Sitting of 25 July 2000

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

  CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Wednesday 25 October.

  ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 25 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Euro
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Government policy relating to the right of Scottish banks to print currency notes after the proposed introduction of the euro. [130567]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): It is with some regret, Madam Speaker, that I rise to take part in what will be your final time in the Chair for Scottish questions. May I take this opportunity, on behalf of the people of Scotland, Members of Parliament from Scotland, and, I am sure, the whole House to thank you for the way in which you have presided over our deliberations for a considerable time? I wish you all the best for the future.
    Turning to the question, I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues. The Government are well aware of the importance of the issue of Scottish Bank notes in the event of United Kingdom membership of economic and monetary union and it remains one of the issues for negotiations if the UK were to join EMU.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for that full and vague answer. After 300 years of United Kingdom Union in which the Scottish pound has been preserved, does he not find it sad that, because of the Government's attitude to our relationship with the European Union, there is a great risk that the Scottish pound will be abolished? Is he not at all concerned about the risks to the economy of the whole United Kingdom that a European single currency joined by the United Kingdom would have? Has
    882
    he not listened to what Sir Eddie George said today about the great risks that the single currency would bring to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, or are we to assume that Sir Eddie George is not to be listened to in Scotland because he is the Governor of the Bank of England?
    Dr. Reid: My congratulations go to the hon. Lady and the author of that contribution. As I have explained to her already, and as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), has already made plain in his correspondence with the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers, the Government—and, incidentally, the Bank of England—agree that the position has not changed recently. No final decision has been taken. We are well aware of the importance of the facility in Scotland to produce pound notes and we will bear that in mind if and when it comes to joining the euro.
    Our position is balanced, and not vague as the hon. Lady describes it. It is predicated on the best interests of this country, politically and economically. It is certainly distinguished in its pragmatism from the positions of principle held by the three opposition parties. The Liberal Democrats would join the euro tomorrow, irrespective of the consequences. The Scottish National party takes three positions of principle that change with time, but I understand that the latest incarnation is that it would join at the earliest possible date, irrespective of the consequences. The Conservative party holds the qualified principle—the only one philosophically known to man—that this is matter of absolute principle until the end of the next Parliament, when it ceases to be a principle. All those are absurd positions. We will not be dogmatic; we will act, as a Government, in the best interests of the people of this country.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the single currency arrangement made between Scotland and England in 1707 has been extremely beneficial to all concerned and that none of my constituents are campaigning for a return to groats and baubees? Does he further agree that entry to a shared European currency on the right terms would be just as beneficial to all the citizens of the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Reid: I have to give a qualified answer because my experience does not go back as far as 1707. For as long as I have been around I have thought that we have benefited greatly from that arrangement, and it would be a non-progressive step to go back to groats and baubees. However, I notice that the Conservative party, which aspires to government, wants us to go back to threepenny bits and sixpences and no doubt it will be poles, perches and baubees before we get much further into the debate.
    On the euro, we have made it absolutely plain that there is a triple lock. If and when we decide that the criteria have been met, a decision will not only have to be agreed by the Cabinet and the House, but will be put to the people of this country. A combination of the pragmatic approach as to what is in the best interests of this country and a

    883
    democratic approach, which will put the issue before the people, provides the best of both worlds. That is in contrast to the positions offered by the opposition parties.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is quite difficult to be dogmatic about a policy of dither and delay? The Government need to recognise that if Britain is to be a member of the European single currency, we must take practical steps now to achieve convergence and make the possibility of winning a referendum achievable. What is the Secretary of State doing to achieve that?
    Dr. Reid: I have never had any difficulty in watching Liberal Democrats take a dogmatic approach to dither and delay. For many years, they have run on the slogan "What do we want? Gradual change. When do we want it? In due course". There is no difficulty in finding that to be so on the hon. Gentleman's part.
    Our position is perfectly sensible and pragmatic. We believe that it is in the interests of this country that there is a general decision to join a successful single currency, but that that should take place in the right conditions and at the right time, which is why we have set out criteria. We believe that the decision should command the support of the Cabinet and Parliament, as well as the country, which is why we promised a referendum. Most people would agree with that common—sense and pragmatic approach, rather than the dogmatic position of Opposition parties.

    Fuel Duties (Rural Areas)
    Mr. David Stewart: What recent representations he has received on the impact of taxation on petrol on transport in Scottish rural areas. [130568]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the impact of vehicle fuel duties on the rural economy in Scotland. [130573]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am in regular contact with all sections of the community in rural Scotland on a broad range of issues, including taxation on fuel.
    Mr. Stewart: The Minister will be aware of the price of fuel in the highlands and islands which, at £ 4 a gallon, is an impediment to business and tourism. However, does he welcome the decision of Gleaner Oils to introduce LPG—liquefied petroleum gas—which costs half as much as ordinary fuel, into more than 20 filling stations in the highlands and islands over the next year? Does the Minister share my enthusiasm about LPG, and recognise that the next step involves, first, changing the conversion scheme to include older cars and, secondly, encouraging car manufacturers to build more dual-fuel vehicles? We will then have a low-emission, low-cost fuel that is available to a new generation of rural motorists.
    Mr. Wilson: I am very enthusiastic about LPG, which carries with it the best hope of not just tinkering with the present situation but transforming it. It offers the glittering prize of changing the highlands and islands from the highest-cost road fuel area in the United Kingdom into
    884
    the lowest-cost area. We can achieve that if we expand the availability of LPG. I am having very promising discussions about a major expansion of LPG availability in the highlands and islands, which would put the area into the forefront of access to the fuel in the UK. I am very much in line with my hon. Friend on that.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that Scotland is still a major oil producer and has the second cheapest pre-tax oil prices in the European Union? However, post-tax, those prices are 23 per cent. higher than the EU average. Is the Minister also aware that last year the Highlands regional council did a study that showed that tanking up in the highlands and islands was £4.30 more expensive than in the rest of Scotland? Is it the Government's policy to price the car off the road in rural parts of Scotland?
    Mr. Wilson: No, that is not our policy. As always in our debates, the hon. Lady's question suffers from her selective use of facts and statistics. She is right about the taxation burden on petrol, although her remarks are a bit rich coming from an Opposition Member, as it was the Tories, of course, who introduced the fuel duty escalator.
    The hon. Lady did not mention other taxes on motorists which transform the picture across Europe, if one takes into account the whole burden of motoring taxation, not just petrol taxation. Is the hon. Lady proposing that there should be a purchase tax of £4, 000 a car, as in Norway, or that road tax should be £720, as in the Netherlands? The whole picture has to be looked at and, in the highlands and islands, we are working on reducing differentials, supporting rural filling stations, supporting the initiative on bulk buying in remote communities and, of course, working on the LPG initiative. That is all constructive stuff which will bring benefit to the highlands.
    Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will my hon. Friend take care when others are trying to persuade him of the need for conversion to liquefied petroleum gas? We must first introduce proper regulation to keep the cowboys out of the conversion market. I have a constituent from Netherburn near Larkhall whose child was nearly gassed in the back of his car, but he cannot get compensation because there is not sufficient regulation to protect car drivers who choose to convert to LPG.
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I am sure he will pursue with his usual vigour. It does not detract from the overall point that LPG offers a major opportunity to transform motoring costs, and I urge people in the highlands and islands and other areas with LPG availability, particularly those who are buying a new car, seriously to consider purchasing a dual-fuel car.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Madam Speaker, may I first associate Conservative Members with the remarks made by the Secretary of State at the beginning of Question Time in respect of your presiding over our turbulence?
    In reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the Minister said that other factors should be considered in relation to the cost of transport in the highlands. Yet he knows that we have the highest heavy goods vehicle licence fees in

    885
    Europe, on top of the fuel taxes and the fuel escalator that his Government have raised. The situation is so bad that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has had to introduce, through the Highland transport authority, an initiative for bulk buying petrol to try to reduce its price by 10p in the pound, although that is only a small component of the tax that the Government take. When will the Government wake up to the extent to which their taxation is bleeding the economy of rural areas in Scotland white?
    Mr. Wilson: We enter the realms of the bizarre when a Tory spokesman assails us on the cost of petrol. The Tories, doubtless for what they saw as good reasons, introduced the fuel duty escalator; the Labour Government got rid of it. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, of the last 19p increase in the cost of petrol 17p per litre has come from the rise in the world price of oil, which in other ways is beneficial to the UK economy. Let us have some honesty on all points in the debate. We have listed our initiatives, and I am happy to associate myself with the creative thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on bulk buying—that is what a good MP does, instead of bleating about things and trying to make political capital out of them.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister cannot get away with it. The Government have been indulging in the most extraordinary creative thinking to get themselves off the hook. First, they told us that the fuel duty escalator was all about changing our driving habits, which is a useless policy to present to the population of the highlands and islands. Recently, the Prime Minister has been telling us that the taxes are vital to pay for public services, but we in the House know the reality. In the Chancellor's constituency of Dunfermline, East—which is not exactly a hotbed of Conservatives or conservatism—43 per cent. of those polled consider that taxation has risen under this Government, and only 12 per cent. feel that they have received any benefit in the way of services for the price that they have had to pay.
    Mr. Wilson: I can only describe that as unconvincing bluster. Let us establish the facts: the Tories introduced the fuel duty escalator; Labour has abolished it. That is an inescapable fact. Any hon. Member who says that we should cut fuel duty has to say where the money to do so will come from. Let us not forget that every one of the parties represented in the Chamber supported the fuel duty escalator in one way or another: the Tories introduced it, the Liberal Democrats wanted to increase it, and the nationalists based their budget projections on it. Where is the argument?

    Rail Infrastructure
    Mr. Russell Brown: What action the Government have taken to promote investment in railway infrastructure in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [130569]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The Government are promoting investment in railway infrastructure through their 10—year transport plan. That
    886
    includes £60 billion for a bigger, better, safer railway—the biggest investment in railways for generations, which will undoubtedly benefit Scotland.
    Mr. Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for last week's announcement of additional funding through the comprehensive spending review. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that some of that investment is channelled towards moving more freight on to railways, with particular emphasis on timber freight, which is an issue in my constituency?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I will certainly continue to do that. It is noticeable that, under this Government, there has been the first increase in freight transport on rail for generations. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, since May 1997 when the Government were elected, nine freight facility grants have been awarded in Scotland. Those total £16.5 million and will remove 8.7 million lorry miles per annum from roads in Scotland. A further £1 million has been made available for 2000–01. So, once again, investment in our railways, and incentives to move from road to rail have been encouraged under this Government.
    All those moneys would of course be cut by the Conservative party, which, having abandoned every other guarantee, gives only one guarantee to the people of Scotland: if a Tory Government were elected, one third of all expenditure introduced in the Budget as additional for Scottish services would be removed.
    Sir Robert Smith: May I associate those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches with the Secretary of State's good wishes on the occasion of the last Scottish questions under your Chair, Madam Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Under your Chair?"] I am waiting for a little peace and quiet on the Conservative Benches.
    In considering the railway investment that the Secretary of State has announced, will he determine which structural and financial problems remain barriers to imaginative, innovative and detailed schemes such as the Waverley route in the borders and plans for a cross—rail link to Aberdeen, which will provide alternative transport that people need if they are to avoid using their cars?
    Dr. Reid: I can certainly look at those, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, post devolution, we are involved in a partnership. All train journeys starting and ending in Scotland—not inter-city services—have become the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. I shall ensure that his point is brought to the attention of the Minister for Transport and the Environment in Scotland, Ms Boyack.
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Is it not the case that freight facility grants were never used until the Labour Government were elected in 1997? I welcome the grants that have been awarded, including the one to Leith docks in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State welcome the new, ambitious targets for furthering freight facility grants and the unprecedented

    887
    boost to rail infrastructure that was announced last week, which will be good for the economy, good for the environment and good for people throughout Scotland?
    Dr. Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Conservative Government objected on two principled grounds to doing what we are doing. First, they did not believe in planning of any sort. They believed that words such as "planning and strategy", "common sense" and "forward looking" were associated with opposition to the free market, which was their only criterion. Secondly, they were very much opposed to investing money in any public services, not just rail. That meant decline for many years in freight transport and a commensurate increase in transport on the roads, with all its disadvantages. So, I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that we do not ever have another Government who cut public services as the Conservatives did in the past and have promised to do in future.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: It is nice to hear the Secretary of State praising the privatised rail industry. What level of profit does he consider necessary to ensure the continued flow of private investment into the infrastructure of Scotland's railways?
    Dr. Reid: It is not for me to decide the level of profit. The level that will activate future investment will be the one that attracts money to the industry. Despite advances under the privatised industry in the level of investment, the rise in the number of passengers and some of its longer-term plans now that we have brought it together, there have been serious disadvantages, too. Punctuality has gone to pot, reliability is down and the fragmentation of the network meant that, until we introduced the Strategic Rail Authority, there was no overall view. So, the matter is not as simple as having to choose between the unfettered free market and a Soviet command system, which was the line pursued by the previous Government. A sensible balance between the public and private sectors is what this Government stand for.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Safety on board trains is especially important during the holiday period. Will my right hon. Friend take up, with inter-city train operators in particular, issues of overcrowding and overselling of tickets, resulting in luggage and passengers in train corridors, which is extremely dangerous? Will he raise those issues with the Deputy Prime Minister and investigate the possibility of introducing legislation?
    Dr. Reid: I shall certainly give my attention to my hon. Friend's remarks. There is no doubt that there has been a vast increase in the number of passengers travelling by train. For punctuality and reliability, ScotRail normally comes joint first with, or a close second to, Island Line on the Isle of Wight. As that line is only six miles long, a train need only come out of the shunting shed to be almost guaranteed to be on time at the end of its journey. On the question of investment, the plan outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister provides about £29 billion of Government funding, which will result in upgrading of the east coast main line, modernisation of the west coast main line, and £7 billion for the rail modernisation fund. We want the
    888
    Conservatives to be sufficiently honest to tell us which programme they would cut if they were elected to office at the next general election.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Devolution Issue
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) of 27 June 2000, Official Report, column 482W, if she will list the cases which have caused her to intervene on the grounds that they might have ramifications for the whole United Kingdom. [130592]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): To date I have intervened in 14 cases. I shall arrange for a list to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Dr. Godman: Am I right in thinking think that devolved and reserved matters are not always mutually exclusive? May I point out that a recent motion on the Order Paper of the Scottish Parliament called for Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Executive to take steps to alleviate the poverty of asylum seekers and refugees? What advice has my hon. and learned Friend given on legal measures in that respect, and would such measures be taken by Her Majesty's Government, or by the Scottish Executive, or by a mixture of the two?
    The Advocate-General: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot disclose the exact nature of any advice that I have given. However, in general terms, I assure him that, where appropriate, I give advice to United Kingdom Departments and Ministers. The Scottish Parliament has its own, separate legal representation.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Pleasant as it is to see the hon. and learned Lady at the Dispatch Box, she knows what she receives by way of her ministerial salary to discharge her functions, yet she informs us that she has made only 14 interventions in the more than 12 months since she took office. In view of the Lord Chancellor's comments about fat-cat lawyers, referring to the self-employed profession, does the hon. and learned Lady think that the Government and the taxpayer are getting value for money from her discharge of her full-time post?
    The Advocate-General: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that I have not only intervened in 14 cases: I have scrutinised about 750 cases and several Bills of the Scottish Parliament, and that work will increase as the Scottish Parliament produces more Bills for scrutiny. I have also formulated a number of opinions; as the hon. Gentleman, who is legally qualified, well knows, it is not and will not be the Advocate-General's practice to reveal those opinions. However, I assure him that I am not twiddling my thumbs.

    Human Rights Convention
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What discussions she has had with the First Minister and the Home Office regarding the workings of the European convention on human rights. [130593]
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: What discussions she has had with the First Minister and the Home Office regarding the workings of the European convention on human rights. [130594]
    The Advocate-General: I have regular discussions with colleagues in the Home Office and with Scottish Executive Ministers on various matters, including those relating to the European convention on human rights.
    Mr. Morgan: The Scottish Parliament has more reason than most to know about the costs and legislative implications of the ECHR. What assessment has the hon. and learned Lady made of the additional costs that will fall on Scotland from 3 October?
    The Advocate-General: It is not for me to cost those matters, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the following comfort. The assessment carried out reveals that most cases will arise from cases currently before the courts, rather than from individual new cases. However, substantial training has been undertaken on both sides of the border and that has, in itself, resulted in additional costs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that overall it is important that the European convention on human rights be brought into effect and that the costs are commensurate with that.
    Ms Cunningham: I have listened with interest to the Advocate-General's response. Welcome though the incorporation of the human rights convention is, she must accept that it has been costly already in Scotland. I understand that the Home Office has recently been given a grant of £60 million over three years to deal with what happens after 3 October. Scotland has had money starting from last year, but will the Minister make representations to the Government to ensure that finance is reconsidered, especially for Scotland, after 3 October, when even more challenges are likely to be forthcoming?
    The Advocate-General: I am sure that the hon. Lady would understand, if she read the Scotland Act 1998, that my function is not that of the Secretary of State. I am the legal officer, and my job is legal. Any submissions about financial costs, if they are to be made, are to be made by the Secretary of State.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Stipendiary Magistrates
    Mr. David Taylor: What estimate she has made of the proportion of
    890
    (a) summary-only and (b) either-way cases heard by stipendiary magistrates in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [130596]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Unfortunately, these figures are not collected centrally. However, results from an ad hoc survey of magistrates courts committees throughout the country suggest that about 10 per cent. of either-way cases and slightly less than 10 per cent. of summary cases were heard by stipendiary magistrates in each of the past three years.
    My right honourable and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has said on numerous occasions that the future of the lay magistracy is secure. The Government are committed to the principle of the lay magistracy continuing to play a significant part in our system of justice.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for those figures. As a life member of the Magistrates Association, I welcome the reassurance about the future of lay benches. However, does she acknowledge the fears of many of my 30, 000 magisterial colleagues that there exists a civil service agenda secreted in a Selborne house cellar that envisages a European model of a fully professional judiciary? Is there not a real risk, following the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No.2) Bill, that there will be many more one—person judgments by stipendiary magistrates, which could lead too often to the charge of legal arbitrariness and state authoritarianism?
    Jane Kennedy: I can reassure my hon. Friend that there are no such sinister cellars in Selborne house. On the contrary, there is an excellent staff restaurant at that level, which I would invite him to visit.
    In all seriousness, I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in the mode of trial Bill that suggests or requires a more extensive use of stipendiary magistrates. It is important to understand their role. They hear cases that are expected to continue for more than one day. That helps the court over the difficulty of constituting a bench of three lay members who are able to sit for two, three or more consecutive days. Stipendiary magistrates give support to lay benches.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I do not wish to intrude on the private grief caused by the attack of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on the sinister cellars in Selborne house, but will there be a proper survey following this Question Time into the work that is done by stipendiary magistrates? Will the hon. Lady confirm that, despite the support that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have for the lay magistracy, she recognises that stipendiary magistrates have an important part to play? Might the Government change their mind about the role of stipendiaries under the Football (Disorder) Bill, which is being considered in another place? As she knows, the Opposition certainly wish stipendiaries to have a greater role in the context of that legislation.
    Jane Kennedy: I sought to reassure the House that there were no such sinister cellars. I clearly have not achieved my objective. A joint Lord Chancellor's Department and Home Office research project is being

    891
    undertaken to assess whether the current balance between the use of lay magistrates and stipendiaries is correct, and whether each set of magistrates is deployed in the most effective way. A report on that is due in September. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the review of the criminal courts that is being conducted by Lord Justice Auld. We await his conclusions with interest.

    McKenzie Friends
    Mr. David Ruffley: What representations he has received regarding the numbers of McKenzie friends attending legal proceedings (a) in court and (b) in chambers. [130598]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Since my previous reply on 25 January this year to the hon. Gentleman, I have not received any representations about McKenzie friends.
    Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister explain to the House how it can possibly be in the interests of British justice for litigants in person to be increasingly deprived of McKenzie friends in court proceedings?
    Mr. Lock: I do not accept the premise of the question. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that McKenzie friends are increasingly being denied access to courts. Judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court and in most proceedings in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that justice and fairness do not require that.
    I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the nature of private proceedings in chambers, where confidential matters are frequently disclosed, means that anyone who is in those chambers and who seeks to play a professional part must be under a regulated system. McKenzie friends are entirely outside that. That is why the judges, in exercising their discretion to control what happens in their courts, have perfectly properly put that caveat on the role of McKenzie friends.

    Public Trust Office
    Mr. Tony Colman: If she will make a statement on the review of the Public Trust Office. [130599]
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will make a statement on the operation of the Public Trust Office. [130607]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Lord Chancellor announced his plans for the future operation of the Public Trust Office on 11 April 2000. We are consulting all interested parties on the programme of reform set out in "Making Changes: the Future of the Public Trust Office". A number of steps have already been taken to improve the current performance of the Public Trust Office. A new
    892
    customer services division has been created, a new senior management team has been put in place, and we anticipate a much-improved service to clients.
    Mr. Colman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the work that she has done over the past six months in particular, since I have been involved, to bring together the unions, the management, the clients, the patients and the receivers to deliver a much better service at no increased cost to the clients or the receivers. Will she join me in congratulating Nick Smedley and the management for the open days that they are holding for receivers? I attended one today and saw that many receivers strongly support the changes. Will my hon. Friend ensure that in the distribution of assets below £10, 000, those are not under any circumstances handed over to nursing or care home managers? Concern has been expressed to me that "granny farming" could result if care home managers were in receipt of those moneys.
    Jane Kennedy: I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend takes in the work of the Public Trust Office. He raises an important point. Each case is reviewed individually by a senior case worker in the Public Trust Office, who will check that, among other things, all accounts are accurate and up to date, and that the case file and visitors' reports, if there are any, demonstrate that the receiver is taking an active interest in the patient's welfare, and that no concerns have been raised by third parties—for example, the nursing home or social services.
    We are notifying the client, the receiver and family members of our intention to transfer the assets in advance. Where there is a family dispute or a risk of fraudulent activity, the capital will not be distributed. I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute guarantee that we will not distribute the capital to nursing homes—clearly, that would be done on a case-by-case basis—but it is worth mentioning that that is proving extremely popular with receivers dealing with the Public Trust Office, not because they intend to misappropriate the funds, but because they are often caring for loved ones and do not like the interference of the state in their work.
    Mr. Barnes: I am pleased to hear of the improvements that are taking place; they certainly seem to be needed. I am pursuing a case on behalf of a constituent, the mother of a disabled boy, who is gravely dissatisfied with the investment programme undertaken by the trust in connection with his settlement. Has not the Public Trust Office been a highly incompetent organisation up till now? That is illustrated by the fact that it only recently obtained computers. I know that computers are not the answer to all the problems in the universe, but assistance in that regard and the other improvements that have been mentioned may help to ensure that the situation that I described does not occur again.
    Jane Kennedy: I am aware of my hon. Friend's constituent's case. The Public Trust Office needs to be overhauled to deliver a better service to clients, but a great deal of good work has been done in the past and we do not want to introduce change for change's sake. At each stage we are consulting the users—the receivers and, in many cases, clients—to ensure that the service that we deliver is appropriate to the needs of the clients whom we seek to serve.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that in July 1999 the Public Accounts Committee concluded that the Public Trust Office was failing properly to protect the financial interests of people suffering from mental incapacity, and, furthermore, in the light of the reform proposals to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, what improvement has she so far detected in the training of staff?
    Jane Kennedy: At the outset we had to suspend some of the training programmes because of the enormous pressure that we were placing on the staff. It is recognised that the Public Trust Office is in the midst of a major and complex programme of change, so I was happy to be able to announce to the staff some two months ago that we were reinstating and improving the training programme. As I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, the total programme of change cannot be successfully implemented without the requisite skills, which often are not available in the civil service, so, on occasions, we shall seek the support of external consultants to take the work forward.
    I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) in commending the work of Nick Smedley, the director of the programme of change in the Public Trust Office.
    Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the review, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to concerns which were brought to my attention at my surgery on Saturday about annual administrative costs for those in the lowest income band. Relatives of pensioners whose total income is used to pay for private and residential homes simply do not have the annual £180 minimum administrative charge. Will my hon. Friend consider that issue closely?
    Jane Kennedy: Nursing home fees are a matter for the Department of Health, but I am conscious of the concerns expressed about the imposition of fees. The Treasury has agreed to changes to the mental health fee system and we plan to introduce new fees in the autumn which should meet some of my hon. Friend's concerns.

    Rural Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on future prospects for rural magistrates courts. [130601]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The hon. Gentleman asked similar questions on 9 November 1999, and this year, on 25 January, 18 April and 27 June. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he is still waiting for an answer, but, as I said on each occasion, the Government's policy is that magistrates courts are best managed locally by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in an MCC area, whether rural or urban, are for the committee to determine, but I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attendance at our Question Time.
    Mr. Paterson: When I meet the chairman of Shropshire's magistrates courts on Thursday, may I give
    894
    him a clear reassurance from the Minister that, should Shropshire's magistrates desire to keep all their magistrates courts, the Government will not push them into a policy of centralisation, as has happened in Hereford, where there is now only one court?
    Jane Kennedy: As I have just said, the organisation of the courts in Shropshire will be for the local magistrates courts committee, so when the hon. Gentleman meets the chairman he might like to point out just how committed the Government are to modernising the service provided by magistrates courts committees. The public have a right to expect well-equipped and secure court rooms. The hon. Gentleman might also like to tell the chairman that we are spending £16 million this year on magistrates courts improvements. He might also like to suggest how he would arrive at the programme of cuts that the Conservative party would introduce if it were ever returned to power.
    Mr. John Burnett: The closure of rural magistrates courts leads to the denial of justice for many people. Furthermore, it undermines the morale of the lay magistracy. For how long will the Government persist in their policy of imposing 3 per cent. per annum cuts on magistrates courts committees throughout the country?
    Jane Kennedy: The comprehensive spending review renewed the requirement for efficiency gains for a further three-year period. I reject the proposition that there are cuts of 3 per cent. year on year. That is not the case. If we consider courthouse closures in recent years, most magistrates courts that have closed so far are those that committees no longer felt able to justify because they lacked the necessary facilities. It is absolutely essential to provide courts that are modern and fit for their purpose.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The slight hazard with that is that, if membership of a magistrates courts committee is not balanced in relation to a specific rural area, there will be some inclination to believe that the decision has not been totally independent and is therefore not unavoidable. I presume that my hon. Friend will examine the composition of magistrates courts committees.
    Jane Kennedy: I shall certainly do that, as I have done on previous occasions when my hon. Friend has raised the matter. I undertake to do it again.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Media Access
    Helen Jackson: What further proposals she will bring forward to improve access to Parliament for the media. [130611]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee have worked together to remove restrictions on

    895
    the use of tape recorders in the Gallery, end the ban on interviews in Members' offices and ease the restrictions on photography. In addition, there are now facilities close to the Chamber for interviews with hon. Members, as well as several more minor changes.
    Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House is best served not by the frothy, gossipy media reporting that often occurs, but by proper coverage of our serious debates not only in the Chamber but in Committee and in Westminster Hall? In the next Session, will she consider the way in which we can enhance facilities close to Westminster Hall and on the Committee Corridors?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that hon. Members from all parties sometimes resent the fact that the more serious—and in many ways more interesting—part of our work gets the least coverage. I certainly undertake further to consider what we can do to extend coverage of, for example, Committees and Westminster Hall. I know that the Modernisation Committee wishes to do that.
    I hope that my hon. Friend knows that we are reviewing the operations in Westminster Hall and that, as part of that review, we have received information from the BBC regional unit about how useful it finds those debates and the great use that it makes of them on regional television.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the President of the Council confirm that the prospects for further enhancing facilities for the media will be realised when Portcullis House is occupied later this year? Does the right hon. Lady find it as astonishing as Members of other Parliaments do that it will be possible for each Member of Parliament to have his or her own private office only when Portcullis House is occupied?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the media facilities that will be available in Portcullis House. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that the new building will make it possible for every hon. Member to have an office for the first time. Many people find it astonishing that that has not been the case hitherto. It is a pity that the provision of accommodation does not feature more in the coverage of Portcullis House.
    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire,
    representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

    Visitor Facilities
    Angela Smith: What matters relating to facilities for visitors were discussed at the Commission's last meeting. [130613]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A decision to include plans for a visitors centre was taken by the Commission during recent consideration of the next three-year rolling programme of expenditure.
    Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. It is one of the most welcome answers that I have
    896
    received as a Member of Parliament. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on personally pursuing the matter. Flushed with success on the issue, there is another that I wish to raise with him. I shall do that later in the year.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Let me return the compliment. The hon. Lady's intelligent and persistent use of oral and written questions on the subject—[Interruption] Hon. Members may groan, but the hon. Lady's questioning helped to persuade the Commission of the urgent need for visitor facilities to be established in this place as soon as possible.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Would the hon. Gentleman consider increasing dining facilities for hon. Members so that they could invite more than three guests, especially to Portcullis House? Could the three-guest limit for each Member of Parliament be increased?
    Mr. Kirkwood: That is an absolutely fair point. The Catering Committee will be able to reconsider the rules because more dining facilities will be available to hon. Member when Portcullis House is commissioned, which we hope will happen in the autumn. Hon. Members may be able to take more guests into the accommodation provided by the Catering Committee, but, strictly speaking, that is a matter for the Committee.
    Madam Speaker: It is.
    The President of the Council was asked—

    Written Answers
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will make it her policy to allow the tabling and publication of early-day motions and the publication of written answers during parliamentary Adjournments. [130614]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): No. This matter has been raised frequently—not least by my hon. Friend—but it has considerable implications on time and resources.
    Mr. Barnes: That is a very disappointing reply. I hope to table an early-day motion today in an attempt to assist Moorside Mining at Eckington, which is in my constituency, to survive into the future. I would not be able to do that if something similar happened next week or at any time in the next three months. Given that we shall be away for three months, I shall not have the opportunity to table parliamentary questions that will receive an answer. That seems to me to be a minimum requirement in a period when we are Members without Parliament, not Members of Parliament.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend asks about early-day motions as well as written answers. Of course I understand the concern that he expresses, but it is not reasonable, for example, to expect the staff of the House to be available for 52 weeks a year, and Madam Speaker would have a role in adjudicating whether the questions could be accepted. The matter has been considered

    897
    repeatedly over the years, but it has further implications than are sometimes realised on the use of resources and on the pressure on Members of all kinds.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the fashion for Ministers to issue holding answers is increasing and that even simple factual questions take many weeks to answer? I am still waiting for an answer from the Health Secretary to a simple question about hospital waiting times that goes back to 17 March. If that answer does not appear before the end of this week and the question is then answered at the end of October, I will have awaited more than five months for the answer to a simple question. Could not those questions that have been outstanding for a long time be answered during the recess?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but the experience of the Scottish Parliament, which began to take questions in the recess, was that far more holding answers, even than the norm, were generated for reasons that I suppose are fairly obvious. Certainly, I share his view that it is disappointing if factual questions cannot be answered reasonably speedily, but long experience of tabling such questions suggests to me that sometimes what may seem a simple question to the Member tabling it requires a lot of work and causes complication in the Department. However, I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

    Liaison Committee Report
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What representations she has received on the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's report, "Shifting the Balance". [130616]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have received no representations as such from any hon. Member, although I am aware that in the House and outside a number have expressed views on it.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Has my right hon. Friend heard the cruel and callous rumour, which is full of calumny, that the Government might try to kick into touch any consideration in Parliament of the Liaison Committee's report "Shifting the Balance"? Can she give the House an assurance that, despite the fact that there are varying views on the report's contents and recommendations, the Government intend to bring the matter to a head and allow hon. Members a free vote, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised last week, on "Shifting the Balance" in the not-too-distant future and certainly in time for the implementation of any decision flowing from that debate to be triggered if we are returned after the general election?
    Mrs. Beckett: I anticipate that there is likely to be a debate on the matter, perhaps in the overspill. Of course it is a House matter, so the Government will certainly allow a free vote, although it is far from clear to me that Conservatives Members will be allowed a free vote, but I very much hope that they will be. I urge hon. Members
    898
    to study the report with great care because it has profound implications for the rights and responsibilities of individual Members, which I fear many seem to be overlooking.
    Sir George Young: I assure the right hon. Lady that there will be a free vote for Conservative Members. Can she confirm that we will debate a substantive motion to allow the House to express a clear view? If a clear view is expressed, will the Government undertake to put all the necessary procedures in place so that the Select Committees can be set up under the new procedure without delay at the beginning of the new Parliament?
    Mrs. Beckett: First, how the debate will be taken and under what circumstances remains to be settled. Secondly, it was my impression that the Liaison Committee was anxious to bring the procedures into being, should the House agree to them, before the new Parliament begins. As for the reference to delay, the Liaison Committee makes the point that the records show that new procedures are usually introduced at the beginning of a new Parliament. I think that that happened at the beginning of this Parliament and, considering the substantial change in personnel, the process was particularly speedy. Finally, what happens in a new Parliament is particularly pertinent to a method of selection involving a few Members, which is proposed by the Liaison Committee. However, it is far from clear to me how, without a separate information gathering network, it would make judgments on a new Parliament and new Members.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the role of the Back Bencher could not only be expanded, but produce positive results? Far from it being unusual for a Committee of the great and the good to decide the membership of a particular Committee, until very recently it was the habit of a small Committee of Members of all parties in the House to decide the membership of a number of important bodies. That was not only accepted, but it worked efficiently.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I do not accept that such a system would offer any expansion of the role of Back Benchers. Indeed, one of my anxieties is that the proposals might create a two-tier system for Back Benchers. In effect, there would be three classes of MP: members of the Government, members of Select Committees—who would select each other—and the rest. Of course I accept that there is a powerful case for expanding the role of Back Benchers and for taking a positive attitude to their work and that of Select Committees, which I in no way criticise—indeed, I applaud it—but that can happen under the system we have now.
    Mr. John Butterffil: Whatever the minute detail for the terms of appointment might be, does not the right hon. Lady agree that there is a case for greater democratisation of the process of appointment to Select Committees or, for that matter, to the Chairmen's Panel?
    Mrs. Beckett: I have no wish to intrude on private grief and the Select Committee appointments procedures

    899
    operated by the Conservative party are not a matter for me, but it is open to Labour Members to self-nominate. Nominations have to be ratified by the parliamentary party and the procedures that we are to adopt, which will produce the list put forward by the Whips, are in many ways similar to those proposed by the Liaison Committee.

    Armed Conflict (Parliamentary Motion)
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will make it her policy that a substantive motion be tabled in the House, at the earliest opportunity after the commitment of troops to armed conflict, allowing the House to express its view, and allowing hon. Members to table amendments. [130618]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): No. Although I well understand the wish of Members on both sides of the House for a decision-making procedure of the type that my hon. Friend describes and suggests, that has not been the practice of the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recognise that my question purloins exactly the words of a recommendation of our careful colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee? Is it wise to simply say no to it? Do Ministers recognise that had they seen both the mess that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and I saw in Serbia and the
    900
    Albanian ethnic cleansing in reverse in Kosovo and had the House of Commons been given the chance to excavate the difficulties of going into the Balkans, we might have had wiser policies from the Prime Minister and the United States?
    Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend and his colleagues have had the opportunity to go to Serbia and Kosovo. Governments of both complexions have often given Members ample and quick opportunities to raise those issues properly in the House.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about this prerogative issue and about sending our young men and women into battle without the matter being debated in the House? Would not it be of assistance to the Executive to have a clear endorsement from the House?
    Mr. Tipping: There is no problem at all with the House and its Members having an opportunity and a platform to debate these issues. The Government can benefit from that discussion. What is at odds with that in tactical terms is that it clearly does not make sense for the House to pre-empt any military operation.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory reply to my question, I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Madam Speaker: The point has been noted.

Spending Review (Culture, Media and Sport)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on funding for culture and sport. Last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a spending review outcome that enables me to give the House details of the highest ever levels of public support for sport and the arts in England. Over the next three years, there will be a real terms increase in my Department's expenditure of 13.5 per cent. That has, of course, been made possible by my right hon. Friend's prudent management of the economy over the past three years. Because we have set the economy on a stable course, reduced public debt and got unemployment down, we are now able to make a sustained investment in our cultural and sporting future.
When we began the spending review, I set my top priority as the need to improve the provision of sport in our schools. Sporting opportunities for young people—both in school and after school—have been in serious decline for the past 15 years. There was a 70 per cent. decline in competitive fixtures between state schools under the Tories—between the late 1980s and mid-1990s—and we are now reaping the results of that damage. The Tories tore the heart out of school sport, with after-school activity in particular disappearing from schools across the country. Today, I am able to take the first steps to repair that damage and to help to put English sport back on its feet.
We want to give all children the chance to play sport and to develop their sporting abilities. We want to bring back competitive inter-school leagues in football, rugby, cricket, netball, athletics, and other sports. Playing sport helps individual fulfilment. It assists in boosting academic success, in ensuring health, in reducing crime, and in teaching young people about winning and losing. Building a broad base of sporting opportunity for our young people is our only chance of putting our national sporting performance back on its feet.
In setting today's budget for sport I have listened carefully to the powerful arguments of Trevor Brooking and his team at Sport England, together with UK Sport and the Central Council of Physical Recreation. I have worked closely—and will continue to do so—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I am able to tell the House that the annual Exchequer funding for sport, which currently stands at just over £50 million, will double to £102 million by 2003–04, which is an increase of almost 100 per cent. over three years, to help to give our children a sporting chance.
With this new funding, we will be able to double our investment in the programme of school sports co-ordinators that has recently been launched by Sport England. Our aim will be to have at least 1, 000 co-ordinators in place across the country, each of them working with a family of primary and secondary schools to support PE teachers, to bring qualified coaches into schools, to provide links to specialist colleges, sports clubs and national governing bodies, and to put in place competitive sports programmes within and between schools.
902
In addition, we will be able to provide funds to enhance and modernise the work of many of the governing bodies of particular sports, and to develop further the excellent work of the sportsmatch scheme.
As we set out in our recent sports strategy "A Sporting Future for All", our approach is based both on the regeneration of sport in school and at the grass roots, and on support for our very best sportsmen and sportswomen. The settlement therefore also enables us to provide funds for the running of the United Kingdom Sports Institute. Over and above the figures I have already announced, we are able to provide new, additional funding of £10.5 million for the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002.
Earlier today we launched the Football Foundation, a new partnership between the Football Association, the premier league and Government. It will help to bring substantial resources from the broadcasting income of the game into the creation of decent and modern facilities, pitches, changing rooms and equipment at grass-roots level across the country, including in schools. That sits alongside the programme of investment under the capital modernisation fund that we have already announced, to develop space for sport and arts activity in primary schools.
The arts are part of the core script of Government. They enrich our lives in countless ways, and any Government who lose sight of the need to invest fully in the artistic life of the nation put at risk the nurturing of a civilised society. Our policy has throughout been based on three pillars: sustaining artistic and creative excellence, seeking to broaden access to that excellence to the greatest possible number of people, and realising the educational opportunities that can come from involvement in the arts. Those goals remain fundamental to our approach.
Between 1992 and 1997, by contrast, Government funding for the arts fell by 7 per cent. in real terms. For year after year, the last Government starved the arts of the funds that they desperately needed. Two years ago we were able to start putting that right, and I am pleased to announce today that we can do even better over the next three years. Arts funding this year stands at £238 million; in 2003–04, it will be £338 million. With this new settlement, arts funding will have increased by 60 per cent. in real terms in five years.
When Gerry Robinson, chairman of the Arts Council, called in his recent lecture for an increase of £100 million in arts spending, most commentators said there was no chance that that ambition would be fulfilled. Over the next three years, we will fulfil it.
I have asked the Arts Council to give priority to two particular programmes of work within the new allocation. The first is to try and resolve, once and for all, the endemic problems of regional producing theatres up and down the country. In far too many of our towns and cities, theatres are struggling financially. Some are dark for long periods. Artistic excellence is threatened. Following on from the Boyden report, this settlement will enable those problems to be addressed.
Of equal importance is the work that I have asked the Arts Council to lead in developing creative partnerships in particular areas of need, bringing together all the artistic and cultural organisations in an area to work with primary and secondary schools and provide new opportunities for young people to experience, and participate in, the very best of our cultural life. Our aim is to start the process in at least 12 of the most deprived areas in the country.

903
The chance to experience the arts can transform a child's life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) said in his powerful maiden speech last week, we need to invest in people's souls as well as their skills. This proposal enables us to start doing so.
In addition to the new investment that I am announcing in sport and the arts, the other areas of my Department's work will benefit. In 2003–04, funding for museums, galleries, libraries and archives will have risen by £61 million over this year's level. That will enable us to maintain our existing commitments to free access; to invest substantial sums in repair and improvement for the buildings housing our national museums; and to transform the present designated museums challenge fund into a new, enhanced fund of £10 million a year to help regional museums, galleries and collections.
I am pleased to announce that, from 2002–03, we will restore the public lending right payments to authors to their full real-terms value. In addition, we will increase funding in cash terms for film and for the royal parks by nearly 10 per cent.; for English Heritage by 8 per cent.; for the English Tourism Council by over 20 per cent.; and for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment by well over 100 per cent. We are providing funds in the next financial year to ensure that a memorial fountain can be created within the royal parks to commemorate the life of Diana, Princess of Wales.
I invite the House to compare the present Government's record on funding for arts, culture and sport with that of the Conservative party. The Conservative Government cut funding for the arts in real terms in every year of the previous Parliament. Sport was cut by £5 million. Museums were encouraged to introduce charges. Now it is becoming clear that the Tories plan to cut cultural spending again. They are pledged to find cuts of £16 billion from the Government's spending plans by 2003.
People who care about sport, the arts and culture will want to know where the Tory axe will fall. Will they take back the money that we have announced today to put school sport back on its feet? Will regional theatres face funding cuts and an uncertain future? Will the money that we are providing to give children cultural and creative opportunities—and an enriched education—be lost? Will national museums and galleries be forced to reintroduce entry charges? Will the new fund that we are setting up to support regional and local museums be scrapped? Those are the questions that the Conservative party cannot dodge. We await clear and unequivocal answers from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth).
Today's announcement brings to fruition the commitment that was made in our first spending review, first, to put right the long years of underfunding presided over by the Tories and, secondly, to build on the foundations that we have laid in order to widen the opportunities for everyone to enjoy culture and sport and to get more out of life. There are few more important tasks than that.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the brief advance notice that we received of it.
904
Progress towards the statement has followed a familiar pattern. There are, in descending order of accuracy, accidental leaks, deliberate leaks and leaks from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Leaks from the Department are designed to create headlines such as "School Sport Cash Bonanza" and "£100 million boost for arts in UK". I have to give it to the Secretary of State: he has become rather good at headlines, but he has been up to his old tricks again. The spending figures that he has announced today have been fiddled, spun and inflated out of all recognition.
Two years ago, many people were prepared to give the Secretary of State's extravagant promises the benefit of the doubt. Two years ago, we were also told of a cash bonanza for the arts and sport. What have we had since then? We have had theatres closing, orchestras closing, cultural vandalism, playing fields still being sold off, less sport in schools, thousands of heritage sites officially "at risk" and a near trebling of the balance of trade deficit in tourism.
What has the Secretary of State brought us? He has brought us any number of eye-catching initiatives with which he is personally associated—such as the shambles over the United Kingdom Sports Institute, the fiasco over Wembley stadium and the prospect of having to host the world athletics championship with nowhere for it to be held. He is also associated with a world cup bid that, according to the Minister for Sport, was doomed from the start, and, of course, with the dome—that perfect emblem of new Labour.
Ministers farcically still maintain that the dome is a huge success, although it has swallowed £140 million in extra funds in the past year and is again teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. The Secretary of State will have no compunction at all about bailing out the dome with money that could have been used on any number of good causes, including regeneration.
The Secretary of State runs a Department for Culture in which there is a culture of dither, delay, incompetence and confusion. He stands accused of presiding over a Department where there is
an us and them mentality which divides the Department and its stakeholders all the way down.
He is accused of opting for "the lowest common denominator" and having "unclear and fraught relationships" with the bodies that he sponsors. He stands accused of a "lack of focus", "management by nagging" and assessment by "gossip".
Who has levelled these accusations? They are from an internal review by a panel chaired by the head of Inland Revenue, whose report on the Secretary of State's Department is entitled "The Pale Yellow Amoeba". The Secretary of State has turned his Department into something resembling the lowest form of life, with no backbone and a tendency to spread itself by random osmosis. However, the arts, sport, heritage and tourism deserve better than that. They also deserve more honesty over their funding arrangements.
According to the Secretary of State's mathematics, his departmental expenditure will increase by £225 million by 2003–04. Someone, however, has been spinning, and that figure miraculously ballooned into £485 million, as reported in some newspapers and on BBC Online—which should know better. As I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish to be associated with an artificially inflated figure, I hope that he will take the opportunity shortly to repudiate it.

