefits. It would be a quick and effective method of targeting investigations.
  For noble Lords who know about such matters, it will come as no surprise to hear that telephone directory databases can already be purchased on the Internet and stored on CD-ROM in a format that can be searched and reverse searched using a standard desktop computer. That practice has raised some concern about data protection; that is, that reverse searching is interpreted as not constituting "fair" processing under data protection law on the footing that the personal information, absent specific informed consent, was not supplied for that purpose in the first place.
  There are obviously circumstances where that concern must give way to an overriding public interest, which may be, for example, to contain fraud or to protect the public purse. Accordingly, the data protection legislation contains public interest exemptions; for example, the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 29. As a result, the emergency services are able to carry out reverse searches on all numbers which have been used to dial 1999. It is also the case that Customs and Excise investigators have been making reverse searches of the telephone directory for many years, and all requests for a search are channelled through a single point of contact at the Customs and Excise National Co-ordination Unit.
  It seems to me that it would be a desirable and valuable extension to the existing investigatory powers of the Inland Revenue to have the benefit of Amendment No. 35A. I believe that it is in the public interest that the Revenue should not be hamstrung in its endeavours to protect the public purse. In accordance with the procedures which have been adopted under the existing data protection legislation, it would be desirable to have suitable guidelines in the form of a code of practice. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, is obviously particularly experienced

  339
  in these matters because of the report he prepared, to which he referred, on the so-called "informal" economy—an odd way to describe the phenomenon, but we will not go into that at the moment. In particular, he made a clear case for the Revenue to be able to undertake reverse searches of telephone data.
  But I am not sure that that is the effect of Amendment No. 35A. I am now becoming hesitant because the rules of Report stage mean that I am supposed to speak before the Minister, who will be much more authoritative than I on this matter and it is possible that, closet lawyer though I may be, I have misread the Bill. Amendment No. 35A seems to give the Inland Revenue access to all communications data and not just traffic data. I am not quite sure where reverse searches of the telephone directory fall, whether under traffic data or communications data. Now that we are rewriting the Bill to distinguish between those two, it becomes important.
  One other aspect of this issue caught my eye; that is, the contrast between the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. To those of us who have been involved in conventional types of business, Customs and Excise is seen mainly in terms of VAT and it may seem odd that the department which collects VAT, excise duty and so forth, is to be given these powers and, according to the Bill, the Inland Revenue is not. I fancy that, as much as anything, the reason is historic. Customs and Excise is a considerably older department and that is why Customs and Excise provisions appear first in finance Bills. Also it has a long history as an anti-smuggling agency, which at one time was an extremely rough business, and still can be. It was an armed service. Most of the older Customs Houses have a glass case somewhere with the odd musket or two and cutlass in it. The Inland Revenue never had powers of that character whereas Customs and Excise traditionally had.
  The situation is partly historic but partly also has to do with the fact that those working for Customs and Excise spend a great deal of their time engaged in international matters—anti-smuggling matters—of a very important nature, which include drugs and all things relating to excise duty, and so on. Given that it is in part historical, it also partly reflects the international nature of many of the operations of the Customs and Excise by comparison with those of the Inland Revenue. However, when one considers the VAT/income tax comparison, it is still odd that the two departments should be treated differently. I am not sure that I can logically justify such treatment in those terms.
  I spoke earlier about the difference of treatment as regards external and internal communications, which has continued into this Bill. That is perhaps another example of treating our own citizens within the country more softly, as it were, than those who are doing international business and who are, hence, potential smugglers, so to speak. Customs and Excise is not called the "Outward Revenue" or the "Overseas Revenue", but, in a sense, that would be the true
  340
  contrast to the Inland Revenue. It would also express the historic role of the service, though not its current role.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we should like to identify ourselves with the amendment. It is perhaps strange that the Commissioners for Inland Revenue were not placed within the definition of "relevant public authority" from the outset. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, said, it is ludicrous for the Inland Revenue to be hamstrung in the proper collection of taxes at a time when there are already signs that tax is falling not so much on the well off as on the law abiding. Therefore, we are wholly supportive of this measure.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. Like other Members of this House, I am familiar with his report on the black economy and with the great respect in which that report is held. From what I understand and from the eloquent way in which my noble friend set out the considerations this evening, there seems to be a strong case for the inclusion of the Inland Revenue among those public authorities which are able to access communications data.
  For my part, I appreciate that this amendment would enable the Inland Revenue to track down those businesses that advertise a telephone number alone and have not told the Inland Revenue that they are liable to pay tax. This Government are encouraging people working in the informal economy to put their affairs in order. That encouragement needs to be balanced by powers which enable those who remain in the informal economy to be detected and brought to account. As such, that appears to me to be a sensible and proportionate suggestion.
  I am entirely convinced by what my noble friend has said. I was most interested in the discursive and informative comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and welcome the positive reaction from noble Lords opposite that this would be a useful addition to the statute book. Therefore, I can say that the Government are more than happy to accept this amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he respond to the point that I made about whether this provision would only give the Inland Revenue the possibility to make the reverse telephone number enquiries to which the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, referred? Alternatively, will it go further than that in covering all communications data?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that I shall have to indulge in the familiar Home Office correspondence with the noble Lord on that point. However, I shall do so as swiftly as possible.
  Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I believe that a reply may be forthcoming.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I struggle to read the writing that is in front of me. We agree that the Inland Revenue should be limited in the communications data that it can obtain. The Secretary of State will make an order under Clause 24(3) limiting the data that can be obtained by the Inland Revenue. I think that that answers the noble Lord's point.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that it probably does. However, I shall study it carefully and no doubt the noble Lord will write to me if necessary.
  Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of all those who have participated in this short debate and for the approach adopted by my noble friend the Minister.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 27, line 27, leave out paragraph (f).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove the possibility of the Secretary of State adding other public authorities to the relevant list. We have just added one. Clause 24(1)(f) implies that further public authorities may be added to the list. What other public authorities do the Government have it in mind to add to the list? The present list is, admittedly, fairly limited and comprises the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, Customs and Excise, and the intelligence services. The Inland Revenue has now been added to the list.
  However, Clause 21 contains all kinds of measures which are not undertaken by the distinguished public authorities that I have mentioned. For example, Clause 21 mentions "protecting public health" and,
  "preventing death or injury or any damage to a person's physical or mental health".
  None of the public authorities that I have just mentioned is known to take care of those matters, although they have their own valid responsibilities. Clause 21 also mentions,
  "assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department".
  An enormous number of government departments other than Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue collect charges, taxes or duties of one kind or another. Every local authority collects local taxes of one kind or another and imposes local charges of every character. Therefore the potential for adding to the list of public authorities is enormous. The least that we can do is to inquire what the Government propose to do with this power, if it is granted to them by Parliament under the Bill. Is this a power that we should grant to the Government? I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend's amendment which points out the dissonance between the clause we are discussing and Clause 21. There are so many purposes in Clause 21 for which communications data can be obtained that there
  342
  clearly have to be more authorities in the Government's mind now that they intend to add to the list in Clause 24(1)(f). Before we reach Third Reading we should be given a list of them.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is altogether a more difficult issue than the question discussed earlier of whether we can add to the purposes for which communications data can be accessed. This issue addresses whether we can add to the list of public authorities which can access communications data.
  I am aware of the views of noble Lords opposite who think that the power should be removed, and, of course, I have read the 21st report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. But the simple fact is that we are entering uncharted territory as we approach the implementation of the Human Rights Act. One of the prime purposes of this Bill is to enact an ECHR compliant regime for the use of the six investigatory powers which are covered by the Bill.
  As I have previously explained, the power of accessing communications data in Chapter II of Part I effectively replaces for the agencies named in Clause 24 the voluntary arrangements under the Data Protection Act 1998. There are significant constraints on the use that the public authorities named can make of the power. This is deliberate; it is necessary in order to ensure ECHR compliance. We have also instituted for the first time proper oversight and redress arrangements for the accessing of communications data.
  We are proud of the regime for communications data in the Bill. It is better than the voluntary arrangements currently operated under the Data Protection Act. The Bill brings strict controls, judicial oversight and recourse to the tribunal. We want to be sure that the regime is capable of applying to other agencies with important investigative or regulatory functions. Those agencies might use their own statutory powers as at present; or they might use voluntary arrangements; or they might not access communications data at all. The amendment, however, would prevent those other agencies from coming within the ECHR-compliant system in the Bill. That would be a curious result.
  The noble Lord asks why we cannot list now all the bodies which need to access communications data. We have done so in Clause 24, where we have listed the key law enforcement and intelligence agencies which we know will need these powers. But we are not sure that the list is or can be complete. I shall try to explain why.
  First, a concrete example: we had an interesting discussion on the case for the Inland Revenue to be added to the list. The case for the Inland Revenue, eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has arisen out of a learned and detailed consideration of the issues affecting the informal economy and the need to enforce it. I suggest that this is a good example of how very cogent reasons can be put forward for a public authority to be added to the list and which, perhaps with some justification, we would wish to accept.