905
While entering a general caveat that, like the rest of the country, the Opposition are increasingly sceptical of any figures from the Government, I shall make a leap of faith. I shall assume that the Secretary of State's figure for departmental spending next year—stated at £1.12 billion—is correct. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on page 175 of his recent annual report, his departmental spending is shown as £1.1 billion? Will he therefore confirm—it is not a very difficult sum; he should not have too much trouble over this—that the difference between the two is £20 million? Will he comment on that in the light of his own admission that £60 million of next year's funding has already been announced?
Looking further ahead, the Secretary of State predicts total departmental spending of £1.24 billion in 2003–04. Will he confirm that that is an increase of £140 million over three years, not £225 million, let alone £485 million?
Will the Secretary of State also take into account the impact of the Government's raid on the national lottery, which was established by the previous Government—whom he so derided today—and which so far has produced £1 billion for 3, 000 sport centres and projects across the country and millions of pounds for the arts and heritage? Is it not the case that, on the assumption that levels of play remain constant, the lottery beneficiaries will be denied about £130 million annually which they had every right to expect would be theirs?
The raid on the lottery, coupled with a decision to transfer all the Millennium Commission's share into the new opportunities fund from next year, means that, having taken account of the consequences of today's announcement, the arts and sport can look forward to a net reduction in their expected total funding of almost £300 million and £360 million respectively over the next three years. Stripped of spin, that is the sum of the right hon. Gentleman's achievements—some bonanza!
No wonder the Government have chosen today to claim credit for the news that, in 1997, the football authorities agreed to plough 5 per cent. of their television rights money back into the grass roots of sport. When the football posts go up in the garden of No. 10, we know that things must be really bad. It is typical of a Government who take credit for everything, but take responsibility for nothing.
Instead of devoting so much of his statement this afternoon to misleading attacks on the previous Administration and the Opposition, why does the Secretary of State not get his act together? We are more than three years into this Government. People in sport, the arts, heritage and tourism are looking for delivery, not promises; results, not spin doctoring; clarity, not confusion. They will get none of those things from the "pale yellow amoeba", and it is time the right hon. Gentleman was written out of the core script of government.
Mr. Smith: It is perhaps no accident that the hon. Gentleman wanted to talk about absolutely anything but the statement that I have just made. He gave us a little tour of the horizon. He touched on the dome, which of course has no Exchequer funding. He speculated about misleading newspaper reports, for which presumably the editors of the newspapers are responsible, not me. He alluded briefly to the excellent and extremely positive peer review report on the workings of my Department,
906
and then he gave us the tired old story about the national lottery, ignoring the fact that the arts and sports were each promised £1.8 billion at the outset of the lottery from the seven-year period of funding. They are now set to receive more than £1.8 billion each.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that the new opportunities fund, which we have been able to create with the additional funds that have come into the national lottery, has provided money to put into after-school clubs, school sports co-ordinators, drama, music and arts for schoolchildren; and, through the new opportunities fund green spaces initiative, to bring back some of the playing fields that were sold off under the Conservative Government. I presume that that is money that the hon. Gentleman derides, as he did at the Tory party conference, when he said:
A new pot for health and education, things that shouldn't be funded by the Lottery.
In that respect, he disagrees clearly with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who told ITN on 24 May that the public purse should do things which it ought to be doing, like spending the lottery cash on health and education. We are entitled to ask which Tory party is speaking here. Is it the one represented by the hon. Member for East Surrey or the one represented by his hon. Friend?
The hon. Gentleman had the gall to say that playing fields were still being sold off—this from the party that sold off 5, 000 playing fields during its time in office. In that time, the average number of sales was running at 40 a month. 1 am pleased to say that it is now down to three a month. That is still too many, and we are working on that, but it is a considerable improvement on the record of the previous Government.
I can confirm to the House that this settlement from the Chancellor—new money announced in his statement last week—amounts to £20 million in the first year, £130 million in the second year and £200 million in the third year. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for calling it a bonanza for school sport, because that is precisely what it is.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in that outpouring of inarticulate rubbish which, unbelievably, he must have spent some time preparing, the Opposition spokesman has explained why the people of Manchester have thrown out every Tory Member of Parliament and councillor?
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) failed to mention the Government money that is going towards the opening and closing ceremonies of the Commonwealth games, which is important for the Queen's golden jubilee games that will be staged in Manchester in 2002. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a city such as Manchester we are highly gratified that, by assisting school sport in the country's premier sporting city and by connecting schoolchildren with the arts, he is providing hope, training and a future—cultural and sporting—for the children of this country, who suffered so badly under the Tory Government? His statement is excellent and we look forward to the next review, when we are sure it will be even better.
Mr. Smith: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. His analysis of the work output and psychology of the

907
hon. Member for East Surrey is—as ever—absolutely accurate. He is particularly right about the importance of ensuring that cultural and sporting opportunities are available to all our young people, especially in our schools.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I will try to stick to fact rather than the fiction that we heard from the Conservative Benches.
The funding is welcome, although it is long overdue—it could have been allocated last year or the year before that. We expected more over the three years.
Sports funding will increase from £50 million to £102 million over four years. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much will be available in the first year? That is crucial to the sporting fraternity. Will he also tell us the amount for the second year, if possible?
There will be funding of £100 million for the arts. That is more than welcome because, until now, that service has been neglected by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. How much will be allocated during that first crucial year? Many performances and some theatres will be saved if funding is received during the first year.
I welcome even more the initiative on sport in schools. That matter has been energetically debated for some time on both sides of the House. The announcement is positive, but how will it reflect on the youth service, where sport is neglected? Sport in schools is extremely important, but at present, many schoolchildren do not continue with sport when they reach the end of their school life. They may move into other fields—but certainly not the sporting field.
How can we help the youth service? In Merseyside and Manchester, there are youth games, but they are struggling. The games are supported by sponsorship, but each year it becomes thinner and meaner. How will the settlement help that youth service work?
Swimming was not mentioned in the statement, although the phrase "other sports" was used. Swimming is important not only for those in school, but for those out of school—perhaps especially for those aged over 50. It is important that swimming be considered. Many swimming baths and their buildings have come to the end of their useful life. They have been patched and repaired, but many local authorities have great difficulty in finding any funding to replace swimming baths. How will the settlement help?
I welcome the 20 per cent. increase for the English Tourism Council. We know that a forum has been established, but so far we have heard precious little from it, because the ETC cannot get to grips with it. In time, that will occur, but I should like some of that settlement to go to seaside resorts. I acknowledge that I have an interest, but seaside resorts are important.
I welcome the inclusion of regional theatres, but will traditional and popular theatre arts—such as dance—still be encouraged, along with modern artistic trends? They do not command a large audience, but they should be considered—even though they do not put bums on seats.
Will the current museum charges be stopped?
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very constructive comments and questions.
908
First, on the specific figures, for sport, the figures are £52 million for this year, £67 million for next year, £83 million for the following year and £102 million for the following year. For the arts, the figures are £238 million for this year, £253 million for next year, £298 million for the following year and £338 million for the following year.
The hon. Gentleman asked about sport in schools and how that would relate to the youth service. It will of course be part of the task of the school sports co-ordinators to build those links, not just between schools but between schools and the youth service, local sporting clubs, and specialist sporting colleges, because it is those links that can encourage youngsters, when they leave the formal school environment, to maintain sporting prowess and activity further into life.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about swimming, it will of course be included as part of that whole approach.
The English Tourism Council is already hard at work with a special working party, looking at the issues relating to seaside resorts. I very much look forward to the fruits of those researches because, as the hon. Gentleman and many of my hon. Friends will undoubtedly recognise, seaside resorts that have depended on traditional tourism activity, which is in decline, do require special attention, and it is being given to them. That is one of the reasons why I am very pleased that, for example, we have ensured assisted area status for quite a number of seaside resorts already.
In relation to the arts, there will of course be scope in regional theatre for traditional as well as modern theatrical work. In relation to museums and galleries, we are of course pledged that those national museums and galleries that are currently free to everyone will remain so.
Mr. John Maxton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement, and in particular on the extra money that is going into sport. May I ask him to ensure that, both in terms of provision for money and money for schools, it goes to areas of deprivation above all else? It is there that we need to increase the level of fitness and health among our youngsters and among our adults. Secondly, may I ask him to ensure that some—in fact, a large part—of that money goes to improve the facilities for girls and women in sport, which are sadly lacking at the present time? Indeed, I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that no grants are given to any sporting organisation, at any level, that still carries out policies that discriminate against women in sport.
Mr. Smith: The answer to the question on deprivation is yes. We will indeed wish to ensure that the particular needs of areas of deprivation, both urban and rural, will be addressed. The need for facilities for girls and women playing sport is very much recognised now by Sport England, UK Sport and ourselves. Indeed, it is one of the rules for lottery funding that when any discrimination is practised by a particular sporting organisation, it does not qualify for funding.
Mr. Robert Key: The continuing disbursement of taxpayers' money across a wide range of cultural and sporting activities in my constituency is very important and we are grateful for it. There is, however, one

909
area for which the Secretary of State is solely and wholly responsible, and that is the guardianship of Stonehenge. Will he now say whether this announcement will make any difference to the speed and effectiveness of finding a solution, which has been sought by Governments over many years, to the problem of the visitor centre at Stonehenge? I regret to say that, under this Government, things have been no different from how they were under the previous Government, except that a lot of money has been spent on—no doubt very worthy—design concepts and reports. We have as yet seen nothing on the ground to improve what is one of this country's greatest tourist monuments.
Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Essential roadworks to the two major roads that affect the Stonehenge area are included in the forward roads programme, and have been for the past two years. Planning work is well under way and, as he will recognise, it takes time to plan for, obtain the necessary permissions for and then construct road schemes. That process is now well under way.
On the visitor centre at Stonehenge, we have made available this financial year to English Heritage the funds necessary to buy the site for the visitor centre.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend and Ministers on the statement, which is a substantial improvement.
May I ask for clarification on one issue on which we have corresponded and that I have mentioned before? There is a weakness in coaching education, sport psychology and sport medicine. One way that we could use some of the new licence fee money is for the BBC to have a public service sports channel covering sports education in schools and coaching. Will that be allowed under the new regulations?
Given the fantastic achievements of Pete Sampras, and of Tiger Woods at the weekend, could we not devise a new way of recognising—it could be something like an order of merit—outstanding international sporting achievement in this country?
Mr. Smith: On launching any new channel, the BBC would have to come to me for approval to do so. If it came to me with a proposition that involved setting up, at huge expense to the licence fee payer, a purely commercial sports channel, I would have serious doubts about whether that was a core part of the BBC's responsibility. However, if it made a proposal that was particularly focused on assistance for school sports, that would be a completely different matter. It is not for me to tell the BBC that that is what it should be doing.
On my hon. Friend's general welcome for the statement and his point about the need to improve our national sporting performance, unless we get the grass roots of sport right and, in particular, encourage sporting participation on a wide scale among young people in schools, we will never produce the great athletes and great sportsmen and women of the future that we will need if we are to make our way internationally.
Mr. David Faber: Will the Secretary of State confirm the exact amount that is included in his statement towards the building of Pickett's Lock? If the
910
answer is nothing at all, can he say when he expects a further lottery application to be made and how much that will be for?
Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will know, UK Athletics is preparing, with the Lee Valley regional park authority, a lottery application for funding to assist with the creation of Pickett's Lock. No Exchequer money is earmarked for that purpose, nor should it be.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past two or three minutes since the Tory Front-Bench spokesman sat down, at least two Tory Members have spoken—and they both want money? They want money for Stonehenge and money for Pickett's Lock and they are the same people who marched into the Lobbies not only to close school playing fields, but the pits as well. The result is that we lost all the miners' welfares that produced all the fast bowlers that worked down the pit and played in the Bassetlaw league with me before going on to play for England. Now they have all gone.
Unlike Tory Members, I support public expenditure. When my right hon. Friend talks of the language of priorities, will he bear it in mind that we want baths at Bolsover—write that down—and that I will do the Pavarotti at Bolsover castle?
Mr. Smith: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is in fine fettle and that he will ensure that Bolsover receives the best possible service in arts and sport. I am sure that we shall all make sure that that happens.
My hon. Friend rightly points to a fundamental dichotomy in the views of Tory Members. The shadow Chancellor keeps on telling us that he wants to spend less public money and that he wants to cut public expenditure—I am sure that he would make the Department for Culture, Media and Sport one of the first Departments to bear the brunt of his axe—while other Tory Members get up to demand more spending. There is something wrong there.
Mr. John Redwood: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether his core script for what Mr. Gould now calls a tarnished brand includes financial provision to pay for the losses of the dome in its remaining months of trading? If the Secretary of State is going to tell us that there is no money in his budget and no money from the lottery, is he worried that the New Millennium Experience Company is trading while insolvent?
Mr. Smith Mr. Smith: No, and no.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on obtaining this huge amount of real money, especially the increase for English Heritage. He will be aware that my constituency has a high proportion of listed buildings, which are extremely expensive to look after. Will he agree to review all of Calderdale with a view to seeing how we can keep our wealth of heritage in good condition? Will he accept my invitation to visit Piece Hall, which is a unique asset that is about to make a bid to the English Heritage lottery fund?
Mr. Smith: I should be delighted to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to re-visit Piece Hall, which I last saw

911
some years ago. She is right to draw attention to the importance of heritage in Halifax, and I shall draw her proposal for a review of all of Calderdale's heritage to the attention of English Heritage which, I am sure, will be extremely interested in her suggestion.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), can the Secretary of State tell us more about the dome's financing? Why has his Department yet to announce which rival bid is going to be accepted for the dome? Has that announcement been postponed because the reality is that there will be no recompense to the public purse when the dome is sold, as the money will all go towards paying off its debts? Will the Secretary of State confirm that?
Mr. Smith: That question has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement about Exchequer expenditure. Analysis of contending bids for the future life of the dome—a process in which I am not involved at all, as the hon. Lady knows, having been present at the sitting of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport at which I gave evidence—is due to reach a conclusion later this week.
Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. Friend appears to have carried out a smash and grab raid of no mean proportions on heavily guarded Treasury funds. In the rough old world of politics and the bitchy world of arts politics he should receive great credit for that.
What has my right hon. Friend done, and how will his statement help, to assist the beleaguered regional orchestras of Britain, not least the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, to which I subscribe and of which I am a life member? Does my right hon. Friend know that Peter Johnson, the chairman of the orchestra, has laboured manfully against heavy financial problems to keep that great world class orchestra on the road? Will the stabilisation fund now be bigger? How will my right hon. Friend link the future of that great orchestra to the schools of Liverpool, where there are great social problems, but where the orchestra is giving the lead to develop a great society and helping to regenerate Merseyside's economy?
Mr. Smith: I have to disagree about this being a smash and grab raid. It is, of course, a prudent and sustainable increase in spending resulting from the Chancellor's prudent handing of the economy over the last couple of years.
The Arts Council put in place a substantial package of support for regional orchestras as a result of the previous comprehensive spending review settlement that we made available to it, which included wiping out historic deficits, using stabilisation programmes, and a forward plan of financial assistance to each orchestra. That included the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic. I know that there is discussion about the precise nature of the stabilisation programme and how it will affect the Liverpool Phil. I hope that the programme will be happily agreed by all sides and that the Liverpool Phil will be able to survive and thrive well into the future. In taking a lead in working with schools in Liverpool, the Philharmonic is charting
912
the way for the creative partnerships approach, particularly in deprived areas, which I set out in the statement.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that arts provision is not concentrated in the great cities, and that some goes out to smaller towns and villages? Does he agree that the work of travelling orchestras, such as the Bournemouth Symphony orchestra, is particularly important, and that their work is more expensive than that of static orchestras and therefore requires greater provision? Does he share my regret that it was under his Government that the Bournemouth Sinfonietta was forced to close for lack of funds? Will he join me in supporting the Bournemouth Symphony orchestra this week at the Promenade concerts, and will he show his support in a rather more tangible form in future?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is of course right that funding should be available not only in cities but in rural areas. That is entirely understood and put into practice by the Arts Council. Its support for the Bournemouth Symphony orchestra is extremely welcome, and it takes into account the particular needs of orchestras that conduct touring work. I went to the Proms last Sunday evening and will go again on Thursday evening, and I regret that I will be unable to go a third time in one week.
Mr. John Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that outer London has been denuded of theatres, cinemas and art galleries for many years? In Hornchurch, however, we have the Queen's theatre, which is the most successful of its kind in the entire country. Despite money from the London Arts Board, the theatre still has a shortfall. When can it look forward to receiving some of the Government's welcome largesse?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the excellent work of the Queen's theatre in Hornchurch. I suggest that he discusses the matter with the London Arts Board, which will be in a position to make decisions in the next year or two.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: Despite the initiatives announced by the Secretary of State, the figures show that sport, tourism, heritage and the arts seem to be the losers in the comprehensive spending review. Does not the right hon. Gentleman consistently punch below his weight when it comes to departmental spending?
Mr. Smith: First, they are winners, not losers. Secondly, no.
Mr. John McDonnell: May I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-president of Hayes football club. As my right hon. Friend will know, we reached mid-table in the nationwide conference last season and fully expect to be promoted to the league in the coming season. Just in case some mishap prevents us from being promoted, will he assure me that conference clubs will be able to share in the resources of the Football Foundation and, more importantly, in the decision-making processes of bodies such as the Football Association council?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will, I trust, convey my congratulations to Hayes football club on its undoubted success. The detail of how the FA makes its decisions is up to it, but we have encouraged it, in its democratisation process, to make real change. The FA' s structure has been modernised over the past year or so, and that is extremely welcome.

Points of Order
4.19 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a substantial point of order in relation to the procedure for electing your successor as Speaker. It follows points of order raised on Thursday and by me yesterday.
My credentials for raising the matter are that, under the present rules, if the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris) were in any way indisposed or unable to be present, the task of pointing to a colleague on 23 October would fall to me.
The task would be invidious to the point of being impossible. It would be deeply unsatisfactory to leave the crucial running order of choice to the prejudices, predilections and taste of myself or, much more likely, the taste that the right hon. Gentleman or my right hon. and learned Friend may show towards the candidates for the Speakership.
I have been involved in the choice of Speaker since Horace King succeeded Sir Harry Hylton-Foster all those years ago—in the first instance in the very lowly capacity of parliamentary private secretary to RHS Crossman.
The situation that confronts the House on 23 October 2000 is totally different from anything that has gone before. It is entirely novel because there are a multiplicity of credible candidates—at least a dozen at the last count. I know that the Canadian House of Commons has a system whereby everyone is a candidate unless they rule themselves out. [Laughter.] I make it clear that I fall into the latter category.
If the established rules are to be changed, it will have to be done in the next couple of days. There is no solution that any of us can see that does not have some downside, but perhaps the least bad would be a secret ballot by elimination so that three candidates are left who would then be submitted to the established procedures of the House. In such a situation, under the existing rules the person acting as Father of the House would have the guidance of colleagues on what to do.
My point is that at least the matter ought to be discussed; it should not be a matter that is undiscussed. The only practical way of doing so, Madam Speaker, is for you to postpone your date of going until early November, so that the House can make up its mind in a sensible fashion.
Madam Speaker: I know that one or two other Members have similar points of order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall at the last election of the Speaker in 1992 that, although an hon. Member was proposed and there was an amendment—proposing yourself—it was generally regarded that there was at least one other candidate who was talked about as being in the running. Yet, the matter was settled and you won with a handsome majority of—I think—372.
It is true that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has said, there will be more candidates in the field this time. I do not know how the problem can be resolved. There is one way if there are

915
fewer than six candidates. There are six desks in the two Lobbies and each desk could represent one candidate. People who wanted to vote for a candidate could go to one of the desks. That method would deal with six or fewer candidates, although it would almost certainly result in no overall majority and the process would have to continue.
The alternative, which you have probably looked at, is a little more messy. If the Father of the House calls first one candidate, then the second and there is an amendment, the net result would be people having to sit on their hands, abstaining, until we reached the final candidate. A Speaker might eventually manage to get elected at the end. That is the alternative to having different desks for fewer than six candidates and dealing with the matter in a subsequent ballot.
Mr. Martin Bell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It might help the House if you shared with us your assessment of whether you believe that a democratic and fair system is in place for the choice of your successor.
Madam Speaker: To answer the last point first, yes, I do believe that a democratic system is in place. I also believe that all Members of Parliament are sufficiently experienced to carry out that procedure and I am sure that they will eventually arrive at the right choice.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes a rather unique suggestion, which I find interesting. To respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I am aware of the concern felt on both sides of the House that hon. Members should be informed about the procedure for the election of my successor. I have been using my best endeavours, and shall continue to do so, to ensure that, before we rise for the summer, each individual Member of Parliament receives a letter that fully sets out the procedure for the election of the Speaker. I want to do that as soon as possible. The matter does not rest wholly with me, but I have the responsibility for it. I want each and every Member to have a letter, couched in the simplest possible language, explaining the procedure.
916
I assure the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) that the process will be democratic. The House has long experience of electing Speakers and I like to think that, throughout our history, we have always come up with the right person.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. However great the wisdom enshrined in the letter, ought not the matter to be discussed by the House? We face a novel situation and no one can think of an answer that could be embodied in a letter, however learned those who write it—even one that will, no doubt, be signed by you. Should there not be a debate in the House of Commons, so that views on the procedure of the election can at least be aired? In the circumstances, I ask you, quite seriously, to consider postponing by a few days your departure from us.
Madam Speaker: The wisdom of the House will enable it to follow the procedures. The situation is not unique. The hon. Gentleman tells me that there are many candidates. I read the newspapers as much as he does, and I do not know whether they are right about all of the names that have been bandied about in recent days, but there is some time to go yet and the House should await the letter that is coming to Members. That letter will not be signed by me, as, according to existing procedures, the election will not be my responsibility. I am as concerned as the House to ensure that we carry out the proper procedures and I am doing everything I can as quickly as possible to achieve that end.
Mr. Clive Efford: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall only take a point of order that does not relate to the previous one, because there is nothing more that I can say about that matter. We await a letter being sent to all hon. Members explaining the procedures, and I cannot take the matter further at this stage. It is not for me to change the business of the House: that is a matter for the Leader of the House, in accordance with the will of the House.

Made in Britain Mark
4.28 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a standard Made in Britain mark to be used on goods predominantly manufactured and foodstuffs produced in the United Kingdom; to provide for regulation of the use of the mark; and for connected purposes.
This is the penultimate ten-minute Bill over which you will preside, Madam Speaker, so I have made sure that it is a good one. I am sure that, like me, you choose to buy British on preference. I like to buy British goods: I have always driven British cars, which have never failed me, and I always endeavour to buy British-sproduced food in supermarkets, or, even better, at my local farmers market, or, better still, at my local Women's Institute food market—the epitome of middle Britain's good taste. In other shops, whether they sell electrical goods, furniture, tools or other products, I always opt for the British-made product, when it is competitively priced—much to the chagrin of my wife, who wants a Volvo.
Buying British should be a sign of quality—an act whereby people can be assured of certain standards, especially animal welfare standards in the case of meat and dairy produce; an act in support of British jobs and investment; an act wherein one can be reasonably sure whence the product comes. However, the act of buying British is becoming increasingly confusing and difficult. British companies wanting to promote the British origin of their goods are increasingly being frustrated, and my Bill seeks to address that problem.
My scheme should not be confused with previous attempts, particularly by Governments, to launch variations of buy British campaigns. Back in 1968, a few weeks after devaluation, Harold Wilson produced the "I'm backing Britain" campaign. That campaign was made that much easier because the pound bought less overseas. People were encouraged to sport tee-shirts and badges emblazoned with "I'm backing Britain" over a union jack. A group of Surbiton secretaries worked an extra half an hour a day for free and many thousands followed in the teeth of great opposition from trade unions. The Duke of Edinburgh even lent his support.
The composers Tony Hatch and Jackie Trent penned a song for Bruce Forsyth with these lyrics:

I'm Backing Britain, yes I'm Backing Britain.

We're all Backing Britain.

The Feeling is growing,

So let's keep it going,

The good times are blowing our way.

I can see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tapping your toes at that. A sensational hit it was.
Predictably, the campaign failed, as did Harold Wilson's re-election prospects. A rival campaign set up by the late Robert Maxwell under the title, "Help Britain, Help yourself' was also a failure. How prescient that was.
There have been no fewer than seven exasperated attempts by Trade Secretaries of State over the past 20 years to promote buy British campaigns to reverse accelerating current account deficits. In 1985, support was given to the "Think Britain" campaign, which was fronted by David Jacobs and Ernie Wise. More recently, Lord Feldman promoted a "Better Made in Britain" campaign
918
with a consortium of manufacturers. Most notoriously, in 1992 the Labour party launched a party political broadcast that was fronted by Lord Puttnam, which bemoaned the scarcity of British goods. Perhaps those concerned had not shopped around enough. That buy British campaign was scuppered before it had even started by the backing music to the broadcast, which turned out to be the seventh symphony of a very unBritish Ludwig van Beethoven.
In 1997, the comments of Lord Haskins at the Labour party conference that the British brand is irrelevant in international markets and should be ditched hardly helped the cause. Most recently, such campaigns have been thwarted by the potential to fall foul of article 6 of the European Community treaty that forbids discrimination on the ground of nationality. Rather closer to home, we are aware of the recent lawsuit against the House because of the choice of a British-led contractor to provide the bronze cladding for Portcullis House, which allegedly constituted a buy British policy, which was not allowed.
I gather that an attempt to make a "Made in France" label compulsory was ruled out in a European court case because it would enable British consumers to exercise their natural prejudice against French goods. With notoriously misnamed goods such as French golden delicious apples, surely the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 would do the trick perfectly effectively.
A few months ago I was approached by a company in my constituency in Worthing. ETI is a leading manufacturer of quality temperature-measuring instruments. The directors wanted to include a logo on their products to indicate that they were made in Britain. They were proud to promote British products as a major provider of local jobs in Worthing, and because the made-in-Britain tag is seen as a sign of quality, particularly overseas. The directors saw it as a good marketing tool.
When they made inquiries to the Department of Trade and Industry about what made-in-Britain logos were available and what the Department would recommend, they were told, "We don't really go in for that sort of thing." Instead, they were steered towards using "Product of the EC" labels. Subsequently I tabled a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I asked
what "Made in Britain" emblems are available from his Department to British companies to mark the country of origin of their products—[Official Report, 11 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 473W.]
That yielded the untypically straightforward and underspun one-word reply, "None."
That is not good enough. Besides, we are missing a trick. The National Farmers Union has recently launched its red and blue tractor logo to act as a guarantee of high standards, farm assurance and competitive pricing on British agricultural products. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) tried to initiate something similar in his private Member's Bill earlier this year. I commend the NFU and we can learn much from its scheme, but foreign-grown produce complying to British standards can still use the mark even if it is only finished off in the UK. We rely solely on the good will of multiple retailers to police the system. That is independent of Government enforcement.

919
My Bill, therefore, will establish a standard "Made in Britain" logo. It could be the equivalent of the simple lion mark on eggs or a union jack-vested British bulldog, for example. I suggest a national competition to come up with an appropriate and high-profile symbol. The logo would be administered by the Department of Trade and Industry, and firms with predominantly British-produced items could apply to use the logo on payment of a small subscription fee to cover the running costs.
The definition of "Made in Britain" would be determined by reference to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or the North American Free Trade Agreement's de minimis customs provisions, for example. The scheme would be entirely voluntary, but subscribing firms would have to undertake to maintain their qualifications for using the logo, and that would be policed by the DTI.
I believe that my scheme could operate without infringing single market competition law. It would have minimal cost, but the potential gearing effect for British firms could be considerable. The scheme has gained the support of the Federation of Small Businesses and other trade bodies, and the NFU has raised no objections.
My Bill would enable the British public to make informed choices and would encourage British firms to promote the Britishness of their goods as a strong marketing tool, both in the UK and overseas. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tim Loughton, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. James Gray, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Robert Syms, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Soames, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Andrew Tyrie, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Graham Brady.

Made in Britain Mark
  MADE IN BRITAIN MARK
  Mr. Tim Loughton accordingly presented a Bill to establish a standard Made in Britain mark to be used on goods predominantly manufactured and foodstuffs produced in the United Kingdom; to provide for regulation of the use of the mark; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13 November, and to be printed [Bill 170].
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR EQUAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATION
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13540/99. a draft Council Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; and supports the Government's welcome for the principle of such action whilst remaining convinced of the need for the proposals to be made clear and workable; and notes the Government's intention to negotiate to this end, and to ensure that the proposals take proper account of the legitimate concerns of employers and make a real difference to the lives of those whom they are designed to protect.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
    The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 115.

    Division No. 284]

    [4.37 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Cotter, Brian

    Ainger, Nick

    Cousins, Jim

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cranston, Ross

    Allan, Richard

    Crausby, David

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cummings, John

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cunningham, Jim (CoV'try S)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Darvill, Keith

    Ashton, Joe

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Austin, John

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Baker, Norman

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

    Ballard, Jackie

    Barnes, Harry

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Barron, Kevin

    Dismore, Andrew

    Beard, Nigel

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Doran, Frank

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Dowd, Jim

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Efford, Clive

    Berry, Roger

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Best, Harold

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Betts, Clive

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Blackman, Liz

    Fisher, Mark

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Blizzard, Bob

    Flint, Caroline

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Flynn, Paul

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Brake, Tom

    Fyfe, Maria

    Breed, Colin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burden, Richard

    Grocott, Bruce

    Burgon, Colin

    Grogan, John

    Burstow, Paul

    Hain, Peter

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Harvey, Nick

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Healey, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Casale, Roger

    Heppell, John

    Caton, Martin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Home Robertson, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hurst, Alan

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hutton, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Clelland, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Clwyd, Ann

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jamieson, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Corbett, Robin

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    921

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

    Pike, Peter L

    Pond, Chris

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Purchase, Ken

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Rapson, Syd

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

    Raynsford, Nick

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Rendel, David

    Kidney, David

    Rogers, Allan

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Rooney, Terry

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Rowlands, Ted

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Roy, Frank

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Ruane, Chris

    Lepper, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Leslie, Christopher

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Linton, Martin

    Salter, Martin

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Lock, David

    Sawford, Phil

    Love, Andrew

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAllion, John

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sheerman, Barry

    McCabe, Steve

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Macdonald, Calum

    Skinner, Dennis

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McNamara, Kevin

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    MacShane, Denis

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

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

    Mc Walter, Tony

    Soley, Clive

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Spellar, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stevenson, George

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Martlew, Eric

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Maxton, John

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Merron, Gillian

    Stringer, Graham

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Swinney, John

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Moore, Michael

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Morley, Elliot

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

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

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mountford, Kali

    Todd, Mark

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Norris, Dan

    Trickett, Jon

    Oaten, Mark

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Olner, Bill

    Tyler, Paul

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tynan, Bill

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Wallace, James

    Pearson, Ian

    Walley, Ms Joan

    922

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Winnick, David

    Wareing, Robert N

    Wood, Mike

    White, Brian

    Woodward, Shaun

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Worthington, Tony

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Wray, James

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Willis, Phil

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

    Wills, Michael

    Mr. Mike Hall.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Amess, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Bercow, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Beresford, Sir Paui

    Luff, Peter

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Brazier, Julian

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Burnett, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Butterfill, John

    Madel, Sir David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Maples, John

    Clappison, James

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Collins, Tim

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Cran, James

    Norman, Archie

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Paterson, Owen

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Pickles, Eric

    Evans, Nigel

    Prior, David

    Faber, David

    Randall, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Fallon, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Robertson, Laurence

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Ruffley, David

    Gale, Roger

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Garnier, Edward

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gill, Christopher

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gorrie, Donald

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Gray, James

    Shepherd, Richard

    Green, Damian

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Spring, Richard

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Steen, Anthony

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Streeter, Gary

    Hammond, Philip

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hawkins, Nick

    Syms, Robert

    Hayes, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Horam, John

    Townend, John

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Trend, Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Viggers, Peter

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Waterson, Nigel

    Wells, Bowen

    Key, Robert

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Whittingdale, John

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Wilshire, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Leigh, Edward

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Letwin, Oliver

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Mr. Peter Atkinson and

    Lidington, David

    Mr. Stephen Day.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): It may be convenient to take motions 3, 4 and 5 together.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Certainly not!
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 67) on Heads', Deputies' and Advanced Skills Teachers' Performance Pay Progression and Deputies' Assimilation (HC 569), which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 115.

    Division No. 285]

    [4.37 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ainger, Nick

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cann, Jamie

    Allan, Richard

    Caplin, Ivor

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Casale, Roger

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Caton, Martin

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cawsey, Ian

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Ashton, Joe

    Chaytor, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Austin, John

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Baker, Norman

    Ballard, Jackie

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Banks, Tony

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Bames, Harry

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Barron, Kevin v

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clelland, David

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clwyd, Ann

    Beth, Rt Hon A J

    Coaker, Vernon

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Cohen, Harry

    Bell. Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Coleman, Iain

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Connarty, Michael

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Benton, Joe

    Corbett, Robin

    Berry, Roger

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Best, Harold

    Cotter, Brian

    Betts, Clive

    Cousins, Jim

    Blackman, Liz

    Cranston, Ross

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Crausby, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Cummings, John

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Darvill, Keith

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brake, Tom

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Breed, Colin

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

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

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Burden, Richard

    Denham, John

    Burgon, Colin

    Dismore, Andrew

    Burnett, John

    Dobbin, Jim

    Burstow, Paul

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Butler, Mrs christine

    Doran, Frank

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Dowd, Jim

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    924

    Edwards, Huw

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Efford, Clive

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Fisher, Mark

    Lepper, David

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flint, Caroline

    Levitt, Tom

    Flynn, Paul

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Livsey, Richard

    Fyfe, Maria

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lock, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Love, Andrew

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McAllion, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Goggins, Paul

    McCabe, Steve

    Gorrie, Donald

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Grocott, Bruce

    Macdonald, Calum

    Grogan, John

    McDonnell, John

    Hain, Peter

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Harris, Dr Evan

    McNulty, Tony

    Harvey, Nick

    MacShane, Denis

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Healey, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hill, Keith

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hinchtffe, David

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Martlew, Eric

    Home Robertson, John

    Maxton, John

    Hope, Phil

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moore, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Hurst, Alan

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hutton, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Iddon, Dr Brian

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

    Illsley, Eric

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Mountford, Kali

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Mudie, George

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Norris, Dan

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pearson, Ian

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pendry, Tom

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Perham, Ms Linda

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

    Pickthall, Colin

    Pike, Peter L

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Plaskitt, James

    Khabra, Piara S

    Pond, Chris

    Kidney, David

    Pope, Greg

    925

    Pound, Stephen

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rapson, Syd

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Raynsford, Nick

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Timms, Stephen

    Rendel, David

    Tipping, Paddy

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Todd, Mark

    Rogers, Allan

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Rooney, Terry

    Touhig, Don

    Rowlands, Ted

    Trickett, Jon

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Ruane, Chris

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Tyler, Paul

    Salter, Martin

    Tynan, Bill

    Sanders, Adrian

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wallace, James

    Sawford, Phil

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sheerman, Barry

    Watts, David

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Webb, Steve

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Welsh, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    White, Brian

    Smith. Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Willis, Phil

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Wills, Michael

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

    Wilson, Brian

    Soley, Clive

    Winnick, David

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Spellar, John

    Wood, Mike

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stevenson, George

    Woolas, Phil

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Worthington, Tony

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wray, James

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Stringer, Graham

    Mr. Mike Hall.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Amess, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bercow, John

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fraser, Christopher

    Brazier, Julian

    Gale, Roger

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Garnier, Edward

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gill, Christopher

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gray, James

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Green, Damian

    Grieve, Dominic

    Clappison, James

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hammond, Philip

    Collins, Tim

    Hawkins, Nick

    Gran, James

    Hayes, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Heald, Oliver

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Horam, John

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, Nigel

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Faber, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffery

    Fallon, Michael

    926

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Key, Robert

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Ruffley, David

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lansley, Andrew

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Leigh, Edward

    Shepherd, Richard

    Letwin, Oliver

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lidington, David

    Spring, Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Steen, Anthony

    Loughton, Tim

    Streeter, Gary

    Luff, Peter

    Swayne, Desmond

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Syms, Robert

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Madel, Sir David

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Matins, Humfrey

    Townend, John

    Maples, John

    Trend, Michael

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Viggers, Peter

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Waterson, Nigel

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wells, Bowen

    Norman, Archie

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Whittingdale, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Paterson, Owen

    Wilshire, David

    Pickles, Eric

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Prior, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Randall, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mr. Stephen Day and

    Robertson, Laurence

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

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

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 68) on the 2000/2001 Special Grant for Kosovan Evacuees (HC 636), which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 113.

    Division No. 286]

    [5.6 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Ainger, Nick

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Benton, Joe

    Allan, Richard

    Berry, Roger

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Best, Harold

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Betts, Clive

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Blackman, Liz

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Ashton, Joe

    Blizzard, Bob

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Austin, John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Baker, Norman

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ballard, Jackie

    Brake, Tom

    Banks, Tony

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Bames, Harry

    Breed, Colin

    Barron, Kevin

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Beard, Nigel

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Burden, Richard

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Burgon, Colin

    927

    Burnett, John

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Burstow, Paul

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Goggins, Paul

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Gorrie, Donald

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth, V)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cann, Jamie

    Grocott, Bruce

    Caplin, Ivor

    Grogan, John

    Casale, Roger

    Hain, Peter

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chaytor, David

    Hanson, David

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Harvey, Nick

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Healey, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Rome)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Heppell, John

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hill, Keith

    Cohen, Harry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Connarty, Michael

    Home Robertson, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hope, Phil

    Corbett, Robin

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Corston, Jean

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cotter, Brian

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Crausby, David

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hurst, Alan

    Cummings, John

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jenkins, Brian

    Darvill, Keith

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

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

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Denham, John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Doran, Frank

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dowd, Jim

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

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

    Edwards, Huw

    Efford, Clive

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Khabra, Piara S

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kidney, David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Fisher, Mark

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Ladyman, Dr Stephenson

    Flint, Caroline

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Flynn, Paul

    Lepper, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Levitt, Tom

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Linton, Martin

    Gidley, Sandra

    Livsey, Richard

    928

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lock, David

    Rogers, Allan

    Love, Andrew

    Rooney, Terry

    McAllion, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rowlands, Ted

    McCabe, Steve

    Roy, Frank

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ruane, Chris

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Salter, Martin

    McDonnell, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sawford, Phil

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheerman, Barry

    McNulty, Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    MacShane, Denis

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Skinner, Dennis

    McWatter, Tony

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

    Maxton, John

    Snape, Peter

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Soley, Clive

    Merron, Gillian

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Spellar, John

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Stevenson, George

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Moore, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Morley, Elliot

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

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

    Stringer, Graham

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Morris Rt Hon Sir Jhon (Aberavon)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mountford, Kali

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    Mudie, George

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Norris, Dan

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Oaten, Mark

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Timms, Stephen

    Olner, Bill

    Tipping, Paddy

    Öpik, Lembit

    Todd, Mark

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Touhig, Don

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Trickett, Jon

    Pearson, Ian

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pendry, Tom

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pickthall, Cohn

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pike, Peter L

    Tyler, Paul

    Plaskitt, James

    Tynan, Bill

    Pond, Chris

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Pope, Greg

    Wallace, James

    Pound, Stephen

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wareing, Robert N

    Purchase, Ken

    Watts, David

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Webb, Steve

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Welsh, Andrew

    Rapson, Syd

    White, Brian

    Raynsford, Nick

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Rendel, David

    929

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Woolas, Phil

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Worthington, Tony

    Willis, Phil

    Wray, James

    Wills, Michael

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Wilson, Brian

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Winnick, David

    Wyatt, Derek

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wood, Mike

    Mr. David Clelland and

    Woodward, Shaun

    Mr. David Jamieson.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Lidington, David

    Amess, David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Beggs, Roy

    Loughton, Tim

    Bercow, John

    Luff, peter

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Brazier, Julian

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Madel, Sir David

    Butterfill, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Maples, John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Clappison, James

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Collins. Tim

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Cran, James

    Norman, Archie

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Paterson, Owen

    Day, Stephen

    Pickles, Eric

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Prior, David

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Evans, Nigel

    Robathan, Andrew

    Faber, David

    Robertson, Laurence

    Fabricant, Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Fallon, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Ruffley, David

    Fox, Dr Liam

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Fraser, Christopher

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Gale, Roger

    Shepherd, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gill, Christopher

    Soames, Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Spring, Richard

    Gray, James

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Green, Damian

    Steen, Anthony

    Grieve, Dominic

    Streeter, Gary

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Syms, Robert

    Hammond, Philip

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Hayes, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Heald, Oliver

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Townend, John

    Horam, John

    Trend, Michael

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Viggers, Peter

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wells, Bowen

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Key, Robert

    Whittingdale, John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Wilshire, David

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Yeo, Tim

    Lensley, Andrew

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Leigh, Edward

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Letwin, Oliver

    Mr. John Randall and

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

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

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 65): Invest to Save Grant (HC 707), which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    The House divided: Ayes 353, Noes 112.

    Division No. 287]

    [5.21 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

    Allan, Richard

    Coaker, Vernon

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cohen, Harry

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Coleman, Iain

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Connarty, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Corbett, Robin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Corston, Jean

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cotter, Brian

    Austin, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Baker, Norman

    Cranston, Ross

    Ballard, Jackie

    Crausby, David

    Banks, Tony

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Barnes, Harry

    Cummings, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Beard, Nigel

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Darvill, Keith

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Best, Harold

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

    Betts. Clive

    Blackman, Liz

    Dawson, Hilton

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blizzard. Bob

    Dismore, Andrew

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Doran, Frank

    Brake, Tom

    Dowd, Jim

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Breed, Colin

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Efford, Clive

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Burden, Richard

    Ennis, Jeff

    Burgon, Colin

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Burnett, John

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Burstow, Paul

    Fisher, Mark

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Flint, Caroline

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Cann, Jamie

    Fyfe, Maria

    Caplin, Ivor

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Casale, Roger

    Gerrard, Neil

    Caton, Martin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gidley, Sandra

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Chaytor, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gorrie, Donald

    Clark. Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    931

    Grocott, Bruce

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Grogan, John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hain, Peter

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hanson, David

    MacShane, Denis

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harvey, Nick

    McWalter, Tony

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Healey, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Heppe John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hill, Keith

    Martlew, Eric

    Hinchliffe, David

    Maxton, John

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Home Robertson. John

    Meale, Alan

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moore, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hurst, Alan

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Hutton, John

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Morley, Elliot

    Illsley, Eric

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

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Monis, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Mountford, Kali

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Mudie, George

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Norris, Dan

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Pearson, Ian

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pendry, Tom

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pike, Peter L

    Khabra, Piara S

    Plaskitt, James

    Kidney, David

    Pond, Chris

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Pope, Greg

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Pound, Stephen

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Lepper, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Leslie, Christopher

    Purchase, Ken

    Levitt, Tom

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Rapson, Syd

    Linton, Martin

    Raynsford, Nick

    Livsey, Richard

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Lock, David

    Rendel, David

    Love, Andrew

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McAllion, John

    Rogers, Allan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McCabe, Steve

    Rooney, Terry

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Rowlands, Ted

    Macdonald, Calum

    Roy, Frank

    McDonnell, John

    Ruane, Chris

    932

    Ruddock, Joan

    Timms, Stephen

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Todd, Mark

    Salter, Martin

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Sanders, Adrian

    Touhig, Don

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Trickett, Jon

    Sawford, Phil

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Tyler, Paul

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Tynan, Bill

    Skinner, Dennis

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wallace, James

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Watts, David

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Webb, Steve

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Welsh, Andrew

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

    White, Brian

    Snape, Peter

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Spellar, John

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Stevenson, George

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Willis, Phil

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wills, Michael

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wilson, Brian

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Winnick, David

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Wood, Mike

    Stringer, Graham

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Worthington, Tony

    Wray, James

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Mr. David Clelland and

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Mr. David Jamieson.

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Gale, Roger

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Garnier, Edward

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Beggs, Roy

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bercow, John

    Gray, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Green, Damian

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Brazier, Julian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hammond, Philip

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Butterfill, John

    Hayes, John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Heald, Oliver

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Clappison, James

    Horam, John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Collins, Tim

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Gran, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Day, Stephen

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Key, Robert

    Evans, Nigel

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Faber, David

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fallon, Michael

    Lansley, Andrew

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Leigh, Edward

    Fowler, At Hon Sir Norman

    Letwin, Oliver

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Lidington, David

    933

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Loughton, Tim

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Luff, Peter

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Spring, Richard

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Streeter, Gary

    Malins, Humfrey

    Swayne, Desmond

    Maples, John

    Syms, Robert

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Norman, Archie

    Townend, John

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Trend, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Paterson, Owen

    Viggers, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Waterson, Nigel

    Prior, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wilshire, David

    Robertson, Laurence

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Yeo, Tim

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ruffley, David

    Mr. GeoffreyClifton-Brown

    St Aubyn, Nick

    and

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Mr. John Randall.

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

    DATA PROTECTION
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    That in respect of service from 1st April 2000, the Data Protection Commissioner shall be paid a salary of £68,212 per annum.—[Mr. Pope.]
    The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 113.

    Division No. 288]

    [5.34 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Blackman, Liz

    Ainger, Nick

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Allan, Richard

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Brake, Tom

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Ashton, Joe

    Breed, Colin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Austin, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Baker, Norman

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ballard, Jackie

    Burden, Richard

    Banks, Tony

    Burgon, Colin

    Bames, Harry

    Burnett, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Burstow, Paul

    Beard, Nigel

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Benton, Joe

    Cann, Jamie

    Berry, Roger

    Caplin, Ivor

    Best, Harold

    Casale, Roger

    Betts, Clive

    Caton, Martin

    934

    Cawsey, Ian

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Chaytor, David

    Grogan, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hain, Peter

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Harvey, Nick

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Healey, John

    Clwyd, Ann

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cohen, Harry

    Heppell, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Hill, Keith

    Colman, Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Hope, Phil

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Corston, Jean

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Cotter, Brian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Crausby, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cummings, John

    Hurst, Alan

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Hutton, John

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Illsley, Eric

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jamieson, David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

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

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Edwards, Huw

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Efford, Clive

    Keetch, Paul

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Khabra, Piara S

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Kidney, David

    Fisher, Mark

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Flint, Caroline

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Flynn, Paul

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lepper, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Levitt, Tom

    Fyfe, Maria

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Linton, Martin

    Gidley, Sandra

    Livsey, Richard

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Love, Andrew

    Godsiff, Roger

    McAllion, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gorrie, Donald

    McCabe, Steve

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    935

    Macdonald, Calum

    Roy, Frank

    McDonnell, John

    Ruane, Chris

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruddock, Joan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Salter, Martin

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sanders, Adrian

    McNulty, Tony

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacShane, Denis

    Sawford, Phil

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McWalter, Tony

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Maxton, John

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Snape, Peter

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Soley, Clive

    Mitchell, Austin

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Moffatt, Laura

    Spellar, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Moore, Michael

    Stevenson, George

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Stoate, Dr Howard

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

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Stringer, Graham

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mountford, Kali

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mudie, George

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Norris, Dan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Oaten, Mark

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Olner, Bill

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Timms, Stephen

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Tipping, Paddy

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Todd, Mark

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Pearson, Ian

    Touhig, Don

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Trickett, Jon

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pike, Peter L

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Plaskitt, James

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pond, Chris

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pope, Greg

    Tyler, Paul

    Pound, Stephen

    Tynan, Bill

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Wallace, James

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Purchase, Ken

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Wareing, Robert N

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Watts, David

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Webb, Steve

    Rapson, Syd

    Welsh, Andrew

    Raynsford, Nick

    White, Brian

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Rendel, David

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Rogers, Allan

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rooney, Terry

    Willis, Phil

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wills, Michael

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wilson, Brian

    936

    Winnick, David

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wood, Mike

    Wyatt, Derek

    Woodward, Shaun

    Woolas, Phil

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. Mike Hall and

    Wray, James

    Mr. David Clelland.

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Loughton, Tim

    Beggs, Roy

    Luff, Peter

    Bercow, John

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Brazier, Julian

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Malins, Humfrey

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Maples, John

    Butterfill, John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Cash, William

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Clappison, James

    Norman, Archie

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Ottaway, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Paterson, Owen

    Cran, James

    Pickles, Eric

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Prior, David

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Randall, John

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Evans, Nigel

    Robathan, Andrew

    Faber, David

    Robertson, Laurence

    Fabricant, Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marlon (Broxbourne)

    Fallon, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Ruffley, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Fraser, Christopher

    Shepherd, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Garnier, Edward

    Soames, Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Spring, Richard

    Gray, James

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Green, Damian

    Steen, Anthony

    Grieve, Dominic

    Streeter, Gary

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Syms, Robert

    Hammond, Philip

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

    Hayes, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Heald, Oliver

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Townend, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Trend, Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Viggers, Peter

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Wells, Bowen

    Key, Robert

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Whittingdale, John

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Wilshire, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Leigh, Edward

    Yeo, Tim

    Letwin, Oliver

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lidington, David

    Mr. Peter Atkinson and

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Mr. Stephen Day.

    Question accordingly agreed to
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we come to motion No. 7, I have a statement from Madam Speaker. I should inform the House that the Leader of the Opposition has tabled a manuscript amendment to the allocation of time

    937
    motion which the Speaker has selected for debate. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the total time available for debate on the allocation of time motion and the Bill from five to eight hours. Copies of the amendment are available in the Vote Office.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you read The Guardian, and you will have seen in that paper today the report that on 7 March in the House, at column 886 of Hansard, the Home Secretary said that the Bill that we are about to discuss enjoyed the full support of the noble Lord Bingham, then the Lord Chief Justice. That appears not to have been the case, in that the Home Secretary was in possession of a letter that made it plain that the noble Lord had grave anxieties about the Bill. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Home Secretary has deliberately misled the House; I am sure that it was a misunderstanding—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been misinformed; I do not read The Guardian. The other matter is one for debate. He has been in the House a long time—he entered it at the same time as me—so perhaps he can find another way of raising the matter.
    Mr. Hogg: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not a matter of debate. I was about to ask whether you have some power. Incidentally, welcome to the readership of The Daily Telegraph. Is it possible for you to ensure that we have copies of the correspondence in the Library before we debate the timetable or the next stage of the Bill?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for me to make available that correspondence.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you or the Speaker have had notice from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that he wishes to make a statement on the spending review. I am sure that all hon. Members know that that was the highlight of the spending review. We therefore confidently expected that he would want to make a statement, on which we could question him. However, it would appear—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should let the Deputy Speaker be the Deputy Speaker; I will chair proceedings. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is not a matter for the Chair. I have had no such notice—nor, indeed, has Madam Speaker.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).I am happy to have copies of the correspondence placed in the Vote Office and on the Table.

Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2)Bill (Allocation of Time)
5.51 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill—
Timetable
1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
Questions to be put
2.—(l) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a)any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
Miscellaneous
3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.
4. Proceeding to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
7.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; and

(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before then.

(2) The bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
8.Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.
Supplemental orders
9.The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this

939
Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
10.If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended. before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
As hon. Members will recognise from the normal form of this allocation of time motion, it proposes that there should be a total, including debate on the guillotine itself, of five hours of debate on Report and Third Reading of this short but important Bill.
Guillotines are used by Governments of both parties. They are a regrettable necessity, but sometimes inevitable. Their use depends on the degree of contention of the Bill and whether agreement with the Opposition can be sought. It must however be added—history shows this to be so—that although Conservative Governments have certainly until now always enjoyed an in-built majority in the other place, a Labour Government, whatever their majority in this elected House, have never done so. The consequence, as statistics show, is that the number of occasions on which Government business is defeated in the other place is always much higher than it is here. Indeed, these proceedings would not be necessary had the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 1) Bill been allowed to proceed to this elected House, for us to debate it in the proper way.
Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in due course.
I said a moment ago that the criterion for determining whether Bills should be the subject of guillotine motions used to be almost exclusively contention. This is a contentious Bill—I am the first to concede that—but it must be accepted that, these days, the Opposition are so disorganised that they cannot even deliver on Bills that have the full support of the Opposition Front-Bench team.
The very best example that I can quote, of a huge number, is the Disqualifications Bill, which was before the House in late January. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she would give the Bill a fair passage. So chaotic were the Opposition's tactics that, far from doing so, they talked the Bill through on the Monday night, the Tuesday night and on the Wednesday, thereby shooting their feet off in ensuring that Prime Minister's Question Time and, I understand, Opposition Days and other business that they wanted could not proceed.
We saw the same with the Football (Disorder) Bill, which apparently has the full support of Opposition parties. The Leader of the Opposition said in a speech outside the House that he and his party would support "any moves" to control football hooliganism, yet owing to the inability of the Opposition Front-Bench team to deliver its own Members, we had to introduce a guillotine in this House to get the Bill through.
If any further proof were needed of the incapacity of the Conservative Front-Bench team to ensure that its Members are in order, I draw attention to its extraordinary performance just now in putting up Tellers against a series of orders, which has wasted more than an hour of the
940
House's time. I cannot believe that Conservative Front Benchers would have voted against those orders had they read them.
For example, the Conservative Front Benchers voted against motion No. 4, concerning the local government finance special grant report in respect of Kosovan evacuees. Had they succeeded in defeating the motion—we shall not let them forget this—Conservative as well as Labour local authorities would have been denied grant aid from central Government in support of Kosovan evacuees. So petty is the Conservatives' approach that they even voted to deny the Data Protection Commissioner a salary, as on the Order Paper.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Home Secretary has been justifying the guillotine motion on the basis of the Opposition's tactics. He is of course aware of the reasoned amendment to Third Reading that has been signed by 18 of his Back Benchers. Perhaps the truth is that the guillotine motion is to prevent his Back Benchers from articulating their opposition to the Bill.
Mr. Straw: That is utter nonsense. The debate will show that there is no suggestion or possibility that those who take a different view on this issue, whether on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's side of the House or mine, should not express their point of view.
What makes most synthetic the Opposition's demand for more time is the fact that they could not find sufficient matters to debate in Standing Committee.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: rose—
Mr. Straw: I make an honourable exception of the hon. Gentleman. This great issue that the Opposition have raised could take up only four Committee sittings, and the Bill reported by agreement without ever a closure motion being moved. So the idea that there is now insufficient time to debate the issue—we have five hours altogether—is frankly fanciful.
Mr. Malins: The Home Secretary will be aware that there are four groups of amendments and that each is led by one that I have tabled. What evidence does he have that I would choose to filibuster, knowing as he does that all I have ever sought is to debate briefly and to the point? What does he have to say against me?
Mr. Straw: I made an honourable exception of the hon. Gentleman, in respect of whom I have no such evidence. However, I need only look at Hansard for 24 to 26 January to find evidence of the capacity of others among his erstwhile hon. Friends—including the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who smilingly pleads guilty to the charge—to filibuster even matters that Opposition Front Benchers support.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I was a member of the Standing Committee. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary, with one breath, asserts that we will filibuster, but, with the next, says that those who were members of the Standing Committee were prepared to engage in serious debates, in which the former Attorney-General and others spoke, without filibustering. How can

941
the Home Secretary justify—to his hon. Friends, if not to us—restricting to an hour and three quarters debate on a matter as important as abolishing jury trial?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes my point that there has already been adequate discussion as far as the Opposition are concerned. However, having read the report of the Standing Committee, I know that he almost reached the point at which he agreed with the terms of the Bill. I am glad to know that he was persuaded by the eloquence of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) makes my second point for me by pointing out that, although there are four groups of amendments to the Bill, encompassing 14 amendments selected by Madam Speaker, not one of the lead amendments has been tabled by the official Opposition Front-Bench team. There has never been such an incompetent Opposition—they are incompetent even by their own standards. We have moved the timetable motion because we know of the capacity of the current Opposition to attempt to talk out even measures with which they agree. They are complaining that there is insufficient time, so we should attempt to deal with the guillotine motion as quickly as possible so that we can get on to the amendments and Third Reading.
The Bill is not about abolishing the right to a jury trial, and I am flattered that the Opposition feel the need to parody and distort our proposal in order to oppose it. It is about following the practice of every other common law jurisdiction that we can find, which ensures that decisions on which sort of court should try cases should be made judicially by the court, not at the election of individual defendants. I remind the House that such proposals have been the subject of serious discussion for at least seven years. The royal commission report published in 1993 recommended:
We do not think that defendants should be able to choose their court of trial solely on the basis that they think they will get a fairer hearing at one level or another. Nor in our view should defendants be entitled to choose the mode of trial which they think will offer them a better chance of acquittal any more than they should be able to choose the judge who they think will offer them the most lenient sentence.
In a landmark speech on 21 July 1999, the Lord Chief Justice said to the judges assembled for the annual Mansion House dinner:
In matters of most momentous criminal concern this right—
that is, the right to jury trial—
must at least in general be preserved, but it would be absurd to grant a right to jury trial in all cases, however trivial, and those who here in the City drafted the terms of Magna Carta would be surprised to find that intention attributed to them. In cases triable either summarily or by judge and jury I would at present in this country be very reluctant to accord the prosecutor an absolute right to choose the mode of trial, as is done in Scotland.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I hope that this is a point of order.
Mr. Swayne: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary's remarks are all very interesting, but what do they have to do with the timetable motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I knew that the hon. Gentleman did not have a point of order for me. The Home Secretary is in order.
Mr. Straw: I shall bring my remarks to a close as soon as I am able to do so. My point is that the matter has been the subject of considerable discussion both inside and outside Parliament for some time.
The Lord Chief Justice continued:
But equally it seems to me objectionable to accord such an absolute right to the defendant, on whose list of priorities the reaching of a just and expeditious decision may not rank very highly. This is a judicial decision properly to be made by the magistrates court on consideration of all the relevant circumstances, but I think it vital, as the Government has happily accepted, that such decisions should be susceptible to immediate challenge to a Crown court judge to ensure that such questions are carefully and objectively considered with due regard to the perceptions of those who may regard themselves as vulnerable, and to provide redress against the occasional aberrant decision, should such be made.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when the Lord Chief Justice made those remarks, he was speaking in favour of the No. 1 Bill, not the current Bill; that when he talked about magistrates properly taking the decision, he knew perfectly well that there had been put into the No. 1 Bill the reputation clause, which ensured that magistrates would have to take into account matters of reputation and livelihood; and that that clause does not appear in the No. 2 Bill? That is what the Lord Chief Justice was talking about and, since he made those remarks, he has made it manifestly clear that he has serious concerns about the new Bill. In the circumstances, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely inappropriate for him to pray in aid the Lord Chief Justice?
Mr. Straw: My hon. and learned Friend is wrong in every particular. The Lord Chief Justice was speaking at this time last year, some months before the No. I Bill was published, and he was talking at large about the general principle of whether or not mode of trial in either—way cases should be determined judicially or by the defendant.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way. The one point of principle that the Lord Chief Justice—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have hon. Members shouting across the Floor of the House. The Home Secretary is entitled to a hearing and he must be heard.
Mr. Straw: The one point of principle that the Lord Chief Justice, entirely properly, raised in discussions with me before the publication of the No. 1 Bill, to which he referred in his speech on the Second Reading of that Bill late last year—five months after making his speech at Mansion House—was whether or not, in contrast to the royal commission's recommendation, the mode of trial should be simply for decision by magistrates without any right of appeal, or whether there should be a right of appeal. We agreed between us that there should be a right of appeal to an experienced Crown court judge against a decision to refuse to transfer jurisdiction to the Crown court, and that provision was put into the No. 1 Bill.
Several hon.: Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way shortly, but I want to answer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

943
Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) first. I have put the correspondence between the Lord Chief Justice and myself before the House, or at least it will be available very shortly.
My hon. and learned Friend's claims are both inappropriate and disingenuous. There was indeed discussion between the Lord Chief Justice at the time and myself about changes that we proposed should be made in the No. 2 Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have always said that our reason for making those changes was to achieve a balance. We made them because of concerns expressed in the other place about the No. 1 Bill and on Commons Second Reading of the No. 2 Bill that the inclusion of criteria relating to reputation could lead to two-tier justice.
I shall give an example of the sort of representations that were made on Second Reading. It was said that
the reputation clause is repellent because it creates a two-tier system. We have all argued against that and everyone on the Government Back Benches would make common cause on that.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 920.]
Who said that? None other than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway. We changed the No. 1 Bill criteria to the No. 2 Bill criteria because of representations made to us, including those of my hon. and learned Friend. I will not accept any of the suggestions that he has made outside the House, which are disingenuous and without any foundation, about whether I was forthcoming to the House when I spoke to it.
I shall deal with the exchange of correspondence with the Lord Chief Justice. When we were discussing the issue over preceding months, the Lord Chief Justice made it clear to me that he regarded the issue of whether there was a right of appeal as one of principle. That became clear when he spoke on Second Reading of the No.1 Bill in December. However, unlike the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, he is in favour of the principle of having the mode of trial determined judicially. My hon. and learned Friend must accept that he opposes not only the position in the No. 2 Bill, which I adopt, but the criteria that the Lord Chief Justice supported. He opposes any suggestion that the right to elect jury trial should be transferred to the magistrates, with a right of appeal, rather than being left with the defendant, as it is now.
What happened? I wrote to the Lord Chief Justice on 21 February to explain our thinking, picking up on the representations that had been made. The Lord Chief Justice wrote to me on 22 February to say that many different things might be relevant in answering the question, which is where the matter may be tried. He wrote that
there are dangers in excluding consideration of anything which is relevant in the given case.
Towards the end, he wrote:
I am uneasy at requiring decision makers to ignore matters which reasonable decision makers might wish to take into account.
That was the Lord Chief Justice's position.
I considered in some detail what he had to say and wrote to him on 21 March, providing him with what I
944
thought was detailed reassurance, as right hon. and hon. Members will see, on the two cases that he had raised. I concluded:
I am very grateful to you for your advice on this. I hope what I say above is reassuring to you. If it is not I would be happy to add this to the agenda of our forthcoming meeting on 6 April, and could ask Parliamentary Counsel to attend as well. Charles Clarke will be listening carefully to the debate in committee to see whether, within our overall purpose, the wording can be improved, and I will consult you if there are amendments we are minded to accept or put down ourselves.
That was the position on 21 March 2000. As it happened, the meeting on 6 April could not take place. I did not receive any further response from the Lord Chief Justice, and on 18 April it was announced that he would become a senior Law Lord on the Judicial Committee and that Lord Woolf would take over from him on 6 June as Lord Chief Justice. There was never the least suggestion that I was not forthcoming on Second Reading. It will be seen also from the correspondence that the matter had not been closed when I spoke in the House. As with so many other issues of exchange between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice, we were hoping to reach an accommodation on the matter.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Secretary told the House that the Bill, which does not allow either reputation or general matters to be taken into account, enjoyed the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice. Yet we know from what he has told us now that a fortnight earlier he received a letter from the Lord Chief Justice expressing his serious unease. He knows that on 20 January, the Lord Chief Justice, in supporting the No. 1 Bill in Committee, said:
I respectfully think that it is better to give magistrates and circuit judges a wide and almost undirected discretion.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1254.]
The right hon. Gentleman has done exactly the opposite. Can he explain himself?
Mr. Straw: I shall be delighted to explain myself. I shall do so by reading out the whole of the opening two paragraphs of my speech on Second Reading. I said:
The Bill is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system and to improve public confidence in it. Its purpose is to make the system more responsive to the needs of victims, witnesses and the public at large—and defendants.
I then said:
The proposal—
not the Bill—
has been considered extensively in the past seven years.
It is obvious from that that I was talking about the proposal that the mode of trial should be determined not by individual defendants, but by magistrates. I continued:
In 1993. it—
the proposal—
received the unanimous backing of the royal commission on criminal justice. Today, it—
the proposal—
enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and of the vast majority—[Interruption]—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886.]
The proposal did and it does. If the only issue between the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire and my hon. and learned Friend the Member

945
for Medway, and myself is whether we put the reputation clause back into the Bill, we can do business. However, the simple—[Interruption.] That will not apply to my hon. and learned Friend because he opposed the reputation clause. One of the reasons why I was persuaded—
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way.
I was persuaded very much on balance to omit the clause and to continue to discuss what is essentially a subsidiary matter with the Lord Chief Justice because of what my hon. and learned Friend said in the House.
Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the former Attorney-General, and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and something else—I can never remember the name of his constituency, but I am sure that it is a very nice place and that he represents it properly—
Mr. Hogg: It is Sleaford and North Hykeham.
Mr. Straw: If he is saying that all that lies between his position and ours is tweaking the criteria, we can, as I have said, do business.
Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can make his speech in his own way.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway know that that is not the issue. This is just a synthetic smokescreen.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I will not.
Those who oppose the Bill—[Interruption.] I will finish my remarks in a moment.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: With great respect, I will not give way. As I have said, I wish to conclude my remarks.
Those who oppose the Bill root and branch should have the courage to say that they oppose it in whatever form it exists. They should say that they disagree with the fundamental argument that was advanced by the royal commission. The argument about reputation and livelihood was a subsidiary one, as anyone can see. They disagree also with the fundamental argument which was advanced by the Lord Chief Justice, at large, well before either of the Bills was published, on 21 July. That is the issue—
Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No. I am about to conclude.
946
That is the issue before us. It is my judgment that there is quite sufficient time to debate the central issue this afternoon. It is a matter of record that the Opposition have been so hopeless that they could not find one constructive amendment to table that Madam Speaker could have chosen as a lead amendment for debate. Moreover, they could not fill the time in Committee for more than four sittings.
The guillotine motion is regrettable, but it is necessary because of the Opposition's failure to organise themselves so that we can do business instead of having endless and unnecessary votes. I recommend the motion to the House.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary suggested that there was something inappropriate in the failure of one of the official Opposition's amendments to be selected first in the group. Can you confirm that the order of amendments selected corresponds to the order of the text of the Bill, as drafted by the Government, and does not reflect any judgment by Madam Speaker on the Opposition amendments selected for debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The selection of amendments is not discussed by the Chair.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising to make a second point of order, but the Home Secretary said something rather important: that if the reputation clause were put back, it is possible that he could do business. It may be that the House is approaching a compromise. May I suggest that the proper way forward is to adjourn these proceedings so that the Home Secretary can have consultations with those on the Opposition Front Bench, to see whether a deal is possible?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are considering the guillotine motion, and we are now eating into the time for its consideration. It would be inappropriate for the House to be adjourned or suspended.
Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be entirely inappropriate to adjourn the House in the casual way suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when the amendment removing the reputation clause meets points made in the other place and concerns expressed that consideration of the matter may be inappropriate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are matters for debate. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman can catch my eye and raise such matters.
Mr. Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having heard the Home Secretary say in relation to the reputation clause that we can do business, I seek your guidance. My amendment No. 6 deals precisely with that point, taking into account the circumstances of the accused. Does that mean that I must speak to the amendment later in the debate, or will the Home Secretary accept it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the Home Secretary said was a matter for debate. It is up to the hon. Gentleman and others to make their case and, perhaps, to ask the Home Secretary for certain assurances.
6.22 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph 1, leave out "five" and insert "eight".
The past half hour or more has demonstrated that the Government have no idea what they are doing with the Bill or the timetable motion. A number of arguments—I use the term advisedly—were advanced by the Home Secretary in support of his timetable motion.
First, the right hon. Gentleman said that the defeat of the Bill in the other place was the reason for the timetable motion today. The first Bill never got to this House. It started in the other place and was defeated there, and the timetabling arrangements in this House for this second Bill have nothing whatever to do with the progress of a Bill in another place. If the Government cannot get their act together in another place, that is their look-out. If they must rely on a guillotine in the last week of the parliamentary year to get this Bill through, that also is entirely their own fault.
The second point to which the Home Secretary clung was that the Disqualifications Bill had been stopped in the Lords. Again, so what? I understand that the Disqualifications Bill has not been stopped. It is in the House of Lords and, if the Government want it to do so, it will go through the normal debating procedures. If they do not wish the Bill to be discussed in the other place, as appears to be the case, that is presumably why they have not brought it before a Committee or the full House in the other place. Again, that has nothing to do with the progress of the present Bill in this House.
Slipping a little further off his life raft, the Home Secretary attempted to argue that support for the Football (Disorder) Bill had been given unequivocally by the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend gave no such thing. He was speaking in principle about football hooliganism and how we all agree, on both sides of the House, that we do not approve of it. He said that if a Bill were produced which met our approval, it would receive our approval. The Leader of the Opposition in no way gave the Home Secretary or that shambles on the Government Benches a blank cheque.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is it not also the case that the Football (Disorder) Bill contained a series of flaws which were contrary to the European convention and required putting right, and that we tabled amendments to put the Bill right which the Home Secretary accepted?
Mr. Garnier: Yes. I do not attack the Home Secretary for being wholly unreasonable all the time. He sensibly took the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend during the remaining stages of that Bill in this House. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame the Leader of the Opposition for the problem that the Government face with this Bill in the last week of the parliamentary year.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. and learned Friend will have noticed both that the Home Secretary would not give way to me, and his strange argument that the timetable motion was necessary for this Bill, although there are three Bills on the Order Paper. The timetable motion applies only to the Bill that is opposed by
948
Government Back Benchers. The other two Bills have no allocation of time motion. It is thus completely spurious to blame the Opposition for delaying matters.
Mr. Garnier: I do not always know whether the Home Secretary is waving or simply drowning. He is in enough trouble without having to take interventions from my hon. Friend.
The Home Secretary finally lost sight of the horizon when he tried to rely on the Lord Chief Justice. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has done the House and the debate on the Bill a great service by drawing to the attention of the public the correspondence which has, at this late stage, been provided to us by the Home Secretary. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not feel it appropriate to give us copies of the correspondence rather earlier in the day.
A close look at the correspondence demonstrates that the interpretation that the Home Secretary now wants to place on it does not accord with the thrust of the text. I dare say that the hon. and learned Member for Medway will draw our attention in some detail, in this debate or after the guillotine debate, to some of the more salient points in it.
The Lord Chief Justice does not support the Bill. The Home Secretary said at column 886 on 7 March:
Today, it enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham.
When he seeks to persuade us that that referred to the proposal, he does himself less than justice. If one reads the entire paragraph, one can see quite clearly that the sense that the Home Secretary attempted to give to the endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice was intended to give the House the impression that the noble and learned Lord supported the Bill.
The entire paragraph states:
Today, it enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and of the vast majority of the High Court Bench of nearly 100 senior judges; of the Magistrates Association, representing 30,000 justices of the peace; and of all three police associations, representing more than 125,000 police officers, each of whom has to deal every day with the victims of crime and its perpetrators and who know that justice is not served, either for victim or defendant, by an antiquated and time—wasting procedure, which the Bill seeks to remedy.—[Official Report, 17 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886]
The paragraph was getting towards persuading the House on Second Reading that the Lord Chief Justice gave his unreserved and unequivocal support to the No. 2 Bill. We all know—and if we did not already know, the correspondence demonstrates—that the Home Secretary did not have the support that he thought he could persuade us he did have from the Lord Chief Justice.
We also happen to know that the Home Secretary is keen on the Bill for reasons quite other than those given to the House on that occasion or on this. On 26 February 1997, at a criminal justice system planning event held in St Martins lane in London, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I was not sure for a long time but I have finally decided to remove the right of election for jury trial in either way cases and the reason is that I do not want defendants choosing jury trial to argue Human Rights Act points after the Act comes into force in October.
Mr. John Bercow: Although appendix 4 to the 1997 criminal statistics for England and Wales is helpful, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that

949
there are currently no readily available lists of offences triable summarily and triable either way; and is it not important that there should be adequate time in this debate for it to be explained to the House why that is so?
Mr. Garnier: I am sure that I can, if given a moment or two, provide my hon. Friend, who I know takes a huge interest in criminal justice, with a list of those offences which fall into the categories that he mentions. The Home Secretary probably has one in his back pocket. But if I may, I shall now come on to the arguments against this rather base motion.
The Opposition's amendment substitutes the word "eight" for "five" in paragraph 1, but even that is inadequate for the discussions that we should be having on the Bill. However, given the Home Secretary's approach to the guillotine motion, we shall have only one and three quarter hours to discuss the Bill's substance, if that. I hope that the other place will take that into account when it comes to consider it.
Mr. Leigh: The key amendment is No. 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), which it is possible will not be reached. The Home Secretary said earlier that I was a member of the Committee and came close to supporting the Bill, but I will support it only if the point about reputation is dealt with. How does my hon. Friend think that we can proceed on that matter? Is he prepared to have discussions with the Government? This is a serious matter and we must find a way to debate properly the issue of the defendant's reputation being considered by the magistrates.
Mr. Garnier: If the Home Secretary is genuine in his intentions towards the Bill and in his claim to be putting a respectable Bill on the statute book, it is up to him to make the advances. This is his Bill, his Government, and his Government's time in which we are debating the Bill, and it is up to him and his team to ensure that the appropriate moves are made. I cannot negotiate with him across the Dispatch Box.
Dr. Nick Palmer: It appears from the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks that he expects the debate on the timetable motion to run for three hours, as he says that there will be only one and three quarter hours for the substantive debate, so it is apparent from his and his colleagues' interventions that they are attempting to spin out time. Is that because they feel uneasy about grappling with the substantive issues, and perhaps hope not to reach the later amendments?
Mr. Garnier: For a man of the hon. Gentleman's intelligence, that was an unworthy and rather silly intervention, with which I shall not condescend to deal.
I should declare an interest which I declared on Second Reading. It is that I am a member of the Bar, and have been for 24 years, and a Queen's Counsel for just over five years. I appeared before juries in a few criminal trials at the outset of my career in the late 1970s, and I have appeared before a good many juries in civil defamation actions since. I am a recorder of the Crown court and have tried a good many criminal cases. I have directed juries in criminal trials on the law, and I have summed up the evidence to them. Like a number of hon. Members, I have direct and long-standing experience of the jury system.
950
I am sure that, if the Home Secretary has appeared before a jury in any capacity, he would have told us, even though he is a member of the Bar. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is a member of the Bar and used to practise in the criminal courts, but he does not have the conduct of the Bill. I also appreciate that another Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), told the Committee that he had appeared on his own behalf before Lord Devlin, but that was not before a jury.
Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garnier: Not for the moment.
Second Reading took place on 7 March 2000. The Government suffered a humiliating defeat in Committee on the first Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. It was mauled by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Cross-Benchers, Bishops and Labour peers. I watched that debate from the Bar of the House of Lords. The Attorney-General made a good speech. He is an accomplished advocate with a sweet tongue, but even his powers of advocacy were insufficient to persuade the other place. Many noble Lords no doubt remember the Attorney-General's vehement opposition to the proposals in that Bill when he wrote and was interviewed on that subject in 1993.
The Government said that they would not let that defeat go unavenged. This Bill was introduced in the Commons. We were threatened that, if the House of Lords defeated the Bill after it had been through the Commons, it would become subject to the Parliament Act.
Clearly, the second Bill was to be a top priority. We see from the opening paragraph of the Home Secretary's Second Reading speech on 7 March that
The Bill is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system and to improve public confidence in it.— [Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886.]
If it was part of the Government's programme, one would have thought that they would move with some speed to push the Bill to the top of the list. But after Second Reading on 7 March—it passed with the lowest Second Reading majority in this Parliament—nothing happened until Tuesday 23 May, a delay of two and a half months.
The Standing Committee met on Tuesday 23 May between 10.30 and 11.25 am, on Thursday 25 May between 10.30 and 11.23 am, on Tuesday 6 June between 10.30 am and 1 pm and between 4.30 and 7.34 pm, so there was not a great deal of time wasting or filibustering; nor can the Opposition, of all parties, be criticised in any way for their handling of the Committee stage. There are no grounds for suggesting that, in Committee, the Opposition parties sought to delay the Bill unfairly, unnecessarily or improperly.
The Bill finally came before us in July, in this, the last week of the parliamentary term. Why was it not allowed to return to the House before now? There have been several days between the Committee stage and now when we have gone home early as a result of a light work load and when the Bill could easily have been debated. If the Government cannot manage to produce the business in the House on time and make good use of the available hours, it is no good their sneaking the timetable motion on to the Order Paper late last night.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend's point is extremely important and it is reinforced by the fact that

951
there are no Government amendments, so the Government could have tabled the matter for debate at any time after it left Committee.
Mr. Garnier: Of course they could, and the Home Secretary knows that, but he has not yet provided us with a reason for failing to do so.
Mr. Leigh: He was negotiating with his hon. Friends.
Mr. Garnier: That may be so.
The real reason is that the Government feared that those Government Members who had principled objections to the Bill would cause trouble. There is no evidence of that, nor is there any evidence that any Opposition Member would cause trouble, yet last night, out of sheer terror and complete chaos, the Government tabled this motion to curtail time. Had the Government had even the slightest self-confidence in their arguments on the Bill, they would have advanced their case for it irrespective of the Opposition's arguments, either within the Government party or outside it. Even without that confidence, they might have had the decency to allow the Leader of the House at business questions last Thursday to alert us to the fact that time would be curtailed.
Although the measure is not a manifesto Bill, we know that the Government have the votes, if not the arguments, to get it through tonight. However, their guillotining of the Bill without prior reference to the need for a guillotine, let alone reference last week by the Leader of the House to Government anxieties about its likely progress, demonstrates a lack of confidence in its merits, and the fact that the Government care little for Parliament or the democratic process and even less for our constituents.
The second report of the Select Committee on Modernisation was published in July. Paragraph 5 on page v states:
The basic requirements of a reformed system as identified in our First Report were:
The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in reasonable time (provided that it obtains the approval of the House).
The Opposition in particular and Members in general must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance.
All parts of a bill must be properly considered.
If the Government are as good as their word, why do not they accept that that could happen without a timetable motion? Despite the contents of the report, the Government have presented a half-baked and late timetable motion.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and I wrote to The Times at the weekend. Little did we know that the anxieties that we expressed in that letter, which was published today, would be so quickly realised. [Interruption.] I am sure that the noisy little fellow at the back will have read the letter. It stated:
It is said that the Government is driving the Bill through without amendment, regardless of what one hopes will be the view of the House of Lords, in order that it may then use the Parliament Act to force it into law in the next session. How far away is tyranny?
952
When we wrote that letter, we did not know that tyranny, in the shape of the timetable motion, was at the door. The Government have a great deal for which to answer on the substance of the Bill and on the timetable motion.
The Home Secretary tried to persuade us that the timetable motion was sad but inevitable. It is not. The Government have tabled numerous timetable motions to curtail debate. There have been 12 already this year, including four in July. The measures guillotined in July are: the Local Government (Lords) Bill, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Football (Disorder) Bill and the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. The Government guillotined those Bills because they cannot organise themselves properly to provide a timetable that fulfils the needs of the democratic process.
Mr. Straw: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman make the same criticism of successive Conservative Administrations, which guillotined as many Bills in some years?
Mr. Garnier: If the Home Secretary wants to check the figures, he might care to look at page xxvii of the Modernisation Committee report. Annex C shows that the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) tabled 17 timetable motions between 1991 and 1997. The Government have tabled 12 this year.
I suggest that we face a timetable motion today partly because of the allegations against the Home Secretary in The Guardian this morning. They relate to the questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a moment ago. The article states:
The home secretary, Jack Straw, seriously misled the House of Commons and Tony Blair over the extent of support among senior judges for his revised plans to restrict a defendant's right of trial by jury, a Labour MP revealed last night.
The article continues:
Mr. Straw told the Commons second reading debate on March 7 that his plan "enjoys the active endorsement of the lord chief justice, Lord Bingham, and the vast majority of the high court bench of nearly 100 senior judges".
Yet exactly a fortnight earlier Lord Bingham had expressed his "unease" to the home secretary in a private letter about the "dangers" of the legislation which was amended after being thrown out by the Lords.
The article goes on:
In a letter to Mr. Marshall-Andrews yesterday, the home secretary appeared to bluff it out, claiming that Lord Bingham still supports the change while admitting in the next sentence—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he will now relate his remarks to the allocation of time.
Mr. Garnier: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The article said that the letter claimed that Lord Bingham continued to support the change,
while admitting in the next sentence that the law lord will only back it if it includes a safeguard that Mr. Straw has specifically rejected.
This morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and I received a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon.

953
Member for Norwich, South. It is dated 25 July. The letter is addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend and copied to me. The second page states:
You also referred to the Prime Minister's reply to the question from David Lidington on 5 July. It seems to me that the Prime Minister was fully justified in his response. Both the Royal Commission and the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, supported the principle that defendants should not be able to choose to be tried by a jury in cases which magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear. Lord Bingham is still. I understand. of the opinion that the decision whether an either way case should be tried in the Crown Court or by magistrates should be made by magistrates (subject to appeal to a Crown Court judge) and not, as now, by the defendant. He is, however, firmly of the view that in making their decision—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would relate his remarks to the allocation of time. I should be grateful if he would do it fairly quickly.
Mr. Garnier: Unfortunately, you were not here during the early part of the discussions, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not challenge the Chair, however moderately. I have heard sufficient while I have been in the Chair to advise him. I should be grateful if he would now relate his remarks to the allocation of time motion.
Mr. Garnier: Not all arguments can be compressed. The Home Secretary is keen for the amount of time during which we can debate the Bill to be curtailed to prevent the hon. and learned Member for Medway and the 18 or 19 of his supporters of the Third Reading amendment from having sufficient time to discuss the Bill. We are all here to argue against limiting to five hours discussion, not only on Report but on Third Reading, of a Bill of huge constitutional importance. If the Government cannot recognise a huge constitutional matter when it stares them in the face, we are in trouble. On behalf of our constituents, Members of Parliament, regardless of party, have a duty to complain about an overweening, arrogant and overreaching Government.
It will not do for the Government, through the Home Secretary or the Minister, to claim the support of the former Lord Chief Justice in speeches in the House or in correspondence when we know that such support is qualified. The final passage of the paragraph that I quoted from the Minister's letter brings home to us all the slippery ground on which the Home Secretary bases his case. It states:
Lord Bingham is still, I understand, of the opinion that the decision whether an either way case should be tried in the Crown Court or by magistrates should be made by magistrates (subject to appeal to a Crown Court judge) and not, as now, by the defendant. He is, however, firmly of the view that in making their decision magistrates should be free to take into account all the circumstances of the case which they consider to be relevant. I believe that Professor Zander holds a similar view. The difficulty with giving the courts such a wide-ranging discretion is that it would create a perception that defendants would be treated differently on the basis of their social or economic standing in society.
That goes to the heart of the amendment that the hon. and learned Member for Medway has tabled. The Government do not want that amendment to be debated because they
954
know that they do not have the support of the former Lord Chief Justice or of most right-thinking people in this country for the Bill.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the constitutional aspects of the Bill. Before he sits down, will he also give us the benefit of his views on another matter? Is it not an outrage that the Bill will be guillotined partly on the backs of Scottish Members of Parliament, given that it will apply only to England and Wales and that Labour Members whose constituents have nothing at all to do with it will vote?
Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right and anticipates my next point. In the Scottish Daily Express of Friday 21 July, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was quoted as saying:
It is constitutionally abhorrent that Scottish MPs should vote on a matter concerning fundamental civil liberties in England and Wales while Westminster MPs have no right to vote on such legislation affecting Scotland.
Mr. Tom Levitt: That has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, there have been enough remarks from a sedentary position. Such matters can safely be left to the Chair. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman is, yet again, drifting into a general debate, and I should be grateful to him if he returned to the allocation of time.
Mr. Garnier: I was coming precisely to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Not only does page 2453 of the Order Paper contain an amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway and several other Labour Members, but it contains an amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. That amplifies and reflects the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow in the newspaper that I have quoted.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I stick to that quote.
Mr. Garnier: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Gentleman does; he is an honourable and principled man.
The less time we have to debate the Bill at the Government's behest, the less likely it is that the aspects of the Bill that involve the West Lothian question and its effect on English and Welsh justice can be discussed. This is a grubby little Bill, and this is an even grubbier little timetable motion. It appears to me that the Government are fonder of the guillotine than Robespierre. The Government motion allows three hours of guillotined debate, after which Government or Opposition Members will be allowed only an hour and a half or an hour and three quarters to deal with the substance of the Bill. There is absolutely no reason for the House of Lords to feel in the least inhibited when, in its turn, it debates the Bill. I invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to throw out the motion or, failing that, at least to support the Opposition amendment.
Several hon. Members: rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are dealing with an amendment to leave out "five" and insert "eight" in paragraph 1 of the motion.
6.53 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall be brief, but I believe that some issues that directly affect the Bill have not been aired. One group of people who will suffer seriously as a result of the Bill has not been mentioned in either House during the consideration of it. I referred to that group in a letter that I sent my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary several weeks ago, but I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
Lord Devlin defined the precise purpose of juries as follows:
A jury is an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man's idea of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement.
In the past 18 months, juries throughout the country have refused to convict defendants who are manifestly guilty. Precisely those cases will be treated as involving crimes covered by the Bill. They will be tried by judges who will conform to the letter of the law and to what Parliament has told them, and the people involved will find themselves treated unjustly.
I have given the Home Secretary a long list of those whom juries are refusing to convict. They include those who are seriously ill, many of whom are suffering from multiple sclerosis. Many of them are terminally ill and suffering, in the main, from cancer and the effects of chemotherapy and the nausea that it causes. That is no ordinary nausea; it destroys the will to live. However, they have supposedly committed the crime of using a medicine of their choice. If they had used any medicinal drug, it would have been okay. If they had used heroin, and £11 million of heroin is involved—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would direct his remarks to the allocation of time motion.
Mr. Flynn: The point that I wish to make is that we need more time to present those cases. I said that I would be brief, but I want to explain why I am unhappy about the motion. I want to bring the precise cases that are dealt with in later amendments to the attention of the House, because it is not aware of the individuals involved. Such people have been convicted by magistrates and judges, not by juries, who are doing precisely what Lord Devlin said. They have found that the law is not just or fair, and they are acting with the common sense of ordinary people in refusing to convict those who have used cannabis for their illnesses. If the Bill is passed, such people will not have the chance to go before a jury.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman must bring his remarks to a close.
Mr. Flynn: I have brought them to a close.
6.56 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: This is the 12th Home Office Bill this year; there were nine in the Queen's Speech, but this is the 12th. We are protesting about the guillotine as well as the Bill, because everyone knows that the Bill was never trailed in the Government's manifesto. It was never part of their policy and their candidates did not stand on a platform of supporting it. Indeed, the Government opposed such proposals in the past.
956
The Government changed their mind, collectively, miraculously and all at once, having strongly held the opposite view, collectively, only a few months before.
The Government have determined the timetable. They chose to introduce the first reduced jury rights Bill in the House of Lords—no one else made that decision—but the House of Lords said no. I remind hon. Members that the House of Lords said no having just been recast in the form that the Government wanted. It was a House of Lords recast in the image of Blair, with a new disposition, most hereditary peers removed and smaller numbers. It was the new Labour House of Lords, the new, much less Opposition-dominated House of Lords, that said no. The Government chose where to introduce the Bill, and they chose the composition of the House in which they introduced it.
Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way.
Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Hughes: No, I will not. I am trying to take less time than the Home Secretary, who took half an hour to fail to explain why the guillotine was necessary, or the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, who also took half an hour. I may give way in a moment if the right hon. Gentleman waits his turn.
When the Government introduced the Bill in the House, their majority was almost halved; a significant number of Labour Members did not support it. Since then, the Government have chosen to take all the time between Second Reading—which, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, was in March—and now before considering the Bill again. There was no delay in Committee. I served on the Committee; it had four sittings and its debates were perfectly proper. We debated what we needed to debate. The reason why there were no significant debates on the amendments was the core issue—that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats opposed the principle of the Bill. We did not tinker around the edges; we debated the principles and the clauses.
Since the Committee reported, on 6 June, the Government have chosen not to debate the Bill until now. They have waited until the very last week of term. Why the urgency? Because the parliamentary year ends in three days? No. Because the parliamentary year ends next week? No. There is plenty of time before the end of the parliamentary year. The Government decide the holidays, and when this House and the Lords resume, so they are in charge of the timetable. Last night, the Government, and only the Government, tabled a guillotine motion for a Bill of significant constitutional importance. When they did so, Madam Speaker had provisionally selected only four groups of amendments. The effect of the guillotine will be that there will probably be only a brief debate on Third Reading, or none at all.
Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but are not these speeches taking up time that would otherwise be available to the House to debate the amendments? Also, has he not noticed that there is no Government majority in another place? He is opposing

957
not the guillotine or debate on the amendments, but the sensible proposition that the decision on mode of trial should be left to magistrates, not defendants.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman's party tabled the guillotine, not us. That is why we are having the debate. We would happily debate the amendments, although we oppose the Bill, for reasons that I believe to be self-evident. He opposed a similar proposal in 1997, so I am surprised that he—
Mr. Michael: rose—
Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way again.
Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill embodies a principle that I, as an experienced magistrate, have always supported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hogg: Should not the hon. Gentleman also remind the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the Government have decided that the time taken for the debate must come out of the time allocated for the substantive debates on the Bill. That is their decision.
Mr. Hughes: That is absolutely true. The Government did not have to make such provision, and time could have been allocated for the guillotine and for the substantive debates. They are curtailing debate, and must take responsibility for that.
Although some amendments tabled by us and by the Conservatives were not selected, we want to debate the issues as much as possible because we believe that the case for not passing the Bill into law is overwhelming. We happen to believe that the Government's guillotine steamroller will make it much less likely that the Bill will become law. Bizarrely and paradoxically, it is the other place that perpetually has to slow the Government down when they use their artificial majority in this place to push measures through against opinion elsewhere, however well informed.
The Home Secretary, I hope not intentionally, led us to believe that the Bill would not take away a right. However, although it will not end jury trial, the right to choose trial by jury in England and Wales for charges such as making threats to kill, assault, possession of offensive weapons, child abduction, burglary, theft, handling, indecent assault, indecency between males, unlawful sexual intercourse with girls under 16, cruelty to children and violent disorder will be removed. If those are not important matters, on which people might want to choose who should try them, I do not know what important matters are.
The Government have never said that jury trial is not a good form of trial. On the contrary, they want to keep it for other offences.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, too, is straying from the allocation of time motion. I should be grateful if he returned to it.
Mr. Hughes: I shall try to be very good and not stray from the motion.
958
My proposition is that the Government have no justification for guillotining debate on the Bill. What in the Home Secretary's remarks was new? Nothing. What new evidence is there for putting the Bill on the statute book quickly? None. Is the right to trial by jury more widely abused than before? No. The evidence is in the other direction. Fewer people than before elect to go to the Crown court. Fewer people than before who go to Crown court "get off'. Has the guillotine been tabled because we need to respond urgently to a royal commission? No, because the royal commission report was published in 1993. The Labour party described it as short-sighted then, and did not think it necessary to respond to it, either between 1993 and 1997 or between 1997 and 2000. Do we urgently need to respond to the Narey report? No. The report was published in 1997, before the election. The Labour party in opposition disagreed with it and said that its recommendations were wrong.
Mr. Hawkins: Including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
Mr. Hughes: All Government Members, including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, upheld the present position—the right to choose jury trial—at the election.
Do we urgently need to act because a past Lord Chief Justice or the new Lord Chief Justice has told the Government, "You urgently need to act." Not at all. Senior members of the judiciary have been asked their views, but have not proposed any initiatives. Much more importantly, do we urgently need to respond because an independent review of the law has just been undertaken? No. The Government asked Lord Justice Auld to carry out an independent review, and he has started work and produced a non-exhaustive list of issues on which he is basing that review. He is reviewing this question on behalf of the Government right now:
If jury trial is to be retained for "either-way" cases, who is to determine whether the matter shall go to the jury and by reference to what criterion or criteria? If the main criterion is to be the seriousness of the charge, is there a case for changing the present level of seriousness? Should all cases destined for trial by jury start in the Crown court?
Such questions are being asked of the judge who is currently carrying out the review. On 5 May, he produced his progress report to Ministers about which questions he is focusing on, including the simple question:
Who should decide where a case is to be tried.
The person who has been asked to produce a report has not reported, yet the Government are legislating before receiving the evidence. That represents bad legislation, bad timetabling and a bad argument for speedily moving in that direction.
Mr. David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has not the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wandered even further from the point than the two previous speakers, who were rightly called to order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

959
All the arguments for haste, urgency and the guillotine motion are contradicted by the facts. Any urgency that there might have been when the Government introduced the Bill at the beginning of the year has lessened. The plea before venue initiative, which requires a plea to be made before the venue is decided, has reduced the number of people who change their plea. Disincentives to changing a plea late—removing the sentence discount, for example—have been introduced. With every month that has passed since the Bill was introduced, those measures have meant that fewer people have changed their plea late.
What is the reason for the urgency? Are the Government desperately short of public money, so that they have to make savings? Even if the measure will achieve a saving, that argument falls. Last week the Chancellor said that he had £43 billion of public money and handed it out left, right and centre like Father Bountiful. Even if the argument for the Bill is that it will save money, as the Prime Minister often says, I cannot believe that that is the argument for acting so quickly now. Is there new evidence from Scotland? There is not. Scotland has never had a right to jury trial, so it is not a parallel jurisdiction. England had an automatic right to jury trial until the middle of the previous century. No, there are no new arguments about costings, savings or benefits.
Is there a case for less scrutiny? Are the Government performing in such a way that the public can be confident that Parliament ought to spend less time considering legislation? No such evidence has been provided by the Home Office legislative programme over the past few months. It is not as if the Government always get it right and introduce Bills so well drafted and so carefully prepared that they glide through this House and on to the other place. The scrutiny that this House and the other place have given Bills has been central to our ability to get right what would otherwise have been severely flawed legislation. After proper scrutiny of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Terrorism Bill we were able to ensure that the burden of proof was clearly with the prosecution. In spite of the guillotine motion last week, after proper scrutiny in this House and in the other place we were able to get changes in the Football (Disorder) Bill. The House of Lords has voted on the timetable for further changes, and has now refused to proceed as quickly as the Government would like it to, because it wants time to scrutinise the Bill properly.
This House and the other place are insisting that we scrutinise legislation to get it right. The number of times that the Government have introduced legislation that has clearly been flawed and has had to be amended is evidence, if it were needed, that we should consider the Bill very carefully.
The Bill is about the most fundamental right of a person charged with a serious offence—to be tried by his ordinary fellow citizens. It is a right that enables the most vulnerable, the most ill educated and the most prejudiced against to feel that they have a chance to put their case fairly. We are not against magistrates; we are not suggesting that they do not do a good job. We are saying that juries do a better job. We want all our citizens to have the right to let juries decide.
960
If the Government are determined, against what they said in their manifesto, against all the indications, and against all the principles on which some of us thought the Labour party had come to office, to railroad the Bill through, against the evidence, against public opinion, against the advice of the House of Lords and against the view of many Labour Members, they must allow the House of Commons adequate time to stand up for the rights of the citizen.
I ask all hon. Members, especially Labour Members, who were elected to oppose such legislation, to give the Government the sharpest warning possible. The Government should await the Auld committee's recommendations, like the rest of us, so that we have some evidence and up-to-date opinion, and do not legislate in haste. It is perfectly reasonable to review the law, but we should ensure that if we consider changing it, we do so having listened to the voices and taken a free vote of the representatives, not a dragooned vote imposed by the Government against the clock.
This is a scandalous guillotine motion, and in our view, this is a scandalous Bill. I hope that the Government do not get it through the other place, even if they get it through this House. That would serve them right, and the public would, mercifully, be spared this bad legislation from—at least on this issue—an extremely illiberal, authoritarian and oppressive Government.
7.13 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spent a considerable part of his speech—over half an hour—dealing with the views of the former Lord Chief Justice, and the comments that he had made about those views on Second Reading. He plainly thought that that was meat for a guillotine debate, and so do I. The views of the former Lord Chief Justice and the other senior judiciary are critical to this issue because they will sway Members of the House.
On Second Reading, at the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend said:
Today, it—
not a single Member of the House had the slightest doubt that when my right hon. Friend said "it" he meant the Bill—
enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and of the vast majority of the High Court Bench of nearly 100 senior judges.
We never debated that assertion, because we accepted it implicitly from the Home Secretary. Had there been reason to doubt it, that debate would have been very different. If there is now reason to doubt that assertion, this debate should be very different. We now need to spend time considering, challenging and analysing that statement. My right hon. Friend obviously thought that it was right to spend such a long time on it and to deal with what I had said about it, and I agree with him.
I know that you will bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I deal with the assertion that was made about the views of the Lord Chief Justice. It gives me no pleasure to say that there is not the slightest doubt that the Home Secretary's statement on Second Reading, either wilfully or otherwise, misled the House. There is not the slightest doubt that the Lord Chief Justice did not give—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be careful with the words he uses.