  343
  But there are other regulators in the corporate and financial fields which may also be candidates for inclusion. Again, the position is not yet clear. This is not only because we are still finding out which techniques are used by which agency—although, as your Lordships know, there is some truth in that; it is one of the very instructive consequences of the Human Rights Act—but also because regulatory techniques change as patterns of business behaviour change. Communications data may well become more important to some agencies. If that happens, we do not believe that primary legislation should be the only means of responding.
  Finally, there may be bodies which do not yet know that what they are doing interferes with Article 8 rights and needs to be regulated. We hope that convention awareness is fairly good across the public sector, but we cannot be 100 per cent certain. There may be bodies which do not yet know that they are likely to be "public authorities" for the purpose of the Human Rights Act.
  For these reasons, we maintain that there is a strong argument for retaining the order-making power in Clause 24 and elsewhere in the Bill. Orders must be approved by each House, giving Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise any authorities that are added to the list. I ask noble Lords to reflect carefully on that matter. I would never disagree with the Committee lightly; I had intended to speak with Members of the Committee, but that has not been possible. After reflection, I ask noble Lords opposite to withdraw their amendment.
  We require flexibility and, if this amendment were to be agreed to, effectively we would need Acts of Parliament to add new agencies. While that might be desirable in terms of the level of scrutiny, it would be unduly inflexible and add an unnecessary burden to the legislative programme. This could perhaps be much better dealt with through order making, where there will be an opportunity to scrutinise any further authorities which need to be added to the list. With that, I trust that noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, that was an astonishing response in several respects. Regarding the Home Office's careful concern for the legislative programme, given that we are awash with Bills from the Home Office at the moment—we have lists of Bills that are stuck somewhere in the parliamentary process—and given that we have another Bill to deal with in the next couple of weeks that the Home Office has just thought of, its tender concern for the legislative programme is touching.
  There were other extraordinary features of the noble Lord's response. This problem will clearly be extended, mostly it seemed from what the Minister said, to public departments which do not realise that they fall under the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act. Considering all the publicity there has been about the Human Rights Act— there have even been training sessions for lawyers on the Human Rights Act—there are still public departments which do not realise that within a few weeks they will come
  344
  under its provisions. The Secretary of State will have to rush through orders to try to bring them in line. The reply was extraordinary because within a couple of clauses we have another quite different definition of "relevant public authorities" which is incorporated by Clause 29 and Schedule 1. It is an enormously long list. It includes all kinds of interesting bodies, including the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which we discussed at an earlier stage of our deliberations, the Food Standards Agency and other such bodies. They are given powers for directed surveillance, covert human intelligence sources and so on, but so far they are not to be allowed to look at the reverse telephone directory. Perhaps they will be allowed to look at it in the future. But, given the Minister's reply, why on earth Schedule 1 was not allowed to cover this clause I find difficult to imagine.
  It is not that we wish to deny the reverse telephone directory to public authorities that need it although, as I said earlier, I am still a little doubtful as to the exact amount of data to which a public authority in the list would be allowed to have access. However, in the light of the Minister's reply, startled as I am by it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 [Conduct to which Part II applies]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 28, line 21, leave out ("either") and insert—
  ("( ) is carried out in relation to anything taking place on any residential premises or in any private vehicle; and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam, in moving Amendment No. 37 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38. We now come to Part II of the Bill. The Government are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing to our attention an unintended consequence of the Bill's current provisions relating to intrusive surveillance. As drafted, a police officer using the residential premises of a third party as an observation post in order to carry out covert surveillance of a target outside those premises would be caught, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, argued in Committee, by the definition of intrusive surveillance in Clause 25(3). That was not intended. The police and other public authorities will often use the residential premises of a public-minded citizen as an observation post to follow the activities of a suspected criminal. That will not always be in connection with serious crime. The police may wish to know, for example, who is calling at the home of a suspected drug peddler. Such operations happen all the time and we never intended them to come within the classification of intrusive surveillance.
  These amendments remove that type of activity from the classification. Thus, intrusive surveillance is limited to the residential premises or private vehicle of the subject of the surveillance or to other premises or vehicle where the information obtained from a device is of the same quality and detail as might be expected to be obtained from a device actually on the premises or in the vehicle. I beg to move.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to find out that one has something right. It does not often happen on the Opposition Benches, but it has happened not only on the Opposition Benches today but also on the Government Benches, which is even rarer, as I remember from my years as a Back-Bencher when we were in government. I am delighted by the amendments. They are much better drafted than the ones I tabled. I am very pleased to see them in the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 28, line 22, leave out from ("individual") to end of line 26 and insert ("on the premises or in the vehicle or is carried out by means of a surveillance device").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 28, line 41, leave out ("the same") and insert ("similar").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to a discussion we had on an amendment in Committee which was not greeted with approbation in the reply that I received from the Minister. I have tried with the amendment to move the argument on a little. I understand where the Minister is coming from in talking about the kind of devices he wishes to consider as providing intrusive surveillance of what is going on inside a property. I merely wish to make the point that I made, among others, in Committee, that the use of the words "the same" rules those out on the pure ground of the physics of these matters. It can never be the "same". The use of an optical system is bound to introduce distortion and loss of quality. If one is using a laser-based listening device, one has a sheet of glass. That will seriously degrade reception. However good the laser, the glass gets in the way. That will seriously degrade the quality of data and the quality of listening.
  However good the laser system, on the basic laws of physics it will never be "the same". It absolutely cannot be. It is no good the Minister hoping that law writing can go against the laws of physics. It cannot. Therefore, no such device will ever be intrusive surveillance if anyone chooses to push it to a court case. It is not "the same". That is why I propose in the amendment that we should have the word "similar", which would allow the physics to be accommodated in the law. One can say that a laser device provides a "similar" level of performance as one could achieve with a microphone in a room, but it definitely does not, and never will, provide the "same" level of performance. I beg to move.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in Committee I spoke on this amendment in the same terms as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The logic seems to be as irresistible today as it did then. I cannot see why the amendment is not acceptable. I hope that it is.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, hope that the amendment is acceptable, although it occurred to
  346
  me this morning when I was considering the issue that even "similar" may not be the correct word. What we mean is "as good as". The "same" means that it is neither better nor worse; "similar" means that it is not much better or not much worse; what we really mean is that it should be "as good as".
  Lord Bach: My Lords, this amendment would bring a greater range of surveillance activity within the definition of "intrusive surveillance". We do not want to do that. In Committee an amendment was tabled around subsection (5) of this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was somewhat sceptical that a device outside residential premises or a private vehicle could ever produce material of the same quality as if it were located in those premises. I know that that doubt is behind the amendment.
  I begin by saying that we are assured that it is indeed possible to obtain material of the same quality and detail by remote means. Furthermore, given the rapid progress being made in all fields of technology, we consider this provision to be a wise piece of "future-proofing". It is therefore the Government's view that the test of the "same quality and detail" is the right one.
  It may be, for example, that some interference may result when one obtains audio material remotely, but the same may also be true when a device is present in the premises and the product from that device is transmitted back to those listening. However, the detail and quality—what can actually be heard—is the same.
  It might seem that this amendment is simply a matter of semantics. However, the noble Lord's amendment would also have the effect, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, of bringing a greater range of surveillance activity within the definition of intrusive surveillance.
  The Bill as it stands includes within the definition of intrusive surveillance those operations or investigations where the police or others use highly sophisticated equipment to obtain details of a conversation inside either a person's home or his private vehicle without installing a device on those premises. To extend the definition of intrusive surveillance to surveillance which produces material of a similar quality to that which could be obtained from a device actually present on the premises would not, in our view, be sensible.
  This broader definition would risk catching activities which are much less intrusive, such as watching and photographing activity seen through the window of a house, which is properly defined now as directed surveillance. Indeed, perhaps I may quote the noble Lord's own words when we discussed this in Committee. He said that,
  "merely watching something from outside",
  does not fall,
  "within the ordinary definition of 'intrusive"'.—[Official Report. 28/6/00; col. 927.]