961
He cannot suggest, directly or indirectly, that the Home Secretary has misled the House. I should be grateful if he would rephrase his comments.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend's statement was manifestly inaccurate. I shall spend a moment explaining how that came about, because I took down exactly what my right hon. Friend said. He spoke at length about my views on the Bill, and he knows perfectly well that I and many of my colleagues have always been completely against it. We believe fundamentally in the right to elect jury trial for all the reasons that have been so articulately set out.
In the opinion of some, including the much-respected Lord Chief Justice, the Bill was acceptable, but only because of the recommendation of the Runciman royal commission that it should contain a reputation and livelihood clause. That matter is not peripheral, as my right hon. Friend suggested; it is central to the Bill. It is so central that on 10 March, three days after my right hon. Friend made his speech on Second Reading, Professor Michael Zander, the chief jurist on the Runciman royal commission, withdrew his support and stated publicly that the commission's support for the Bill could no longer be relied on. That shows how critical the matter was.
If Professor Zander had withdrawn his support, it seemed to me that the Lord Chief Justice may have withdrawn his support too, so I wrote to him and I asked him whether he had done so. I received a reply by return saying that he was embarrassed because he had been in correspondence with the Home Secretary and he did not wish to breach confidence. He said that he would waive any confidence in that correspondence if I wrote to the Home Secretary, which I did on 4 July.
Between 4 July and Friday of last week I heard precisely nothing from the Home Office. I had asked for details of that correspondence, and in particular of the views of the Lord Chief Justice that had been so glowingly endorsed by my right hon. Friend. On Thursday of last week, when we learned that the Bill was to be sprung out, I got in touch with my right hon. Friend's private office asking as a matter of urgency that I receive a reply. I got it by fax yesterday.
I confess that I was surprised by the fact that the correspondence revealed that the Lord Chief Justice had written to my right hon. Friend on 22 February, two weeks before the debate on Second Reading. I shall quote a little from that letter—it is very short. It said:
Thank you very much for your letter of 21 February.
That letter had been entirely about the withdrawal of the safeguard of reputation and livelihood.
The Lord Chief Justice continued:
But your conclusion … causes me concern.
He went on to deal with the Bill, and, at the end of the next paragraph of his letter, said:
I think there are dangers in excluding consideration of anything which is relevant in the given case.
He then gave two examples of actual cases in which injustice would plainly result, and went on to say—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is responding in part to earlier remarks
962
by the Home Secretary, and I have therefore given him a little leeway, but he must direct his comments towards the allocation of time motion.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I entirely accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that if you bear with me for a moment you will see why I raise the matter. There is very little more of the letter, and when I have finished quoting from it I shall end my speech.
The Lord Chief Justice wrote:
Both men, for opposite reasons, rely on their records as a reason for seeking jury trial. Are the magistrates and the crown court judge to be obliged to ignore these points? If so, that is surely unsatisfactory.
The Lord Chief Justice added—my right hon. Friend cited this passage—
I am uneasy at requiring decision-makers to ignore matters of which reasonable decision-makers might wish to take account.
Not a word was sent to Lord Bingham before Second Reading; but, bearing in mind what Lord Bingham had said in his letter, my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate:
Today, it enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886.]
That, in my respectful submission, constitutes a fairly strange construction of the words "active", "endorsement" and "enjoys".
It is plain that Lord Justice Bingham was extremely concerned about the Bill. That is what we need to debate. The concerns that he aired, from an immensely respected position, were precisely the issues that we were put off debating on Second Reading by the Home Secretary's assertion. I make no bones about it: that assertion was wrong, and because it was wrong we did not debate the issue adequately.
Many of my colleagues were moved intellectually—undoubtedly and understandably—by what they understood to be the imprimatur of the Lord Chief Justice. However, now that we know that that was wrong, we need to ventilate the matter in full, so that the House can proceed on the basis of knowing precisely what the senior judiciary are saying.
It gives me no pleasure to bring this matter before the House. I do not suggest for a moment that what happened was deliberate, and I hoped to hear my right hon. Friend say that it was an error. I am sorry to say, however, that his reply centred on the definition of the word "it", which Members may not consider entirely satisfactory.
Thank you for bearing with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mine was a somewhat lengthy speech, given that this is a guillotine debate. For the reasons I have given, I urge Members to oppose the motion, so that we can engage in a proper and constructive debate on one of the most important issues that the House has debated in the new Parliament.
7.24 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I endorse what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
An amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggests that we should have eight hours for tonight's debate. If the Home Secretary agreed now to allow those eight hours—it is open to him

963
to do so—I should be happy to say no more now, to sit down, and to allow the House to proceed with the debate on the substantive issues. However, there are important substantive issues to be discussed.
As is well known, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Medway that the Bill is wrong in principle. That is an issue for Second Reading and Third Reading debates, which will rightly be dealt with on Third Reading tonight if we have time; but with only five hours we shall not have time for a proper debate, and I therefore hope that we shall have eight hours.
There are other important matters, even below the fundamental point of principle. That point was well put by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). We are talking about an ancient right of the people of England and Wales, dating back specifically to 1855, but in fact dating back to the century or so after Magna Carta. As long ago as the 14th century, all serious cases were tried by jury; indeed, the penalty for not accepting trial by jury in the early years was to be crushed to death.
Jury trial is a great upholder of our liberties. It is a very important part of our democracy. We need time to convey that point—which is not widely understood—to the Chamber, and to the country at large.Some, like Lord Bingham—whom 1 hold in the greatest respect—may disagree with me. They may believe that the question where a person should be tried is a judicial question, which should be decided by a court rather than by the individual citizen as of right. Even they, however, must accept that the Bill fundamentally transgresses what both the former Lord Chief Justice and the Runciman royal commission made clear was a fundamental condition—that the court deciding where a trial should be held should be able to take into account all relevant matters, and in particular the question of reputation.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should read the details of what the royal commission said. It did not make the issue of reputation or livelihood a fundamental point of principle. Paragraph 18 of the relevant chapter refers to the issue of principle and proposes that reputation should be included, but the report continues:
We see merit in the legislation specifically referring to the various matters (including potential loss of reputation) which the bench should take into account.
There is no suggestion that the commission saw that as a fundamental point of principle at the time. What it did see as a fundamental point of principle was the question whether the judiciary—the magistrates, according to its recommendation—rather than the defendant should determine the mode of trial.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) responds, let me ask him not to be tempted to stray too wide of the mark again, and to confine his remarks to the allocation of time motion.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: It must be abundantly clear to you and to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a central point at issue, and that time is required to tease it out.
964
I have read the commission's report. With all respect to the Home Secretary, I think that when the commission says it sees merit in loss of reputation being taken into account it is using measured language—as Lord Bingham did when he said that he was not entirely enamoured of the conditional clauses in the first Bill. He said that the widest possible discretion should be given. I have tabled amendments to that effect, as have my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We need time to discuss those amendments, and to tease out the issues. We have also tabled amendments on other important matters.
If a person is to be tried not in the Crown court but in the magistrates court, it is essential for that trial to be as well conducted and as properly prepared as a trial in the Crown court now is.
I have great respect for magistrates, but those of us who have practised—I sit currently as a recorder and have practised as a member of the Bar in the magistrates courts and Crown courts—all know that, by and large, cases are not as carefully prepared when they come before the magistrates courts. Amendments have been tabled that we need to discuss this evening to provide that the same type of disclosure and legal representation by counsel and solicitor should be available in the magistrates court as in the Crown court.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend raises precisely the point that I was going to make. It is important, if these serious trials are to take place in front of the magistrate, that there be full discovery and full pre-trial disclosure of the evidence—as there is before the Crown court—if the defendant is to get a proper trial.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend emphasises that important point. It takes time to bring that out.
The Home Secretary, inadvertently no doubt, misled not only the House, but the Prime Minister. On 5 July, when the Prime Minister was asked in Prime Minister's questions if he would drop the Bill—which I would advise him to do; the wise thing is to pass the matter to Lord Justice Auld—he gave three reasons for continuing with the Bill. He prayed in aid the support of the former Lord Chief Justice and was thus led into error by the Home Secretary in exactly the same way.
The Prime Minister prayed in aid the Runciman royal commission, notwithstanding that, by that time, Professor Zander, a member of the royal commission and no doubt as fully familiar with its provisions and as fully able to interpret them as the Home Secretary, regarded the Bill to be fundamentally against what the Runciman royal commission had been prepared to recommend.
The Prime Minister made a third point that we need time to be able to tease out. He talked about the saving of money. We need time to draw to the attention of the House and of the country that that notion is bogus, or is based on something that the Government would not he prepared to avow. We need time to highlight that, in accordance with the Home Secretary's answers through the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who was on the Front Bench a moment ago, £84 million of the £120 million of supposed savings comes from shorter prison sentences. We need

965
time to dwell on the fact that it is to be supposed that regular thieves who transgress time and again, who are currently given sentences averaging 11 months' imprisonment in the Crown court—which is, of course, supervised by the Court of Appeal—would, in order to save money, get an average sentence of 3.6 months in the magistrates court. We need time to wonder whether that is not absurd and whether that does not run counter to practically everything for which the Home Secretary professes to stand.
Therefore, there are fundamental flaws in the Bill. If we do not have a reasonable number of hours to debate them, this proposal, which is of deep importance to every citizen and which is designed to take away a right that has stood for hundreds of years, should be voted down. I remind the House that that right was supported passionately by the Home Secretary as little as three years ago and by the present Attorney-General at the same date; they have now changed their minds for reasons that become more byzantine and intertwined by the minute.
Mr. Garnier: Just to add to the catalogue of supporters of the principle, the Prime Minister himself, as shadow Home Secretary, was a supporter of the jury system.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. With the time and opportunity for reflection which opposition gives—I hope that that chance will soon be given again to the Prime Minister—he thought more wisely than he does today. We need a chance to think wisely about the Bill. The guillotine in wrong in principle. Eight hours would be reasonable time for debate. It should be granted now.
7.34 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins: I begin by declaring an interest, as always in these matters. I am a practising lawyer. I am a recorder of the Crown court and, I think uniquely in the House in living memory, I am also an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate. I think that I have presided over and taken part in more trials than any hon. Member in living memory. I apologise for appearing bumptious, but I speak from a nuts-and-bolts position.
Over the past three years, I have had rather a lot of respect for the Home Secretary, principally because I have found him to be a Minister who treats the House of Commons seriously, who comes to the House to talk to us, who is always ready to listen and, if not to accept, certainly to take on board ideas. That respect, I am afraid, has been heavily dented because, in the past fortnight, two guillotine motions have been put before us that are absolutely shoddy. The Home Secretary should be ashamed to be associated with them.
Indeed, such is my regard for the Home Secretary that I believe that, in this case, he was not the originator of the idea and probably had to be heavily persuaded to speak in its favour. He is a man who has hitherto encouraged open and full debate about important issues, but today that is not going to happen.
I, my hon. Friends, many Labour Members and many people out there listening to the debate will be furious that our time to debate some very important issues has been viciously curtailed by the Government. Was it ever necessary to guillotine the debate? I asked the Home Secretary that in an intervention.
966
The amendments for debate tonight are in four groups. My amendments have been listed in each of those groups. Mine is the lead amendment in three out of four of those groups. May I modestly say that I have never filibustered in the House or in Committee? Well, perhaps I have in Committee, but never in the House. The Home Secretary was good enough to acknowledge that he did not see any thought of a filibuster from me.
Let us look at the history of the Bill. It had its Second Reading on 7 March and went into Committee on 23 May. Was there a problem in Committee? There was not. The Committee spent a total of only some eight and a half hours debating the Bill. There were reasoned contributions from my hon. Friends, many of whom are here, so there was nothing during the Committee stage that suggested that Conservative Members were going to cause any difficulty. Now, for some reason, the Bill is brought before us, a matter of hours before the summer recess starts, with a guillotine motion that requires us, in effect, to debate every amendment and Third Reading inside two hours. It simply will not do.
We know why the Home Secretary has brought the guillotine motion forward—it is because he cannot control those on his own side of the House. It is nothing to do with what would be said by those on the Conservative Benches. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who would have contributed to the debates on the amendments would have made fairly brief, thoughtful, important points. They would have followed what they did in Committee, and the same goes for the representative of the Liberal Democrats, but the Government found today that they could not control their own Back Benchers, who were themselves determined to talk at great length.
Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend take this explanation? Perhaps the Government were not worried about not being able to control their Back Benchers—it was the fact of Labour Back Benchers in considerable numbers opposing the Bill that was embarrassing to Ministers.
Mr. Malins: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. The Government have been driven to move their guillotine motion by the very fact that so many Labour Back Benchers, who have behaved so honourably in this matter, oppose the Bill.
The former Lord Chief Justice's comments on the matter have already been mentioned. Although I have never spoken to the former Lord Chief Justice, I respect his views immensely. However, in past years, I have had the advantage of speaking to literally hundreds of those who sit in our judicial system—to magistrates across the country; to stipendiary magistrates, both in London and in the provinces; to recorders of the Crown court; and to Crown court judges, who daily administer justice. Although their views on the matter are divided, many of them share the concerns of Opposition Members. However, they would all be united in one opinion.
If I were to say to any one of those people that the House is going to spend only two hours debating all the remaining stages of the Bill, he or she would be horrified. They would not be able to understand how hon. Members can conduct our affairs so stupidly that we spend only two hours debating a Bill that affects the fundamental liberties of millions of people. The judiciary would be united on that one point.

967
The guillotine is not even necessary. Why should we guillotine these four groups of amendments? No Opposition Member would speak to any of them at great length. Are the amendments so unimportant that they deserve not even two hours of debate? Indeed, after time spent on Third Reading and perhaps on a Division halfway through our debates, we might have only minutes to debate each group of amendments.
Labour Members know as well as I do that the workings of this place are such that, in all probability, most of these amendments will not be discussed at all. They will never be discussed. Why have we even attended the debate? Some Labour Members know about the subject, as do some Opposition Members. However, we will not be able to discuss the amendments. Is anyone proud of that? I am not.
The first group of amendments deals with committals for sentence—sending people to the Crown court for sentence after we have forced them to have a magistrates court trial. Is that not an issue worthy of debate?
The second contains a vital amendment seeking to have the accused's circumstances taken into account. Is not that what the Bill is all about? Are we not going to talk about that? Does it not deserve more time?
The third group of amendments deals with certain rights for the accused after a decision is made by the magistrates court, such as the right to have the reasons for that decision recorded in the register and given to the accused in writing. Are not those important issues that affect people's daily lives?
The fourth group of amendments deals with the appeals process. It is concerned not with giving the accused the right to appeal on paper, as I understand is being proposed, but with the accused's right to be represented and heard before a judge. Does anyone think that that is not worthy of discussion? Does anyone really think that we do ourselves justice by devoting only two hours of our time to debating issues of such importance?
There are other issues. However, no one will have a chance to address the disclosure of documents. Who will have the chance to talk about the costs—the so-called savings—of the Bill? Who will have a chance to discuss the views of the ethnic minorities, who have something to say about jury trial? We sit here simply waiting—waiting perhaps to vote.
In my view, this is a travesty of a parliamentary proceeding. This is not what I was elected for. I come to today's debates with some knowledge of the subject, and yet—for the second time in a fortnight—I may not be able to contribute. I could have contributed also to our debates on the Football (Disorder) Bill, and I am sure that other hon. Members could have contributed even more. Although I lack knowledge on many subjects, Labour Members and Opposition Members may well possess that knowledge. Let them have a chance to speak, rather than simply to go through the Lobby.
Here we are—we have let ourselves down again. We are facing a guillotine motion from an autocratic Government who do not seem to want to listen to Members of this House. Members of the public who regard the right to jury trial as one of most important rights, whether they are for it or against it, will look at us today and say, "Two hours to discuss all that? You should be ashamed of yourselves." We should be.
7.45
Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins). I feel that I can do no more than to adopt what he has said, because he speaks from such great personal experience. I should like, however, to make another point.
I am not necessarily opposed to timetabling Bills, which I think can be quite good if it is done by consensus. I should certainly not like it if, in any future reform, the Government were made solely responsible for timetabling Bills. I should like the Government to present their programme to Parliament, for both Whips Offices to make representations, and then for the Speaker and the Speaker's Deputies to determine the timetable. I think that that would be the fair way to go about it. Nevertheless, I am not necessarily opposed to timetabling.
I am also not necessarily opposed to guillotines. The Home Secretary was quite right to say that, since the passage of the government of Ireland legislation at the end of the 19th century, all Governments have been faced with determined Opposition tactics to delay Bills dealing with matters of high principle. As we all know, delay is the only weapon available to Oppositions. All Oppositions—including the previous, Labour Opposition, and the current Opposition—have resorted to perfectly legitimate time-wasting activities because that is the only weapon available to us. There is nothing wrong with using that weapon. Equally, however, as we all realise, the Government have to have their way, even if we are debating a very complex and long Bill and the Opposition are determined to go on talking. There is no argument about that.
Today, however, we are talking about a very different type of Bill. This is a rather strange Bill. Although it deals with a matter of high principle, it is not very technical, and it addresses an issue that we can all understand. It is very easy to understand the Bill's basic concept: whether those who are accused of dishonesty—or other offences, but primarily dishonesty—should have an absolute right to be tried by a jury of their peers. We are talking primarily about people of good character who are accused of crimes such as shoplifting. We are perhaps talking about a case involving a middle-aged housewife who has shoplifted and now faces a devastating moment in her life. The concept is quite easy to grasp and probably does not require tremendous time for debate.
Nevertheless, although the concept is simple enough, it is also very ancient. Last night, on a point of order, I said that the concept was seven centuries old, but I was wrong—it is more than eight centuries old. After a bit more research, I have found that the concept of trial by jury dates back to Henry II, and that it was given impetus by the fact that, in November 1215, the then Pope abolished trial by ordeal. People feel very strongly about that ancient right, and they want to talk about it. They do not want to talk about it at inordinate length—they simply want to have their say and to have their day in court. That is quite reasonable.
Interestingly, in 1275, jury trial was given another impetus by a form of torture called peine forte et dure, whereby people were placed between two planks with increasingly heavy weights placed on top of them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are extremely interesting, but I am not sure that they relate to the allocation of time motion. Could he return to that?
Mr. Leigh: I was about to say that that form of torture was rather like a guillotine motion, but we will leave that on one side.
Although the Bill deals with a matter of huge importance, we could have dealt with it fairly. Reference has been made to the famous Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking could not be a member of that Committee, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and I were the Conservative Back Benchers on it. We had some good debates. The whole thing was finished in eight hours. There has never been any question that we tried to delay matters unduly. Following what happened in that Committee, there was surely never any question that we would come here tonight to filibuster, time waste and the rest of it.
There is an honest difference of opinion in the House on the matter. Some take a principled stance and are opposed to any limitation of trial by jury. One can understand their view. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is a distinguished proponent of that view. Others like myself take a different view and would be prepared to accept some limitation on the right to trial by jury, but want the reputation of the accused to be taken into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking went through the four groups of amendments. The first group is important. It deals with an issue that is perhaps of particular importance to lawyers—committal for sentence. We could debate it for an hour or so. One can see quickly that, once we had debated that group for an hour or an hour and a half, it is possible that on the crucial second set of amendments—on matters to be considered by the court when determining mode of trial—there would be no prospect of voting. There may not even be time to have a serious debate.
I keep hearing comments from a sedentary position that we could have had five hours of debate on the amendments if we had not spoken on the guillotine motion. I hope that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) will forgive me if I say that that is rather an arrogant attitude. After all, if the Government introduce a guillotine motion on a measure to abolish a right that has been around since 1215, it is not unreasonable that a few Members of Parliament should debate it.
Mr. Garnier: Is not the word that links the debate, our objections to the guillotine, the substance of the Bill and the view taken by my hon. Friend, many Opposition Members and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) the simple word "justice"?
Mr. Leigh: Yes, justice. That was put eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking when he went through the groups of amendments and asked whether we were doing justice to ourselves or to Parliament.
We have had a perfectly satisfactory guillotine debate. No one has sought to spin things out. We are coming to a conclusion now. There is just one more Back Bencher to speak. We have had a perfectly serious debate, but how
970
long will we have to debate the issues? What is so sad is that if the Government had not introduced the guillotine motion and we had started the debate two hours ago, we could have disposed of the four groups of amendments in about five hours. So what on earth are we playing at? It is not for me to defend the Government's reputation, but they would not have had egg on their face. No one would have gone to the other place and said that there was not adequate time to debate the amendments. We would have had a perfectly serious debate.
The Committee is supposed to be the place where one filibusters. Many amendments can be tabled and we have great freedom to manoeuvre. Apparently, we want to delay the Bill, but we delayed it for only eight hours in Committee. So what are the Government playing at? Why on earth have they introduced this timetable motion? That is absolutely germane to the debate.
The only conclusion that one can come away with is that the Government do not want to have a vote on the second group of amendments, which deal with the key issue. I remind the House what that key issue is. Many of us believe that the present system is being abused. I give credit to the Home Secretary. Many sensible people ask why an old lag with 20 convictions who is accused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said in a conversation with me, of stealing a bottle of whisky from the local store should be allowed to waste the time of the Crown court. The public often come up with that point. Many people sympathise with what the Home Secretary is doing.
However, many people want to debate the issue back and forth. They say that in the case of the old lag, denial of the right to trial by jury is fair enough, but if the archetypal housewife of previous good character is accused of taking something out of the local store, it is a devastating moment in her life so her reputation should be taken into account. I remind the House that the Bill is explicit. It says in new section 19(2)(b) in clause 1 that the court can take account of
any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused).
That is the most important issue, and we will not even have a vote on it. That is what people outside will find so extraordinary.
Let us suppose that a person of good character who has never done anything wrong walks out of a supermarket in a moment of absent-mindedness carrying something. They are accused of shoplifting and their character is on the line, and yet the House of Commons has never voted on the key issue of whether that person's reputation should be taken into account, or even properly debated it. Is that not extraordinary? The House of Commons is supposed to be the guardian of our civil liberties. It is just not good enough.
Why are the Government so determined to prevent a vote? What would it matter if there was a vote? What would it matter if the Opposition voted for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking after a debate of an hour and a half? What would it matter if 10 or 15 Labour Members voted against the Government? Would it bring the Government down? Of course not, but we would have had a proper debate and Parliament would have done its duty. The duty of Parliament is to scrutinise the Government and we are not doing that tonight. That is a shame.
7.57 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), with whom I shared chambers for many years. The way in which they and other hon. Members have approached the debate surely confounds the arguments of those who have asserted that the timetable motion is necessary to prevent time wasting, prolixity or unreasonable frustration of the Bill. They have approached the matter in a serious and considered manner, and I believe that that would have been typical of the debate had we proceeded immediately.
One point that came out strongly from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Medway is that many Labour Members voted for the Bill on Second Reading on a misunderstanding as to fact. That misunderstanding was about the opinion of the then Lord Chief Justice. That fact alone is an argument against the timetable motion because it is important that Labour Members who voted for the Bill on Second Reading on a misunderstanding should be aware of the nature of that misunderstanding, should have time to reflect on it and should have time to talk to Ministers. The way in which the Bill is being hurried through Report stage tonight means that they will not be able to do that.
My next point is one that I have made on previous timetable motions. It is regrettable that this should be the fourth timetable debate in as many weeks. The passage of legislation depends for its legitimacy on consideration of the detailed measures in this place. Let us remind ourselves that the Report stage of a Bill is the first occasion when the House as a whole considers what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking described as the nuts and bolts of a Bill. We cannot do that in Committee because, understandably, the membership of the Committee is constrained; nor can we do so on Second Reading because the House is concerned about the broad principles of a Bill.
The Report stage is the moment in legislation when the House as a whole has the opportunity to address specific issues. A timetable motion, such as this one, prevents the House from doing that. If the House is prevented from doing its business, the legitimacy that attaches to any legislation that comes from the House is undermined.
On a similar point, you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the intervention made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber because I am about to say something complimentary. What he was doing—albeit on the timetable motion, although I am sure that he would have wanted, and perhaps will try, to do the same thing either on Report or on Third Reading—is to articulate, within the context of the broader debate, particular constituency anxieties or policy issues. For example, he holds a particular view on drug taking. I do not share his view, but it is important that the House should so construct its legislative processes as to enable such views to be articulated. The effect of the timetable motion, however, is to preclude him from doing so and I deeply regret that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough talked about the importance of the second group of amendments. I agree entirely with the substance of his remarks. He said that it is greatly to be regretted that we are unlikely to
972
vote on that group. He is probably right and I share his view. However, the vote is not the most important part of the process. The vote is a foregone conclusion in this House today. What is important is the weight and balance of the argument and how many hon. Members express their anxiety about particular parts of the Bill.
It is essential to keep in mind the fact that 18 Labour Back Benchers have put their names to the reasoned amendment against Third Reading. In an ideal world, those hon. Members would be able to express their views as to the reasons they tabled that amendment, because the weight and diversity of opinion is relevant to the question of whether the Bill should make progress. Furthermore, it is extremely relevant to what their lordships' House will want to make of the Bill when it reaches them.
Is there a need for the motion? The argument for there being no need has been eloquently deployed by, for example, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. No one has been filibustering the Bill. There were weeks during which this stage of the Bill could have been dealt with and the House could have discussed it at our leisure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough pointed out, if we had made a clear start at 4 o'clock or half past 4, we would have finished by 10 or 11 o'clock at the latest.
If there is any doubt on that point, the House should bear in mind that we can move closures. There are only four groups of amendments, and the practice—although it is not universal—is to allow closure after two hours of debate.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Three hours.
Mr. Hogg: It varies a bit. In any event, we would have got through the business. There is no need for the motion.
I have two further points of substance. First, there is the question of Members who represent Scottish constituencies. I urge Labour Members not to approve a timetable motion when they will want such Members to go with them into the Lobby. The Bill applies only to England and Wales. What is the propriety of Members who represent Scottish constituencies, who will not be affected by the Bill, voting to guillotine a motion that Members representing English and Welsh constituencies want to debate? Some people would call that a scandal; I do call it a scandal.
Secondly, I hear hon. Members muttering, "Why are you debating the timetable motion and not getting straight to the substantive motion?" That way liberty falls. If it be true that a timetable motion truncates a debate in an improper way—which is my view—then we must say so. If we do not, we will be said to have acquiesced in the process. It will become yet another precedent on which the Government will rely.
The motion is an abuse and it is my duty to say so. The fact that this debate takes time from the substantive motion is part of the blackmail that the Government want to exert on us. It is wrong in principle. At the end of the 1970s, my right hon. and noble Friend, my father, Lord Hailsham, wrote an important article in which he referred to the elective dictatorship. In all seriousness, I tell the House that he was right. Not only was he right then—he is right now. A Government with a massive majority can

973
do whatever they please—unless their own Back Benchers tell them, "Enough is enough." The hon. and learned Member for Medway has struck out boldly and rightly. I commend him for what he did tonight. I very much hope that at least some of those with whom he sits will follow his example.
8.6 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a privilege to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). On 9 March 1943, I paid my first visit to this Palace and my late, noble father, Lord Brooke, introduced me to Lord Hailsham, the noble father of my right hon. and learned Friend. Ever since, I have been aware of the role of the Hogg family in matters such as we are discussing.
I speak both in anger and in sorrow. I am not a lawyer. I declare that my brother is a lawyer and a senior judge, but I have not discussed the Bill with him. I also declare that I have been a friend of the noble Lord Bingham of Cornhill for nearly half a century. I have not discussed the Bill, in any of its manifestations or in any way, with the noble Lord.
Because I am not a lawyer, I can rely only on my instincts as a citizen. In the previous Parliament, I rebuked one of my right hon. Friends for seeking to end the life of a great hospital after 900 years, by way of a written answer and without direct report to the House. I have the same instinctive unease about the consideration of a right, which the citizens of this country have enjoyed for seven or eight centuries, being drastically amended under a guillotine of five hours of debate during the remaining stages of the Bill. Of course, I acknowledge that the Government have problems with their business programme. The deputy Leader of the House is sitting on the Treasury Bench and can confirm that.
I see almost all life through a filter of cricket. In cricket, the benefit of the doubt is a salient principle, but the right to the benefit of the doubt as regards the Government's programme is necessarily less convincing when two and a half months elapsed between Second Reading and Committee, and even less persuasive when a further seven weeks passed between Committee and the remaining stages. The salience of the business programme as the basis for the benefit of doubt has also been eroded by the substance of the detail revealed in the correspondence that, at a late date, the Government shared with the House.
I said that I spoke in sorrow as well as in anger. I am not privy to the byzantine—indeed Florentine—memorandums that flow between members of the Administration, so I do not know how the decision was made not to announce this guillotine at business questions last Thursday. I am a perennial attender at business questions and have, on other occasions, made clear my respect and my admiration for the Leader of the House. I do not know whether she was aware last Thursday of the Government's tactical intentions in this regard. I recognise the importance of surprise as a military tactic.
However, I regret that the Leader of the House did not come to the Dispatch Box last night in the context of this guillotine. It was not that she was not about this place; I recall passing her in the corridor around about the time of the Government's business motion. She will have to live down her silence last night in her continuing quest for the
974
House's respect. But the fact that she did not march towards the sound of gunfire in fact increased my unease about these matters, and I support with calmness, but with quiet passion, the opposition of my right hon. and hon. Friends to this timetable motion.
8.10 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: 1 believe that, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I am the only person present on the Conservative Benches who is not a lawyer. The Home Secretary should quake at the thought that the lawyers are on the march in the House and are contributing to this debate.
To my constituents, this is one of the few issues that comes before the House that they actually understand. Much of our legislative process is beyond the ken of most of us—indeed, most Members of the House—but this central issue runs through our society, as a beacon, revealing Britain, and particularly England, to be a country of liberty. We do not dispose of these matters lightly and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said so eloquently, does not each one of us want to express our views on the question of reputation? For many of us in the House, and certainly for those whom I represent, the question of reputation is central to their very standing and sense of themselves; and that that may be disposed of without reference to or the ability to argue that in front of a jury of their fellow citizens is something that cannot be passed away lightly.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I believe that he does attend on the House probably more than any other Minister—I make the observation that that reflects the fact that this is the 12th Home Office Bill that has come before the House this Session. When the right hon. Gentleman stood to justify this guillotine— [Interruption]—he justified it by reference to past Administrations. He said that the motion was no more than that which had been passed by other Administrations. I believe that he cited the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in which 17 Bills were guillotined. I just point out that that was over seven years. It is true that Baroness Thatcher guillotined 34 Bills, but that was over more than 11 years.
The record of the present Government is that if the House passes this guillotine motion, this new Labour Executive will have had 38 Bills guillotined. It is on a scale that the House has never seen. It is more than a third of all Bills guillotined since 1945. It is unconscionable, and it represents the only tactic that the present Executive have in controlling the House. It is an instrument—with a vast majority—for ensuring that the House is obedient, because we can no longer express truths that we were sent here to express or have the perception that we were elected here to represent our fellows.
The whole focus of debate in the House must be, surely, to try to turn the opinions of others; to try, by reason, to reach out to them. We make our case, we lose it, but when a huge majority asserts that we may not even make our case, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, where is the legitimacy? Let us be clear, because the matter goes back a long time: a parliamentary majority is not just X divided by two plus one. It is the process—we say this

975
again and again—by which those in a minority may express, contrary to the view of the majority, that which they hold true; and the coming into effect of the majority's judgment has legitimacy because the majority has exercised the tolerance of allowing people to speak freely.
This motion cuts right to the heart of the very function of the House. It is shaming for a Government with such a huge majority to wheel out such a motion 38 times in order to assert that others may not speak in the House. It is wrong; and that is why the Government should not only he ashamed, but should be hanging their head.
We know what is behind some of this. The muddle of the legislative programme has now become so intense that even the constitution unit at University college has pointed out that something is going wrong at the heart of Government and its own Committees when—as I said, this is the 12th Home Office Bill in one parliamentary Session—there is no constraint on the amount of legislation brought before the House. There have been 2,500-plus pages in this one parliamentary Session. How does one get through the business without silencing Members so that they may not speak on it? It is pathetic legislation that is passed in this way. A guillotine is an instrument of control of the Executive to the disregard of due process and the legitimacy that they seek for the legislative purposes that they believe are essential to good government. We have a right in this House, on behalf of those that sent us here, to express our concern at this process.
I give praise to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), on the Government's own Back Bench, who raises the banner—because that, in truth, is the question of conscience—and says, "This process is inappropriate." I do not doubt that the Home Secretary himself feels that as well.
We should reject this guillotine motion. I am bemused that Governments constantly table guillotine motions when there has been orderly, rational, intelligent debate, with no endeavour to filibuster—which used to be the traditional reason, when it became intolerable, why Governments, as a very last resort, sought to impose a guillotine. The Government now stand up and say, "All opposition without the time scale that we set is intolerable, and therefore we shall exert our control over the House, through our majority, to deny others the freedom of speech that is the purpose of the House."
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you, and to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for that very vulgar intervention earlier.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand. The House will have heard the interruption; I am not sure that hon. Members identified whence it came, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his apology.
8.18 pm
Mr. James Clappison: It is a very great pleasure to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), as indeed it is a pleasure to follow the speeches of other right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke, including my hon.
976
Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
I follow particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills in the remarks that he made about the guillotine procedure; I want to say a few words about that before I turn to the reasons why this legislation should have more time than it has been allocated under the motion.
Until I heard the reasons that the Home Secretary gave this evening, it was my belief that a guillotine was something that was applied for by Governments in extreme circumstances, when there was evidence that a particular piece of legislation was being resisted, and in order that the Government should get their way—which, as my hon. Friend conceded, is right, but after proper debate. However, having heard the reasons that were advanced by the Home Secretary this evening, it seems clear to me that the ground rules are being continually changed in this process, and always in favour of the Government's limiting debate to the utmost possible.
It would seem that, using the criteria that the Home Secretary gave this evening for applying this guillotine, any piece of legislation could be guillotined. The Home Secretary, in his opening remarks, gave as a reason for the guillotine the fact that the Bill had not been debated for very long—for long enough—in Committee.
The last time I was in the Chamber when the Home Secretary moved a motion to justify a guillotine was on the Bill that became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Then, according to my recollection, he gave as the reason for applying a guillotine the fact that the Bill had been debated for too long in Committee—not that that was a matter of complaint at the time the Bill was actually being debated in Committee, because the Home Secretary put a written answer in Hansard shortly afterwards, saying how constructive and helpful debate in Committee had been. None the less, and in short order, he imposed a guillotine on the Bill.
The Home Secretary referred to other Bills. However, as we have heard, there is no evidence that this Bill has been the subject of untoward debate or anything approaching it during its progress through the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, there was a gap of about two months between Second Reading and Committee. The Bill came out of Committee on 6 June and there have been any number of occasions since then—at least four to my knowledge—when the House has risen early in the evening and it would have been possible to debate the Bill. However, the Government made no move to debate the Bill on any of those occasions, or to interpose the Bill in their programme at any other time to give it proper consideration.
I was here, for instance, on the evening of 26 June when we debated the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was present on that occasion and both sides of the House agreed that it was a short and straightforward measure. It even had the benefit of the in-depth scrutiny of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) but, even after that scrutiny, the House rose at 5.58 pm. That

977
debate took place a reasonable time after the Bill had left Committee and—if one can use the phrase—it was the normal time for such a Bill to have its Report stage. However, the Government decided not to debate this Bill on that day or at any other time since then. The biggest obstacle to its progress has been the Government's dilatoriness in providing time to debate it. There is no evidence that obstacles have been created during the House's deliberations on this Bill.
The Home Secretary's justification for the motion is not satisfactory. It will open the door to the guillotining of every Bill. However, there are three reasons why we particularly need more time to debate this Bill than the Government are prepared to give it. First, this is piece of criminal justice legislation and the House has traditionally taken the view that issues affecting the liberty of the subject and criminal justice should be tackled in a particular way. I served on the proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and I recall how those Bills were often debated in a non-partisan fashion in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking brought the benefit of their technical expertise to bear.
This Bill is a departure from the previous approach to criminal justice Bills. Figures on the number of Bills that have been guillotined under this Government and in the previous Parliament have been bandied about and it is a fair point to say that some Bills were guillotined in the previous Parliament—but not so many as in this Parliament. Furthermore, I do not remember a criminal justice Bill being guillotined in the previous Parliament, the first Parliament in which I served. If I am wrong, the Home Secretary will correct me. However, I believe that this is a new experience.
It has been pointed out in the debate why the Home Secretary and the House should take particular care with the technical aspects of this Bill. It will be a great shame if we do not reach the second group of amendments and debate whether someone's reputation should be taken into account when determining whether he has the right to elect for trial by jury. That is an important issue in itself.
I also believe that the Bill's drafting means that its purpose is likely to be self-defeating. The Government and the Prime Minister said that one of the reasons for introducing it was a desire to reduce abuses of the system by experienced defendants. However, it seems from the Bill that experienced defendants who have been before the courts before will be most likely in practice to be able to elect for trial by jury.
The Bill says that magistrates must take into account the circumstances of the offence and not the reputation of the offender. It is thus likely that magistrates will consider the most serious offences to have the most pressing call to be dealt with in the Crown court in a trial by jury. It is a fact of life that experienced criminals commit the most serious offences. Therefore, in practice, experienced defendants who know the system and who commit the most serious offences will appear before the magistrates courts and gain the benefit of the provisions in the Bill.
As has been ably pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Woking and for Gainsborough, the person who is most likely to lose out under the Bill is the man of previous good character—or nearly good character—who commits a lesser offence but for whom the allegation
978
is important and likely seriously to affect his reputation in the future. The allegation could affect his reputation at work and in the neighbourhood, the reputation of his family, and his own self-esteem. It could possibly have consequences for the rest of his life.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I apologise for intervening, because I have only recently come into the debate. However, as there is a wide variation in sentencing between different Crown court centres, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how on earth we will achieve, under this ridiculous new system, uniformity of appeal procedures as between Crown court centres?
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. He will be as disappointed as I am to see that the appeals process will be considered in the fourth group of amendments—the group least likely to be debated. I know that the Home Secretary sets particular store by the appeals process, so it is a shame that we will not have an opportunity to test in debate his arguments for that process. Many people in the legal profession, including the hon. Gentleman, are worried about the complexity of the process and the time that it will cause to be lost in the courts system, delaying cases with all the expense and inconvenience that will result. That is another issue that we shall not have sufficient time to debate.
The position of the man in the street in respect of the appeals process are issues that should be debated at length. I should have declared my interest as a member of the Bar at the beginning of my speech, but as I said on Second Reading, I feel strongly about the position of the man in the street. He will not face the serious allegations that will entitle him to a trial by jury, but may face allegations that may matter to him a great deal. He will not be able to turn up at the magistrates court with expensive solicitors and expensive counsel—I mean no disrespect to anyone present—with the impression that they would create. There will be interest in the cases of business men, famous people and celebrities and they will turn up at the magistrates court with their expensive counsel, who will be armed with all the legal arguments. Under the proposed system, such people will have the right to elect for trial by jury in a Crown court if they want it. The ordinary man in the street will not have that opportunity; he will lose out. I hope that I have made that point clearly, because I feel strongly about it.
The second reason for having more time to debate the Bill is its history in the House of Lords. The reasons for curtailing the debate sit uneasily with what the Government have said about the House of Lords. It has been partially reformed because the Government have got rid of some, if not all, of the hereditary element. The Government believe that that gives the House of Lords a more legitimate voice and they have also conceded that the other place's purpose, as a second Chamber, is to give this House an opportunity to think again about particular pieces of legislation.
This Bill came before the House of Lords and was defeated there. It was withdrawn and then reintroduced in this House—albeit with amendments. However, if debate on Report—the first opportunity that Members who were not on the Committee have to debate amendments to the Bill—is curtailed to just five hours, what does that say about our system of government and the way the

979
Government think about the constitution? It looks as if they are prepared to railroad the Bill through, whatever the House of Lords, this House or anyone else thinks.
I now come to my third reason for thinking that the Government need to give the Bill more time. It is for the Government themselves to justify the course that they are taking on trial by jury. Today, the Home Secretary sought to justify the Government's course by referring to the views of the former Lord Chief Justice. I do not want to go into that any further, but the Home Secretary owes the House and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) an explanation—indeed more of an explanation than we have heard so far. I shall not pursue that, but want to deal with the other great support that the Government prayed in aid, namely, the views of the royal commission which the Prime Minister, as well as the Home Secretary, said were among the main reasons for introducing the Bill.
At Question Time on 5 July, the Prime Minister said:
The mode of trial legislation was recommended by a royal commission, it is supported by the Lord Chief Justice, it will hugely increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system.—[Official Report, 5 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 330.]
The Prime Minister therefore gave three reasons for supporting the Bill. We have already heard about the views of the former Lord Chief Justice, but I shall deal with the other two reasons. It is very well for the Home Secretary—and the Prime Minister on an earlier occasion—to have prayed in aid the views of the royal commission, and it was right for the royal commission to express its views—although, as we have heard, an eminent member, Mr. Zander, has since departed. However, what did the Prime Minister and the Labour party itself say about the views of the royal commission when its report came out? We will require a little more time to debate that, and would like an explanation of the view expressed by the then shadow Home Secretary to The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. in 1993. An article in The Guardian stated:
"It is totally unsatisfactory to leave the decision on the right to a jury trial to magistrates, " Mr. Blair said. "Fundamental rights to justice cannot be driven by administrative convenience."
So when he was shadow Home Secretary, the Prime Minister reacted in that way to the royal commission, which he is now praying in aid for the Bill. However, in those remarks, he clearly disposes of two of the principal arguments that are being made now—namely, the questions of whether it is a matter of principle that people should elect trial by jury, and of whether that is the best way of speeding up the court system. The Home Secretary owes it to the House to say a little more about why the Prime Minister expressed those views at the time.
The Home Secretary also owes it to the House to say a little more about the views that he expressed at the time of the Narey review, which he prayed in aid as another support for the Bill. He will remember that, in February 1997, when the Narey commission reported, he said that the proposal to cut down the right to jury trial, which is what the Bill amounts to, was
wrong … short—sighted. and likely to prove ineffective.
He also said:
If a police officer, a Member of Parliament or even a Secretary of State were charged with an offence of dishonesty, would they not insist on being tried by a jury? If that is the case, why should others be denied that right of election?—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 238, c. 433-34.]
980
The Home Secretary should spend a little time explaining what has changed since then.
The change is not that there will be a right of appeal under the Bill, as that was part of the Narey review. Indeed, in 1997, the Home Secretary made his remarks on the basis that there was a right of appeal in the legislation that he was discussing. The Home Secretary is shaking his head, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who has taken a consistent line throughout, said quite clearly that there might need to be a right of appeal. Indeed, if the Home Secretary looks at col. 430 of Hansard for 27 February 1997, he will find that a right of appeal was mentioned.
What has made this difference to the Home Secretary's view? What circumstance has changed, and what has the Home Secretary become aware of now that he was not aware of in 1997? We need some time to debate that, and I hope that the Home Secretary will shortly have the opportunity to do that, as he owes it to the House to say a little more about why the Government are taking that course on a fundamental civil liberty. The Government need time to do that: to deal with the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Medway and the question of reputation; and to explain the history of the Bill and the reason it has been brought to the House in a particular way. Frankly, time is needed if the Home Secretary is to try and save the Government's reputation on civil liberties.
I am a reader of The Guardian, and, as it said, civil liberty is this Government's poor relation; indeed, it is being trampled underfoot at great speed without sufficient justification. Government Members need to do more than harrumph, as they did a moment ago, and they must come up with better and more cogent reasons than they have so far.
A noticeable feature of our debate is that not a single speaker on either side of the house, whether from the Liberal Democrat party, the official Opposition or the Government Back Benches, has sought to support the course that the Government are taking in the Bill. The Government need to do much better in seeking to defend the Bill because, so far, they do not have a leg to stand on. They look as if they are prepared to use their majority just to drive through a damaging piece of legislation that will affect the civil liberties of the ordinary man in the street. They could not care less about parliamentary procedure, the views of the House, or anybody outside it.
8.36 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: This has been one of the best debates that I have heard in my eight years in this House, although I except from that description the Home Secretary's opening speech. He began by trying to justify at great length his Second Reading speech, and to deal with the fact that the researches of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) on the former Lord Chief Justice have blown his gaff. The Home Secretary's speech was convoluted, disingenuous and wrong.
In other speeches, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), we heard something of the history of trial by jury, and the fact that it goes back to mediaeval times. The House will recall that in mediaeval times, theologians used to debate the

981
idea of angels dancing on the head of a pin, which was rather like the sophistry that we have heard from the Home Secretary tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made clear in his thoughtful speech, the real opposition is to be found behind the Home Secretary, on the Government Benches. My hon. Friend was quite right to draw attention to the fact that not a single Government Back Bencher could be found to speak in support of the timetable motion or the guillotine procedure. The two speeches from Government Back Benchers both attacked the Home Secretary, as has every other Member who has spoken.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garner) dismantled comprehensively the Home Secretary's specious arguments on this Session's first Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which the Home Secretary sought to pretend had been stopped in this House, even though he, like everyone else, knows that the Government chose to introduce it in another place, where it was stopped in its tracks, as this Bill will be when it gets there. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the Home Secretary was wrong in what he said about the Disqualifications Bill, which has not been proceeded with as a result of the Government's decisions in another place, and he dismantled comprehensively the Home Secretary's arguments about the Football (Disorder) Bill. The points that the Home Secretary sought to make were all specious.
The first attack on the guillotine motion came from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Ingeniously, he attacked the Government for failing to provide enough time in this debate to consider the role of juries that fail to convict when the facts of the case might support a conviction. I often disagree with the hon. Member on his underlying arguments, but I agree with his criticism of the Government on the timetable motion. In a powerful speech, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that at the election the proposals were opposed, both specifically and in general terms, by the present Home Secretary and Prime Minister, as well as by everybody else in the Labour party. The Home Secretary himself set out his strong personal opposition, in the terms of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has just reminded the House.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey used the cogent argument that, both with the ill-fated Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill [Lords] and the present Bill, the Government chose all the procedural stages that they went through. They could have given time for proper debate at any of those stages, including tonight.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the then Labour Opposition included their opposition to these proposals in their 1997 general election manifesto. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) tried, quite wrongly, to deny his collective responsibility; he was on the Opposition Front Bench in the run-up to that election, but one would not have thought so from his intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
The hon. Gentleman then pointed out the lack of a need for urgency with these proposals. The Government have set up the review by Lord Justice Auld to consider possible changes to criminal procedure, so as the hon. Gentleman said, why not wait? He made a series of unanswerable points, including the most crucial point of
982
all, which so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have reinforced—the fact that trial by jury is a fundamental civil right for all citizens.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway is one of the most distinguished members of the Bar whom I have ever had the privilege to hear, and he was a member of the same circuit as myself—I declare my past interest as somebody who conducted many jury trials in my early years at the Bar. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in particular on the views of the former Lord Chief Justice and the senior judiciary. If I may so put it, he comprehensively disembowelled the Home Secretary's utterly contemptible attempt to reinterpret his own remarks to the House so as to avoid the hook on which the hon. and learned Gentleman and The Guardian have impaled him for his terminological inexactitude on Second Reading.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) set out why the Bill needs proper time, and why we need time to point out all the misconceived reasons behind the Government's change of heart. The Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister took up their offices and immediately rejected all their previous strongly held views on the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), as usual, made a powerful speech—one of the most powerful that the House has heard this evening. He pointed out how the Home Secretary had severely damaged his reputation with this guillotine. My hon. Friend's experience of the Committee proceedings on the Bill enabled him to point out how wrong the guillotine is. He said that, as we know, the real reason for it lies on the Government side of the House, and the reasoned amendment signed by so many of the Home Secretary's colleagues demonstrates that beyond peradventure. My hon. Friend also made it clear how horrified the judiciary would be by this curtailment of debate, and that factor is crucial.
My hon. Friend asked the relevant question: why are Members of Parliament here? He anticipated the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about an elective dictatorship, and I feel strongly that that is the correct way to describe the Government's arrogant behaviour. The timetable motion is a paradigm showing what the Government regard with contempt: the House, parliamentary traditions and English civil liberties. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking went on to stress how increasingly authoritarian the Government are, and he was right to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough put forward his own interesting approach to timetabling issues. He set out his experience of the sensible Committee proceedings on the Bill, and the historical perspective that we need to have. In response to the intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made clear the need for simple justice. He described the problems that the Government will have in another place because of the timetable motion and their attitude to the Bill—they now have egg on their face.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham concentrated on the fact that the Government's guillotine is denying Labour Members

983
the opportunity to ask questions about today's revelations concerning the true position of the former Lord Chief Justice and the inexactitude of the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading. My right hon. and learned Friend also pointed out the need for analysis of the nuts and bolts issues on Report—the first time that the House can perform that analysis. He stressed the crucial need for our debates, rather than our votes, to inform another place, and the need to debate arbitrary guillotines rather than falling prey to Government blackmail.
My right hon. and learned Friend concluded by referring to his father, the right hon. and noble Lord Hailsham, the former Lord Chancellor, and his important article on the dangers of elective dictatorship.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) used a happy cricketing analogy, with which I agree, about the need for the benefit of the doubt, but he rightly expressed concern about the byzantine and Florentine memorandums that pass between Ministers. He pointed out the unease about the failure of the Leader of the House to come to the Dispatch Box last night to attempt to justify this outrageous last-minute guillotine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke as powerfully as he always does, is an admirable guardian of the traditions of the House and the real liberties of the subject. He talked about the need for proper debate, and the need to allow a case to be made. He pointed out that it is shaming for the Government, with their huge majority, to have wheeled out a guillotine 38 times in only a fraction over three years. He said that they were guilty of disregard for due process. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, whose speech I have already referred to, also set out many of the problems that he has with what the Government are doing.
If any jury had sat in judgment on this Government and the Home Secretary's guillotine proposals, and had to decide whether the Government were guilty of intolerance, of arbitrariness, of arrogance, of contempt for the House, of stifling debate and opposition and, above all, of being wrong, it would decide that they were guilty as charged on every count. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against the Government and support our amendment.
8.46 pm
Mr. Straw: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate. The last remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) show that he has a flawed understanding of the jury system. He thinks that there should be a guilty as charged system, whereby the prosecution brings in the verdict. We look forward to the further development of that idea.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made some hyperbolic remarks about the Government's subscription to civil liberties. I remind him that the Government have introduced two measures that will make a huge difference to civil liberties—measures that the Governments whom he supported failed to introduce. The first is the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, which I hope will shortly become law, and the second is the Human Rights Act 1998, which is already law and is due
984
to come into force on 2 October. That shows that the balance of our approach is to strengthen the civil liberties of the individual and at the same time to seek to ensure that the criminal justice system, while continuing to be just, is more efficient and effective than it has been in the past. Although I had to leave the Chamber very briefly, I understand that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that he accepted that the present system was being abused—and that is the truth of it.
I come to the central point raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—that the guillotine motion is somehow an abuse of process. I have already said that I do not like guillotine motions. It is palpable that I have always sought to ensure that debate proceeds properly.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cannot have it both ways. It is the job of this House and of the other place to dispose of the legislative proposals that are before them. I do not think that there has ever been a piece of legislation that has not been improved as a result of the legislative process; that is the job of this House. Given that, the hon. Gentleman cannot complain about the fact that the Bill has finally emerged in an improved form. Of course that is always the case; that is exactly as it should be. It would surely be an arrogant Government, whatever their majority, who sought to render the role of this House entirely nugatory by never being willing to listen to proposals to improve legislation. Making such proposals is the role of this House.
I return to the issue of guillotines. I served on the Opposition Front Bench in one capacity or another for sixteen and a half years—
Mr. Hogg: Not long enough.
Mr. Straw: My father was not in the other place at the same time.
During the 1980s there were many occasions on which I took part, with the same hyperbolic anger, in debates on guillotines—
Mr. Stephen Day: Not as regularly.
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the chart, he will see that in the 1988–89 Session, for example, there were 13 guillotine motions—including, I say to the hon. Member for Hertsmere, three in respect of criminal justice; one was the Official Secrets Bill. At that stage, our tactic in opposition was to string things out as far as possible. Gradually, we learned, and in the 1990s there was a high degree of co-operation between Opposition and Government, which I thought was to the advantage of both Houses.
The truth of what has happened—it is on the record—is that it is currently virtually impossible to achieve agreement with the Opposition about any progress on any Bill. On one issue after another, even when they support the Bill, they cannot deliver their own side to vote for a sensible programme. It is for that reason, in sorrow not in anger, that we have tabled the motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made;—
The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 311.

Division No. 289]

[8.51 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Hammond, Philip

Amess, David

Harris, Dr Evan

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Harvey, Nick

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Hawkins, Nick

Baker, Norman

Hayes, John

Baldry, Tony

Heald, Oliver

Ballard, Jackie

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Beggs, Roy

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Beth, Rt Hon A J

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Horam, John

Bercow, John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Blunt, Crispin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Boswell, Tim

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Brake, Tom

Jenkin, Bernard

Brand, Dr Peter

Keetch, Paul

Brazier, Julian

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

Breed, Colin

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Key, Robert

Browning, Mrs Angela

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Kirkwood, Archy

Burnett, John

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Burns, Simon

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Burstow, Paul

Lansley, Andrew

Butterfill, John

Leigh, Edward

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

Letwin, Oliver

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cash, William

Lidington, David

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Livsey, Richard

Clappison, James

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Loughton, Tim

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Luff, Peter

Collins, Tim

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Cormack, Sir Patrick

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Cotter, Brian

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Cran, James

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Curry, Rt Hon David

Mackinlay, Andrew

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Madel, Sir David

Duncan Smith, Iain

Malins, Humfrey

Evans, Nigel

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Faber, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Fabricant, Michael

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Fallon, Michael

Moore, Michael

Fearn, Ronnie

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Flight, Howard

Nicholls, Patrick

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Oaten, Mark

Foster, Don (Bath)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Fox, Dr Liam

Ottaway, Richard

Fraser, Christopher

Paterson, Owen

Gale, Roger

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Garnier, Edward

Prior, David

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Randall, John

Gibb, Nick

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gidley, Sandra

Rendel, David

Gill, Christopher

Robathan, Andrew

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robertson, Laurence

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gorrie, Donald

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Gray, James

Ruffley, David

Green, Damian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grieve, Dominic

St Aubyn, Nick

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Sanders, Adrian

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

986

Shepherd, Richard

Townend, John

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Tredinnick, David

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

Trend, Michael

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Tyler, Paul

Spicer, Sir Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Waterson, Nigel

Steen, Anthony

Webb, Steve

Streeter, Gary

Wells, Bowen

Swayne, Desmond

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Syms, Robert

Willis, Phil

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Mr. Stephen Day and

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mr. Peter Atkinson.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Clelland, David

Ainger, Nick

Clwyd, Ann

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Coaker, Vernon

Alexander, Douglas

Coffey, Ms Ann

Allen, Graham

Cohen, Harry

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Coleman, Iain

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Colman, Tony

Ashton, Joe

Connarty, Michael

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Atkins, Charlotte

Corbett, Robin

Austin, John

Corston, Jean

Banks, Tony

Crausby, David

Barnes, Harry

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Barron, Kevin

Cummings, John

Bayley, Hugh

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Beard, Nigel

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bennett, Andrew F

Datyell, Tam

Benton, Joe

Darvill, Keith

Berry, Roger

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Blackman, Liz

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

Blears, Ms Hazel

Blizzard, Bob

Dawson, Hilton

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Dean, Mrs Janet

Borrow, David

Denham, John

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Dismore, Andrew

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dobbin, Jim

Bradshaw, Ben

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Donohoe, Brian H

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Doran, Frank

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Buck, Ms Karen

Edwards, Huw

Burden, Richard

Efford, Clive

Burgon, Colin

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Butler, Mrs Christine

Ennis, Jeff

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Flint, Caroline

Cann, Jamie

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Caplin, Ivor

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Casale, Roger

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Caton, Martin

Foulkes, George

Cawsey, Ian

Fyfe, Maria

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Chaytor, David

Gerrard, Neil

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Godman, Dr Norman A

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Godsiff, Roger

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Goggins, Paul

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

987

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McNulty, Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Grocott, Bruce

McWalter, Tony

Grogan, John

Mallaber, Judy

Gunnell, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Martlew, Eric

Hanson, David

Meale, Alan

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Merron, Gillian

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Healey, John

Miller, Andrew

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Moffatt, Laura

Hepburn, Stephen

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Heppell, John

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hesford, Stephen

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hill, Keith

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hinchliffe, David

Morley, Elliot

Home Robertson, John

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

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Hope, Phil

Moms, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mountford, Kali

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Mudie, George

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hurst, Alan

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hutton, John

Norris, Dan

Iddon, Dr Brian

O'Hara, Eddie

Illsley, Eric

Olner, Bill

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Organ, Mrs Diana

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jamieson, David

Pearson, Ian

Jenkins, Brian

Pendry, Tom

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Perham, Ms Linda

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Pollard, Kerry

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pond, Chris

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Pope, Greg

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Primarolo, Dawn

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Prosser, Gwyn

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Purchase, Ken

Khabra, Piara S

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Quinn, Lawrie

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Rapson, Syd

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Raynsford, Nick

Laxton, Bob

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Lepper, David

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Leslie, Christopher

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Levitt, Tom

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rogers, Allan

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Rooney, Terry

Linton, Martin

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rowlands, Ted

Lock, David

Roy, Frank

Love, Andrew

Roane, Chris

McAvoy, Thomas

Ruddock, Joan

McCabe, Steve

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ryan, Ms Joan

Macdonald, Calum

Salter, Martin

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sarwar, Mohammad

McIsaac, Shona

Savidge, Malcolm

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Sawford, Phil

Mackinlay, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

McNamara, Kevin

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

988

Shipley, Ms Debra (Oxford E)

Todd, Mark

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew

Touhig, Don

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Trickett, Jon

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Tynan, Bill

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Walley, Ms Joan

Snape, Peter

Wareing, Robert N

Soley, Clive

Watts, David

Southworth, Ms Helen

White, Brian

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Stevenson, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Wills, Michael

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Wilson, Brian

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Winnick, David

Stringer, Graham

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Woodward, Shaun

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Woolas, Phil

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Wray, James

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Wyatt, Derek

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Timms, Stephen

Mr. Clive Betts and

Tipping, Paddy

Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 180.

Division No. 290]

[9.3 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Buck, Ms Karen

Ainger, Nick

Burden, Richard

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Burgon, Colin

Alexander, Douglas

Butler, Mrs Christine

Allen, Graham

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ashton, Joe

Cann, Jamie

Atherton, Ms Candy

Caplin, Ivor

Atkins, Charlotte

Casale, Roger

Austin, John

Caton, Martin

Banks, Tony

Cawsey, Ian

Barnes, Harry

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Barron, Kevin

Chaytor, David

Bayley, Hugh

Chisholm, Malcolm

Beard, Nigel

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Begg, Miss Anne

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Berry, Roger

Clelland, David

Blackman, Liz

Clwyd, Ann

Blears, Ms Hazel

Coaker, Vernon

Blizzard, Bob

Coffey, Ms Ann

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Cohen, Harry

Borrow, David

Coleman, Iain

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Colman, Tony

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Connarty, Michael

Bradshaw, Ben

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Corbett, Robin

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Corston, Jean

Crausby, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cummings, John

989

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, RT Hon Barry (Alyn)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Darvill, Keith

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

Jones, Marlin (Clyde S)

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Dawson, Hilton

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keeble, Ms Sally

Denham, John

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Hesston)

Dismore, Andrew

Keen, Ann (Brantford & Isle worth)

Dobbin, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Khabra, Piara S

Donohoe, Brian H

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Doran, Frank

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Layman, Dr Stephen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Edwards, Huw

Laxton, Bob

Efford, Clive

Lepper, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Leslie, Christopher

Ennis, Jeff

Leavitt, Tom

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Flint, Caroline

Liddell, Rat Hon Mrs Helen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Linton, Martin

Foster, Michael Jabez

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lock, David

Foulkes, George

Love, Andrew

Fyfe, Maria

McAvoy, Thomas

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McCabe, Steve

Gerrard, Neil

McDonough, Siobhain

Gibson, Dr Ian

Macdonald, Calum

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Godman, Dr Norman A

McIssac, Shona

Godsiff, Roger

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Goggins, Paul

McNamara, Kevin

Golding, Mrs Llin

McNulty, Tony

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McWalter, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mallaber, Judy

Grocott, Bruce

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Grogan, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gunnell, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Martlew, Eric

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Meale, Alan

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Merron, Gillian

Hanson, David

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Miller, Andrew

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Moffatt, Laura

Healey, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hepburn, Stephen

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Heppell, John

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hesford, Stephen

Morley, Elliot

Hill, Keith

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

Hinchliffe, David

Home Robertson, John

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Hope, Phil

Mountford, Kali

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mudie, George

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hurst, Alan

Norris, Dan

Hutton, John

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Olner, Bill

Illsley, Eric

Organ, Mrs Diana

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pearson, Ian

Jamieson, David

Pendry, Tom

Jenkins, Brian

Perham, Ms Linda

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Pickthall, Colin

990

Pike, Peter L

Stevenson, George

Plaskitt, James

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pollard, Kerry

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pond, Chris

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pope, Greg

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pound, Stephen

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Stringer, Graham

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prosser, Gwyn

Purchase, Ken

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Quinn, Lawrie

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rapson, Syd

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Raynsford, Nick

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Timms, Stephen

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tipping, Paddy

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Todd, Mark

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Touhig, Don

Rogers, Allan

Trickett, Jon

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rowlands, Ted

Tynan, Bill

Roy, Frank

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ruane, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Ruddock, Joan

Wareing, Robert N

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Watts, David

Ryan, Ms Joan

White, Brian

Salter, Martin

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wicks, Malcolm

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sawford, Phil

Shaw, Jonathan

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wills, Michael

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wilson, Brian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Winnick, David

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Woodward, Shaun

Woolas, Phil

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Worthington, Tony

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wray, James

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Snape, Peter

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Soley, Clive

Southworth, Ms Helen

Tellers for the Ayes:

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mr. Clive Betts and

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. Jim Dowd.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Allan, Richard

Burnett, John

Amess, David

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Burstow, Paul

Ashdown, Rt Hon

Butterfill, John

Paddy Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Baker, Norman

Baldry, Tony

Cash, William

Ballard, Jackie

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Beggs, Roy

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clappison, James

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Bercow, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Beresford, Sir Paul

Collins, Tim

Blunt, Crispin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Boswell, Tim

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Cotter, Brian

Brake, Tom

Gran, James

Brand, Dr Peter

Curry, Rt Hon David

Brazier, Julian

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Breed, Colin

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Browning, Mrs Angela

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Evans, Nigel

991

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

McLoughlin, Patrick

Faber, David

Madel, Sir David

Fabricant, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Fallon, Michael

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Fearn, Ronnie

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Fisher, Mark

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Flight, Howard

May, Mrs Theresa

Flynn, Paul

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Moore, Michael

Foster, Don (Bath)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Fox, Dr Liam

Moss, Malcolm

Fraser, Christopher

Nicholls, Patrick

Gale, Roger

Oaten, Mark

Garnier, Edward

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Öpik, Lembit

Gibb, Nick

Ottaway, Richard

Gidley, Sandra

Paterson, Owen

Gill, Christopher

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Prior, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Randall, John

Gorrie, Donald

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gray, James

Bendel, David

Green, Damian

Robathan, Andrew

Greenway, John

Robertson, Laurence

Grieve, Dominic

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Ruffley, David

Hammond, Philip

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Harris, Dr Evan

St Aubyn, Nick

Harvey, Nick

Sanders, Adrian

Hawkins, Nick

Sedgemore, Brian

Hayes, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Heald, Oliver

Shepherd, Richard

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Skinner, Dennis

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hopkins, Kelvin

Spicer, Sir Michael

Horam, John

Spring, Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Steen, Anthony

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Streeter, Gary

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Syms, Robert

Jenkin, Bernard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Keetch, Paul

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

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

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Key, Robert

Taylor, Sir Teddy

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Townend, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Tredinnick, David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Trend, Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tyler, Paul

Lansley, Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Leigh, Edward

Viggers, Peter

Letwin, Oliver

Waterson, Nigel

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Webb, Steve

Lidington, David

Wells, Bowen

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Livsey, Richard

Willis, Phil

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Wilshire, David

Loughton, Tim

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Luff, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

LyeIl, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Yeo, Tim

McDonnell, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tellers for the Noes:

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Sir Robert Smith

Maclean, Rt Hon David

and Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill—

Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2)Bill (Allocation of Time)
  TIMETABLE
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

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

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

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

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

  (a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; and

  (b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before then.

  (2) The bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.

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

Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill
    New Clause 3

      COMMITTAL FOR SENTENCE
      '. The following shall be inserted after subsection (1) of section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (committal for sentence on summary trial of offence triable either way)—
      "(1A) Provided that where the court has previously decided under section 20 above that an offence ought to be tried summarily it shall not then use its powers under this section in respect of the same offence.".'.—[Mr. Kidney.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. David Kidney: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
      '( ) The court shall not, in the event of a conviction, be permitted to commit the accused to the Crown Court for sentence.'.
      Mr. Kidney: I call new clause 3 the Scottish amendment. In current Scots law, a class of case exists whereby the accused can be denied a trial by jury through the decision of the prosecutor, not the court. The quid pro quo is that the accused knows that, if convicted and sentenced, the maximum sentence cannot exceed three months' imprisonment. There is therefore a cap, about which the accused, the court and the prosecutor—who determines the court that will deal with the trial—know in advance.
      The Bill takes a step towards the Scottish system, but does not go the full distance. It proposes that magistrates should make the decision about whether the accused can be tried by jury or whether he will have to be tried in the magistrates court. However, it does not change the law that provides that the magistrates, after convicting, could send the accused to the Crown court to receive a longer sentence than that which the magistrates can impose—a maximum of six months for one case. The new clause attempts to create a closer relationship between decisions made in England and Wales and those made in Scotland about trial and sentencing occurring in the same place.
      I declare an interest because I am a former solicitor with 20 years' experience in criminal cases. However, I do not currently practise and I have no interest in criminal law other than that of a legislator and citizen. I fall into the category of hon. Members whom my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described earlier as those who are opposed in principle to the Bill. In fact, I object to the entire Bill, but, in tabling the new clause, I resort to a minor principle of honesty in sentencing. I am supported in that by an editorial in The Times on 25 February. In considering the second Bill, not the original measure, it referred to the danger of people being forced to be tried
      994
      in the magistrates court against their wishes and being sent to the Crown court for sentencing. The editorial states:
      It remains unfair for a person to risk a long sentence without benefit of a full trial.
      In making the change to the law, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary enjoys the support of most of the police. I have a briefing from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, which was issued in April. I presume that other hon. Members also have a copy. It states that we should all support the Home Secretary's endeavours to "cut the wastage" in the criminal justice system. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers believe that a jury trial constitutes "wastage" in the system. However, my right hon. Friend might agree with the following claim by the association:
      In further restricting the right of some defendants to elect trial he will go a long way to removing the abuse of the system that many criminals, and some in the legal profession, perpetrate daily in our courts.
      I could stomach such prejudice if abuses such as overcharging the accused, dropping cases and reducing charges at the last minute were also mentioned. Nevertheless, I refer to that briefing because, at the end, it states:
      As we see in other jurisdictions, such as Scotland, injustice will not ensue from the removal of the right to elect trial for what amount to relatively minor crimes.
      In that briefing, the police also rely on the Scottish system as being an exemplar of how the system in England and Wales should be.
      I would argue that, as a matter of principle, the trial court should deal with the sentence in most cases. The rationale for giving defendants in either-way cases a right to elect is that, if they are at risk of receiving a sentence that is higher than the magistrates can impose, they should at least be given the opportunity to choose to be tried in the Crown court. It is one thing for a defendant, who has voluntarily waived his or her right to jury trial, having been warned of possible consequences, to be committed on conviction to the Crown court to receive a more severe sentence, but if that right is removed the logic should be to limit the power of the magistrates to commit those whom they convict of either-way offences to the Crown court for sentence.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers might say that the difference is that they are not going the whole hog on the Scottish system, where the procurator fiscal decides whether there should be a trial by jury. The procurator fiscal has access to the accused person's previous convictions, whereas under the Bill, as we shall hear at great length later tonight when the relevant amendments are debated, magistrates courts will not have access to previous convictions when taking decisions about the place for the trial.
      My worry is that, in England and Wales, those accused who are denied the right to trial in Crown court will have no guarantee that they will not up end in the Crown court and receive a longer sentence than the magistrates could have imposed. As well as undermining much of the Government's projected cost saving, that is bound to result in justifiable feelings of unfairness among the defendants concerned, given that the magistrates will have told them that their cases are not deserving enough to be tried in the Crown court, but that they are still serious enough to require being sentenced there.

      995
      The Home Office has conducted various research. One of its research projects suggests that most people who elect to be tried in the Crown court have many similar characteristics to those whom the magistrates send to the Crown court for a sentence beyond their powers. For example. 90 per cent. of those who elect to be tried in the Crown court have previous convictions. Therefore, it is easy to suggest that, if magistrates determine the place of trial in future, they might decide to commit many more people to the Crown court for sentence after conviction than the Home Office currently estimates will happen.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: It is very easy to be misled by statistics, especially those provided by the Government. The figure for those appearing before the Crown court with the records that the hon. Gentleman describes relates to all defendants in all trials. It relates not only to those who elect trial by jury, but to those who have no choice in the matter who are sent to the Crown court either by the magistrates on committal or because the matter for which they are being tried must go before the Crown court. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to take at face value the statistics provided by the Government on that matter.
      Mr. Kidney: I entirely accept that point. In so far as the hon and learned Gentleman suggests that perhaps more than a tenth of those who elect trial by jury are people of previous good character, that only goes to support another of my objections to the Bill: people should be entitled to choose trial by jury for what I regard as serious offences.
      If people are committed to the Crown court for sentence by the magistrates, who have taken upon themselves the right to conduct the trial, because they decide at the end of the trial that the person should receive a greater sentence than they are capable of imposing, that will mean that one of the Home Office estimated cost savings will be lost. After all, the biggest factor in the cost savings is that people will receive shorter sentences of imprisonment from the magistrates court rather than the Crown court. If magistrates do not pass sentence and send people to the Crown court for longer sentences, that cost saving will not arise.
      I am fortified in that view by a briefing from the Association of Magisterial Officers, which many of us received back in April. The association describes itself as the trade union of magistrates courts staff, so when I picked up the briefing I thought that it would favour the Government's proposal to give more work to magistrates courts and improve the reputation and prestige of its members. However, the association opposes the Bill and says that although the Government claim that it will achieve cost savings, such savings are illusory. If magistrates have to try people who wanted to be tried in the Crown court, they will send more cases to the Crown court for sentencing.
      Mr. Nick HawkinsThe hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the important briefing from the Association of Magisterial Officers, but he did not say that that association is particularly important because it represents a large majority of legal staff who work in magistrates courts, up to and including those employed as
      996
      the deputy justice's clerk. The Government, if they are to be believed, give the impression that everyone involved with magistrates courts supports the Bill, but, as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, senior staff such as those clerks strongly oppose it. Does he agree that that represents a serious criticism?
      Mr. Kidney: Yes. Almost three quarters of magistrates courts staff are claimed to be members of the association, so it represents a significant body of opinion. Practitioners who might have had an interest in the Bill becoming law oppose it in principle. That is compelling evidence.
      The Legal Action Group opposes the "clear unfairness" of allowing magistrates to deny trial by jury and commit people to the Crown court for sentence. The new clause would prevent that. If the Bill is a matter of principle for the Government, that principle ought to be that the court that hears the trial should hand out the sentence. If the Government argue that delay is the problem and that they are solving it, surely interposing a procedure whereby a magistrate would send a defendant to the Crown court for sentence would cause delay, not remove it. If their argument rests on cost, I argue that committals for sentence would cause extra cost in themselves because of the practicalities and because sentences dished out in the Crown court would be longer than those given by the magistrates court. For all those reasons, I ask hon. Members to support the new clause.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: I shall speak briefly to support amendment No. 12, which I have tabled and which would achieve much the same as the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). We are concerned about committing to the Crown court for sentence people who have been forced to accept trial in the magistrates court. A number of members of the judiciary and law practitioners think that it would terribly unfair to say to a defendant, "We've forced you to be tried in this court, but we reserve the right to send you to the Crown court for sentence." At present, the magistrates court tells a person charged with an either-way offence such as a theft that the offence can be tried there or in the Crown court and that he can opt for either venue. However, if the defendant consents to be tried in the magistrates court and is convicted and the magistrate then discovers that he has a string of previous convictions, the court reserves the right to send him to the Crown court for sentence. So far, so good—defendants know what is going on.
      What troubles me is that, under the Bill, the court may say to the defendant, "We have considered the nature of the case and the circumstances of the offence, and we believe that the punishment that we have the power to impose for the offence is adequate, and we have come to the conclusion that you must be tried here." "Okay, " says the defendant, "if that is what you say." It is a little incongruous to say at the end of a case, if the person is convicted, "Sorry about that. We're going to send you to the Crown court."
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does not that underline the practical absurdity of magistrates not being able to take previous convictions and character into account when deciding whether someone should be sent to the Crown court? May I ask the hon. Gentleman to

      997
      reflect on a particular example? Suppose that the defence for someone charged with possession of drugs who has previous convictions for drugs offences is that the drugs were planted because he had refused to be a police informer. That is a perfectly ordinary case. He says that he wants to go to the Crown court, but he cannot tell the magistrates that he has previous convictions. The magistrates refuse him, and he is tried in the magistrates court. When the magistrates find out about his previous convictions, they say that they wish they had sent the chap to the Crown court because he is going there anyway. Does not that illustrate the absolute absurdity of the present state of affairs, and the fact that the Bill will cause enormous delay and immense expense?
      Mr. Malins: I do not think that anyone in the House could have illustrated the absurdity of the situation better than the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose record is very distinguished. He has hit upon a very good point. It seems slightly odd to me that that can be expected to happen. It also seems slightly unfair, and I should be grateful if the Government would reconsider that possibility.
      Mr. Gariner: I support the thrust of new clause 3, which was so sensibly introduced by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Their concerns are abundantly sensible and, I suggest, not capable of contradiction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, they were brilliantly reinforced by the example given by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
      One of the further reasons why the new clause and the amendment deserve consideration is that on Second Reading the Home Secretary relied on the Scottish example to justify not allowing the criminal defendant the right of election. He said:
      Scotland is, rightly, held out to be a nation with a more effective criminal justice system than ours. There, the decision on mode of trial has never rested with the defendant, but is made by the prosecutor.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886.]
      He said that that offered a complete response to the question that he was endeavouring to answer. He made use of that example by relying on a false premise.
      In Scotland, the prosecutor chooses the venue, but the sheriff who tries the summary case is the equivalent of a stipendiary magistrate or a circuit judge in this jurisdiction, not a bench of lay magistrates. Moreover, the maximum sentence available on summary trial in Scotland is three months, not six, and unlike in this country, the summary court has no power to commit a convicted defendant to a higher court for a more severe sentence if it feels that its powers are insufficient.
      On Second Reading, the Home Secretary was trying to persuade the House of Commons that the Scottish example was of some value to us in our deliberations on the Bill. For the reasons that have been outlined by the hon. Member for Stafford in his new clause, and those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, the Home Secretary's arguments are without merit. I invite the House to pay considerable attention to what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have just said.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for
      998
      arriving slightly late. I heard the end of his speech and all that of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), and I understand the argument.
      I support in general—because it is logical—the proposition that people should know in advance the potential consequences for them of a certain plea, but I want to make a point that is slightly different from those that have been made so far. If ever there was an argument for not legislating now, it is evidenced by this debate.
      We should consider the terms of reference for the Auld committee. A review is in progress: Lord Justice Auld is going around the country collecting evidence. He is also going abroad and looking at other jurisdictions, and considering the Scottish experience. He has asked some profound questions, which relate to issues such as this but which also go wider. He asks, for example, whether there should be only one form of court. Should the magistrates court and the Crown court be merged to avoid the committal process? Should there be two types of judge, a full-time professional judge and a part-time lay judge? Should the work be divided between them, but in the same court?
      Should there be different rules about who might be on a jury? Many of us are disqualified from jury service. Is the way in which we form juries correct, or ought we to review the methods of selection in order to include people who may currently be excluded? Some say that juries are currently very unbalanced, because many "professional" people submit the equivalent of sick notes, with the result that juries do not represent the true balance of the community as we would wish them to.
      Should there be more stipendiary magistrates, or more lay magistrates? We could have an important debate about that. Which would command more confidence among the electorate, and the public as a whole? Which would cost more?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I invite the hon. Member to home in on the new clause? He is buzzing around it rather too much.
      Mr. Hughes: I am trying not to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to make the point that the question whether a limit should be placed on the sentencing power of the lower court is one of a set of interrelated questions that ought to be considered together. We could say, "Yes, this is logical in itself", but many earlier questions should be answered before we answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Stafford.
      I shall be interested to hear the Government's reply, but I would be far more interested to hear that an up-to-date objective assessment will be available to us by December this year. Lord Justice Auld has said that he expects to report in December, that he is on time, and that he expects to have the evidence. It would be good for the parties to have an opportunity, in the run-up to the general election, to decide how to respond. We could each submit our views in our manifestos: we could have considered internal party debates, and could go to the electorate with our views.
      We could have a real debate about the best criminal justice system. That debate might include a view about whether the sentencing power of the lower court—assuming that the two-tier court structure is retained—should accord with the Scottish system. In Scotland,

      999
      once someone knows that he will be dealt with in the lower court—whether he has chosen that, or has been told that it will happen—he knows that the tariff cannot be changed, that the possible sentence cannot be upped, and that there is no risk of a complete change in the balance of prejudice or disadvantage.
      Finally, let me make a practical point. Like others, I speak from experience. As anyone who has been in court will know, an important consideration for defendants is what the potential sentence will be. That consideration is bound to influence a plea. People sometimes plead guilty although they are not guilty, for all sorts of reasons. If they think the sentence will be limited, they may feel that the risk is worth taking.
      It should be borne in mind that taking away a right will also take away a power, and may disadvantage a person further. My colleagues and I are unhappy about taking away that right: we have already argued our case. We will not support the Bill on Third Reading, however it may have been amended, because we think that the process has been dealt with in the wrong way. However, both the hon. Member for Stafford and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) ask perfectly proper questions. This should be one of a series of interconnected considerations, on which we should reach a comprehensive and serious view
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), with whom I have served on the Select Committee on the Treasury, has a strong and genuine view, which he has held throughout. I pay tribute to the integrity with which he consistently makes his case. I think I am right in saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—that his fundamental objection is to the approach taken throughout the Bill as a whole and that, even if the new clause were accepted, that would not change his view about the matter as a whole.
      Mr. Kidney indicated assent.
      Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend confirms that that is his view. [Interruption.] The Whips suggest that I was trying to bargain, but there was no doing business there. However, joking aside, I appreciate his confirming that. I am glad that he has made the position clear.
      I will deal with my hon. Friend's points in reverse order. On the illusory savings point, I addressed that at great length in Committee. The Government rest their case on the Bill being a modernisation of the criminal justice system, which is justified in its own terms. We are required under the law of the land to set out our estimate of the savings. We must set out in a memorandum our estimate of the savings, which we have done honestly and directly, but the Bill does not rest on the accuracy of those assumptions or, indeed, on the fact of there being savings at all.
      It is possible that the assumptions that we have made will not, in practice, turn out to be exactly as we predict. That is entirely understandable, but that does not, in our view, change the case for or against the Bill in any respect, because it is about modernisation of the criminal justice system.
      1000
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) raised points about the reputation issue, which, if he permits me, I shall deal with in the discussion on the next group of amendments—which addresses that point directly—rather than reiterate my points now.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) advances the argument for delaying all this—again, we discussed the matter in Committee at some length—to wait for Auld, as it were. I accept that there is a perfectly coherent argument for that, although I do not accept—I have not accepted it with any process of commission change, inquiry or review of any part of the Government's work—that that inquiry or review, whatever form it takes, should prevent reform as we go forward; in this case, it takes the form of the Auld inquiry. There is a case for looking at it in the way he suggests, but I do not accept that case. 1 do not think that it is right.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister explain why the Government commissioned a senior Lord Justice to conduct an inquiry, specifically asking him to address that question, if, in the meantime and since he was asked to do it, they have been determined to legislate when they have not had any answer? I do not understand the logic. They did not do it on fox hunting—they set up a commission, got the inquiry and then announced how they were going to proceed.
      Mr. Clarke: The terms of reference of the Auld inquiry go far wider than simply the mode of trial issue. By the way, the first mode of trial Bill was presented before Mr. Justice Auld was appointed. We embarked on that course of action because we thought that the reform was justified in its own terms. As I say, there is a perfectly respectable argument that says that we should not do anything about any of these things until Auld reports, but I do not accept that argument and nor do the Government.
      Mr. Garnier: The point I wish to make follows on from what from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. Let us assume that the Bill becomes law, but that, none the less, Sir Robin Auld in his inquiry reaches a completely different conclusion about the value of the jury. What will the Government do then?
      Mr. Clarke: We will look at all Sir Robin Auld's recommendations. I do not think the issue is about a verdict on the value of the jury. There is no issue about the value of the jury. I was going to address a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on the matter. I do not share the view that jury trial is wasteful, in the wording of the briefing from which my hon. Friend read. I do not think that is a correct way to look at it. I do think that aspects of the way the criminal justice system works are inefficient and ineffective, and it is reasonable to look at that from a wide range of points of view. That is what the Bill is about, but the word "wasteful"—I agree with my hon. Friend—is wrong.
      In the same way, I do not think that anything we do in the Bill prevents us from looking carefully at precisely what Sir Robin Auld recommends when he comes to do so, but the core point was raised by my hon. Friend when

      1001
      he described the measure as the Scottish amendment. He talks of the trade-off between the sentencing powers and the prosecutor taking the decision.
      Much was made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the Scottish example. The point of that example is that in the Scottish system—a completely different system, as is acknowledged by all parties in the debate—the prosecutor takes the decision as to the mode of trial. We are not proposing that. That is simply not the proposal in the Bill and before the House. We propose that a magistrates court—a magistrate—takes that decision, not that the prosecutor takes it, so the trade in the proposal is simply not appropriate to this situation.
      example that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway gave, and to which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred, was just that—an example. The defence's ability to choose in these circumstances is not absolute.
      9.45 pm
      The fact is that this group of amendments would remove the ability of the magistrates court to commit a case to the Crown court for sentence if there has been a mode of trial hearing. It has long been a feature of our criminal justice system in England and Wales that the magistrates have a power to commit a case for sentence if the circumstances of the offence suggest that the punishment that the court would have to impose following a conviction would be inadequate. We believe that there is nothing inherently unfair with that procedure, as a defendant will generally be committed to the higher court for sentence only because his previous criminal record has aggravated the offence. Our estimate is that, as a result of the Bill, about 8 per cent. of formally electing cases will be committed to the Crown court for sentence.
      Mr. Kidney: I cannot forbear from saying that the practice of magistrates committing for sentence after the trial is as long-standing as the accused's right to choose trial in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court. However, that is by the bye. My hon. Friend said that the Scottish system was different because, in that system, it is the prosecutor who takes away the accused's right of jury trial, whereas, in the Bill, it will be the magistrates who do it. However, the principle of the two systems is the same, as the accused will not have a choice in either. What difference does it make if the prosecutor rather than the court makes the decision?
      Mr. Clarke: I think that there is a qualitative difference—perhaps my hon. Friend does not share this view—between the decision on mode of trial being made by the prosecutor and the decision being made by a court with a right of appeal to the Crown court. l do not think that the two processes are the same thing at all. I think that the decisions are quite different in character and in approach, and that, therefore, there is no comparison between them. As I said, the Scottish system has an entirely different history and set of circumstances, and it deals with the matter in that way. I think that there is a difference in approach that should be reflected quite directly in our system.
      Our critics have suggested that there will be many more cases in which defendants are committed for sentence because so many who opt for that route have lengthy
      1002
      criminal careers. However, it does not automatically follow that defendants have to go to the Crown court for sentence just because they have a long criminal record. We believe that magistrates are able to deal with most defendants' previous records without committing them for sentence. Nevertheless, the power to commit for sentence is an important safeguard. It ensures that the courts can impose an appropriate punishment in cases that unexpectedly turn out during the trial to be more serious than was anticipated, or in cases in which a defendant's previous conviction has seriously aggravated the offence
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Before the Government presented their proposals, did they consider the Scottish option of the prosecutor making the choice? Did they also consider the option of limiting the right to commit cases to the Crown court? Did Ministers evaluate those options, and can they present any evidence to support their conclusions?
      Mr. Clarke: There was very full consideration of those issues. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway has already mentioned the royal commission and all the processes surrounding it. I have to confess, however, that I do not think that very full consideration was given to the idea of going straight to the prosecutor, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, simply because most people in this country would think that that is a proposal too far. Therefore, although the option was on the agenda for discussion, I would not say that it was considered very fully. I think that most hon. Members and most members of the public would not think that using the prosecutor in that way is the right way to proceed.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: With respect to my hon. Friend, I wonder whether he will deal with the central point. How can it be right that a magistrates court can take upon itself the responsibility to try a case, knowing nothing of the defendant's previous convictions, but then abnegate responsibility for sentencing that person when they do? Does he not understand from his experience that the two cannot be divorced and that the nature of the defendant's background impinges on the trial? What my hon. Friend is asking magistrates to do is not only wrong but impossible.
      Mr. Clarke: I understand that. It is a powerful argument for the reputation clauses in the first Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill that was considered by the other place. It was a case against which he, along with many others, argued. Indeed, he argued against the whole Bill, as he is entitled to do. There is a case for bringing in reputation. It is one that the Government were prepared to consider directly, but many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, argued that we should not do so.
      I have attempted to deal with the arguments that have been made. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will consider withdrawing his new clause. If he decides not to do so, I will urge my colleagues to vote against it.
      Mr. Kidney: I am grateful for, but not thrilled by, the support that I have received from Opposition Members. I am especially grateful for all that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said because it accords with my view that the Bill is wrong

      1003
      in principle, that the Lord Justice Auld review ought to consider all the matters together and that we should not take this one out of context now.
      As the hon. Gentleman was not here when I spoke, I should just mention that in its briefing the Association of Magisterial Officers set out a number of practical changes in the procedures of the magistrates and Crown courts which would go a long way to meeting the Government's objections to the state of affairs in those courts.
      My hon. Friend the Minister found me out very early. I would be against the Bill even if he accepted the new clause. It would be a self-indulgence to insist on a vote when other important issues remain to be debated tonight; so with the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      DETERMINATION OF MODE OF TRIAL
      Mr. Matins: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
      (aa) any written representations from the victim;'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 1, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '(b) all the circumstances of the offence and of the accused including his antecedents if any; and'.
      No. 6, in page 1, line 13, leave out
      '(but not of the accused)'
      and insert "and of the accused".
      No. 9, in page 1, line 17, leave out "paragraph (b)" and insert—
      'paragraphs (a), (b) and (d)'.
      No. 8, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
      'and
      (d) the antecedents of the accused.'.
      No. 19, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
      '; and
      (d) whether in all circumstances of the case a denial of jury trial would impinge upon the rights not only of the accused but also of the community at large to have the matter considered and adjudicated by a jury.'.
      Mr. Malins: It occurs to me that we now have approximately one hour to debate not only this but other groups of amendments. That imposes on me the need to be brief because other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak.
      This group of amendments relates to matters to be considered by the court when determining mode of trial. I speak initially to amendment No. 5, but I shall also speak to my amendments Nos. 6, 9 and 8. Amendment No. 5 refers to taking into account any written representations from the victim. Amendment No. 6 would make the clause read that the court shall consider
      any of the circumstances of the offence and of the accused
      rather than
      but not of the accused.
      1004
      Amendment No. 8 entitles the court to take into account the antecedents of the accused in reaching its decision. Amendment No. 9 is merely a tidying up.
      I recall the Home Secretary saying at the beginning of our proceedings this afternoon that he could do business with the Opposition on the reputation clause, so I look to the Government tonight to take into account what they hear and to promise to do something in the spirit of what is suggested.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: To clarify the terms of trade, as it were, if the Government accepted amendments on reputation, would the hon. Gentleman support the Bill, and does he believe that his Front-Bench spokesmen would?
      Mr. Malins: I cannot speak for the Front-Bench spokesmen, and the nearest I have ever got to the Front Bench is to go and ask the Whip on duty what time the next vote is. I therefore have to speak for myself alone.
      Much reference has been made to trial by jury, magistrates or stipendiary magistrates. I do not think that the House would wish us to talk in terms of having a better trial in one venue or another. As I said on Second Reading, a trial before a lay bench can be very good or very bad, depending on the day. The same applies to a stipendiary magistrate and to a jury. It is not so much about having a better trial, because all the venues can give a defendant a wonderful trial or not such a wonderful trial, depending on the circumstances. It is a question not of a better trial but of a different trial. We have to focus on defendants' ability and need, and hitherto their right, to ask for a jury trial because it is what they want.
      The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is to be congratulated on everything that he has done on the general theme of taking all the factors into account—including the effect on the reputation of a defendant, when that is at stake. That is why I shall speak briefly and then hand over to other Members who want to contribute to the debate.
      It is important that, when the court considers whether the offence should be tried summarily or on indictment, it should be fully informed on the case. That means everything; it does not mean holding back from the court some of the defendant's background in respect of his previous convictions. I should have much less objection to the Bill if it permitted magistrates, when hearing representations, to hear from the defence much more about the defendant—about his or her background and antecedents, his or her life style, job or reputation—or, for example, to hear what victims think and what the effect has been on them.
      If one is to make a decision about punishment and mode of trial, it is important for the court in question to be fully informed as to the background. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said, as though it were the most powerful argument:
      It cannot be right that we continue to allow repeat offenders with strings of previous convictions to demand full Crown court trials for trivial offences that can and should be heard in magistrates courts.
      He continued:
      A 26-year-old man with 15 previous convictions covering a total of 63 offences, including 36 offences of theft, elected trial for the offence of stealing one bottle of champagne. I ask the House

      1005
      whether it is sensible to have a system that allows that kind of election for trial.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000: Vol. 345,c. 888-95.]
      Let us suppose that the Home Secretary is right. Under my amendments, what would happen? The court would hear everything about the defendant from his own lips—including his antecedent history. In the case of the person with the 63 previous, who has stolen a bottle of whisky, the court could—under my proposals—say that no, that person would be tried in the magistrates court, or the court could say yes if that was just. The Home Secretary's point would thus be completely covered. If the Minister thinks that is not so, he must tell me.
      Likewise, under my proposals, the defendant who wants the court to take into account the fact that he is a person of entirely good character and would like to be tried by his peers can say that to the court. The court can then take that into account. If it decides against the defendant, that decision is subject to appeal to the Crown court.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman's proposals were accepted and magistrates courts heard the panoply of arguments, would that court have no further jurisdiction after it had decided on the mode of trial? Thereafter, would different magistrates and a different clerk have to deal with that defendant? When any such group had dealt with a defendant, those people could no longer be involved in the case.
      Mr. Malins: It is common practice that one cannot try a case in a magistrates court if one has heard the bail application. It is as simple as that. When I hear bail applications, I hear all the antecedent history and am thus debarred from taking the trial. That is everyday practice in magistrates courts. There would be a fresh bench.
      It is miserable not to permit a court to take into account everything about the defendant—including background, antecedent history, previous convictions and general reputation. That is wrong, unfair and unjust. If the magistrates court makes the wrong decision, the Crown court can put it right. I venture to suggest that, if my amendments were accepted, most people would think that the position was much fairer than it is at present.
      Mr. Garnier: I speak to amendment No. 19, tabled by myself and other Opposition Members. It would insert in clause 1, and thereby in section 19 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, a further paragraph. At the moment, section 19(1) of the 1980 Act, as amended by clause 1 of the Bill, would say:
      The court—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill [Lords] and the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Question agreed to.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Garnier: The Act would say:
  (1) The court shall consider whether the offence
  ought to be tried summarily or on indictment.
  (2) For the purpose of subsection (I) above the court shall consider—

  (a) the nature of the case;

  (b) any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused) which appears to the court to be relevant; and

  (c) whether, having regard to the matters to be considered under paragraph (b), the punishment which a magistrates' court would have power to impose for the offence would be adequate.