  347
  I ask the noble Lord to reconsider this and to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, of course I shall withdraw the amendment, but I still argue the point that, according to the laws of physics, such surveillance never can be absolutely and exactly the "same". Imagine a microphone installed on a premises. The sensitivity of that microphone to a conversation will depend on a finely designed audio pick-up which will then be sent to a form of digital transmission which will, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, transmit back perfectly the information received. Error codes will be included so that any mistakes which occur in transmission can be traced and corrected. Thus, with a good quality, modern digital microphone, it is possible to achieve perfect transmission at a considerable distance from a premises.
  However, when using a laser device, the well-designed and sensitive microphone is replaced by a three-millimetre sheet of plate glass manufactured by Pilkington to no high specification. It will contain within it all kinds of harmonics and vibrations. It must produce a lower level of reception because the level of hearing will be so much worse than that from a microphone placed inside a premises. Even though perfect transmission might be achieved from the glass back to the electronic reception, the fact of the sheet of glass standing in the way will inevitably degrade the transmission. If the requirement is that it should be the "same", then everything should be ruled out. There is no device in existence which operates outside that could not be bettered by a device placed inside a premises or a car. That is an absolute and 100 per cent unbreakable law of physics. It cannot be otherwise.
  However, I understand the noble Lord's difficulties with the word "similar". It will allow into the definition of intrusive surveillance all kinds of activities which he would not wish to see included. However, I hold to my basic premise; namely, that the wording used by the Government keeps everything out. The Government have said that they do not want that either. I hope that those on both sides of the argument will give the matter further consideration before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 29 [Persons entitled to grant authorisations under ss. 27 and 28]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 33, line 12, leave out ("The Secretary of State may by order") and insert ("An order under this section may").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I should like to move Amendment No. 40 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 94. These amendments look substantial on the Marshalled List, but their purpose is simple. They seek to achieve four things. They will add the Food Standards Agency and the Intervention Board to the list of bodies whose surveillance activities can be regulated by an order made by the devolved administration. The new clause deals with the
  348
  situation in Northern Ireland and will enable the devolved administration in Northern Ireland to make orders governing surveillance by bodies in the transferred, devolved field.
  First, the amendments add the Food Standards Agency and the Intervention Board to the list of bodies. Secondly, they ensure that the same is true for new bodies which are added to the schedule by the Secretary of State. As long as those bodies are not within sole Westminster competence, it is right that the devolved administration should have the ability to regulate them. Thirdly, the amendments change the order-making authority from "First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly" to "Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister". That refinement is made at the suggestion of the devolved administration. Lastly, the amendments split Clause 29 into two clauses, simply because the Northern Ireland material in Clause 29 has become substantial enough to merit a new clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, some would not regard 12th July as a suitable day on which to make these changes in relation to Northern Ireland. However, I do not object to them.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 41 to 43:
  Page 33, line 18, at end insert—
  ("(5A) Without prejudice to section (Orders under s. 29 for Northern Ireland), the power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State.").
  Page 33, line 25, leave out subsections (7) to (13).
  After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—