  We ask that there should be a further paragraph (d) which reads:
  whether in all circumstances of the case a denial of jury trial would impinge upon the rights not only of the accused but also of the community at large to have the matter considered and adjudicated by a jury.
  I make it clear at the outset that my arguments, and those of my party, against the Bill as a whole do not depend on attacking or denigrating the lay magistracy. Magistrates do a magnificent job, for no pay and mean expenses. Over 90 per cent. of all cases that fall within the criminal or quasi-criminal jurisdiction go before magistrates. That includes parking and motoring matters, licensing applications and cases that we would all recognise as criminal. Magistrates form a vital part of the jigsaw of local justice, which the official Opposition want to strengthen and enhance. Our argument is not that magistrates cannot do the job that the Bill gives them, but that, as a matter of justice and fairness, they should not have to.
  The right to jury trial has always been regarded as central to our system of criminal justice. That is because the system, unlike many others, is adversarial. Serious criminal cases brought by the state should not be tried by the state's appointees, but should be tried by fellow citizens drawn at random. That has always been regarded as particularly important to defend the rights of minorities and dissidents who are likely to be, or could be, unpopular with judges and appointed magistrates.
  The truth of that proposition—I should have thought that the contrary was unarguable—has been tested in a great many cases throughout history, but I just want to refer to two examples, in relatively recent times.
  In 1975, a young, former South African, active campaigner against apartheid was charged with theft from a bank. There remains considerable suspicion that the case was a set-up by the South African security services. The case was vigorously prosecuted, but the jury at the central criminal court in London would have none of it, and the defendant was properly acquitted. He is now a Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Under the terms of the Bill, there is a near certainty that he would now be denied jury trial.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): rose—
  Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish the paragraph?

  1007
  The second example that I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that of Clive Ponting, who was tried at the central criminal court, just after the Falklands war was completed, for leaking Government documents relating to the Belgrano. Despite directions from the trial judge, in effect to—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ponting did not leak those documents. He sent them to me, and I treated them as a proceeding in Parliament.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not given way. Mr. Edward Garnier.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned the Belgrano.
  Mr. Garnier: Let me—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order
  Mr. Garnier: Let me accept, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, that what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said is perfectly right, but I am aware of the way in which time is marching on and I do not consider that the fact that that particular detail was not included in my remarks alters the thrust of what I am attempting to say. Undeniably, the hon. Gentleman knows more about the facts of the Clive Ponting case than most of us, but the point is that Clive Ponting was acquitted despite the vigorous directions of the judge.
  A further reason why we submit that paragraph (d) should be added to the section is that the ethnic minority communities, or a large number of members of those communities, have a perception that they do not receive equal treatment in front of the magistrates. No one suggests that that is a universal practice, but it is a strongly held perception in such groups.
  The right to elect trial is the most valuable method of curing problems—both real and perceived. I make that point as a public supporter of the lay magistracy—I made that clear earlier—and even though I do not share the perception of ethnic minority communities that they do not receive equal treatment before lay magistrates. Magistrates will decide whether a case should remain with them or go to the Crown court. Unless they bear in mind such considerations, and bear in mind the rights of the accused and the rights of the community at large, who both have an interest in seeing that justice is done, they will arrive at what will be seen as unfair decisions.
  Any number of bodies interested in criminal justice—they range from the Criminal Bar Association to the Society of Labour Lawyers—find this Bill wholly objectionable. To a small extent, their concerns might be mitigated were paragraph (d) in amendment No. 19 to be inserted into the Bill. Of more importance than the concerns of the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council, the Society of Labour Lawyers, the Society of Liberal Democrat Lawyers or, indeed, the Society of Conservative Lawyers are the concerns of the Society of
  1008
  Black Lawyers. When such a body, speaking out of genuine interest and genuine knowledge of the fears of its community, expresses doubts about the wisdom of the Bill, the House should pay careful attention. In making those remarks, I remind the House and, in particular, this Home Secretary of the concerns of Mr. Imran Khan, the solicitor instructed on behalf of the Lawrence family to appear for them at the Macpherson inquiry.
  I also remind the House of the words of Mr. Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers. He said that it feared that the Bill, without the corrections that we seek to make to it, would add to the loss of confidence in the summary justice system that many of its clients already have.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It would greatly assist the House, and certainly my hon. and learned Friend's colleagues, if he would tell us what his opinion of the Bill would be if the Government accepted amendment No. 15, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and which would include the reputation and livelihood tests. Although 1 am against the Bill, if Ministers were to accept that amendment, I would regard the Bill as greatly improved to the point that I would probably withhold my opposition to it on Third Reading. It would help if my hon. and learned Friend would tell us the view that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen take of amendment No. 15.
  Mr. Garnier: I am happy to do that. In my view, the Bill is fundamentally flawed from top to bottom and I do not believe that the House should give it passage. I am not as charitable as my right hon. and learned Friend in thinking that even an amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) would cure the fundamental objections that the official Opposition have to the Bill. I made my views on what the future of the Bill should be clear on Second Reading. I have heard and learned nothing from the Government to persuade me that the view that I took then was wrong. The principle that I supported on Second Reading in opposition to the Bill is one that should honourably be maintained. I am not persuaded that any tinkering—even if it might mitigate some of the worst effects of this bad Bill—would overcome my overall principled objections.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: This point is similar to that made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Am I correct in my understanding that the Opposition Front-Bench position will not change, whatever amendments we may pass this evening?
  Mr. Garnier: The position is entirely clear—this is a bad Bill in principle. We spoke and voted against it on Second Reading. Although I understand the practicalities of the voting arithmetic and I know that the Bill will move to another place, I am happy to say that this is a bicameral Parliament and it is up to the other House to add their views to those of this House before the Bill becomes an Act.
  Mr. Leigh: The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is very important. Towards the end

  1009
  of the Committee proceedings, it was clear to me that the Government were considering making a concession on this point. I see the Minister nodding. I hope that further discussions can take place on amendment No. 15, which is vital because it would greatly improve the Bill if magistrates could take into account someone's good character.
  Mr. Garnier: Further discussions may well take place, but I will not negotiate with the Government across the Dispatch Box. I repeat that this is a bad Bill in principle, and, as the Opposition spokesman, it is my job to argue—cogently, I hope, and with some persuasion—against the principle. I think that I have the support of the Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats.
  If the Government want to table amendments, we will consider them. As I said a moment ago, I cannot control the destiny of the Bill. The Government have the majority, and we are merely interested bystanders.
  Mr. Hogg: Participating bystanders.
  Mr. Garnier: We are interested and participating bystanders, but, to the extent that this is a joint enterprise in the sense of the criminal law, I can acquit myself of having been guilty of supporting the Bill.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Minister's questions are rather strange? Either the Bill will be improved by such an amendment, and the Minister thinks so, or it will not be. If it will be improved, the Minister should be ready to accept that without giving the impression that it is a concession in return for something else.
  Mr. Garnier: That is a fair point and it was well made. If the Government want to make the Bill less bad, let them do so—they have the power to do so—but it is not my job, on behalf of the official Opposition, to tear up my principles and my principled objection to the Bill simply because the Minister and the Home Secretary have been embarrassed this afternoon. I am sure that Liberal Democrat Members agree.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I certainly associate myself with that view. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we were to introduce a means to decide the venue by requiring the defendant to provide information on his antecedents, there would be greater prejudice against someone with a criminal history, even though that history might be irrelevant to the offence that they had been charged with?
  Mr. Garnier: The Government have introduced into this debate and earlier debates many points that do not address the serious problems that we are having to face as a consequence of the Bill's introduction. If the Government want to make suggestions about how they can mitigate the Bill's worst consequences, that is a matter for them. I am not prepared to allow them to amend the Bill on the hoof this evening.
  I shall conclude because I know that other Members want to contribute to our limited discussions. I have made the point about the ethnic minority communities, and there is a valid point that the public interest would be served if
  1010
  the interests of the community at large could be considered by the court in deciding venue. I hope that the House will agree.
  The criminal justice system is largely consensual. We do not have—I know from experience as a recorder—armed guards and prisoners in shackles, restrained in the dock. Indeed, a number of defendants in court before me have sat not in the dock, but in the lawyers' seats just a little way from the judge's bench. The reason why defendants are left in court by themselves almost, on trust, is that, guilty men are sentenced—perhaps unfortunately, from their point of view, to a long term of imprisonment—knowing that they have been justly convicted by their fellow citizens who have heard the evidence during a trial.
  The Government are putting in danger the consensual nature of our criminal justice system. It is all the more important that the consensual issue is reflected through the addition of amendment No. 19. I appreciate that my overriding objection to the Bill is one of principle, of which I spoke on Second Reading. Nothing that the Government have said or done since has tempted me to move from that position. If we are to have an appalling Bill, let us do our best to mitigate its appalling consequences
  10.15pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I speak as someone who has grave reservations about the wisdom of proceeding with the Bill, especially in the light of the fact that the Auld commission has been charged with the task of comprehensively reviewing the criminal justice system. Incidentally, I also speak as a member of the Bar.
  I tend to support the Government on the amendments. Although many hon. Members have raised valid points concerning the reputation clause, I take the view that, logically, it is right, in order to avoid the possible charge that a reputation clause is socially divisive, for the Government to have moved—they take the view that the venue should be determined judicially and not left to the defendant—to a neutral position on the antecedents of the defendant, having clearly been stung by criticism levelled against the Bill in the other place.
  I see the force in the argument that allowing weight to be given to reputation and antecedents would create the danger of a socially divisive system—a Rolls-Royce system for those with an unblemished character and a summary trial system for those, perhaps including very many members of ethnic communities, who have records.
  Mr. Hogg: It is difficult for the court to form a view of whether punishment would be adequate, as it is directed to do under proposed new section 19(2)(c), without knowing the antecedents of the accused. In the absence of knowledge, it is difficult to determine an appropriate penalty.
  Mr. ThomasI take on board what has been said. Although I have made broadly positive comments about the clause, the Government should address the following point. Does not common sense suggest that a bench of magistrates will, one way or another, want to take into account the character of a defendant? Even if magistrates do not want to do so, is it not true, given what some uncharitably call the intellectual dishonesty of this

  1011
  country's higher judiciary and others call their simple ingenuity, that a body of precedent will develop on appeal—the principle of interlocutory appeal is embedded in the legislation—which will in some way or another bring into play the question of character?
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has told us that the previous Lord Chief Justice pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect decision makers not to take into account a defendant's character in some way, so how confident can the Government be that antecedents will not come into play at the end of the day?
  Mr. Leigh: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he is being fair to the Government, because the Bill is absolutely clear. New section 19(2)(b) states that the court can consider
  any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused)…
  Therefore, no case law can develop because the magistrates court will not be able to consider the circumstances of the accused. Considering antecedents is not socially divisive: men and women of good character can come from any social background.
  Mr. Thomas: Given that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Bar, I am surprised that he underestimates the courts' ingenuity in getting around such provisions. I draw his attention to new section 19(2)(a), which states that the court can take into account circumstances including
  the nature of the case.
  I have a bald question for my hon. Friend the Minister to answer, if he can. Is it his understanding that a case that lawyers might describe as "a typical shoplifting case", in which the only issue is dishonesty and the defendant is of previous good character, would have to remain in the magistrates court? To what extent is that a realistic assessment, given that, as we know, the previous Lord Chief Justice is not alone in taking the view that common sense suggests that character must be taken into account?
  I sense that the Government are ambivalent about the issue. It is clear that they were stung by the arguments advanced in the other place that the first Bill would have been socially divisive. However, in view of the throwaway remark that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier tonight, that the Government were prepared to "do business" on the question of the reputation clause, I wonder whether they know what they want to do in that respect. Given that others want to participate in this debate, I conclude my remarks on that note.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I rise to commend amendment No. 15. First, however, I should make it clear that I regard the Bill as fundamentally unsound and I do not believe that the requests for a bargain made by Home Secretary and the Minister of State are appropriate. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose and then to try to improve a Bill if they can. The Bill is a bad one, but it would be less bad if my amendment were made.
  Amendment No. 15 would ensure that, in deciding where trial shall take place, the court shall be entitled to take into account all the circumstances, both of the
  1012
  offence and of the accused. The Lord Chief Justice—who supported the first Bill, which I did not—recommended that provision, and the Home Secretary knew that when he introduced the current Bill; regrettably, however, the right hon. Gentleman left the impression that the Lord Chief Justice supported the Bill as it stood. The Bill would be a better Bill if it were amended as I propose.
  I tabled an amendment similar to amendment No. 19 in Committee, and I should like to speak in support of it now. When we are considering jury trial, it is not only the rights of an accused to be tried by jury that should be taken into account. There are the rights also of the citizens of this country as a whole, expressed through each little parliament which a jury constitutes, to set the standards of criminal justice. It is one of the great linchpins of our democracy.
  This is nothing theoretical. I can say as a former Attorney-General that when we—the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, or other senior prosecutors—came to discuss cases and questions of prosecution, one of the matters that was always considered was whether a jury would be likely to convict in the circumstances of the case. That is a salutary consideration for those who have the honour to govern the country from time to time. It is not the Government who decide the criminal prosecution system. The Attorney-General and the Law Officers as a whole are Her Majesty's Law Officers and they stand independently in a quasi-judicial position. It is salutary that they should consider the views of ordinary people.
  Mr. Grieve: It is all the more remarkable that little parliaments exist to deal with matters that the Government consider so trivial that they do not wish a person to have that protection.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: That is why the Government are deeply mistaken in their view. As my hon. Friend says, one of the great benefits of our system of justice is that it is largely consensual. One of the reasons for that is the huge spectrum of either-way cases where people have a right at present to choose trial by jury. If they want trial by jury, they choose it. If they do not, they accept the system. Either way, and even if they plead guilty later, they are confident and comfortable with the system of justice which we in England and Wales are proud to have and regard as second to none.
  Mr. Hogg: On amendment No. 19, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are cases where the prosecution might be deemed oppressive or the procedures adopted by the prosecution authorities might be deemed unreasonable? In such cases, the jury might refuse to convict. The refusal of the jury is a proper constraint on the ability of the prosecution to prosecute, or on the ability of the police to prosecute in the way that they did.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is a protection against tyranny; it would be a fundamental mistake to seek to remove it.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I say somewhat unwillingly that I cannot support the amendments, which would effectively reintroduce the livelihood and reputation clause. As much of the debate has been spent by the

  1013
  occupants of the Government Front Bench telling those of us who fought against the clause, "There you are, it is all your fault", perhaps I might go into a little history, which will take not very long.
  Jury trial has long been in the sights of a number of people, not a million miles away from the Treasury, who believe that people going to it who are not charged with terribly serious offences are getting Rolls-Royce treatment which they do not deserve. It has long been the idea that that treatment should be taken away from them. They hit what appeared to be the immovable rock that, for some people with great reputations, livelihoods and jobs—not necessarily posh people or rich people, but people who have fought against the system and managed against all the odds to make themselves respectable and to have jobs—the loss of livelihood is far more important than it is for many others who are charged with much more serious crimes.
  Thus there was a problem. It was overcome by the Runciman commission, which introduced the reputation solution. Thereafter, it was enthusiastically endorsed by a number of others. I quote:
  There will be safeguards, including a requirement on magistrates to consider the effect of conviction on a defendant's reputation and livelihood when considering the mode of trial.
  That was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the beginning of the Bill's consideration. He was speaking not to the House, because the Bill was not announced in the House. It was announced at the Police Federation, at which my right hon. Friend made a speech indicating how central and important "reputation and livelihood" were if unfairness was not to be created. Of course, the Home Secretary missed the point, which was well set out in the House of Lords—that a safeguard is created for one class and immediately removed from another, creating partial justice.
  What is partial justice? Is it worse than justice given to a few? The Government's solution was to take justice away from everybody. Nobody could have it. That was the result. Now, reputation cannot be taken into account at all. The crass absurdity of that position is emphasised time and again by anybody who knows anything about the criminal justice system. It will give rise to massive injustice and cause huge delay.
  10.30 pm
  The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) was absolutely right. Shoplifting offenders are now out of the system. They will not be able to have jury trial at all.
  The position is worse than that. The example was given of Mr. Peter Hain, as he then was, before he became Minister of State. I can tell the House that his chances of getting a jury trial under the Bill would be very small, if not non-existent. Moreover, if he had been tried in front of a stipendiary magistrate in the south-western magistrates court, in the atmosphere prevailing when the antiapartheid movement was active, his chances of acquittal would have been zero.
  If that is what those on the Front Bench want to impose on people in this country, I am extremely surprised. It comes from a Government who we always believed would uphold the traditions of civil liberty.
  Mr. David Taylor: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. No doubt he
  1014
  would agree that reputation and livelihood can be central issues, but is it not the case that many offences are at present summary only, and that the charge could damage the reputation and livelihood of the accused? I cite as an example indecent exposure by a minister of religion.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is right, and a line must be drawn somewhere. That line should be very low; it is probably drawn too high at present. However, it should not be extended to offences of dishonesty, which can ruin and destroy reputations and are much more prevalent than the type of offences cited by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is opposing amendment No. 15 on the ground that it induces two classes of justice. I think that he would agree that, when it comes to sentencing, there are by his own criteria already two classes of justice, because the court, when determining whether to send to the Crown court for sentence, will necessarily have regard to the antecedents of the accused appearing before that court.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is because the magistrates' powers are limited. It is not merely a question of their wanting to go further on a sliding scale. If they want to impose a sentence of more than six or 12 months, or whatever the limit is, they must commit. Before that, under the present system, they would not know about the antecedents. The explanation is perfectly reasonable.
  I maintain my opposition, which is based on the partiality of justice. The Bill is rotten at its core. Everybody who practises in the criminal justice system, outside the Magistrates Association and the Police Federation, knows it in his heart. I implore the Government, while there is still time, to rethink the legislation.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I add my support, along the lines of the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The amendments in the present group do not solve the difficulties of the Bill. They do not make a bad Bill a good Bill.
  There is one amendment in the group that has the joint support of those on the Conservative Front Bench and my hon. Friends and me. It seeks to make sure that there is a consideration of the wider public interest. That was well expressed, if I may say so, by the former Attorney-General. The central argument for jury trial is that it is the people, not the establishment, who make the decision, whereas it is, by definition, somebody on behalf of the state who makes the decision to prosecute, so the functions must be separated. Therefore, the wider interest needs to be represented.
  According to the Government's figures, we are talking about never more than 5 per cent. of the cases in the past five years ending up in the Crown court, and sometimes less.
  The Government put in the reputation clause, which was rightly rejected in the other place, principally because it created a two-tier system of justice. An obvious example is a that of a head teacher who would be thought to be at greater risk of damage to his or her reputation than an unemployed person entering adulthood. That is

  1015
  clearly discriminatory, and, on that basis, the Lords rightly threw it out. The Government were then completely stuck about what to do.
  The revealing correspondence between the Home Secretary and the former Lord Chief Justice, recently retired, shows that the Government do not have a position of principle. The Government seek to take away the option of jury trial for everyone who has that option but for no other principle than that there is some vague benefit, arguably, that the resulting justice will be more efficient and cost less. There is no principle there.
  The strongest argument in practice for not going into the prehistory is that, if antecedents were allowed—the circumstances of the accused—then, by definition, the person with a record would be less likely to be looked on favourably by the court. The court is more likely to think that it can try the case. However, there is a paradox, which has been well put by Justice, which says:
  The controversial provision for the court to consider reputation and livelihood, which discriminated in favour of those with apparently good character has been removed; but this is likely to lead to more cases being retained by magistrates. It should be also noted that the new criteria are likely to lead to a new, and diametrically opposite, discrimination. Sentences are likely to be higher in respect of people with previous criminal convictions, who may therefore be outside the court's sentencing powers.
  The courts discover that someone has previous convictions and so think that they have too little power to sentence them, so they are sent to the higher court for a trial by jury—
  Mr. Hogg: For sentence.
  Mr. Hughes: For sentence—and those with previously good character will be more likely to be tried summarily. One old discrimination, namely, reputation, is being substituted for a new discrimination, and neither is a satisfactory resolution. That compares with the old and present alternative, which is that the defendant makes the choice, and has to be accountable only to himself for the choice that he makes.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in the debate on the Football (Disorder) Bill last week, we had a similar discussion about the role of people's past records in deciding what sort of justice would be available to them—in that case, for a police officer. Does the amendment that the hon. Gentleman supports mean that any examination of people's previous records could not be taken into account in deciding whether they had a right to a jury trial?
  Mr. Hughes: Liberal Democrats support only amendment No. 19. We do not believe that there should be a revelation of antecedents, and so on. The circumstances of the accused should not come into consideration at the beginning, only the circumstances of the offence; otherwise those with previous convictions are bound to be discriminated against.
  Mr. James Clappison: Is it not the nature of the Government's proposal that we are being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils?
  Mr. Hughes: That is exactly the issue. We have a perfectly good, workable system, with fewer and fewer
  1016
  people choosing to go to the Crown court, with lower costs and fewer delays, and we are being offered two definitely less advantageous and less libertarian alternatives. Both alternatives prejudice the defendant. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we should reject both. Let us stand firm; we should not believe that the Bill can be remedied by the first five amendments in the group.
  Mr. Hogg: I want to comment briefly on amendments Nos. 15 and 19. I adopt the same position as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The Bill is a bad measure, but the question is whether we should accept amendment No. 15. We should not make a bargain because the Bill is bad. However, the measure would be much less bad if amendment No. 15 were incorporated in it.
  I accept that there is a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion; I understand that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) take a different view, but I feel strongly that justice requires the courts, when determining venue, to have regard to character and antecedents. I therefore urge the Government, in the interests of making a bad Bill less bad, to accept amendment No. 15, or a similar proposal.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) spoke to amendment No. 19, and I strongly endorse his comments. There is a class of prosecutions which can reasonably be deemed oppressive—or, alternatively, in which the investigation or prosecution process prior to trial has been oppressive. The right of a jury to throw out a case that it believes should not have been brought, because it is oppressive or has been badly handled, is an important safeguard of citizens' liberty.
  We would not need amendment No. 19 if we were not embarking on the Bill. However, as we are embarking on it, we need a safeguard that is the same as, or similar to, that advocated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I therefore commend amendment No. 19 to the House. I fear that we will not divide on it, but I commend it to those on the Government Front Bench in the hope that Ministers may take the spirit of the amendment on board.
  Mr. Clappison: I should have liked to speak for longer, but time moves on quickly, and Government Front-Bench Members need to deal with several matters.
  I agree with the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The Government's proposal is wrong in principle, and they have found the worst way in which to implement it. The Bill is a bad measure.
  Mr. Leigh: It is obvious from my remarks in Committee, and earlier this evening, that I have considerable sympathy with the Government's objective. I know that some of my hon. Friends, Liberal Democrat Members and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) rightly take a purist line about the Bill. I understand their view, but we must be aware of the general public's opinion, the cost to the criminal justice system and the widespread view that people who have criminal antecedents abuse that system. That may not be a popular view; hon. Members tend, rightly, to put

  1017
  civil liberties to the fore. Those who argue the case that I am putting do not always express the opinion of many Back Benchers, who take a purist view. The Government are right to take the action that they propose.
  None the less, the Government must listen carefully to the debate. The current Home Office team does that, and its members are generally concerned about the criminal justice system. I hope that Ministers will take away from the debate the clear view from all parties that, whether we are opposed in principle to the Bill or whether we simply seek to amend it, we believe that proposals such as those in amendments Nos. 6 and 15 would considerably improve it. That is a perfectly sustainable argument.
  10.45 pm
  There is widespread concern that being charged with a small offence such as shoplifting could affect a person's livelihood. I am sure that the Minister accepts that and is trying to find a way forward. I support the amendments, but the hon. and learned Member for Medway eloquently put the alternative view that they would create two classes of justice—and that point was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In a sense, they are right. Two classes of justice would be created, as a person without antecedents would have the absolute right to elect for trial by jury and receive gold-plated treatment, while those with antecedents would not have that right. However, we must accept that. In a world that is never ideal, surely it would be better to have justice for some people.
  Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman talks about gold-plated justice. Can he make more explicit his apparent belief that the justice afforded in magistrates courts, whether by lay magistrates or stipendiaries, is substantially inferior to that afforded by the jury system? Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman and I had that debate in Committee. He has a long and distinguished record of service as a magistrate and is rightly convinced, as are all of us who have appeared in magistrates courts, that magistrates are fully equipped to deal carefully with the evidence. They represent the local community, just as juries do, and I recognise where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. He is committed to the magistrates courts system. However, in the previous Parliament a Member, in a fit of absent-mindedness, walked out of the Army and Navy Stores carrying a couple of books. The case went to a summary trial and he was found guilty, but he insisted on trial by jury and appealed to the Crown court. Eventually, he was found not guilty.
  Would any Member of Parliament accused of such an offence, which would finish his career, prefer not to go to the Crown court? Let us be honest with ourselves. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) points to himself and says that he would rather go in front of the beak—the London stipendiary magistrate. He would rather appear before my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), but, with respect, I would rather appear before a jury—not case-hardened individuals like my hon. Friend, but people with a fresh insight on the criminal system. That is why this issue is so important to so many people. To dismiss it out of hand by saying that the amendments must be thrown out, and that the Bill is rubbish because we cannot get it absolutely right, is not the right way to proceed.
  1018
  There is a middle way, which is to proceed, but only after adopting the amendments. They would protect the person of good character who came before the criminal justice system, perhaps for the first time, and allow him to insist on trial by jury. That is an essential compromise. The Government may be unable to accept the amendments tonight, but when they are confronted by the other place—an independent House where they do not have an overwhelming majority, whose members do not come in to vote for whatever is placed before them by the Whips—I hope that they will accept similar proposals.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: In the time available to me, I shall make two points. In answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—yes, as a Member of Parliament and as an individual, I would be happy to be tried by magistrates. I have great confidence in magistrates. A lack of confidence in them has Iain beneath a great deal of the debate. It was put most clearly by the hon. Gentleman, who said in Committee:
  That leads to the question whether we trust magistrates more than judges. I shall not beat around the bush: I trust a judge and jury more than I trust the Bench.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 May 2000; c. 35.]
  He later said that he stood by what he had said. That is at the core of much of the opposition to the Bill. My answer to that is to improve the magistrates system if it needs improving, but to have confidence in it and to promote it.
  Secondly, in answer to the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I shall list the offences that are currently dealt with directly by the magistrates without defendants having a choice, although they relate to reputation and dishonesty: assault on a constable, keeping a brothel, cruelty to animals, cruelty or neglect of children, night poaching, stealing, unauthorised taking of a conveyance—
  It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 199.

  Division No. 291]

  [10.51 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Betts, Clive

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Blackman, Liz

  Ashton, Joe

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Austin, John

  Borrow, David

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Beard, Nigel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burden, Richard

  1019

  Burgon, Colin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hill, Keith

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hinchliffe, David

  Casale, Roger

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Caton, Martin

  Hoey, Kate

  Cawsey, Ian

  Home Robertson, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Chaytor, David

  Hope, Phil

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Coleman, Iain

  Jamieson, David

  Colman, Tony

  Jenkins, Brian

  Connarty, Michael

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Crausby, David

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Darvill, Keith

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Denham, John

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lepper, David

  Doran, Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dowd, Jim

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Eagle, Maria (L' pool Garston)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Edwards, Huw

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Linton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lock, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flint, Caroline

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foulkes, George

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fyfe, Maria

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  MacShane, Denis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Goggins, Paul

  Mallaber, Judy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Merron, Gillian

  Grogan, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Healey, John

  Morley, Elliot

  1020

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

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Mountford, Kali

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stevenson, George

  Norris, Dan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Pearson, Ian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Plaskitt, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pond, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pope, Greg

  Timms, Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Todd, Mark

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Touhig, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Trickett, Jon

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Tynan, Bill

  Rapson, Syd

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wills, Michael

  Roy, Frank

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Salter, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wray, James

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Allan, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Breed, Colin

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Barnes, Harry

  Burnett, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Burns, Simon

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burstow, Paul

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bercow, John

  Bereslord, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Clappison, James

  Brady, Graham

  Brake, Tom

  1021

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cohen, Harry

  Harvey, Nick

  Collins, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hayes, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Cotter, Brian

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Horam, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Evans, Nigel

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Faber, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Fallon, Michael

  Keetch, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  Key, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Fraser, Christopher

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Gale, Roger

  Lansley, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Leigh, Edward

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Gibb, Nick

  Lidington, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Livsey, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Loughton, Tim

  Gray, James

  Luff, Peter

  Green, Damian

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grieve, Dominic

  McDonnell, John

  1022

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

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

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Streeter, Gary

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Syms, Robert

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Moore, Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion).

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Tredinnick, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Trend, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tyler, Paul

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Paterson, Owen

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Prior, David

  Webb, Steve

  Randall, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Rendel, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Robertson, Laurence

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Willis, Phil

  Ruffley, David

  Wilshire, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Yeo, Tim

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. Stephen Day.

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

  Local Government Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Local Government Bill
    Clause 24

      PROPOSALS
      Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 10: No. 2, in page 16, line 21, at beginning insert—
      ("Subject to section (Alternative arrangements in case of certain local authorities), ").
      11.5 pm
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15 and 17.
      Ms Armstrong: This group of amendments increases the choice that local people will have about how their local communities are governed. The amendments are also consistent with the Government's policy of seeking to ensure that each council acts in a manner that demonstrates openness, accountability and efficiency. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for the amendments, which will enable small shire districts with a population of 85, 000 or fewer to develop their own constitution according to those principles.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: We have already rehearsed quite well the arguments on the Bill. However, the Minister's claim that the amendments increase choice for local government takes the prize for brass-necked effrontery. This has always been the Henry Ford Bill: it offers buyers any colour they want as long as it is black.
      Until now, the Bill has presented three options to local councils, but I have yet to find a council that is even remotely interested in the option of a council manager while about 1 per cent. of councils want directly elected mayors. That has left effectively one option for most councils—a cabinet system. More recently, the Government have tried to peddle a bogus fourth option. However, that option still requires an executive system and the Secretary of State's permission, and it applies to categories of council rather than to individual councils.
      The official Opposition's attitude to the options has been the same throughout our consideration of the Bill. If the proposals for new local governance are so good and so popular, why not ask people to choose? [Interruption.] If the proposals are so good for local government, why have they been roundly rejected by councils such as Camden and Brighton and—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are being held on both sides of the House, but hon. Members must listen to the hon. Member who is addressing them.
      Mr. Waterson: Why have the proposals been criticised so roundly by so many Labour Back Benchers? Why have they been criticised so effectively and clearly by the Labour Campaign for Open Local Government, which consists of 1, 000 members and several hundred Labour
      1024
      councillors? [Interruption.] The Minister scoffs whenever I mention those facts. However, every time that we have debated these issues, I have challenged her to tell us who actually wants these changes—other than, I assume, Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and a few acolytes in the New Local Government Network and in other new Labour-oriented organisations and lobby groups. Who is calling out for the reforms?
      The plain fact is that the Minister was slow hand-clapped at the recent Local Government Association conference because, across the board, local government is not keen on these changes to council structures.
      The amendments in this group throw a fascinating light on the Government's attitude to local government—as it does on Liberal Democrat Members' attitude to local government.
      Mr. Don Foster: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Waterson: I shall come to Liberal Democrat Members in a moment. They will have to be patient, but I will come to them, I promise.
      The Government's line has consistently been that the committee system is discredited and out of date, and that it does not fit in with modern requirements. They have also taken the line that it is impossible to have proper scrutiny, transparency and openness without a clear executive scrutiny split. Indeed, the Minister even suggested recently that best value could not work effectively without such a split.
      Yet lo and behold, on the basis of the amendments cobbled together between the Government and their friends in the Liberal Democrats, more than 20 per cent. of councils around the country are to be excused the new structures. One asks why that might be.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is worse in Wales because not one council will be able to take advantage of the proposal in the new amendment? All the authorities in Wales are unitary, not shire or district authorities, so councils such as my own, which has a small number of residents, will not be able to take advantage of the proposal.
      Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it just shows how, in their hurry to fall over themselves to help the Government out again, the Liberal Democrats forgot about Wales. I hope that the voters of Wales will have regard to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
      Ms Armstrong: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has obviously not read the Bill. It contains a subsection which makes it clear that the National Assembly for Wales will determine the future of the legislation in relation to Welsh authorities.
      Mr. Waterson: Well, we will leave it to the National Assembly for Wales.
      Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend help the House by explaining why it is suitable to exempt some councils, but not to give other councils the

      1025
      chance to choose? Why does he suppose that the Minister should try to tell the House that she is extending choice, when all that she is doing is giving a small amount of choice to very small councils?
      Mr. Waterson: My right hon. Friend points out accurately that the Minister made no attempt in her perfunctory introduction to explain the logic behind the amendments. The logic is simply that the Government needed the Liberal Democrats' support and, in return for a deal over clause 28, they were prepared to horse-trade—not my word but that used in yesterday's debate by Baroness Hamwee, the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Lords—to come to a solution. The solution involved the lucky 20-something per cent. of councils. If it is such a great idea, why are the Government still so determined to impose the structures on the other 80 per cent. of councils? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, why are they not to be given the same choice as the 20 per cent?
      Obviously, the Opposition welcome the timely escape of the 20 per cent. of district councils with a population of fewer than 85, 000, but what about all the others? If it is good enough for those in that category, why is it not good enough for all councils? Why the arbitrary figure of 85, 000? It has already been suggested in the House of Lords that the measure might be subject to judicial review, but if one out of five councils are to be exempted, why not allow all councils to choose? If the benefits are so obvious, Ministers will be able to demonstrate that many councils will choose to have a cabinet system.
      With all due respect to him, the Minister in the other place, Lord Whitty, lost the plot during the debate, but at least he did the courtesy of speaking for rather longer than the Minister for Local Government and the Regions who opened the debate in the House tonight. He said:
      Commons amendment No. 10 goes to the heart of the Bill.
      He said that the new constitution would give
      increased efficiency, transparency and accountability.
      He castigated the Opposition, saying that what they proposed was
      in total opposition to a main plank of the Bill.
      11.15 pm
      Lord Whitty continued:
      The amendments open the possibility that for certain councils the options for new constitutions from which local people can choose will, in addition to the range of executive constitutions, include constitutions based on a modernised committee system.
      With no logical connection, he explained that those small shire district councils are to be exempted, yet he then spoke of
      delivering the increased efficiency, transparency and accountability which the Government … wish to see.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 21-22.]
      As the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has constantly told this House that we must have such constitutions to deliver transparency, efficiency and accountability, how will that 20 per cent. of councils manage? Answer comes there none.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Perhaps I can answer my hon. Friend by telling him that it is the minority Labour group on Lichfield district council which
      1026
      is so disappointed that Lichfield, which has a population of 92, 000, will have this new system imposed on it. Is he aware that not only the Labour minority but the Conservative majority believe that the change will cost more, that it will obscure any transparency and will create a democracy deficit in Lichfield?
      Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in his usual fashion. The effect of the Government's proposals has been to break down party political barriers on councils such as Lichfield and to unite the parties against what the Government are trying to do.
      My hon. Friend alluded to those councils that are on the limits of the exemption. In the House of Lords, yesterday, Lord Hanningfield drew attention to the plight of councils such as Rushmoor, which is unfortunate enough to have a population of 86, 000. Because of that extra 1, 000 people, the full Monty will be imposed on Rushmoor by the Government. I have already referred to the possibility of judicial review. There is also the plight of the other 80 per cent. of councils. They will, in effect, have only one option forced on them.
      Our objections to the system have been well rehearsed, but it is worth reminding the House of them. There is the element of compulsion, to which we object profoundly and which has caused great resentment in local government. In many cases, a small group of people will take all the decisions. Some councillors will be consigned to the back benches by the proposals. The role of the officers in the new structures has not been thought through. It is difficult to see how effective scrutiny can be undertaken by such councils as the London borough of Newham, which has 59 Labour members and one independent Labour member. Who on that council will carry out convincing and transparent scrutiny'?
      It is not only the official Opposition or even—until a few days ago—the Liberal Democrats who object to the proposals. A range of organisations in and out of local government, Labour councillors, Labour Back Benchers, academics and others have all raised those concerns over and over again.
      Until recently, the Government were not prepared to take notice of any of the provisions, but a problem arose because of their lordships' attitude to the Bill. This is where the Liberal Democrats come into the picture—[HON.MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]. I said that I would return to them and I always keep my promises. The amendments reveal as much about the Liberal Democrats as they do about the Government.
      As I have explained, in yesterday's debate in the House of Lords Baroness Hamwee admitted to horse-trading. Therefore, there is no pretence from anyone involved in this rather shabby little deal of any principle, of any logic; it is simply a matter of political horse-trading. The Government needed the support of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords on clause 28 and on their structures for local government, and the Liberal Democrats extracted a price. [Interruption.] But that shabby deal points a penetrating shaft of light on the Liberal Democrats' real role and purpose in this Parliament and their true relationship with this Labour Government. It strips away any pretence that the Liberal Democrats are a real party of opposition or, indeed, that they are friends of local government.
      The Liberal Democrats helped the Government out on clause 28, and at the same time they sold out 80 per cent. of local government in this country. It is worth reminding

      1027
      the House of the comments of the principal Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), only a couple of months ago in Committee, when he said:
      If councils like the models proposed by the Government, they can…move in that direction, but the structures should not be imposed on them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 May 2000; c. 158.]
      We know that the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, but even Liberal Democrats, if only for their own sanity, must be expected to hold the same views for more than a few weeks.
      Linked with the Liberal Democrats' deal over these amendments in the Lords was their policy on clause 28. It is the policy that dare not speak its name, because, as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned, it takes its place alongside their views on legalising drugs and on a federal Europe—the sort of things that people do not expect to see in their local "Focus" leaflets. They are indeed the stealth party of British politics, because if that shrinking band of people who vote for them knew what they stood for, they would not vote for them.
      Our views on the Government's proposals for structures are well known. Our reservations have been set out on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and in the Lords. We have made clear our view that there should be no compulsion. We have made clear our view that the Government are entirely wrong; they are looking at life down the wrong end of the telescope if they think that tinkering with structures will make any difference to local democracy, and if they believe that more people will turn out and vote, or stand for election, as a result of their fiddling with structures.
      I do not intend to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on these amendments. We want at least some councils to benefit from the fourth option, for which we have consistently campaigned. The difference between us and the Government and between us and the Liberal Democrats is that we have always campaigned for that option to be available to all councils, irrespective of size, throughout the country.
      Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to have the great honour to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). His speech was such that it caused his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to leave the Chamber, and, having listened to the hon. Gentleman, there is no doubt whatever that, to use a phrase that has been used once before, I feel that I have been
      savaged by a dead sheep.—[Official Report, 14 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1027.]
      The sad fact is, however, that the hon. Member for Eastbourne made a large number of comments with which I happen to agree. He and I spent a long time in Committee and we share the clear view that it is totally wrong of central Government to impose on local government how it should organise its decision-making processes. We have consistently made it clear that we are opposed to central Government seeking to do that.
      I now come to the decision that we should take, given the position of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Conservative Members are concerned about deciding
      1028
      what to do. Let me remind them that any crocodile tears that they shed for local government are ill placed in view of their party's clear commitment to get rid of, for example, local education authorities and to remove from local government many of its current powers and thereby, in effect, remove any possibility of it having any power whatever.
      The Liberal Democrats take a different view. We believe in the importance of strong and vibrant local government. We believe in the importance of local government being given a power of general competence and the ability to carry out all the functions that it believes are in the best interests of the people whom it seeks to serve. It should also have the ability to raise the funds to carry out the activities within the power of general competence. As a result of pressure by Liberal Democrats in Committee, we have achieved that aim in the Bill. Furthermore, as a result of Liberal Democrat pressure, we have persuaded the Government to change their attitude on issues such as whether executives should meet in secret. We have long argued that executives should meet in public and we have now persuaded the Government of that view.
      Mr. James Gray: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he is strongly in favour of executives or cabinets meeting in public. Is he therefore criticising Liberal Democrat-controlled North Wiltshire district council, which stubbornly insists on meeting in private?
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of my position on this issue. I have said to him in other circumstances that I believe it is important that local councils—whether they are Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or under no overall control—hold their council meetings in public. I have made it clear to him, as I repeat to the House as a whole, that if there are examples of Liberal Democrat councils not following the recommendations that we make, I shall certainly take it up with them. However, because we genuinely believe that local government should have the power to make such decisions, the ultimate decision on the matter is one for the local council.
      Mr. John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that his obsequious collaboration with the Government, as reflected most recently in the proposal before the House, has led to the hissing out of office of the ridiculous Liberal Democrats on Aylesbury Vale district council and the reconquest of that authority by sound and distinguished Conservatives?
      Mr. Foster: There will be plenty of opportunity for electors across the country to decide whether they believe it is sensible for a political party to seek to persuade the Government to change their view on particular matters, or whether that party should simply hold a position that will not make a blind bit of difference to what happens in local government.
      11.30 pm
      We are debating whether the House should support an amendment moved in the House of Lords by the Liberal Democrats. The amendment will ensure that at least some

      1029
      councils are excluded from three proposals that central Government seek to impose on them. The key decision that this House must make is whether to accept that at least some councils—rather than none at all, as the Conservatives would have it—should be given the opportunity to find their own way forward in decision making. The issue is not whether we would tonight persuade the Government to change their view and to drop their imposition of operating methods on all forms of local government, as we would like them to do; it is simply whether all councils in Wales and 82 councils in England will receive the benefit to which I have referred.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I thank my hon. Friend for the valuable negotiations that he has had with the Government to allow the National Assembly for Wales to let councils in Wales decide their own structures.
      Mr. Foster: I thank my hon. Friend. It is possible in the Chamber simply to oppose the Government and to get nowhere, but there is another way forward, which is to have constructive opposition and to make at least some progress.
      Mr. Fabricant: There are those who think that the Liberal Democrats have woolly minds in woollier hats, so, to demonstrate to the House the Liberal Democrats' thought processes, will the hon. Gentleman explain how he arrived at the figure of 85, 000? Why not set the threshold at 100, 000? Will he explain in detail how the horse-trading worked?
      Mr. Foster: No, I will not. I simply say that if the Conservatives had their way, the figure would be zero, and, as a result of their achievements, not a single council would have escaped the imposition of these measures. As a result of what the Liberal Democrats have achieved, at least some councils have escaped. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be right for the Conservative party to vote against that concession? Would he vote against it—yes or no?
      Mr. Fabricant: If something is wrong in principle, it is wrong for all, and not only for 20 per cent.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman's clear answer is that he is prepared to say to 82 councils in England and all the councils in Wales that are exempt from the Government's proposals as a result of the Liberal Democrats' negotiations that they must have those proposals imposed on them.
      Mr. Waterson: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that if the amendments that he is peddling are to have a shred of credibility, the least he can do is try to explain to the House how the Liberal Democrats arrived at the figure of 85, 000 to set the line between councils that are exempt and those that are not.
      Mr. Foster: It is quite simple. The hon. Gentleman has clearly got himself into a fixed mode of simply opposing and nothing more. In constructively opposing, we realise that the Government are prepared to allow no concessions in respect of any councils. The Liberal Democrats start from the clear position of preferring the provision to be
      1030
      imposed on no councils. However, knowing that we shall not be able to persuade the Government of that view, we seek at least some exemptions.
      I think that we have done extremely well to reach such a position. There are those in the Local Government Association who are absolutely delighted with what we have done and are concerned that they have not had Conservative party support on the issue. The proposal is not the Liberal Democrats' ideal position. We accept entirely that it is a compromise, but, given that, we hope at least that the House will support it.
      Mr. John Gummer: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has managed to give horse-trading a bad name. His difficulty is that when people horse-traded, at least they got a horse; he has a rather miserable camel. He cannot explain the basis of the 85, 000 figure. I wish to debate the issue because I believe he has accepted that figure specifically to exclude my local council and, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your local council—a good, sensible council in my case and a not so good, not so sensible council in your case, but united in a belief that the Bill is unsatisfactory because it does not give them the chance to choose for themselves.
      The Liberals have the effrontery to say that they went in for constructive opposition. Constructive opposition for the Liberals means dropping their principles on clause 28 and the proposed new clause. Constructive opposition is to give way on both clauses and in return get 20 per cent. of the sum of their principles on one.
      Mr. Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Liberal Democrats have given up on their principle of opposition to clause 28?
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Liberals did a deal with the Government in the House of Lords on clause 28. Everyone else knows that; if he does not, he better talk to Baroness Hamwee, who is the expert on horse-trading. They struck that deal by not doing what they had intended originally. The same is true of the proposed new clause, yet they have the effrontery to say that we who have stood by our principles have in some way let the local government world down.
      The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted strong and vibrant local government as long as it covered a population of under 85, 000. Cannot it be strong and vibrant while being bigger than that? He is not prepared to stand up and fight for all local government.
      I turn to the real villain of the piece, if it is not unparliamentary to say so—the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I have always doubted whether she had an argument on this point. I did not serve on the Committee, but I have never heard her make the argument in the House. Today, she had an admirable opportunity. She could have explained in detail—we can be here for hours listening to her—why it was necessary for the Government to tell Labour councils that did not want to be told how to run themselves how to do so.
      Let us imagine that the proposition had been a Conservative one. Would the right hon. Lady have said, "Oh yes, this is the sort of transparency we want"? No, she would have said, "Labour, Liberal and Conservative councils up and down the country do not want it." Why,

      1031
      then, is she not saying that now? It is because the Government have become hung up on the proposition and do not know how to get off it. The Liberals gave the Government a chance to get away with 20 per cent., but if they had pushed a bit harder, they might have got 40 per cent. Anyone who can give up one principle can give up many more, so why did the Liberals not give up a few more of their principles and buy a few more votes? They have plenty of principles, most of them contradictory, so they could give up a lot just to get what they want from the Government.
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions has not explained why a population of 85, 000 is all right, but one of 90, 000 is not. She did not even take the opportunity to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). The reason she did not bother is that she knows that she has a parliamentary majority: she will not bother to explain anything about local government affairs so long as she knows that she can ram any measure through the House. That is yet another example of how the Government treat the House with contempt. However, on this occasion, the right hon. Lady is not only treating the House with contempt, but is doing the same to every local authority that has asked her to give it the chance to make the choice itself.
      My local authority would like to try different ways of running itself to meet the needs of its electorate—not the right hon. Lady's electorate, but its electorate who choose the authority. Yet her response is to tell my authority that it can choose anything—so long as it is something that she agrees with. The Government will not let the authority make the choice, simply because the population it covers just happens to total more than 85, 000 people. We are not even talking about 85, 000 electors—why did the Liberals not specify electors, rather than just a population threshold? Having given up their principles, could they not have screwed a bit more out of the Government?
      The difficulty for the Conservatives is that we are not prepared to give up our principles, because ours is a party of principle. The Liberals' principles change from place to place—
      Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gummer: I have a little more to say about Liberal principles and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt intends to be helpful. He will have to contain himself for a moment, even though he has not got long in the House—his is a seat which will be won by a large Conservative swing at the next general election.
      Let us hear about the principles espoused by the hon. Member for Bath. He told us that the Liberal principle was that everything had to hang out—everyone had to know everything and everything had to be done in public. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out how odd it is that the authority in North Wiltshire—which is not all that far from Bath; indeed, it is the neighbouring constituency—holds closed
      1032
      meetings. The hon. Gentleman replied that authorities should hold open meetings—but not if they do not want them.
      Mr. Don Foster: indicated dissent.
      Mr. Gumme: Yes, he did—he said that he would have a word with his colleagues, but that, in the end, they would make up their own mind. That strikes me as an interesting principle: anyone, anywhere can make up their own mind about any principle.
      It is apparent that there are differences of principle, not merely between constituencies but between wards. In my constituency, the Liberals espouse different principles in neighbouring wards—indeed, in neighbouring houses. Liberal canvassers bang on the door and ask, "What do you want us to tell you?", and if the householders respond differently, they say different things. As someone said, if God had been a Liberal, we would have had the 10 suggestions. The problem with the Liberals is that their principles are so flexible that they cannot remember what the last one was. Now I give way to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) who might remember what it was he wanted to ask me when he first rose.
      Mr. Sanders: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the Conservative principle in respect of the capping of local authority budgets? What is the latest position on that?
      Mr. Gummer: That was a very good principle when local authorities wanted to spend other people's money with a precept on taxation— [Interruption.] Liberal Members fall about with laughter, but, at that time, they did their usual trick: they said that they would give freedom to local authorities, but would not increase taxation—[Interruption.] Like his colleagues, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is good at throwing out the odd sentence or two, but in his own constituency finds it difficult to explain Liberal principles. That is because those principles are different from his—his views are different from his neighbours views. Liberals all have different views from their neighbours. It is not surprising that the Government managed to buy off the Liberal Democrats—the price was low.
      11.45 pm
      I turn to the—
      Mr. Bob Russell: Sit down; you've lost it.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman, who never had it, cannot tell others that they have lost it.
      Fundamentally, we have a dictatorial Government who are using their majority to stop locally elected people deciding how they will run their own council. Liberal Democrats are intervening to try to claim credit for keeping 20 per cent. of councils out of the unacceptable maw which the Minister has presented to us but has never explained.
      As usual, the Liberal Democrats have connived yet again in the destruction of democratic choice in local authorities. Like anyone who knows that what is being said is true, their only answer is to giggle. Giggling is the only logic that they can put forward. They cannot explain why 85, 000 is a magic figure. They cannot explain either

      1033
      why they went for a population of 85, 000 and not an electorate of 85, 000. Similarly, they cannot explain why they have had a special deal for Wales, but only if the Welsh Assembly agrees. They cannot explain the arguments that they advanced to the Government. They cannot explain why they did not hold out for more; nor can they explain why they went back on their principles on this issue and on clause 28. They can explain nothing to us, and that is because they are dealing with the inexplicable.
      When we come to the elections next year, Liberal seats will fall one after the other throughout the wards that they fight. It is good to welcome to the Conservative party a Liberal Democrat who has crossed the floor in Bromley for precisely the sort of reasons that have emerged this evening.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: And in New Forest.
      Mr. Gummer: Indeed. They cross the floor once they begin to see that the party in Parliament has few real principles, will not stand up for them and then pretends that an abject surrender to the Government is somehow a success. Principles? Of course Liberal Democrat Members have principles. There are as many principles as there are Liberal Democrat Members, and they are all utterly different.
      Ms Armstrong: I shall respond fairly briefly. I am not sure whether I should respond to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has not been present for many of the debates and so has not heard the arguments that have been advanced. However, I remind him that there was a Joint Committee which asked us to consider how we could make particular arrangements for small councils, especially those that had a history of non-party political control. That is now extremely difficult to define because a Bill that has passed through the House allows for the registration of political parties. Many independent parties—ratepayers, residents and so on—have registered as political parties. We therefore have no sound definition of no political control because everyone is a member of a party. We therefore considered other ways of responding to the Joint Committee's wishes and to the points that were made in Standing Committee.
      On that basis, I shall respond to the debate. I assure hon. Members that the principles that are expounded in the Bill of transparency, accountability and efficiency will be required of all councils. It is choice not for councils, but for local people. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seems not to have understood that there has been real change in his party's policy. Perhaps he can spend some time talking to his colleagues and catching up.
      Mr. Waterson: Can the Minister explain how, in 20 per cent. of councils under the proposals, transparency, efficiency and accountability will be delivered?
      Ms Armstrong: Those councils will have to demonstrate that. They will also have to demonstrate that they have effective scrutiny and overview functions built into the way in which they operate.
      Mr. Gummer: If that is what councils with a population of less than 85, 000 can do, why cannot
      1034
      councils with less than 100, 000 or 120, 000 population do likewise? Why cannot my council be given the same choice, and why cannot my electors be given that choice?
      Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman's electors, like the electors of every right hon. and hon. Member, will be given substantial choice within the framework of the Bill—much more choice than they are allowed at present.
      I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions, and I commend the amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15, and 17 agreed to.