  ORDERS UNDER S. 29 FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
  (" —(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the power to make an order under section 29 for the purposes of the grant of authorisations for conduct in Northern Ireland shall be exercisable by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland (concurrently with being exercisable by the Secretary of State).
  (2) The power of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make an order under section 29 by virtue of subsection (1) or (3) of that section shall not be exercisable in relation to any public authority other than—

  (a) the Food Standards Agency;

  (b) the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce;

  (c) an authority added to Schedule 1 by an order made by that Office;

  (d) an authority added to that Schedule by an order made by the Secretary of State which it would (apart from that order) have been within the powers of that Office to add to that Schedule for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.

  (3) The power of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make an order under section 29—

  (a) shall not include power to make any provision dealing with an excepted matter;

  (b) shall not include power, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, to make any provision dealing with a reserved matter.

  (4) The power of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make an order under section 29 shall be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
  (5) A statutory rule containing an order under section 29 which makes provision by virtue of subsection (5) of that section for—

  (a) adding any public authority to Part I or II of Schedule 1, or

  (b) moving any public authority from Part II to Part I of that Schedule,

  shall be subject to affirmative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(4) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).
  (6) A statutory rule containing an order under section 29 (other than one to which subsection (5) of this section applies) shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).
  (7) An order under section 29 made by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister may—

  (a) make different provision for different cases;

  (b) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Office thinks fit.

  (8) The reference in subsection (2) to an addition to Schedule 1 being within the powers of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister includes a reference to its being within the powers exercisable by that Office with the consent for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) of the Secretary of State.
  (9) In this section "excepted matter" and "reserved matter" have the same meanings as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and, in relation to those matters, section 98(2) of that Act (meaning of "deals with") applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 43A:
  Page 52, line 24, leave out ("likely to be of value for purposes connected with") and insert ("necessary and of substantial importance for").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 43A deals with the four conditions which must be satisfied if any person with the appropriate permission under the clause is to impose a disclosure requirement in respect of protected information. Therefore, this is very important. Clause 47, which prescribes how notices requiring disclosure are to be formulated, is central to the Bill. We on these Benches believe that the four conditions impose sensible requirements. One is that the person on whom the disclosure requirement is to be imposed is in possession of the protected information. The second condition is that the imposition of that requirement is proportionate. The third requirement is that it is not reasonably practicable to get the information otherwise.
  The last condition, which is where the amendment comes in, is that the imposition of the disclosure requirement in respect of protected information is necessary on the grounds specified in subsection (3)—that it is in the interests of national security, that it is for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or that it is in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK—or is,
  "likely to be of value for purposes connected with the exercise or performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty".
  That is such an open, vapid and weak requirement—it is also an alternative to the interests of national security, crime detection and the UK's economic well-being—that it blasts a considerable
  350
  hole in the proper protection which citizens should have against a disclosure requirement, which is a very serious step, being placed upon them.
  This amendment changes the wording of subsection (2)(b)(ii) so that it reads:
  "necessary"—
  that reflects subsection (1)—
  "and of substantial importance for the exercise or performance of any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty".
  We believe that that sensible, minimal provision should be satisfied before these substantial powers are exercisable. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that the provision in Clause 47(2)(b)(ii) has caused concern. I stress that this is not the open door to allow access to keys as some have painted it. Encrypted data may conceivably be encountered in a number of circumstances by a wide range of public authorities other than simply the UK's law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies which have statutory powers to seize or require disclosure of information.
  Our objective is to seek to maintain as best we can the effectiveness of all statutory powers and functions in the face of technological advancement. These are powers that Parliament has considered are necessary. Merely because advancements in technology now make it possible for data to be protected in some extra technical way through the use of strong encryption ought not of itself to undermine the effectiveness of these powers. That is the essential position.
  That said, the amendment indicates a view that the current test in Clause 47(2)(b)(ii) is too low. We are prepared to look at this again and produce something a little stronger. We do not believe that the exact wording proposed by the noble Lord quite works. But I undertake to take this matter away and propose alternative wording in time for Third Reading. I am sure that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment in those circumstances.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble Lord does indeed see fit to withdraw his amendment and looks forward to the wording proposed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 47 [Notices requiring disclosure]:
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 52, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) must provide arrangements for the protected information to be delivered to the recipient in the event that—

  (i) it is not already in his possession. or

  (ii) it is only likely to come into the possession of any person or service in accordance with some paragraph of subsection (1);").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not an easy clause in the Bill. The amendment addresses a situation where the recipient of a Section 47 disclosure

  351
  notice cannot comply with it because he does not have the protected information that he is supposed to decrypt or put into plain text. Perhaps I may make it easier to understand by giving a scenario.
  Let us say that Steve sends an encrypted message to Willie and he decrypts it. He reads it and notes its contents. He does not keep it perhaps because it contains information which is too sensitive to keep. Two days later a legally entitled entity who has intercepted the message comes to Willie with a Section 47 notice and requests to be provided with the plain text. Willie cannot comply, however willing. He says, "Supply me with a copy of the protected information and I shall be happy to oblige". If, for whatever reason, the legally entitled authority does not then supply the protected information, poor Willie is in a serious situation, which we would not want. This innocent amendment is designed to put Willie in the clear in these unhappy circumstances. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this problem was also pointed out to me. It is important that we have a response to it and preferably that we put the Bill right.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so concerned about communications between Steve and Willie. I shall do my best. As I understand it, this amendment seeks to plug what seems to be a flaw in the current construction of Clause 48. The proposed change would mean that in all cases where the recipient of the notice does not have the relevant protected information in his or her possession the person with permission to serve a Section 47 notice would be required to provide that information in its entirety to the recipient of the notice to allow him or her to decrypt it or to disclose any key of their choosing that does decode it.
  We cannot accept this amendment. The Bill recognises that there may be cases where the recipient of a notice does not have the relevant protected information in their possession but has a relevant key. In such cases it may well be that providing the relevant protected information to a person will be sensible and practical in certain circumstances. We can see that.
  Clause 48(1)(a) makes it clear that there will be no statutory bar to giving him or her access to the information. But there may be other cases where it might not be right to do that; for example, where notices are to be served on persons themselves suspected of criminality. We do not believe it right that in all cases they, too, should be supplied with the relevant protected information.
  We must also consider the question of an individual's right to privacy. We hear much talk about that in connection with Part III. We can envisage problems if there is a blanket requirement to disclose one person's information to another who might, for example, never have seen it; nor was it meant for him. We do not think that it would be right in all cases for those people to be able to see another person's information.
  352
  The argument is starkest in cases involving interception. The amendment would be in conflict with the principle underlying Clause 14, which we think rightly imposes strict limits on who can see intercepted material. We think that the privacy argument prevails.
  This is difficult. We do not believe it appropriate to put a blanket provision on the face of the Bill to say that a person serving a notice must in all cases provide the recipient of a notice with all the protected information where he himself does not possess it. That would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
  There will be cases where that is appropriate but others where it is not. It seems to us that this is a matter sensibly dealt with in the code of practice. I appreciate that the initial draft code does not cover this but we shall consider the noble Lord's comments on this point—they are relevant and no doubt we shall receive communications from other interested parties on the subject—in fleshing out the details of the code. I trust that, with that undertaking, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the reply. It merely illustrates the twists and turns which dog every part of the Bill. I should be happy to think that there were satisfactory provisions in the relevant code of practice.
  Perhaps the Minister will assure me that in the scenario I suggested Willie could not find himself on the wrong side of the law because such a provision is not in the Bill. I do not expect that assurance today. However, there could be a category of cases where severe injustice could be done.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am prepared to consider the point further. If we cannot put a provision on the face of the Bill—I do not think that we would be in that territory—it is an issue which can be addressed in the code of practice. If the noble Lord has a drafting suggestion, we shall consider it closely.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No 45:
  Page 53, line 7, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a reasonable").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an exceedingly modest amendment. I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Cope suggested earlier that I have a tendency to underestimate the effect of such amendments. The amendment seeks to impose a reasonable test on this contentious and significant part of the Bill. The hour is late; we have tomorrow to come. Therefore, I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, as my noble friend said, Clause 47 is a difficult and controversial part of the Bill. It is a reasonable amendment. The Govern merit must either accept the amendment or explain why they

  353
  regard it as unnecessary. The Bill provides that a notice imposing a disclosure "must specify the time". There is no reference to a reasonable period of time unless the issue is addressed in a code of practice that I have missed. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl did himself an injustice by saying that his amendment was modest. It is a most helpful amendment. It appears to stem from a fear of unreasonable demands in respect of the time by which persons may be required to comply with Section 47 notices.
  We discussed the matter in Committee, when I set out reasons why I did not believe that that would be the case. However, I am willing to accept the noble Earl's amendment in principle. We do not believe that the drafting is quite right and if he can accept that point I happily give an undertaking to come back at Third Reading with something that does the job. We need to consider the words in order to ensure that they are fit for the purpose and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I gained the impression that I was quite close—wonders will never cease! I am entirely happy with the Minister's response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to the Minister resolving the issue in his own terms.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 53, line 9, leave out from ("made") to end of line 11.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this limiting amendment would delete the provision permitting a Section 47 notice to be given,
  "in such form as the person giving it thinks fit".
  It is a simple change and one which we hope will be welcome. It was prompted by similar amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, to which we have given further consideration.
  The fear was that the present provision contained in Clause 47(4)(h) would somehow be misused, allowing notices to be served in whatever form a particular authority saw fit to use. I believe that those fears are very much unfounded. We have said all along that there needs to be consistency in the form of notices for the sake of the authority serving them and of those receiving them. But by way of offering comfort, we are proposing here to delete Clause 47(4)(h) from the Bill. Guidance on notices will be given in the code of practice. We need to consult on the form of a notice to achieve best practice. We have set out an idea of what a notice might look like in the initial draft code of practice on which we will welcome and require comments from all interested parties. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, as a matter of courtesy, I rise to thank the Minister for the Government's response.
  354
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 53, line 16, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have never yet succeeded in arguing grammar with the parliamentary draftsman. I doubt that I shall succeed on this occasion but I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he has never succeeded in arguing with the parliamentary draftsman. Tonight is a first; he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. We spoke earlier of lawyers and closet lawyers and the incredible care with which the noble Lord has examined the Bill has paid off. We believe that he is right and we are happy to accept his amendment. We are always pleased to hear the noble Lord's drafting suggestions—perhaps not always so late at night—and on this occasion we are happy to accept his amendment.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have a small confession to make. The idea was not mine but that of a gentleman called Charles Lindsey from Manchester University. Clearly, academia is working at full speed on the Bill and I am delighted.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord has just spoilt it all!
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 53, line 44, at end insert—
  ("( ) A notice shall not be considered necessary on the ground falling within subsection (3)(c) unless the information protected by the key which is sought to be disclosed is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is ill-placed and would better sit under subsection (3). However, its object is simple enough. It attempts to bring the rationale which underlies Section 47 notices into line with that which prevails for interception warrants with which we believe Section 47 notices should be compared as regards civil libertarian and privacy aspects. That is the point of bringing in the reference to,
  "relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands".
  or, as it may be better to say, the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the concerns which lie behind the amendment are unfounded. The limitation suggested is already present via other existing statutes. It is unnecessary because the underlying powers of the relevant agencies which may lawfully obtain material in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK are constrained by existing statutes which confine the agencies' functions to certain activities only. That is important and has been missed by a number of commentators outside your Lordships' House.