    Clause 44

      INTERPRETATION OF PART II
      Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 120: No. 19, in page 26, line 3, leave out ("paragraph 5A") and insert ("paragraphs 5B to 5I")
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 31 to 35.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 35 add several modifications to the schedule that was introduced into the Bill in the Commons on Report. That schedule sweeps up a number of amendments to the Local Government Act 1972, which are consequential upon the establishment of executives and elected mayors under part II.
      Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 are consequential upon amendments Nos. 31 to 35. Amendment No. 22 is a minor drafting amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23, and 25 agreed to.

    Clause 91

      PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY: BULLYING
      Lords Reason:
      The Lords disagree to Commons amendment No. 377 for the following Reason:
      Because the prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality contained in section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, as amended by Clause 91 of the Bill, should remain in force.
      Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29 and 39 to 41.
      Ms Armstrong: The House may already know that, following events in the other place last night, the Government have decided not to seek to reintroduce in this Bill the repeal of section 28. I want to start by explaining the reasons for that decision and then to reflect on last night's events.

      1035
      The House will know that the Bill contains many measures that are vital to the reform of local government. Part I contains new powers for councils to promote the well-being of their communities, and everyone has welcomed those. Parts II and III will replace council structures, give people real choice over how their communities should be governed and tighten up standards of conduct. The clauses on welfare services will improve the quality and diversity of support services to vulnerable people.
      As important as the repeal of section 28 is—it is important and it remains important to the Government—we cannot afford to lose the hard work that the Government and Parliament have put into those parts of the Bill; nor can we afford to delay the benefits that they will bring to our communities, so we have decided, with extreme reluctance, not to seek to reintroduce the repeal in this Bill. Therefore, at this stage, for all the reasons that I have outlined, we will not ask the House to oppose the Lords proposals and insist on the Commons amendments.
      The arguments in favour of retaining section 28 were never very strong. Much of the concern about the repeal was whipped up by sections of the media, fed by the opponents— [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the Minister.
      Ms Armstrong: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my father used to sit in that Chair, and he always said, "No one should ever go into the Chamber having had a drink, because it always shows."
      Much of the concern about the repeal was whipped up by sections of the media, fed by the opponents of repeal on a diet of exaggeration, misinformation and sensationalism.
      We acknowledge that parents in particular are concerned that effective safeguards are in place to ensure that children and young people are taught in an appropriate and supportive way in schools. That is why we worked with the Churches and others to bring forward the comprehensive measures in the Learning and Skills Bill.
      From last night's debate in the other place, we learned again of the difficulty that the unelected House has in passing any legislation that strengthens the rights of the gay and lesbian community. We learned again of the corrosive effect that misinformation and misrepresentation can have on public opinion, stirring up unnecessary fears and then playing those back as a reason to justify obduracy and intolerance.
      Most importantly, we learned what lies behind the sentiments of the hard core of section 28 enthusiasts. The leaders of the campaign against repeal like to mask their views behind concerns for educating young children and protecting taxpayers' money. We have dealt with the first concern in the Learning and Skills Bill; the second never amounted to much. Why, therefore, do the enthusiasts continue to argue for the retention of section 28?
      1036
      12 midnight
      Every now and then, the mask slips. It slipped last night. Baroness Young said that, if section 28 was repealed, it
      will be legal to promote gay rights in citizenship lessons, which, I understand, are shortly to become compulsory.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 102.]
      In other words, the champions of section 28 made it clear that it is not only the promotion of homosexuality—whatever that means—that causes them problems, but teaching children that minorities, like everyone else, have human rights and that they should be regarded as equal citizens.
      We also heard about fears that bordered on paranoia—for example, that teachers might promote homosexuality through English and history lessons to get round the Government's guidelines. What does that reveal about the trust that section 28 enthusiasts place in our teachers, and in the parents and others who sit on governing bodies and control what is taught in our schools?
      During the many debates that we have held on section 28, the Government have been accused of being obsessed with the issue. But who are the real obsessives? What sort of world do they think that we live in? What sort of education do they want our children to receive? We heard the answer last night.
      Section 28 was born out of a climate of prejudice and discrimination. It was introduced by a Conservative Government who were intent on dividing our society. The defenders of section 28 want to perpetuate a society in which gay men and lesbians are regarded as second-class citizens with second-class rights; a society in which legitimate concerns for children and young people are replaced by irrationality, fear and intolerance; a society that creates the climate for homophobic bullying and other violent assaults on gays and lesbians. Those views unfortunately held sway last night. They must not be allowed to triumph.
      Labour Members remain committed to the repeal of the unnecessary and divisive legislation. Legislation on children is clear; section 28 adds confusion, which led to problems in the past. We believe that the section must go.
      Mr. Don Foster: The Minister said clearly that the Government believe that section 28 should be repealed as quickly as possible. What measures do the Government intend to introduce to ensure that that happens?
      Ms Armstrong: We are committed to repealing section 28. I have discussed that with colleagues throughout the Government today. We will continue to consider the precise way in which we intend to repeal the legislation. We want to ensure that we get it through not only this House, but the House of Lords. We will, therefore, have to introduce the most appropriate measure, as soon as we are able, to ensure that we repeal the legislation and make it clear that we want both a tolerant and supportive society for all our citizens, and proper respect and protection for children at school.
      Dr. Evan Harris: With respect, the Minister has not answered the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Members on both sides of the House who support her view want to know whether she can guarantee that the

      1037
      Government will repeal section 28 in the lifetime of this Parliament by any means other than insisting on the measure.
      Ms Armstrong: Given the views of the House of Lords, which is blocking repeal, I am unable to give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that, whatever we do about the House of Lords this side of the election, the procedures of this House do not allow any Minister to guarantee that the Government will get legislation through in any given period. We are not in a position to give such a guarantee and—unlike others, perhaps—I am not prepared to mislead the House in any way. However, the House must understand that we will find ways in which to repeal the legislation.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). Can she say categorically whether the Government will introduce in the next Session, which will start in November, a Bill that will carry into law the Labour party manifesto commitment to repeal section 28?
      Ms Armstrong: As I explained to the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), whatever we do—even if we introduce a simple Bill in the next Session—we will be unable to guarantee that it will get through both Houses and pass into law this side of the general election.
      Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Constituents have written to me in confidence to express their heartfelt feelings—their desire for us to repeal the legislation. My right hon. Friend will be aware that they are vulnerable people and that we must represent them here. The last thing that they need is the door slamming in their face because of procedural matters relating to the House of Lords. Surely she agrees that it is our duty to find a procedure that will finally remove the legislation from the statute book. Section 28 must be repealed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech, not an intervention.
      Ms Armstrong: We are determined to find the most effective way to get legislation to repeal section 28 through both Houses and on to the statute book. It is our responsibility to find a means to do that that we know to be effective. As my hon. Friend says, we must not wind people up only to disappoint them, and we are considering ways to introduce effective measures to ensure that section 28 goes. I have made the Government's views absolutely clear to the House. Those views are shared across the Government and we want to find ways to repeal this pernicious and prejudicial legislation. We will do what we can to achieve that, but we must be effective.
      Mr. Phil Willis: This is one of the most cowardly acts by the Government. They believe that it is far more important to save the provisions in the Bill that bully councils into accepting structures than it is to save a principle that the Minister has spent 15 minutes arguing for.
      Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman may well read his remarks tomorrow and think about them. He, as a council
      1038
      leader, and members of his council have urged on me the importance of the promotion of well-being and the duty of community planning contained in the Bill. His friends on the Local Government Association are determined that the Bill should go through. They want to ensure that we repeal section 28, and so do I. Sending the Bill back to the Lords would not achieve either the repeal of section 28 or the passage of the Bill.
      Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not be distracted by Conservative Members who want to uphold bigotry and prejudice—we have no doubt about that. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the House want to secure the repeal of section 28 at the earliest opportunity. Let us do that in a way that can be successful. From working with my right hon. Friend over the past three years, I have no doubt of her commitment and that of the Government to doing what the people on the Tory Benches do not want them to do.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) that in the House we refer to each other as hon. Members.
      Ms Armstrong: We have consistently worked with anyone who is interested in finding a way forward that reassures parents and repeals section 28, which has supported prejudice. We want to tackle intolerance and prejudice.
      Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. She will recall the number of attempts that have been made ever since section 28 was introduced to get rid of it, and this is yet another. I want to hear from her exactly by what means the Government intend to introduce clear legislation with a chance of getting through before the end of this Parliament. Otherwise, people will feel that once again the whole issue has been fudged, and the criminalisation of young people will continue as a result of this legislation.
      Ms Armstrong: I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are determined to find the most effective way of getting rid of section 28. It is because I want to work with others in the House to ensure its repeal that I am not able to tell my hon. Friend the precise way of doing it. We must work effectively with all supporters of repeal. I am determined to do that, and will continue my efforts. By so doing, we will get rid of section 28 more quickly than we would if I made declaratory statements tonight that might not in the end deliver this objective as quickly and as effectively as we want.
      Mr. Waterson: Some Ministers are capable of making a graceful retreat, but the Minister is not one of them. As she well knows, we support aspects of the Bill and tried to improve them in Committee. It is no good going on about the good things in the Bill and how they would be prejudiced by holding the line on section 28. The plain truth is that this proposal should never have been tacked on the end of the Bill in the first place.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that the measure should not have been included in the Bill. In 1988, however, it was perfectly acceptable

      1039
      to implement the provision that we seek to repeal via a local government Bill. Was that an error on the part of the then Conservative Government?
      Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman will know, as he served on the Standing Committee—with some distinction, but in considerable silence—[Interruption.] Admittedly, he spoke more often than most. Anyway, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I have always suspected that the Government tacked this proposal on to the Bill simply to draw attention away from the major changes that they sought to make to local government.
      The Minister's next point was that this had all been got up by the media, which had produced a storm of opposition across political parties and across the country, and had persuaded all major religious leaders to oppose the Government's plans. That is not convincing either. Almost as unconvincing was the Minister's blaming what she called the unelected House. According to the leader of her party in the House of Lords, that House now enjoys greater legitimacy as a result of the reforms. The Minister spoke of the chances of anything happening this side of an election to continue reform of the Lords. That is in the hands of the present Government, who have signally failed to do anything.
      The Minister talks of "obsessives". Who are the real obsessives? I believe that they are sitting on the Government Benches tonight.
      I will not get into the argument about homophobic bullying yet again, but—hopefully for the last time—let me make this point: bullying, whatever its cause or excuse, is wrong, and any teacher worth his or her salt should crack down on it ruthlessly.
      There is an element of covering old ground in this debate, and I will not cover as much of it as I could. I will say, however, that it is the Government who have chosen to waste so much valuable legislative time on this issue. As I have said, the Minister referred to obsessives. The Government's actions reveal their obsession with the "PC" aspects of the proposal, and with the views of the chattering classes.
      Ann Keen: rose—
      Mrs. Fitzsimons: rose—
      Mr. Waterson: I am spoilt for choice. I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen).
      Ann Keen: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the "obsessive" desire of Conservative Members and those in another place to disregard the strong advice of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Childline, Barnardos and all the other children's and young people's organisations? Why are they so obsessive about denying the evidence adduced by those bodies, and their recommendation that the evil situation brought about by section 28 should be ended by the repealing of that section? Why oh why do Conservative Members continue to ignore that advice?
      Mr. Waterson: I am afraid the hon. Lady is plain wrong. Only the other day, in a written answer, the hon.
      1040
      Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pointed out that the NSPCC and Childline did not have corporate views on the issue. The hon. Lady should do her homework.
      As I have said, it is the Government who have chosen to proceed on this course. It is they who have got themselves into their present position. Conservative Members believe that this is simply a smokescreen to draw attention away from the major parts of the Bill.
      The Government suffered a crushing and well-deserved defeat in the Lords last night. It was a victory for common sense. As on other issues, it was the House of Lords which stood up for the British people against a patronising, out-of-touch Government run by and for a liberal elite.
      Mrs. Fitzsimons: Would the hon. Gentleman care to put it on record that he agrees with, I think, the majority of people that homophobia is wrong, evil and pernicious? Does he agree that the problem is that the debate surrounding the issue has legitimised homophobia, and will he dissociate himself and his party from any such sentiments?
      Mr. Waterson: With respect, I think that it is that sort of argument which has clouded the issues.
      I feel sorry for the Minister, because she has been left to carry the can this evening. Not a single member of the Cabinet is present. [Interruption.] Here we are. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, right on cue, as befits the master of theatrics in our country, has appeared, but, apart from him, not a single member of the Government is on the Front Bench—not the Deputy Prime Minister, who leads the Department of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, nor any other Minister.
      The Prime Minister is rapidly backing off this piece of legislation.
      Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Waterson: No, I will make some progress.
      If we turn to the famous memo that was written by the Prime Minister himself, are we to presume that he no longer regards this as an eye-catching initiative with which he would want to be personally associated? To quote his memo:
      It is bizarre that any Government I lead should be seen as anti-family.
      If it is so important to the soul of the Labour party that the section be abolished or repealed, why was it not a pledge in the manifesto? At least the Liberal Democrats can claim that it was in their manifesto. They take some pride in that, even though, as I have said, it is unlikely to appear in their Focus leaflets in Eastbourne or anywhere else. [Interruption.] I should be happy to give way on that point.
      There has been a sudden flood of guidance on the issue of sex education. We welcome those guidances as far as they go, but, in part, they are designed to get the Government off a hook of their own making.
      Both Lord Whitty in the Lords yesterday and the Minister tonight seem to have been labouring under the misapprehension that it is all about protecting minority

      1041
      rights. They have that protection elsewhere in law. The provision has only ever been of a narrow effect. That was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who was the Minister dealing with section 28. He said:
      I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.
      He went on to say:
      objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality.—[Official Report, 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1019.]
      That is borne out by the memorandum attached to that legislation.
      Dr. Harris: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, section 28 states that it will not be permissible to teach the acceptability of homosexuality, which is clearly saying that homosexuality is unacceptable. How can that be an objective discussion of a sexuality which someone has not chosen but happens to be? How is it an objective discussion to deny someone the ability to teach that something is acceptable?
      Mr. Waterson: That is not what the section says. We have had debates on that very subject and quoted teachers who said that they felt able under the legislation to discuss homosexuality with pupils on the general level, but also with specific pupils who had that particular issue to raise, so I do not think that there is anything in that point.
      In passing, I commend Conservative councils such as Kent, which said that, if the measure passed, they would make their own local rules to have the same effect.
      To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), section 28 has never been about prejudice, bigotry and intolerance. It has a limited but important impact. It is a guarantee to parents and to council tax payers that local authorities will not spend public money on promoting homosexuality in schools. That is how to cut through the verbiage and the posturing.
      Perhaps the saddest aspect of all is that the Government have not learned the lesson of this pitiful debacle. They have still not seen the light. They have promised—although they will not tell us how—that they intend to return to the repeal of section 28 at some vague time. Frankly, instead of talking in those terms, they should apologise to parents, teachers and religious leaders throughout the country. They should apologise to the House and to the Lords for wasting so much precious legislative time on this metropolitan obsession. Above all, they should apologise to the British people for trying to foist this tawdry piece of political correctness on them.
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: It was not my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions—who has spoken so strongly and forcefully in this debate—who dropped this poisonous incubus into the Local Government Bill. Conservative Members and their supporters in the other place have whipped up the issue, making it the issue that it has become. No amount of posturing or crocodile tears, with statements that they are concerned about issues such as homophobic bullying, can disguise the fact that they have deliberately orchestrated and augmented the bigotry that has surrounded section 28. In 1986, when the Bill was
      1042
      first debated, Lord Willis described clause 28 as the first page of a "charter for bigots". A charter for bigots it was, and a charter for bigots it remains.
      Conservative Members are pretending that the provision is nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with protecting children and the rights of people in schools, but they have paid no attention whatsoever to the details of the Learning and Skills Bill or to the guidance that the Government have introduced, including the very wise amendments tabled in the other place by the Bishop of Blackburn. If Conservative Members had any honesty, they would admit that, bit by bit, any rationale for defending section 28 has been stripped away, both by the changes that the Government have made and by the way in which their opposition has been conducted, particularly in the other place.
      The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) accuses hon. Members of being obsessive about the issue. How dare he say that? If it were an issue of protecting the position of black people in society, would he accuse us of being obsessive? If it were an issue of protecting the position of Jewish people in society, would he consider it obsessive? If it were a question of protecting the rights of women in society, would he consider it obsessive?
      Mr. Stephen Twigg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, some of them would—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) is giving way, he should himself resume his seat.
      Mr. Marsden: I give way.
      Mr. Twigg: The point that I was seeking to make to my hon. Friend is that those of us who have listened to the debates on the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will know that, sadly, some Opposition Members would consider concern with those issues to be obsessive.
      Mr. Marsden: My hon. Friend may be right in that assessment, but I would exempt the vast majority of Opposition Members from it.
      Mr. Twigg: What about the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)?
      Mr. Marsden: I am not looking at that hon. Gentleman.
      The important issues that have to be addressed in our consideration of the Bill are protection, fundamental rights and public health. One of the dangers and detrimental effects of retaining section 28 is that it seriously hobbles the advice that local authorities are able to give. If Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne, are serious about not wishing to promote a climate of homophobia, they could do no better than go to Baroness Young and tell her to call off her dogs of war from the Christian Institute, whose members are going across the country fomenting difficulties.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Marsden: No, I will not give way.

      1043
      Labor Members, like all people of sense and reason in this place, want to see the end of section 28 as soon as possible. We accept that that has to be done in a manner that does not allow the bigots in the other place a field day by going round this course again. One thing, however, is extremely important. I said that Members of the other place had dropped a poisonous incubus into the Bill. I stand by that. Baroness Hamwee said last night:
      I regard Section 28 as bad legislation. If it is not repealed today, what effect will that have? Reference has already been made to the certificate attached to the Bill. Will the Bill, when enacted, be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights? Will it contravene our own Human Rights Act, which comes into force into October?—(Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1181
      Those were powerful and relevant comments. They will be taken on board and, whether or not section 28 is ruled null and void in the near future by action in this House, which is what many of us profoundly wish, my belief is that, one way or another, it will be consigned to the dustbin of history, where it so deservedly belongs. It will be so consigned not just because of the views of the British people on fairness and tolerance, but because it is bad law and it contravenes the Human Rights Act.
      12.30 am
      Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), not least because in his closing remarks he referred to the words spoken in another place last night by Baroness Hamwee. She made the Liberal Democrat position clear. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, she put a number of questions to Lord Whitty about whether the Bill could be said to comply with the European convention on human rights if the content of section 28 were retained. The House should be aware that, in response to Baroness Hamwee, Lord Whitty made clear the Government's view that if section 28 continued to be part of the Bill, the legislation would not conform with the convention.
      Although I do not agree with the position of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on this issue, I am delighted that he at least had the good grace to draw attention to the fact that the Liberal Democrats were the only political party that had the courage to include their commitment to repeal section 28 in their general election manifesto. Lest there be any doubt, let me say that the Liberal Democrats remain absolutely committed to the repeal of section 28.
      I have enormous regard in many ways for the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but he misled the House when he suggested that the Liberal Democrats had been involved in a deal on section 28. He is simply and absolutely incorrect on that issue. We have been and we continue to be implacably opposed to section 28. The Liberal Democrats will do everything possible to bring about the abolition of section 28 at the earliest possible opportunity. We recognise, of course, that the procedures both in this House and in another place will make that difficult. That gives credence to our view that it is a matter of urgency that we get on with the further repeal of the House of Lords as quickly as possible.
      Dr. Harris: Reform.
      Mr. Foster: Yes. Perhaps that was an inadvertent slip, but it is one that I happen to believe in.
      1044
      The hon. Member for Eastbourne accused the Minister of not being prepared to make a graceful retreat. I am delighted that the Minister is not making a graceful retreat on this issue.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because he was referring to what was said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), whose comments from the Conservative Front Bench traduced what the children's charities are saying. They are saying that the problem is real. To suggest that those involved in a charity such as Childline do not worry about the issue is a gross distortion of reality. The hon. Gentleman, his party and others who support the failure to repeal section 28 must bear that responsibility, and recognise that tonight, there are children who are not protected and who are suicidal and that, in the next year—[Interruption.]—some will die—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the House—he is making an intervention.
      Mr. Foster: None the less, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says, because he draws our attention to a very real issue. It has been suggested, both in this House and in another place, that there is no evidence that section 28 has had any impact in causing homophobic bullying.
      In reality, however, there is real evidence that section 28 has a direct impact on many young people. For example, many teachers—whether by design or through misunderstanding—have been put in a difficult position, or have chosen not to deal with homophobic bullying. There is clear evidence that such bullying has led not only to serious problems for individual children but, in at least one well documented case, to the loss of life. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to that matter.
      Section 28 was undoubtedly born of prejudice against gay and lesbian people. There are four reasons for Liberal Democrats' consistent opposition to it. First, we genuinely believe that the legislation is based on discrimination on the grounds of people's sexual orientation. Secondly, we are firmly of the view that the provision is redundant in respect of schools.
      Mr. Damian Green: About 45 seconds ago, the hon. Gentleman said that section 28 was the source of all sorts of evils. Now he says that it is irrelevant. He cannot hold both positions. He might hold one or the other, but not both.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong— [Interruption.] If he wants an explanation, I shall give him one.
      There is no doubt that the existence of section 28 on the statute book has led some teachers—rightly or wrongly, because of their interpretation of the legislation—not to take action in the face of observed homophobic bullying. There is evidence to back up that claim; it is a fact.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Name a school.
      Mr. Foster: I have previously referred to the research carried out by my noble Friend Lord Tope, and I made it

      1045
      clear that my noble Friend is prepared to send details of that research to any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to study it.
      The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made the accusation that I could not say that the provision was redundant. It is redundant. As hon. Members are well aware, in recent legislation the House has provided that decisions on sex education in schools should be made not by local education authorities but by the teachers, parents and governors of individual schools. The provision is thus redundant because it refers to activities that are assumed to be the responsibility of LEAs but in which they cannot, in fact, be involved.
      Thirdly, section 28 is a meaningless piece of legislation for the simple reason that it is impossible to define the word "promote" in the phrase "promote homosexuality". Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is not possible to promote homosexuality. Some people seem to suggest that that is of exactly the same order as, for example, promoting an interest in train-spotting—or even in joining the Conservative party. The two things are simply not the same, and it is simply not possible to promote homosexuality.
      Fourthly and finally, as I said, I believe that section 28 has led to confusion in the minds of many teachers as to how to address the issue of homosexuality in our society.
      I hope that it is absolutely clear to the House that we are implacably opposed to the continuation of section 28, and that we will work with all those, of whatever political party and of none, whose desire it is to see it abolished. Further, we wish that abolition to take place as quickly as possible.
      The Minister has made it clear that the Government are anxious for section 28 to be abolished, but she has failed to tell us how quickly that is to be done, or by what mechanism. We shall work with her as long as it is absolutely clear that the Government's desire is to see the abolition of section 28 at the earliest possible opportunity—and I say to her that that can be achieved. It can be achieved by the introduction of a single clause Bill, even during the spillover period of this Parliament, at least to test the waters. It would be an example of good faith on the part of the Government, and show that they were prepared to work with those who, like us, oppose section 28, to see whether that would be an appropriate mechanism.
      I very much hope that before this debate is out, we shall hear more from the Minister about a commitment to speed, and some indication of the procedure by which we shall achieve the end that I believe she and I share.
      Mr. John McDonnell: I shall speak on the narrow point of strategy that has been discussed this evening. I was in local government for 25 years before I entered the House, and I know and understand the importance of the Bill to many of our colleagues in local government, and the powers that it can confer on local councillors to do good in our communities.
      However, I was also in local government in 1987. I was chief executive of a local government organisation when the clause that eventually became section 28 appeared, and I was therefore an officer advising local authorities on its effects. To be frank, we know why it was brought
      1046
      forward—as part of a homophobic campaign, as other campaigns have been waged against other minority groups in advance of elections and for political gain.
      Dr. Lewis: I think that the hon. Gentleman's memory is slightly at fault. I remember that the provision was brought forward in the light of publications like "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", which were being put into schools, to the dismay of many parents.
      Mr. McDonnell: There was an element of publicity surrounding publications like that, but I thought that the debate had moved forward from then, because in the discussions that took place about such publications, many of us learned many lessons. I believed that local government must come to terms with its powers and its relationship with schools as the education authority across a range of such matters. At that stage, I thought that we had moved forward. The first few years after 1987 were difficult, but after that there was an informed debate.
      I genuinely thought that all political parties had moved on. I thought that we had all learned lessons about our relationship to minority groups, about mutual respect, and about how legislation should be used to protect, rather than undermine, human rights.
      That is why I say, just on this narrow strategic or tactical point, that although I respect the need for the local government legislation, I also respect the role that the House should play in the protection and promotion of human rights. I pay tribute to Members, such my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), who have worked hard to shape the legislation so that it satisfies all concerned.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Woodward: Last year, the shadow cabinet of the Conservative party thought that, as a matter of human rights, this issue was worth two minutes' discussion. It thought that the views of every children's charity, the National Union of Teachers and all those interested in the protection of children merited just two minutes' consideration. What does my hon. Friend think about that in the context of human rights?
      Mr. McDonnell: I was hoping that when we debated this issue 13 years on from 1987, we would come at it with mature reflection about the implications for our communities—the minority and the majority—and that we would have learned lessons from what has happened. The Lords have thrown out every compromise that has been offered to them—in some cases, the compromises went too far—and sent us the message that section 28 should remain in force. If there is to be a constitutional battle between the elected House and the unelected House, let us have it on the issue of human rights.
      As a matter of tactics, we should send the Bill back to the Lords. If we have to stay another couple of weeks to debate the issue and confront the unelected House on a key issue—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh when I suggest that perhaps we should work for an additional fortnight. Most of my constituents will have at best two weeks' holiday this summer, so why do we not stay here to confront the House of Lords? Why do we not draw a line in the sand on this fundamental issue of

      1047
      human rights? On that basis, I give notice that I shall not vote to accept this part of the Bill. I will call a Division, because we should send the Bill back to the Lords to say clearly that we will not accept an unelected House undermining our promotion of human rights.
      Mr. Gummer: The problem is that the Government have not convinced the majority of people of the sense of repealing section 28. I say that, even though I have a long record of taking what many would describe as a liberal view on this issue. However, in her representation of the debate in the other place, the Minister missed out some serious speeches and, in particular, that of the Bishop of Winchester, who cannot in any circumstances be referred to as a bigot. It does not help our discussion of the issue if both sides of the House merely shout "bigot" at each other.
      We have to face up to the fact that the majority of people in Britain have not been convinced that it is sensible to allow the promotion of homosexual behaviour in schools. Every test of public opinion has shown that fact to be true. It is also true that, in the past, the House of Lords has shown itself to be more liberal than the House of Commons. The reform of the laws that made homosexual behaviour criminal was very much made possible by the House of Lords. Criticism of the other House in these circumstances seems to be unjust and historically inaccurate.
      Are we taking seriously the debate that took place in the other place? Some people are bound to express themselves badly on such matters and others have a deep-seated antagonism to this particular minority. However, it does not help the debate to suggest that everybody who has doubts about the repeal of the section is in that category. I beg the right hon. Lady to take seriously the fact that people such as the Bishop of Winchester speak for the majority, and in a democracy she needs to convince the majority before she makes this change.
      Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman said that we had failed to convince people on the question whether local authorities should promote homosexuality in schools. We have made it clear in the Learning and Skills Bill that local authorities have no role at all in the teaching of sex education in schools. There is a role for governors, in consultation with parents, to determine what is taught and how it is taught, and they must take account of guidance from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The right hon. Gentleman continues to push the point about section 28 when it is absolutely clear that the law does not relate to what he is speaking about.
      Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Lady is missing the point, which is simply that the Government seek to repeal section 28 when it is clear that the majority of people in Britain do not support that. The House of Lords, in its decision, has echoed the voice of the majority. I merely say to the right hon. Lady that if she is to be credible in this matter, she needs to be able to show that she has the support of the majority, which she should be able to do if her case is as watertight as she makes out. What worried me about her opening remarks is that she simply spoke loudly about people who have genuinely sought to discuss the issue.
      1048
      I want to put three simple points to the right hon. Lady. If section 28 does not mean anything, why has she tried to introduce this measure so often, with such obsessive pressure? If, on the other hand, it is meaningful, why is it wrong to say that society is tolerant but is not neutral on the matter because it does not want homosexual activity to be promoted? That is not a homophobic position; it is a perfectly reasonable position which happens to be shared by the majority of people in Britain. If the right hon. Lady does not think it reasonable, she must convince the majority of her position. She has not done so.
      Thirdly, we may live in a secular society, but it is serious when the Government decide that they will ride roughshod over opposition from the Churches and other faith groups. Again, I recommend that the right hon. Lady read the speech by the Bishop of Winchester, who expressed the deep Christian view of the majority of churchgoers in this country, who should not be ignored or called bigoted. The right hon. Lady suggested that every one of those people was bigoted. That is a great pity, and I hope that she will withdraw the remark.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: She did not say that.
      Mr. Gummer: I hope that when the right hon. Lady reads Hansard, she will realise that it is at least reasonable to infer that from what she said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am trying to be as polite as possible; the right hon. Lady made it clear that she thought that everybody on the other side of the argument was bigoted. I am prepared to say that I may be mistaken, but she ought to read her words.
      If the right hon. Lady maintains her view, will she explain to the House whether she wants homosexual behaviour to be promoted? Is that what she wants? If not, what is wrong with having a section that prohibits it? She has not answered that question because she has never faced up to it. I remind her that when I tried to get the Government to agree to insert specific words about the promotion of marriage, they turned down that amendment. Would not it be an odd world in which we were allowed, by the repeal of a measure, specifically to promote homosexuality, but not specifically to promote marriage?
      Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I do not want to rehearse the arguments all over again; they have been rehearsed quite enough times. Most Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, and even some Conservative Members who, sadly, do not have the courage of their convictions, share my depression.
      I should, however, correct the false assertion of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and, I am sorry to say, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), about the position of the Churches. As far as I am aware, the only Church leader in the United Kingdom who has spoken clearly against the repeal of section 28 has been the Catholic Cardinal Winning in Scotland. The majority of the Church of England bishops in the House of Lords yesterday voted with the Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can check Hansard if they have the energy. I have it in front of me; the ratio of Church of England bishops who voted with the Government was about 6:2. So, please, no more of Conservative Members trying to claim that they talk on behalf of the Churches. The Churches are divided. Many decent Christians, such as myself and other Labour Members, believe that the legislation is pernicious and needs to go.

      1049
      Is not the real issue facing us that, once again, the overwhelming will of the democratically elected House of Commons has been thwarted by an unelected House of Lords which is riddled with homophobia? Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree—I hope that she will assure us in her winding-up speech—that the Government have a moral obligation to deal with the matter in a stand-alone Bill as soon as possible, to respect the House's overwhelming will?
      I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I do not see what would be achieved by a ping-pong session between this House and the House of Lords all summer, giving Baroness Young more publicity for her homophobia and bigotry. That is the last thing that we and vulnerable young gay and lesbian people need. I beg him not to do what he said he would do.
      May I point a way forward for my right hon. Friend and her fellow Ministers? Does not this problem show that the time has come to stop pussyfooting about extending human rights legislation? Is there now not an overwhelming case in Britain for a Government Bill or a manifesto commitment—I do not mind which—to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation wherever it occurs, to deal with the subject once and for all? Would that not also have the advantage of putting clear blue water between a Labour party that is committed to basic human rights for all and a Tory party that is mired in homophobia and hypocrisy?
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The tone of some of the comments, particularly the sedentary ones, has been especially unpleasant and not made for healthy debate. As somebody on the Opposition Benches who has supported the Government throughout on the matter, I am disappointed that they have not been prepared to press forward and seen fit to take the Bill through both Houses again.
      We have heard much from Conservatives Members, who are great traditionalists, about the will of the people, but if this House cannot express the will of the people, what is the point of it? As this House has many times made its view on repeal of section 28 very clear, surely the matter should be taken forward. It is a great pity that, for practical reasons at this stage in the Session, we cannot do so. It is also a pity that, more than anything, the section 28 issue has characterised the Bill. There are more important issues in it that the Lords and Conservative Members could have tackled.
      The Government could have done one of two things when it came to section 28. They could have let it wither on the vine. It has already been superseded by the role of governors in sex education in schools. It would certainly have been superseded by European legislation on equality. In fact, we voted earlier on a motion on such draft regulations.
      However, having chosen to open the debate, the Government must accept that they have triggered an upsurge of prejudice and fear. I have seen that fear during many difficult discussions in my constituency, especially with Christian groups. I believe that, for the most part, that fear is born, not out of prejudice, but out of ignorance of what section 28 is or is not achieving, and of the Government's intentions. With respect, I suggest that the Government left a gap at the start of the process, when it
      1050
      was not clear what the Bill would contain and many ordinary Members of Parliament had difficulty determining the path that the Government had plotted for us. There was a lack of leadership and the Government are reaping the consequences of that.
      I urge the Government to show that leadership. From the Prime Minister down, they have made it clear that they want the repeal of section 28, and it is clear that they have the support of the majority of Members of Parliament. Therefore, there is the parliamentary will to achieve that end. It is incumbent on the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to state tonight how the Government intend to proceed. I understand that she cannot make any guarantees and I respect that, but Ministers have had time in the past 24 hours to consider the next step. Will that next step consist of a short, sharp Bill, or of amendments to other Bills?
      The Government should make it a priority to cure a pain in our public policy that is thwarting sensible discussion of what should be taught in schools. Irrelevant though the issue is, it is distorting that debate. The Government should give a clear commitment tonight that they will sort the matter out, once and for all, that they will allow Parliament to sort it out, and that it will not be left to drag on for much longer.
      1 am
      Mr. Corbyn: I was a Member of Parliament in 1987, when the awful clause 28 was introduced. I remember the homophobic speeches that were made at the time, the prejudice displayed by the Government of the day, and the effect outside Parliament. Homophobic bullying was given easy passage, which resulted in the isolation and punishment of many young gay and lesbian people, who were left in terror. Ask anyone who works with organisations such as Childline about that period and what has happened since then, and they will say the same.
      There is no division of opinion among Labour Members on whether we should get rid of section 28. The issue has been discussed for a long time within the Labour party and the broader community. Many of us have fought elections, and been elected, making a clear stand against section 28 and the homophobia goes with it. I am proud that my party has done that.
      However, the issue tonight is essentially one of tactics. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made a powerful speech in which he, rightly, pointed out that the European convention on human rights and our own human rights legislation will ensure that if the Bill is enacted in its current form, it will probably be outlawed at some point, because of the implicit ban on the promotion of homosexuality that it contains. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) said, rightly, that the issue has to be addressed and asked the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to state, specifically and clearly, how it will be dealt with. I asked my right hon. Friend for a similar assurance during her opening remarks, but I am sorry to say that I am not satisfied with her answer.
      If the House of Lords rejects the Bill and we send it back and there is a ping-pong match between the two Houses, the Lords might, at some point, realise that the Commons is serious about the Bill, serious about human rights and serious about getting rid of section 28. If we do that now, that will be a clear and immediate response. I say with the

      1051
      greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that doing that will not give Lady Young massive publicity; instead, she will have been challenged immediately. However, if we delay, those who want to retain section 28 will have longer to campaign on the issue.
      Coming back to a Bill in the spill-over period would be a good thing; coming back to a Bill in the next Session would be less good, but it would at least show a commitment. However, if we do not address the issue at all in this Parliament and return to it only in the next Parliament, we shall have negated our responsibility to get rid of section 28, which is an issue on which many of us were elected.
      The way to deal with this issue is to say to the House of Lords, "Sorry, you are not correct on this. We are determined to get rid of the prejudice within our society, which has been encouraged by section 28."
      Mr. Stephen Twigg: There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of Members want to see the repeal of section 28. If we believed that by sending it back to the House of Lords tonight through the Bill we could achieve its repeal, we would do so. The judgment upon which my right hon. Friend the Minister has made her case tonight is that we shall not be able to bring about the repeal of the section by taking that course. Nothing that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said tonight has persuaded me that we can do so. Let us unite as people who want to repeal section 28 and get rid of it at the earliest opportunity.
      Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are united in wanting to get rid of section 28. We are discussing how we should do that. With great respect to my hon. Friend and the Minister, I have not heard anything tonight that suggests that delay will make it easier to get rid of the section. I suggest that, if anything, delay will make that slightly more difficult.
      We were elected in May 1997 with a large majority. Issues such as this should have been dealt with immediately. If that approach had been taken, the repeal of the section would have been achieved more quickly than is likely now.
      Mr. McDonnell: We are having a tactical discussion and trying to find a way forward. Does my hon. Friend agree that a simple commitment from those on the Government Front Bench, announced tonight, that a one-clause or simple Bill would be brought forward within weeks—in other words, in the spill-over session—would send a message to the Lords that we are serious?
      Mr. Corbyn: If the Minister is able to help us with that, my hon. Friend's suggestion might take us some way forward. There is no reason why the Government could not prepare a short one-clause Bill now, publish it immediately, and show that we are determined to get rid of the obnoxious section 28 as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend has not encouraged me to believe that that is likely to happen.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I understand the passion with which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South
      1052
      (Mr. Marsden) expresses himself on this issue. In fairness, he should understand that others of a different persuasion feel equally passionately about it. This is the place where we try to resolve such difficulties. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for someone to blame, he should focus on the occupants of the Government Front Bench. As has been said repeatedly, the issue was not the subject of a Labour party manifesto commitment. The Government chose to tack it on to the Bill in the hope of sneaking it through Parliament.
      I pay tribute to Baroness Young, who, by common consent, except among Labour Members perhaps, has fought a remarkably courageous campaign, with enormous fortitude and with enormous support from the people of Britain. It is widely recognised that last night, despite packing the other place with more cronies—another 30 since this issue was last debated there—the other place spoke for the people and parents of Britain.
      It was not simply a Tory victory last night. Baroness Young would not have won had she not had the support of Labour peers, Cross-Bench peers, the bishops and the Muslim community. Those who are supporting the retention of section 28 constitute a broad coalition of the British people. Those who are in favour of its repeal are members of the Labour and Liberal parties. The issue is not about homophobia and it does not involve a tolerance of bullying. None of us on the Opposition Benches has any truck with bullying. That must be rooted out wherever it occurs in our schools.
      The Government knew that they were losing ground on the issue. To placate some of the more reasonable members of the Cabinet, they produced the proposals for guidelines for sex education. They tried to do a deal with some of the bishops. They bought off some of them, but not all.
      It is astonishing that the Government refused to accept an amendment which drew on the very words of the Home Secretary in the Government's own document "Supporting Families". If Labour Members have a complaint, it is about their own Government.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) that four bishops voted with my noble Friend last night and four voted against, but the former Archbishop of York perhaps gave the casting vote in support of those who were in favour of the retention of section 28.
      Mr. Bradshaw: rose—
      Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman would not give way to me, I will not give way to him.
      Mr. Bradshaw: Name the bishops.
      Mr. Howarth: The names are all in Hansard. The bishops who voted for retention were the Bishops of Bradford, Manchester, Rochester and Winchester. Those who voted against were the Bishops of Bristol, Oxford, Portsmouth and St. Albans. The hon. Gentleman can read that in Hansard, just as I did.
      Another point made was that charities such as Childline, the NSPCC and Barnardos were in favour of the repeal of section 28. That is contradicted by an answer given by the

      1053
      Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), on 19 June at column 5W. She was asked what discussions had taken place
      with (a) Childline, (b) the NSPCC and (c) Barnardos about the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
      She replied:
      The Government have had no discussions with Childline, the NSPCC or Barnardos about the repeal of section 28. I understand that the organisations do not hold official positions on the repeal.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 5W.]
      I shall not detain the House further, save to repeat that it was a coalition in their lordships' House last night which secured the protection of children, which parents throughout the country want. May I say to the Prime Minister that the campaign for repeal is an eye-catching initiative, with which he is personally associated, and he will be associated with that endeavour right up to and including the next election?
      Mr. Woodward: I shall speak briefly as a trustee of Childline, as a former deputy chairman of Childline, and as someone who has been responsible for child protection. Childline has counselled 1 million children in the past 12 years. Whatever the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) may wish to say about Childline or however he may wish to traduce it and the other charities involved in child protection, it is a gross distortion of what the charities have said and the evidence that they have produced.
      The truth is that children are not protected by the current law. Those Opposition Members who have no interest in listening to facts and no interest in listening to children's charities are wilfully damaging, not protecting, children in Britain today. Nobody in Britain wants the promotion of homosexuality. People in Britain want tolerance, fairness and understanding.
      Mr. Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Woodward: I will not give way, and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) knows well why I will not do so. Every time I have asked him to give way, he has petulantly refused to do so. I shall return the compliment. He cannot face criticism. His comments are based on ignorance, intolerance, prejudice and a failure to consult children's charities.
      1.15 am
      If Conservative Members had once done children's charities the courtesy of spending time with them, they would have learned—[Interruption.] Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen moan about this, but I have never seen a single Conservative Front-Bench spokesman at the offices of Childline. They have never consulted the children's charities. Why are they not interested? They had a two-minute discussion in shadow Cabinet in which they decided that it was so-called good family values—or short-term political opportunism—to ignore the evidence of every single children's charity and every single teacher who said that the section was a mistake. They do not care about the damage that they do. They do not care
      1054
      about the children who, in the next 12 months, will be suicidal and who will take their own lives.
      Conservative Members will not listen, but if they care one jot about children, if they care one jot about a Sarah Payne—[Interruption.] Listen carefully. [Interruption.] Those of us who are involved in child protection know that unless one listens to the problems that are raised by the children and their families they become a serious matter, sometimes ending in death.
      I can tell Conservative Members that there will be children who will telephone Childline or the Samaritans and talk of suicide and despair, and if the House chooses, out of prejudice, intolerance and short-term political gain, to ignore those children, it will fail our country in a way which is singularly irresponsible.
      Dr. Harris: I have three points in refutation of some of the points made by Conservative Members. First, it is not the view of any medical organisation, psychological or psychiatric authority that homosexuality can be promoted. That is like saying that femaleness can be promoted. It cannot. Unless hon. Members have discovered some new developmental biological insight, or developmental psychological insight—
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Harris: I did not intervene on Conservative Members, so I shall not take interventions from them. Unless they can show such research, section 28 is founded on scientific nonsense.
      Secondly, section 28 does not allow for young people to be told that homosexuality is acceptable as "a pretended family relationship". That means that young people should be told that homosexuality is unacceptable and that anyone who is homosexual and has any kind of family relationship is somehow unacceptable. That is what is unacceptable to those of us who believe that gay and lesbian people have a right to private family lives and to the freedoms and privileges that other British citizens rightly enjoy. That is why that part of section 28 is
      anathema.
      Thirdly, Conservative Members have attempted to say that they care deeply about the problems of bullying, including homophobic bullying, while supporting section 28. There is clear research on the effect of section 28 on the mental health and freedoms of young people who are teased for being gay or lesbian or because they are felt to be gay or lesbian.
      Research by the College of Ripon and York St. John presented this month at a conference of the British Psychological Society shows that a large proportion of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils who are bullied by their classmates try to commit suicide, and that 17 per cent.—nearly one in five—display symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder in later life. The authors of the report clearly link that to section 28.
      Dr. Rivers, one of the authors of the report, states:
      I would suggest that there are fewer guidelines to censure bullying when it's over the issue of sexuality.
      He believed that repealing section 28 would help. He said:
      Section 28 is a major stumbling block to discussing sexual orientation and homophobic bullying.

      1055
      The research evidence therefore suggests something that Conservative Members will not accept: section 28 helps homophobic bullying. They can ignore the scientific research, but they must recognise that they are doing so.
      What about the decision that faces us tonight? I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and her commitment to repealing section 28. I also pay tribute to Labour Members who have spoken in favour of the Government's view. However, we must consider the current position. We are three years into the tenure of an all-powerful Labour Government, who have a huge majority and have defied the law repeatedly through illiberal measures on asylum seekers, the imposition of tuition fees—there was a great deal of ping-pong on that—the loss of the right to trial by jury, and the reduction in some disability benefits. They have fought and defeated the Lords on those issues, yet no progress has been made on repealing section 28.
      Perhaps we are worse off than when we started because we have handed our opponents a victory, which will succour prejudice, give momentum to the view of those who oppose the human rights of lesbian and gay people, and kindle homophobia and the sort of hate crimes that we have witnessed in their severest form recently. Could the Government have taken action earlier to avoid our current position?
      The Government must urge the repeal of section 28. They could have made it a manifesto commitment. A vote against the Government's position tonight will send a message to those in charge of manifestos that the House of Lords shows greater respect to Government manifesto commitments. If, like us, the Government had included their policy to repeal section 28 in their manifesto, we would probably not be in our current position.
      The Government could have introduced the provision in their first Bill on local government. It would have been better to do it immediately and associate a popular Government with an important measure, which may not be populist according to the tabloid press. We would be further away from a general election and there would be less electoral leverage for the more intolerant parts of the media, and less of a chance for our opponents to whip up homophobia around election time.
      The Government could have repealed section 28 in a House of Commons Bill, which would have allowed for the operation of the Parliament Act. I know that they were urged to do that. The Library report states clearly that if a House of Commons Bill had been introduced earlier in the Session, the Parliament Act—the cure for Lords obstinacy—could have been used.
      It did not take a rocket scientist to realise that the House of Lords would oppose repealing section 28. It does not take much to realise that headlines in the newspapers—even The Guardian—which suggested that, if the Government lost, they would make the announcement that they made today, would improve the Lords' chances of defeating the measure. That happened on measures such as the reduction of the age of consent. The Government should give no clue to their future tactics because that aids our opponents.
      Another option was proper reform of the House of Lords, ridding it of the hereditaries. Sixty-four hereditary peers voted against repealing section 28. That figure is far
      1056
      greater than the majority that was achieved in the House of Lords. If the Government had not conceded on hereditary peers, or if they had proceeded more quickly to fuller reform, we would not be in our current position. If the Government had secured a proper turnout of Labour peers the first time, and fewer than the 18 rebellions, through pressure that the Whips are more than capable of exerting, the provision would not have been lost in the House of Lords. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the House. This important debate is of concern across the nation and the hon. Gentleman should be heard.
      Dr. Harris: I pay tribute to Liberal Democrat peers who have twice voted to repeal the measure—the turnout was 100 per cent.—and to the Labour peers who spoke so eloquently.
      There is another option. As other hon. Members have suggested, the Government could insist on getting their way and, although I respect the views of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), that would not give Baroness Young further opportunities. Conceding defeat would give succour to our opponents. Baroness Young and her colleagues want the Government to concede defeat, but I could not abide giving them that victory tonight. If we insisted on the Lords reconsidering, that would send a signal from the Prime Minister that the matters referred to in the memo are of no consequence to Labour Members and Labour Ministers. I hope that an honourable Labour Government will not give way on human rights to the so-called family lobby; gay issues, as referred to in that memo, are a human rights matter.
      We have lost again on a human rights issue. What signal does that send out from the Government? I am afraid that they have sent out other similar signals. With a few honourable exceptions, Labour Members voted against a proposal made from these Benches to ban discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation, and for nearly three years after taking office, the Government continued to sack gay members of the armed forces even though they knew that they would have to stop doing so. They also voted against a proposal made from these Benches to allow pension sharing and voted to allow the extension of sentences for all hate crimes, not just racially motivated crimes.
      The Government have apparently wavered on abolishing the offence of gross indecency and have in terms ruled out giving adoption rights to lesbians and gays. Also, we must ask, where is the age of consent Bill? It could have passed into law on 23 February had the Government business managers introduced it into the House of Lords earlier. If the Lords had accepted the Bill, it would have become law; under the Parliament Act, it would have become law had the Lords rejected it.
      Mr. Bradshaw: That is an argument for supporting my suggestion to move forward with an overarching Bill to outlaw all discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation rather than for indulging the hon. Gentleman's pet scheme of playing ping-pong with the bigots in the House of Lords.
      Dr. Harris: My hon. Friends and I would welcome an overarching Bill, but one has not been promised tonight.

      1057
      I invite the Minister to give such a promise, but, given the Government's record on some of these issues, she is unlikely to do so. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's personal commitment, but he should examine the voting records. It would be useful if he and others sent Ministers the message that they want more progress to be made on these matters.
      There are other options. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I have invited the Minister to make specific suggestions. There could be a new Bill in the spillover period, though I fear that that might not work. At least she could offer such a Bill now. There could be a new Commons Bill in the next Session, which would offer the promise of using the Parliament Act. There could be an overarching equality Bill. The Government could show that the memo culture of worrying about gay issues does not apply to them. The Minister could at least guarantee that a pledge to repeal section 28 will appear in the next Labour manifesto. Can she give such a guarantee or say that that is her wish?
      Unless we get a guarantee, all that tonight will represent is a victory for intolerance and prejudice, a failure of Government policy and a failure of Labour party policy. That will give aid to our enemies. Amendments such as that tabled by the Bishop of Blackburn, which were not the first preference of Members on these Benches, will have been accepted for nothing. No alternative has been offered by the Government and the atmosphere is one of suspicion.
      I want the Minister to do what the opponents of this measure do not want her to do. They want her to continue with her line of offering nothing substantial except a vague commitment. We want her to offer a clear commitment.
      1.30 am
      Ms Armstrong: We have had a wide-ranging debate. Hon. Members on this side of the House and below the Gangway have made substantial points in support of the repeal of section 28. Those points have been made before, but are none the less very strong indeed. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) made strong speeches making it absolutely clear that, whatever the official legal position, young people who think that they are gay or lesbian have faced difficult consequences because of the way in which they have been treated at school.
      Most Conservative Members have made it clear that they do not believe that homophobic bullying should go on in schools, and I am pleased that they have done so. However, they refuse to listen to any of the evidence that shows clearly that such bullying does occur and that section 28 is used—probably wrongly—to legitimise the reasons for not tackling the problem. Whatever their position in the House, those who want to see the end of such activity should take careful note of the clear evidence of many children's charities across the country, because the introduction of section 28 has had a negative effect. That may not have been the intention of some Conservative Members when they passed the legislation in 1988. However, that has none the less been the consequence.
      It was interesting to listen to the meanderings of some Conservative Members. I remind them of what their party leader said in February 1999. He must wish that that was
      1058
      long enough ago for people to have forgotten what he said. He told his party that it must be seen as "open, inclusive and compassionate" as opposed to its past "elitist" image. The Tory party is now tearing up its proposal for a common-sense revolution. It has also torn up its commitment to openness, inclusiveness and compassion.
      Many of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members urged me to send the Bill back to the Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) made his position clear, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). They do not understand the procedures of the Palace of Westminster. If we send the Bill back, we risk not only not repealing section 28, but the whole Bill. If we remove the Baroness Young clause and send the Bill back to the Lords, who vote on it and once again insert it, the Standing Orders and guide to proceedings of the House of Lords make it absolutely clear that if the Lords insist on their disagreement, without offering alternatives, the Bill is lost.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said clearly that he respected the Bill and the issue of human rights embodied in the repeal of section 28. I share his respect for both those things. It is because we want the battle on human rights to constitute the dividing line between us and the Tories, between this House and the House of Lords, that I know there is simply no point in sending the Bill back in the way that he wishes. We could have no battle with the House of Lords: it could simply reaffirm its position and there would then be no opportunity for the House to consider or debate the Bill again. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friend to think again.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon gave us a litany of what the Government might now do, and all his suggestions are real possibilities. However, accepting those suggestions tonight without securing consensus across this House and with the House of Lords might not be the most effective way of ensuring that we get rid of section 28.
      Those who know me well are aware that I am not in favour of gesture politics. [Interruption.] I said, "Those who know me well"; I do not think any Tories know me well. I am not in favour of gesture politics. I want actual repeal of section 28, and the extension of human rights in this country. I want to be part of making that a reality, and I believe that Liberal Democrats, Welsh nationalists and my hon. Friends share my determination. I want to work with them to find an effective way of guaranteeing the repeal of section 28.
      We will repeal the section. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that we could do it this way and that way; he said that we could do it by putting something into the manifesto. We need to consider all the possibilities properly and to come up with a method that works, rather than one that just throws the issue up in the air. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) attacked us for doing that.
      We are determined to get rid of section 28, and determined to find the most effective way of doing so. The Government are committed to that; I believe that the House is committed to it; and I ask Members to support the Government.
      Question put That this House does not insist on its amendment No. 377, to which the Lords have disagreed:—
      The House divided: Ayes 381, Noes 36.

      Division No. 292]

      [1.38 am

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Ainger, Nick

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clelland, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Coleman, Iain

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Collins, Tim

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Colman, Tony

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Connarty, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Banks, Tony

      Corston, Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cran, James

      Bayley, Hugh

      Crausby, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Beggs, Roy

      Cummings, John

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Darvill, Keith

      Bercow, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bermingham, Gerald

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

      Berry, Roger

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Day, Stephen

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Borrow, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Boswell, Tim

      Doran, Frank

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brady, Graham

      Efford, Clive

      Brazier, Julian

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Evans, Nigel

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fallon, Michael

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzsimons. Mrs Lorna

      Burns, Simon

      Flight, Howard

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Flint, Caroline

      Butterfill, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Cann, Jamie

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Casale, Roger

      Fraser, Christopher

      Cash, William

      Fyfe, Maria

      Caton, Martin

      Gale, Roger

      Cawsey, Ian

      Garnier, Edward

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall s)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibb, Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gill, Christopher

      Chope, Christopher

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Clapham, Michael

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clappison, James

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gray, James

      1060

      Green, Damian

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Greenway, John

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Grieve, Dominic

      Lidington, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Grogan, John

      Lock, David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Loughton, Tim

      Hain, Peter

      Love, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Luff, Peter

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Hamilton,Rt Hon sir Archie

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hammand,Philip

      McCabe, Steve

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hawkins, Nick

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hayes, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Heald, Oliver

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Healey, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Heppell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hesford, Stephen

      MacShane, Denis

      Hill, Keith

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      McWalter, Tony

      Hoey, Kate

      Madel, Sir David

      Hope, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Horam, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Maxtor, John

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meale, Alan

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hurst, Alan

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hutton, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Moffatt, Laura

      Illsley, Eric

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Morley, Elliot

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

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

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mountford, Kali

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Norris, Dan

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Martyr (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ottaway, Richard

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Paterson, Owen

      Key, Robert

      Pearson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Perham, Ms Linda

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pike, Peter L

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Pond, Chris

      Lansley, Andrew

      Pope, Greg

      Laxton, Bob

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Pound, Stephen

      Lepper, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Levitt, Tom

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prior, David

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      1061

      Purchase, Ken

      Spring, Richard

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Randall, John

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Rapson, Syd

      Steen, Anthony

      Raynsford, Nick

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Stevenson, George

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Robertson, Laurence

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Streeter, Gary

      Rooney, Terry

      Stringer, Graham

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Rowlands, Ted

      Swayne, Desmond

      Roy, Frank

      Syms, Robert

      Ruane, Chris

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ruffley, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Sawford, Phil

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Todd, Mark

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Townend, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tredinnick, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Trend, Michael

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Soley, Clive

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Viggers, Peter

      Spellar, John

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wareing, Robert N

      1062

      Waterson, Nigel

      Wilson, Brian

      Watts, David

      Winnick, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wood, Mike

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Woodward, Shaun

      Whittingdale, John

      Woolas, Phil

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Worthington, Tony

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Yeo, Tim

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Allan, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ballard, Jackie

      McAllion, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Moore, Michael

      Brake, Tom

      Oaten, Mark

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Öpik, Lembit

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Rendel, David

      Burstow, Paul

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

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Cotter, Brian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tyler, Paul

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Wallace, James

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Webb, Steve

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Willis, Phil

      Gidley, Sandra

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Gorrie, Donald

      Mr. John McDonnell and

      Harvey, Nick

      Dr. Evan Harris.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments and reasons agreed to.

  Learning and Skills Bill [Lords]
  Lords amendments considered.
  Learning and Skills Bill [Lords]
    Clause 117

      SEX EDUCATION
      Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 180: in line 4, at beginning insert—
      ("In exercising any function which may affect the provision of sex education in maintained schools, every local education authority must have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 403(IA).
      (7) Except to the extent provided in subsection (6), ").
      1.56 am
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 182.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move,
      That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      I am pleased to say that we are now close to the end of our consideration of the Bill. I hope that the amendments will not detain the House for long tonight.
      Hon. Members will recall that the amendments on sex education made in this House focused on protecting children from inappropriate materials, including those produced by health authorities. We have to consider two amendments to amendments agreed in this House. The first, to amendment No. 180, is a Government amendment that ensures that when local education authorities carry out any activity that may have a bearing on the provision of sex education, they must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance on sex and relationship education.
      The Government tabled that amendment in another place in response to amendments tabled by Baroness Young that would have provided that, if a local education authority gives training and advice to teachers or governors on the subject of sex education, it should have regard to the fact that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and is the most reliable framework for raising children. The Government believe that the amendment was unacceptably narrow and that it would be wrong to focus on marriage as a single issue in that way.
      We recognised, however, that it was important to consider the role of LEAs. They play a key part in supporting schools; for example, by providing information, training and advice. We thought it right for LEAs to have regard to the principles set out in our guidance when performing that role, and had already sent copies of our sex and relationship guidance to every LEA to encourage them to do so.
      Both in principle and to ensure the successful passage of the Bill, we believed it right to table an amendment to make it clear that LEAs must have regard to that guidance when carrying out activities that may affect sex education. The amendment does not change the existing provision that, of course, the key responsibility for sex and
      1064
      relationship education must remain with the head teacher and the governing body, and that the local authority has no duty in the policy or delivery of sex education.
      The second Lords amendment, tabled by the Bishop of Blackburn, inserts an addition to amendment No. 182, passed in this House, to provide that the Secretary of State's guidance should secure that children learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children. The amendment would preserve the remainder of Commons amendment No. 182, at the heart of which is the protection of children from inappropriate teaching and materials. It is consistent with our guidance, and with our personal, social and health education framework.
      In the other place, the Opposition tabled an amendment to stipulate that the guidance must be designed to secure that pupils are taught that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and the most reliable framework for raising children. We believed that the amendment carried risks of stigmatisation for many children in schools.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wicks: Not at the moment.
      The Government therefore supported the Bishop of Blackburn's amendment, which, as I have said, is consistent with the Government's guidance and the PSHE framework, and resisted the Opposition amendment. The amendment was carried in another place and I encourage the House to support it. Our sex and relationship education guidance recognises the significance of stable relationships as well as marriage. It is thus rooted in the reality of life for many of our children. That reality was echoed by the Bishop of Blackburn when he introduced his amendment in another place.
      Today, there has been much comment during the debate on the Local Government Bill. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions has set out our position on that measure. Recent events do not change the provisions in the Learning and Skills Bill or the guidance that the Secretary of State has issued. Nor do they diminish the serious responsibility behind our actions—to support heads and governors in delivering effective sex and relationship education.
      Our guidance is clear: schools should consider the needs of all pupils when developing a policy on sex and relationship education. Teaching on such matters needs to be sensitive so as not to stigmatise children because of their home circumstances. As we have emphasised repeatedly, schools need to be able to deal with homophobic bullying.
      In agreeing to these amendments, the House should wish the Bill well on its way to Royal Assent.
      2 am
      Mrs. Theresa May: It is rather appropriate that we are discussing amendments on the Learning and Skills Bill immediately after the debate on the Local Government Bill. The measures have two aspects in common. They were both the subject of crushing defeats for the Government in another place. Valiant efforts were made by Baroness Young and Baroness Blatch on sex education

      1065
      provision in the Learning and Skills Bill, and by Baroness Blatch on the measure in general. Both Bills, and the amendments that we are discussing tonight, relate to the debate on section 28.
      The Learning and Skills Bill, of course, relates to the reorganisation of post-16 education and training. It may be a pity, therefore, that, in its last gasp in the House, it is subject not to a debate on the threat to school sixth forms, which the Bill introduces; not to a debate about the changing of sixth form funding, which the Bill introduces; not to a debate about the abolition of training and enterprise councils and the relationship of business men to the Learning and Skills Council; not to a debate about the sudden introduction of city academies brought into the Bill at the last minute by the Government; and not to a debate about the introduction of Connexions, a scheme which means that not every young person will have careers guidance in the future.
      Instead, the amendments that we have before us tonight relate to sex education. The fact that these amendments are before us tonight is entirely the fault of the Government and their obsession with the repeal of section 28, contrary to the commonsense views of the mainstream majority of people in this country—because the clause to which these amendments refer was inserted in the Bill as an attempt by the Government to achieve a compromise in another place, which would have enabled them to repeal section 28. It was nothing to do with the Government's views on marriage, or on sex education generally.
      The clause and the amendments have everything to do with section 28. 1 accept that, in her closing remarks in the debate in another place on 18 July, the Minister, Baroness Blackstone, said with reference to the speech that had been made by Baroness Blatch:
      I was disappointed by her remarks. I thought she was being unduly cynical in her suggestion that the Government are bringing forward these amendments simply in order that Section 28 of the Local Government Act should be repealed. The Government are bringing forward these amendments because, unlike the previous government, they believe that it is right that pupils in our schools should get the best possible sex education"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 871.].
      Well, I must tell the House that the reality of the Government's position was, unfortunately for that Minister, given away this morning on Radio 4 by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions—who spoke in the previous debate—when she made it clear that the references to sex education and guidance in the Learning and Skills Bill had been introduced only as a compromise, with the specific intention of making it easier to repeal section 28, by making section 28 redundant and making any attempt to retain it perverse.
      In that, of course, the Government failed, as a majority of their lordships chose to reflect the views of parents and others on that subject. However, in this entire debate we have seen the hypocrisy of the Government, and we have seen how very out of touch they are with the British people.
      The debate so far on this clause and amendments has focused not only on the practical implementation of guidelines on sex education, but in particular on the extent to which the importance of marriage should be reflected in the guidance given, and should be set out on the face of the Bill.
      1066
      This is an issue on which we see clearly how much the Government rely on spin rather than substance. When the review—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have these interventions, especially from the Front Bench.
      Mrs. May: When the review of the national curriculum took place, and it was initially revealed that the Government did not intend even to refer to marriage in parts of the curriculum such as personal, social and health education and sex education, there was a public outcry. I dare say the Daily Mail had something to say about that—and that might have had something to do with the fact that the Government then responded, given that we know the Prime Minister's views on responding to the concerns raised by the Daily Mail—and the Secretary of State made soothing noises to the effect that of course the Government were going to reflect the importance of marriage and family life in the curriculum.
      Indeed, anyone reading the publication issued by the Home Secretary entitled "Supporting Families" would have been forgiven for believing that the Government were indeed strong on family values. It says:
      This Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships…we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.
      It seems that the Government's views on the importance of marriage and of marriage as
      the most reliable framework for raising children
      were absolutely clear in that Home Office document.
      As ever with this Government, the words that they produce in glossy brochures do not reflect the reality of their deeds. Those words do not appear in the amendments—indeed, attempts here and in another place to insert them were resisted by the Government. Their actions show that they are not interested in family values or in recognising marriage. Their words say one thing, their actions another.
      Perhaps nobody told the Government that this could be a touchstone issue. The Prime Minister seems to recognise the importance of the family as a touchstone issue. The memorandum from "TB" dated 29 April 2000 and headed "Touchstone Issues" says:
      They are roughly combining "on your side" issues with toughness and standing up for Britain. They range from: the family—where partly due to MCA—
      the married couples allowance—
      and gay issues, we are perceived as weak…all of these things add up to a sense that the Government—and this even applies to me—are somehow out of touch with gut British instincts.
      The memorandum concludes:
      On the family, we need two or three eye-catching initiatives that are entirely conventional in terms of their attitude to the family. Despite the rubbish about gay couples, the adoption issue worked well. We need more.
      I should be personally associated with as much of this as possible.
      I do not know whether the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister would see sex education as an eye-catching initiative on the family, but if they did, they palpably failed in that regard.

      1067
      The Government were not prepared even to repeat their own words about the importance of marriage and stable family relationships as
      the most reliable framework for raising children.
      Those were the Government's words, but they have not been prepared to bring them before the House in the form of amendments to the Bill to ensure that it reflects the views of people in this country.
      The Minister said that that phrase was rejected because it stigmatised children. I suggest to him that he speak to the Home Secretary, because they were the words of this Government. They were set out in the document entitled "Supporting Families". [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), says that I should examine the context of that statement. It also refers to
      strong and mutually supportive families and relationships outside marriage.
      It is entirely right that it should refer to such relationships, but the hon. Lady should learn the meaning of the words that the Government wrote. They said:
      we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.
      They do not refer to the only framework, or to the only reliable framework for raising children, but to
      the most reliable framework for raising children.
      The Government are now rejecting those words by saying that they stigmatise children. I suggest that Education Ministers talk to the Home Secretary, who wrote the words and gave the impression that the Government were interested in family life and the importance of marriage. Once again the spin, the glossy brochures and the headlines have not been reflected in the Government's actions.
      The amendments relate to the guidance on sex education that the Secretary of State must issue. We have a number of concerns about those proposals. The first concerns the suggestion that the Secretary of State will issue guidance to which governing bodies and head teachers must merely have regard.
      Ministers have again pretended that the measures will replace section 28 and that they have greater force than they really do. They require governing bodies and head teachers not to follow the guidance, but merely to look at it when drawing up their school's sex education policy. It is incumbent on Ministers, who are trying to pretend that the Bill will ensure that marriage and family life are being taught properly in sex education lessons, to show how that will be the case if people are required only to "have regard" to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm that to have regard to the guidance is neither a direction nor a regulation?
      Mrs. May: I am happy to confirm precisely that point. My hon. Friend has, perhaps, put it more succinctly than I have. Heads and governors are not required to take any particular action on the school's sex education curriculum. The Secretary of State may revise his guidance at any time, so we are not even confident that the guidance referred to in the Bill will remain in place.
      1068
      I turn now to the amendment moved by the Bishop of Blackburn, which adds to the guidance provision the requirement that when children in maintained schools receive sex education,
      they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children…
      I knew that the Government were control freaks, but I was not aware that they were going to mandate children to learn certain things. One can mandate teachers to teach certain things, but ensuring that children learn them is an entirely separate matter.
      There are flaws in the guidance provision that has been inserted into the Bill. The main flaws from the Government's point of view are that it does not replace section 28 and it does not do the job for which it was intended. It introduces some guidance to schools on sex education and the context in which it should be taught. It is a great pity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am so glad that Labour Members share my disappointment at the views of their Front-Bench colleagues. It is a great pity that, having for so many months tried to pretend that they are in favour of marriage, family life and family values, the Government, when challenged, were not prepared to have the courage of their convictions and insert a clause to that effect in the Bill. They rejected the words of their own Ministers about the importance of marriage.
      Perhaps we should read some more leaked Government memos to find an explanation. [Interruption.] That woke them up. Perhaps each one is wondering whether the memo that they leaked will be quoted now.
      2.15 am
      Mr. Fabricant: Where is TB?
      Mrs. May: Where indeed?
      In his memo, Philip Gould—a name well known to Labour Members—cited the problems that the Government were having and said:
      The cost of all this has been high. We are outflanked on patriotism and crime; we have been assailed for spin and broken promises; we are not believed to have delivered; we are disliked on the Left for being Right-wing, on the Right for being politically correct.
      Labour Members did not need somebody like Philip Gould to tell them that. They could have found it out on any doorstep, while canvassing on any street, by asking people's views on the Government; it is reflected in any conversation that one has.
      Mr. Gould went on to say:
      We have got our political strategy wrong…We quickly seem to have grown out of touch. Our Ministers simply do not seem as in touch as they were in Opposition…We need to be far simpler and more professional. We need to get back in touch. We need to reinvent the New Labour brand.
      One way in which the Government could have done so was through the marriage provision in the sex education amendments. Refusing to accept the amendments tabled by Baroness Young shows that they are completely out of touch with the attitudes of most people in this country—with mainstream and commonsensical views.
      The Government have tried to portray themselves as a Government of family values. They have palpably failed to do so. They have tried to pretend that they believe in marriage, yet, when put to the test, they have refused to do what was necessary to put that belief into action. This

      1069
      Government are living by spin and spin alone. They have been shown to have no convictions, no principles, no values. Their action on this Bill shows that they do not believe in anything. They are living by spin, and by spin this Government will die.
      Mr. Phil Willis: Like much of Second Reading, Report stage and Third Reading, very little of that 18-minute speech by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was about the substance of the Bill. I am sure that the House noticed, even at 17 minutes past 2, that children were hardly, if ever, mentioned. The entire emphasis of what we are supposed to have been debating for the past couple of hours rests on young people. Fifteen minutes of the nine and a half hours on Report and Third Reading was spent on the substance of the Bill—I am sure that the Minister would concur—yet the hon. Lady had the audacity to say that matters have not been conducted properly.
      Conservative Governments—of whom the hon. Lady was not a member, although certainly many of her hon. Friends on the Front Bench were—had 18 years in which to put guidance on sex education on to the statute book. Apart from the national curriculum, in which there was some good advice, nothing appeared. It is sheer hypocrisy when the first thing said by the spokesperson—and the other members—of a party that says that it wants to free schools and give power back to head teachers and governors, giving them freedom over the curriculum, is that there must be statutory requirements to ensure that every school delivers a curriculum on sex education exactly as they think it should be.
      I do not wish to hold the House up for long. The amendments, the guidance in the Bill and that which the Secretary of State has produced will not make a jot of difference in the vast majority of our schools. Their governors, heads and staff are already giving students the most appropriate and effective sex education and guidance.
      My sadness tonight arises from the fact that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions did not, as she said on the "Today" programme, "get the balance right, " even though the Government truly wanted to get rid of section 28 and replace it with guidance that commanded a consensus among most Members of both Houses of Parliament.
      As they go home tonight happy to have defeated the Government, especially on section 28, the hon. Member for Maidenhead and her right hon. and hon. Friends should reflect on the following account. I remember sitting beside the hospital bed in Leeds of a young man who had attempted suicide because, as a homosexual, he had not been able to get the support in school that he should have been able to get. I worry that such fear will persist in our schools and among our teachers. Conservative Members may feel that they have done a good job tonight, but I can assure them that they have not. In most schools, what they have done will make no difference, but for a small minority of our children, it might make all the difference.
      The Liberal Democrats will not oppose the amendments, because we believe that the Bishop of Blackburn has got it just about right. There is no balance to be struck between family life versus something else. We should honour all children, whatever their circumstances, and we should
      1070
      make sure that we support every family that a young person lives in and is nurtured by. Remember the Conservative Government and the appalling debacle of the family lives of their Ministers—that shows the hypocrisy of what we have seen tonight.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On the first anniversary of my taking the oath, I am glad to have just gone into the Lobby on the winning side for the first time.
      I wish to comment on the amendment to clause 117 from the perspective of both children and parents. It is neither politically incorrect nor anachronistic to say that until children enter the world on their own, schools and learning institutions stand in loco parentis. There is a real connection between schools' and parents' responsibility to teach, and none of us should be ashamed that, as parents, we have that role. One of the things shared by all of us who have the privilege of being parents is a determination to give our children stakes in the ground—not least because in due course, our children will make their own decisions. They must not do so in the absence of principles that they can hold on to and standards that they have been taught by their parents and in schools and other learning institutions—I recognise that the Bill deals with post-16 education. We must give those who are charged with teaching children, including parents, the opportunity to ensure that children learn about the nature of marriage and its importance to family life.
      Although the noble prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has negotiated a concession from the Government, I do not accept that it is a measure that the vast majority of parents in this country want for their children. They want their children to learn that marriage provides the most reliable framework in which to bring up children. As we attempt to pass good legislation, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we are not driven by a so-called politically correct agenda, but that we reflect in law a responsibility that parents want to have available to them. That is why it is critical that we ensure that children are taught about marriage, the value of marriage and its being the most reliable way in which children can be brought up—and that that is reflected in the Bill.
      I regret that the Government have not gone far enough. It is a shame that they have decided that they must try to tilt the balance back towards a series of potential interest groups, without taking full cognisance of the power of what parents think and wish to see reflected in the Chamber as we consider appropriate legislation.
      I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) had not mentioned children. If he had been listening to her, rather than seeking to ensure that his prepared comments fitted, he would have heard her mention children often. Children should be our central concern in this context. It was somewhat tendentious when he described a tragic attempted suicide as a result of someone's homosexuality. It should be remembered that children and young people who are heterosexual can also go through such traumas and tragedies. It is important that we do not try to draw false analogies from such cases for the sake of argument.
      I find it difficult wholeheartedly to support the amendment, but, as far as it goes, it is much better than what went before. I wish that the amendment stated that

      1071
      marriage was the most reliable way in which to raise children. However, the amendment is as good as we shall get tonight.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). During the short time that he has been a Member of this place he has added a great deal to our proceedings and has made a substantial contribution to the effectiveness of the Opposition when confronting the massed ranks of the Government—although some members of those ranks seem to have gone to bed now.
      We are debating an important issue, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on setting it out comprehensively and effectively. She rightly paid tribute to Baroness Blatch, who has done sterling work in opposition, and was also a fine Minister.
      The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) attacked the Conservative party. He said that we Conservatives were in government for 18 years and had done nothing about this issue. We did do something about it when there was a problem. The problem arose when left-wing Labour councils were beginning to produce inappropriate teaching material. That is how section 28 came into being. We now have the new guidelines on sex education, which run to about 33 pages, because they are the quid pro quo with which the Government have sought to placate worried parents.
      By saying that they would repeal section 28, the Government tried to appeal to another interest group and appease the minority lobby. However, to reassure middle class, middle Britain, they decided to introduce the guidelines to show that they care about family life and marriage. They want to have it all ways. They want to appeal to every interest group without nailing their colours to the mast.
      2.30 am
      The astonishing thing about the guidelines is that the Government are reluctant to back the institution of marriage as the most reliable foundation for bringing up children. It is monstrous that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who is usually a courteous Minister, would not give way to me. He must answer the point that if the Government are not prepared to use the words of the Home Secretary in the document "Supporting Families", which was sent out to the nation as evidence of the Labour Government's concern for family life in Britain, they are not entitled to be taken seriously in their support for the institution of marriage and for inculcating in our children the idea that marriage forms the most reliable framework for raising children.
      The Government have unquestionably betrayed the full force of the argument by not fully supporting the concept of marriage. In the guidance that has been issued, they bracket together marriage and stable family relationships. They yoke those two together because they do not want to offend or stigmatise those who are not married, for fear of losing their votes.
      1072
      The House will be relieved to hear that I shall not rehearse the arguments that I advanced earlier in our discussions on the subject. I drew attention to the publication from the Office for National Statistics, which contained research findings showing that there was a clear increase in emotional disorder among young people from homes where the head of the household was a single parent or where the parents were cohabiting. The incidence of emotional disorder among those young people was up to three times higher than in households where the parents were married.
      I do not believe that we as a nation should be morally neutral on the issue. We owe it to our children to give them a lead. It is a sad reflection on our times that we are even having the debate. In previous years, it was taken for granted by the nation that marriage formed the most reliable framework for raising children and a strong foundation for stable relationships. The debate illustrates that that is not so now. We can no longer take it for granted; indeed, the Government do not wish to take it for granted, so far has the family fallen into crisis in this country, as the Bishop of Southwark observed.
      We cannot afford to be morally neutral. As adults, we owe it to our children not to run away from our responsibilities. We should set out in the clearest terms to them how we believe it is best for children to be brought up. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government. We believe that emphasising marriage with a clarion call is the answer; they are afraid to do so because they fear that it will alienate some of their natural supporters.
      Essentially, the argument centres on the two amendments, one proposed by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Young, which mirrors the amendment that I introduced in this place and contains the precise words used by the Home Secretary, and the other containing the words of the Bishop of Blackburn, which were designed as a compromise. Anyone can see that they are less robust than the words in the amendment proposed by my noble Friend. My noble Friend, who was defeated on the matter, welcomed the Bishop of Blackburn's amendment, as I do—but it is not as strong as it could be.
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: Given everything that we have been told tonight about the Churches' support for section 28, why does the hon. Gentleman think the Bishop of Blackburn introduced his amendment?
      Mr. Howarth: I am coming to precisely that point. I was about to quote the Bishop of Blackburn, and the hon. Gentleman has kindly given me a trailer. In the House of Lords on 18 July, the bishop said:
      this Bench remains full square—
      I emphasise the words "full square"—
      about the importance of marriage. It has consistently done so and nothing that I have said in this House on any occasion during the passage of this legislation or the Local Government Bill can call that into question.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 857.]
      I do not doubt that that is what the bishop believes, or that other bishops also believe that, but I cannot square that statement with the way in which the Bishop of Blackburn and eight other bishops voted down the amendment proposed by my noble Friend Baroness

      1073
      Young, which spelled out the central importance of marriage much more clearly than did that tabled by the Bishop of Blackburn. Why on earth did nine bishops of the Church of England—who, as the Bishop of Blackburn said, remain full square behind the importance of marriage—vote against an amendment that spelled out clearly and unambiguously how important marriage is?
      Mr. Chris Ruane: Tell us.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman invites me to explain. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I do not sit on the Bishops Benches, but I have written to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking him to explain to Christians throughout Britain how on earth the Church of England can send out such a confusing message. By their votes, the bishops ensured that my noble Friend's amendment was defeated, so they have some accounting to do for the way in which they voted. After all, they are members of the other place. That is why I asked the Archbishop of Canterbury why they voted as they did.
      The fact that the Bishops were not prepared to be as robust as their words would suggest that they intended to be, is a crisis for the Church of England, but I pay tribute to the Bishop of Winchester, who has been unambiguous on the matter throughout.
      Whether we like it or not, family life in Britain is in crisis, and we in Parliament must do something about it. I fear that the Government have not been resolute; they have been infinitely too timid. They continually look over their shoulder, or stick their finger in their mouth and lift it up to the wind to find out which way the wind is blowing, or which focus group has sway at a particular time. They are more concerned about that than standing up for principles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead says, the Government have no principles. They are motivated entirely by their consideration of how the focus groups tell them they should be behaving, instead of adopting a programme that is principled and clear.
      The Bishop of Blackburn's amendment is an improvement on what we had before, but the mess that we are in is entirely of the Government's making. The amendment is the quid pro quo for the repeal of section 28. In so far as it goes some way to resolving the matter I welcome it, but I hope that when we return to government we shall be able to address the problem properly.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who has fought long and hard on the issue, on another outstanding contribution to the debate. We are discussing an issue that affects the many, not the few.
      I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, noticed that, in the previous debate, a score of Labour Members leapt to their feet to make speeches on a minority issue. However, when it comes to a majority issue, such as marriage, which affects the majority of people in this country, not one Labour Back Bencher wants to make a contribution to the debate. The entire debate is being led by those of us on the Conservative Benches. That tells us all we need to know about the Government and the Labour party. The Government's agenda is driven by the few, not the many. We witnessed another example of that tonight.
      1074
      Labour Members have bandied about the accusation of bigotry against anyone who dares to disagree with their point of view. That is an outrageous abuse of the courtesies of Parliament, let alone the truth and the facts. Let us remind ourselves of genuine bigotry. Bigotry is historically applied to major events such as the crusades, with Christians versus Muslims, the 30 years war between Protestants and Catholics, and racial and ethnic bigotry. We witnessed such bigotry in the last century in German attacks on the Jewish race. Those were serious cases of bigotry, which led to millions of people losing their lives.
      What we heard about earlier constituted an abuse and a devaluation of the word bigotry. We were considering prejudice at worst. In the case of this evening's debate, we were considering mere differences of opinion. I have not met an hon. Member whom I regard as bigoted about gender politics.
      Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there were homosexual victims of the Nazis, and that they were victims for no other reason than their sexuality?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but those victims were a tiny number in proportion to those who were affected by racial bigotry. We should keep the matter in a proper perspective.
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: How many homosexuals would have to have died in the death camps for them to be significant?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman—whom I know well; I have known him for many years—is deliberately and mischievously misinterpreting my point. As I said earlier, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a valid point. However, the thrust of my argument was that millions died as a result of ethnic and religious bigotry and that we should therefore keep matters in perspective. We are in danger of losing the thread of the amendment.
      Mr. John Austin: How little bigotry is acceptable?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: We have to use such terms carefully. Tonight's discussions have been about differences of opinion. When Labour Members dress those up as bigotry, they overplay their case and undermine any credibility that their argument might have had in the first place.
      Several hon. Members: rose—
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I should like to make some progress— [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman dealt more directly with the amendment that we are considering.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to call the House to order. We are considering sex education guidance. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was incorrect to say that the previous Government ignored the issue. They not only spelt out in statutory terms the way in which local authorities should deal with homosexuality, but set out clear guidelines to schools in circular 5/94.
      2.45 am
      Many Conservative Members are reluctant to go beyond giving mere guidance to schools because we recognise that governors, teachers and parents show more common sense than politically motivated representatives of LEAs in dealing with those issues and many others that schools have to consider. I have reservations about issuing guidance that emanates from a Secretary of State and tells individual schools how to deal with a specific subject. Far too much direction comes out of the Department for Education and Employment: the more top-down direction of schools there is, the more demoralised teachers become. Since the Government came to power, we find that half the teachers in the profession are thinking of leaving in the next 10 years. That would critically undermine not only sex education in our schools, but all education and the development of standards, which was one of the previous Government's great triumphs.
      Tonight's debates have clearly shown that a metropolitan attitude prevails on the Labour Benches and pervades ministerial offices. That attitude has no place in many schools, which do not want the Department to be able to produce guidance that would undermine their perspective on the relevant issues. We had no compunction about favouring the proposal that identified marriage as the most reliable framework for raising children. Do Labour Members challenge that statement? If so, they challenge the views of Labour Ministers. However, if we agree, should not we enshrine that principle in legislation?
      Hon. Members spoke earlier about the effect of section 28 on homophobic bullying. I am grateful for the Government's draft guidance, which was out for consultation until mid-April and suggested how their proposed new guidance would look. Paragraph A.10 clearly states:
      Section 28 does not apply to schools and should not affect the delivery of sex and relationship education in schools. It does not affect the activities of school governors or of teachers. It does not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, and schools can provide counselling, guidance, advice and support to pupils.
      None of that is prevented by section 28. The premise of the earlier debate on the subject was false and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described a false position. No doubt the tragic case to which he referred had many sad causes, but clearly section 28 was not one of them. According to the Government's own guidelines, that legislation cannot affect the delivery of such advice and education in an individual school.
      I have been a member of the Education and Employment Select Committee for the past three years and I cannot remember a single witness describing section 28—or, indeed, the previous Government's guidance, which is to be updated—as an obstacle to a head teacher or any teacher preventing homophobic or other bullying
      1076
      in a school. Therefore, I was not surprised to learn in evidence given to the Committee only a couple of months ago by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools that no head teacher has ever raised the issue with him either.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned scientific evidence in the earlier debate. I have studied the evidence to which he referred, but not in as much detail. Like much scientific evidence, it is no doubt professionally produced. However, it is not convincing. Anyone who can produce a good argument can usually find some scientific evidence to back it, but there may also be scientifically gathered evidence to refute it. Surely the experience of head teachers as expressed to the Office for Standards in Education, to hon. Members and to those who have served on the Education and Employment Select Committee is far more weighty evidence than a scientific study that was driven from the start by a desire to prove a particular point of view for whatever reasons—no doubt they were noble ones.
      Dr. Harris: rose—
      Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to talk about that evidence, and I encourage him to do so.
      Dr. Harris: Even the chief inspector admitted that his approach was hardly scientific, because during his inspections he did not ask any head teachers whether they reported this problem, whereas the research to which I referred asked people what their experience had been. The chief inspector produced no evidence to back up his view.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to emphasise my point. If one asks questions in a certain way, a certain response may be expected. That invalidates the opinion poll exercise even more than I had realised. If, with no hidden agenda, one talks to teachers and they do not raise the issue as a problem, in all seriousness it is probably not a genuine problem. That is where the argument against the Conservative position on this issue falls down. What we have heard this evening is moral bullying: Labour Members claim to take the moral high ground and then bully Opposition Members into accepting the measure by sheer force of numbers, even though they represent a small minority view within the population as a whole.
      I have some problem with the argument that section 28 could not be effective because it is not possible to promote homosexuality. Again, the Government's guidelines, the consultation period on which has just finished, recognise that it is possible in sex education to promote some attitudes and some forms of behaviour rather than others. I welcome the idea that we should promote responsible behaviour by teenagers with a view to discouraging unwanted pregnancy. This country has a serious problem of far too many teenage pregnancies. If, as a result of this new guidance, we discourage teenagers from taking risks and following patterns of behaviour that result in unwanted pregnancies, we will have performed a service for them and improved their chances of having a successful life and establishing a stable family environment in which they can, in due course, bring up children and enable them to have a good education.

      1077
      I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on the issue of human rights. I presume that because the guidance to schools has no statutory force, it is merely guidance and there would be no comeback if schools went outside the proposed framework, because no human rights issues are involved. However, our discussions have raised some of those issues.
      We must consider the human rights not only of some of the groups whose position has been championed by Labour Members, but of parents, teachers and children. Children have the right to be given objective and fair instruction, and not to be exposed to a point of view and a relentless argument with which the vast majority of families do not agree.
      This issue comes down to a matter of trust. From what we have seen, the Government have lost the trust of the people of this country on this important issue. In her winding-up speech on the previous Bill, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that she wanted the Government to get away from gesture politics. We all know that everything about the handling of this issue has been to do with that. It was entirely unnecessary to broach the issue of section 28, as is made clear in the Government's own guidelines. The fact that they did so showed that they were trying to appeal—with a gesture—to a specific part of what they saw as their core vote. As so often, not knowing what they believe in, they ended up showing that they believe in nothing at all.
      We need to reconsider our whole approach to how we give guidance to schools. We need a more diverse schools system. Tonight we could be having a debate about how we could develop free schools; we could be having a debate about how the very minor concept of city academies, which the Government have floated in the Bill, could be expanded into a much more dynamic and diverse schools sector. Instead, we have been dealing with what is a very narrow amendment.
      Let me explain something to the Minister for School Standards, who is clearly somewhat confused. It had not occurred to him that city academies were the thin end of the wedge of the full Conservative policy of free schools. Had we approved a much more fully fledged city-academies approach, the need for the amendment would have fallen by the wayside. Let us suppose that we developed genuinely free schools, genuinely rooted in their home communities—schools whose values and approaches were driven from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It was, of course, the top-down approach of extreme Labour local education authorities that demanded the response of section 28 in the first place, 12 years ago. If we were to develop the bottom-up, grassroots approach to education—always under the overarching discipline of a national curriculum and a system of inspection by Ofsted—we could trust the common sense of the British people to deliver the right sort of education about sexual development for our children. We would not need guidelines.
      When we achieve that, under the next Conservative Government, we can look forward to less regulation, less direction, and less interference in the daily lives and the very good job that nearly all teachers do in our schools today.
      Mr. John Hayes: I have no desire to detain the House unnecessarily, but I consider three points worthy of amplification.
      As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) presented his arguments in primary colours. He gave us an unusual but stimulating view of Germany in the 1930s, and, warming to his theme, brought to the debate his usual eloquence and style, if not alacrity.
      My first point is that this should not be a partisan matter. We have all brought certain prior assumptions—indeed, certain prejudices—to the debate: all of us, by the time we become Members of Parliament, have such prejudices. It is nonsensical, in a frail and faulty world, to pretend that people on this side of the Chamber are more prone to such prejudices than those on the other side. I think that those Labour Members who are examining their consciences will acknowledge that.
      There is a second reason for us not to be unnecessarily partisan. Surely we can all reach an agreement about the value of marriage, which is well proven as the best means of bringing up children. Statistics and studies have been quoted. I refer Members to the work of Patricia Morgan at the Centre for Policy Studies, but many other studies show that children brought up in a marriage have the best life chances. It affects their education, their social development, and a number of other factors. Surely we can reach a common view about the desirability of promoting marriage in our schools.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence produced by report after report that marriage tends to be the most reliable framework for the raising of children—although that is not always the case—the Government refuse to accept that evidence wholeheartedly. They are doing so only very grudgingly.
      3 am
      Mr. Hayes: I take a slightly more generous view than my hon. Friend does of these things. I think that there are many decent and honourable Labour Members who would agree with our assumptions about marriage and with our conclusions that marriage is the best way of bringing up children. Although I certainly acknowledge that, sadly, that agreement does not seem to have been embodied in some of the Government's actions or embodied sufficiently in their approach to the Bill, I do not think that one could argue that the Minister, for example, does not take these matters seriously. He always takes seriously matters affecting our children and our schools.
      There should be some consensus in the Chamber, not only about what we bring to this debate but about our conclusions on the value of marriage and its place in our society. I do not accept the received wisdom that Governments do not make a difference to the way in which society regards marriage. I think that Governments can affect that perception through the tax and benefit system and through a range of legislation. I certainly think that Governments can affect the way in which