  355
  Section 47 notices authorised as being necessary in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom under Clause 47(3)(c) must be related to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands. The reason is that the powers and functions of the relevant agencies are constrained by statute—in this case, the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
  For example, the statutory function of the Secret Intelligence Service which may be exercisable in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom under Section 1(2)(b) of the ISA is constrained by Section 1(1)(a) of that Act only to where this relates to,
  "the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands".
  The statutory functions of GCHQ are similarly constrained by Section 3(2)(b) of the ISA, which also limits the economic well-being function to,
  "actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands".
  The corresponding function of the Security Service is to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands. That is by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Security Service Act 1989.
  Section 5(2)(a) of the ISA explains that the Secretary of State may authorise a warrant only where it is necessary in carrying out the functions of the agencies, those functions being constrained as I have just described. As regards economic well-being, that must relate to the actions or intentions of persons outside the United Kingdom. It is unlawful for the agencies to act outside their statutory functions as described in the ISA.
  The important point to reiterate is that the power to serve a decryption notice is simply ancillary to existing, limited powers. Therefore, to a large extent the restriction which noble Lords seek is already there, attached to the relevant underlying statutory power.
  Clause 47(3)(c) is worded,
  "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom".
  because we must cater for the circumstances where, for example, protected material is lawfully obtained under a warrant granted under Section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act. Such a warrant may be granted,
  "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom".
  Parliament has already provided for that power. Therefore, it is right that the disclosure power in Part III of the Bill can cover it. However, as I explained, that is constrained by underlying statutes to situations where our economic well-being is affected by the actions or intentions of persons outside the UK.
  I trust that that explanation will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for that full explanation. I believe that it is a pity that in a Bill of this nature that cannot be put on the face of the Bill rather than leaving the poor reader of the statute to chase around among a hoard of other Acts.
  356
  I do not see why, as a matter of practical draftsmanship and utility of the measure, that should not appear here.
  My second point is: what would be the situation if the intelligence agencies came into possession of protected information other than by a statutory power? Could not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry authorise a decryption notice in the interests of economic well-being, thus escaping the defences mentioned by the Minister? I do not expect him to answer that point at five past 11 on a Wednesday night, but I ask him to dwell on the first practical issue and perhaps review his opinion before Third. Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 53, line 44, at end insert—
  ("( ) A notice under this section shall not require the disclosure of any key where an application under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may be used to require the production of data in a legible and usable form.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have all received e-mails with attachments that turn out to be unreadable because they have been written in a program that we do not have or that our word processor will not read. As the Bill is written, such data are considered to be encrypted, because they cannot be read as plain text. A document is practically encrypted if the receiver cannot read it or make sense of it—and a right pain it is to receive it.
  The police have the power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to require that the information be put into a form in which they can read it. The Bill addresses that problem in a different way, by requiring me, against all the copyright agreements that I have presumably entered into with Microsoft, to provide the police with a copy of whichever version of Word I have used to write the document that is unintelligible to them. PACE is a better way of dealing with encryption caused by commercial programs storing data in their own format. The amendment is a suggestion, but I shall be happy to accept that there are better ways of doing it. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He has touched on an issue that we had considered. We looked carefully at whether PACE might be sufficient to do the job, but we do not believe that it is. It is interesting that we were working in the same direction.
  PACE was enacted before the growth of the Internet as a mass communications medium and the wider availability of strong encryption. PACE does not do what the authorities need on protected information. The important point is contained in Section 20 of PACE, which the noble Lord hints at in the amendment. It requires computerised material to be produced in a visible and legible form that can he taken away. The important question is whether that also means that the information should be comprehensible. We believe that there is doubt about that. The issue has already caused problems for the police.

  357
  There is no explicit power in UK law to require someone to disclose protected information in an intelligible form; neither is there a clear power to require the disclosure of an encryption key. We are trying to remedy that with Part III. Tweaking PACE would not do that.
  We recognise that any number of other statutory powers and functions may potentially be undermined by the rising use of encryption technology by criminals. That is why we have opted for a self-standing disclosure power to be properly authorised that contains its own safeguards.
  If the relevant PACE provisions were sufficient, I assure your Lordships that we would not be legislating in Part III. It is because they are not that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I hope that he will be able to tell me, in correspondence or otherwise, how I get round the fact that I am not authorised to provide anybody with a copy of a commercial program. I shall get into all sorts of trouble if I start copying Microsoft Word to provide it to other people. That is effectively what I should have to do if the police required me to produce the key because the program itself is the key.
  All I need is some comfort that I am protected from any consequences from the author of the program for providing the police or whoever with a copy of it so that they can use it on the files which they need to understand. But I do not need an answer now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 53, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 54 and insert ("where—

  (a) it is intended to be used for the purpose only of generating electronic signatures and has not in fact been used for any other purpose; or

  (b) the protected information to which that key relates is itself a further key whose disclosure could not be required by virtue of this subsection.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to protect signature keys. We believe that the Bill as drafted inadvertently creates a problem. Signature keys are normally numbers with special mathematical properties which are thousands of digits long. That is intended to prevent any possibility of being penetrated. In turn, that means that no one can remember his signature key numbers and thus a simple memorable pass phrase is needed in order to obtain access to the real signature key.
  This matter is beyond my ken but we are informed about it by those assisting us—Caspar Bowden in particular. The problem is that under the Bill as drafted the encrypted private signature-only key is itself protected information. That is under Clause 54(1) and (4). However, if that were to come into the possession of an officer—for example, by seizure of
  358
  a computer—the officer may by notice under Clause 47(9)(a) demand the owner's pass phrase, notwithstanding that he would then hold the owner's signature-only key.
  The officer would not be in breach of Clause 47(9)(a) in asking for that and he is asking for the pass phrase which is undoubtedly an encryption key and for which he is thus entitled to ask. So the purpose of this wording is to close that loophole. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may point out an oddity in the groupings list. We are now discussing Amendment No. 50 which should be grouped with Amendment No. 52 and then Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 go together. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has not spoken to Amendments Nos. 51 and 53, which go together conveniently as the next grouping because they deal with the word "recently". Amendments Nos. 50 and 52 deal with the problem of how keys are held by people and they go together.
  I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. Nobody keeps his private key in his head or anywhere. It is a long succession of digits or symbols, 128 of them, and they are not memorable. They are protected with a pass phrase. So people will carry around their digital signature in their head as a pass phrase. But, as the Bill is written at the moment, that pass phrase can be demanded and received by the police, even though it only protects one's digital signature to which the police have no right. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, Caspar Bowden has spotted a technical but important error which should be put right, if not by this amendment then by something similar.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with noble Lords who have spoken. This is something which needs to be put right. We are given a choice of drafting here. I express a preference for my noble friend's drafting, not merely on grounds of friendship.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should have dealt with Amendments Nos. 51 and 53. There is no pride at this hour of night and if the drafting of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, appeals to the Government, I do not care so long as the problem is resolved. Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 are designed to ensure the protection of subsection (9), which states that a notice,
  "shall not require the disclosure of any key which … (b) has not in fact been used for any other purpose".
  The insertion of the word "recently" seems sensible and reasonable. Amendment No. 53 simply defines what "recently" means.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 52 and 53. In Committee there was discussion of electronic signature keys and I said then, as I say now, that we recognise the importance of maintaining the security

  359
  of electronic signature keys. The whole point about electronic signatures is to ensure the integrity and authenticity of data, but the reality of the technology is that it is possible for signature keys to be used for confidentiality purposes to protect or to encrypt the content of data or messages. After all, Part III of the Bill is all about that.
  Where keys have been used for both purposes, it seems right that the Bill should provide for power to require disclosure in certain circumstances. That is the reality of the technology. As before, your Lordships' amendment recognises that in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 50. If paragraph (b) is intended to allay fears in cases where persons may have stored their electronic signature on their computer and, to protect it, encrypted it with a password or passphrase, the rationale is that that becomes protected information which, if the computer is seized, a law enforcement officer could demand to be disclosed under the Part III powers.
  I see what this tries to achieve, but I do not believe that it is necessary. I recognise the concern and I shall try to address it. First, law enforcement will be able to serve a notice only if the tests in Clause 47 are met. Trying to obtain a key by describing it as protected information would have to be necessary. I cannot predict all future circumstances in which keys may be sought but those tests look pretty high in the example that we are discussing here.
  Secondly, we are interested to ensure that these provisions are not abused or avoided by practitioners. For the record, if law enforcement officers want to gain access to decrypted information, they should do so by following the procedure set out in the Bill. They should not do so by treating the key as protected information. I am grateful to noble Lords who have raised this issue. We shall address it as a matter of good practice in the code of practice. There is a similar concern in Part II where it would theoretically be possible for someone to achieve what amounts to telephone interception by planting a bug and avoiding Part I of the Bill. Already the code of practice under the Police Act 1997 effectively prevents that and we shall repeat the inhibition in our code under Part III of this piece of legislation. What I have said probably covers Amendment No. 52, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
  Turning to Amendments Nos. 51 and 53, they seek to insert a cut-off point for access to keys used for both electronic signature and confidentiality purposes. I understand the concern about it being asked for keys to be disclosed that were last used for confidentiality purposes some time ago. I understand what these amendments seek to achieve, but we believe that they would cause difficulties.
  It is important to remember that permission for Section 47 notices to be served may be given only in respect of information that has been or is likely to be obtained under some lawful authority. The combined effect of Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 causes a difficulty. Suppose permission to serve a Section 47 notice is given, following only a week-long
  360
  investigation, and although there are not sufficient grounds to justify it, protected information is lawfully seized, including material last encrypted with a key, say, some six months ago, are we saying that that key should not come under the ambit of the Part III power? Under the terms of this amendment, that would be damaging. There are difficulties in setting down timescales as envisaged by the amendments.
  Indeed, general difficulties have been raised by noble Lords. Many are thrown up by the nature of the technology itself, ever-evolving as it does. We tried to provide protection against the set of keys used only for electronic signature purposes in Clause 49, and it is right that we do so. Safeguards are in place, but the reality is that the Bill needs to cater for occasions when signature keys are also being used for confidentiality purposes. That, too, we believe to be right in the circumstances.
  I accept that that is a lengthy explanation. But I hope it helps the noble Lord to feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I listened to the Minister's explanation with less than a perfect understanding of all its working parts. I shall look at Hansard carefully. It may be that I shall have to come back to this later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
  Page 54, line 1, at end insert ("; and
  (c) protects only a further key the disclosure of which could not be required by virtue of this subsection").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, most of what I wanted to say in relation to Amendment No. 52 was covered by the Minister. I merely wish to record, for purposes to which we shall come tomorrow rather than today, that on this basis most of the people in the world—there are a large number of them—using PGP or similar signature systems, will find those signatures open under this Bill because they are used as dual-purpose keys. That is widespread in that and other signature systems. So when we are looking at separating signatures from other keys, we are not doing it to any great extent as regards the ordinary use of current commercial systems by ordinary people. We probably are when we come to commercial organisations, but not for individual people.
  [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 54:
  Page 54, line I, at end insert—
  ("( ) A notice under this section shall not confer any right production of, or access to, items subject to legal privilege.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 54 is another amendment attempting to preserve legal privilege. This one was suggested to me as being

  361
  necessary by the Law Society of Scotland and the Law Society of England and Wales as well. Judging by what happened earlier when I moved a similar amendment on behalf of the Bar Council, I shall be told it is all covered by common law. There appear to be quite a lot of lawyers on my side of this particular argument, but I accept that there appear also to be some on the government side. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, as so often, is absolutely right; the magic phrase "common law" will be used to answer this particular amendment as it was used, what now seems many hours ago, earlier this evening.
  We discussed the question of legally privileged material in the context of our discussion of interception under Part I of the Bill. This Bill does not rewrite the rules of evidence. If something is inadmissible because it is legally privileged, that remains the case under the Bill. That is true for all parts of the Bill.
  Of course, there is the separate question of whether legally privileged material should be looked at under any part of the Bill. That is something we intend to look at under the draft statutory codes of practice and have already asked for comments on what the code should say. As regards Part III, it is important to stress that the disclosure power does not undermine safeguards in existing legislation restricting access to legally privileged material. So where, for example, such material is protected by provisions in PACE, the powers in Part III cannot be used to circumvent those safeguards since the authorities will not be permitted access to protected material which is subject to legal privilege. Where there are already safeguards in place in the underlying powers, they are not weakened by the Bill.
  Then there is the question of material that turns out on decryption to be legally privileged. We deal with this in the codes. Again, I should point out that these are only preliminary drafts. If material is revealed to be protected in law so that the underlying power would not allow access to it, that material should not become available to law enforcement. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, indeed it does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 54A:
  Page 54, line 7, at end insert-
  ("( ) Notwithstanding the generality of this section, for the purpose of requiring any person to provide assistance in relation to a notice issued under this section the person to whom it is addressed may

  (a) serve a copy of the notice on such persons as he considers may be able to provide such assistance; or

  (b) make arrangements under which a copy of it is to be or may be so served.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, apologise to the House for the fact that this is a manuscript amendment that we are slipping in here for a brief discussion. I received a letter this morning from the Post Office which raises the following point, and it seemed to me to be important to place it before your Lordships.
  As I am sure that many of your Lordships know, the Post Office has nowadays a ViaCode service, which is the UK's first secure electronic commerce service and was launched by the Royal Mail last year. It therefore expects to be in a position of having to respond to notices under Part III of the Bill. Under Clause 47, the notices would normally be served on a member of the board of directors, but there are no provisions for passing on the notice to others to enable compliance. There are such provisions under Part I but not in this part of the Bill.
  If the notice contains, as it presumably will, a non-disclosure provision, the director may find himself in the dilemma of facing penalties either for failing to comply or for failing to keep the notice secret if he is not in a personal position to be able to comply with the notice. It seems to me and to the Post Office that if all reasonable efforts have been made to deal with such a notice—and, where appropriate, to keep it secret within the organisation—the director should not be faced with this particular Morton's Fork. The punishment for the offence can be imprisonment. To be imprisoned either way round seems to be a peculiar difficulty in which we might place directors, not just of the Post Office but also of many other companies. I believe that the Post Office has a good point. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, we understand the intent of the amendment and know that there is continuing concern about the extent to which a tipping-off offence will come into play. Indeed, we shall address that matter in a little more detail in tomorrow's proceedings. We believe that this amendment stems from the draft codes of practice, as published on Monday. The preliminary draft code recognises at paragraph 6.9 on page 16 that a senior person in an organisation served with a notice may need assistance, either technical or otherwise, from within that organisation, or another, in order to comply with the terms of the notice.
  The code goes on to say that those serving the notice should be aware of that fact and, in so far as is practicable, should ascertain in advance to whom it is "reasonable" to permit a disclosure to be made. We should always bear in mind that this issue comes into prominence only once the conditions for the imposition of a secrecy requirement have been met. The conditions, which are considerable, are set out in Clause 52.
  Once a secrecy requirement has been imposed, the person serving the notice and the requirement must take reasonable steps to ascertain to whom disclosure could be made in order to give effect to the notice. The code states that these details should be noted on the relevant disclosure notice for the avoidance of any doubt. These are significant matters, which we have

  363
  sought to address in the preliminary draft code. We shall, of course, be willing to address them further and more specifically, if that is what we are advised to do between now and the time that the codes are brought back for affirmative resolution by Parliament.
  At this stage we resist the notion that the recipient of the notice may himself determine without any reference to the person who served the notice who it will be reasonable for him to copy the notice on to. The imposition of a secrecy requirement will not be a trivial matter. Certain significant thresholds will have to be met. In the event that these thresholds are met, it will be important to keep an element of control over onward disclosure of these notices. It will be perfectly possible for the recipient of the notice to come back to the person who served it upon him to clarify that he can disclose the matter further to effect the notice. That is provided for in Clause 52(9).
  However, we cannot go that one step further to permit the person who is in receipt of a notice to take it into his own hands to organise disclosure. That would
  364
  seem to eat away at the very heart of the secrecy requirement. I hope that noble Lords appreciate the importance of the secrecy requirement in certain instances. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I certainly appreciate the importance of the secrecy requirement. I shall ponder that instructive reply. I hope that I shall have the opportunity to ponder it before we reach the later amendments to which the noble Lord referred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before midnight.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Aid
  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Aid
  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Aid
Tunisia: Human Rights
  Tunisia: Human Rights
  Tunisia: Human Rights
Sudan: Sanctions
  Sudan: Sanctions
  Sudan: Sanctions
Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Biological Weapons Convention: Protocol Negotiations
  Biological Weapons Convention: Protocol Negotiations
  Biological Weapons Convention: Protocol Negotiations
Chechnya
  Chechnya
  Chechnya
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Export of Ex-Army Trucks
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Export of Ex-Army Trucks
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Export of Ex-Army Trucks
Democratic Republic of Congo: Export of Ex-Army Truck
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Export of Ex-Army Truck
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Export of Ex-Army Truck
Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
Bovine Materials Used in Medicinal Products: Sourcing
  Bovine Materials Used in Medicinal Products: Sourcing
  Bovine Materials Used in Medicinal Products: Sourcing
Smoking and Government Ministers
  Smoking and Government Ministers
  Smoking and Government Ministers
Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
Soil Association
  Soil Association
  Soil Association
Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
BNFL Magnox, Berkeley Centre: Experimental Work
  BNFL Magnox, Berkeley Centre: Experimental Work
  BNFL Magnox, Berkeley Centre: Experimental Work
Chinook Helicopter ZD576: Flight Plan
  Chinook Helicopter ZD576: Flight Plan
  Chinook Helicopter ZD576: Flight Plan
Westminster Bridge: Roadworks
  Westminster Bridge: Roadworks
  Westminster Bridge: Roadworks
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill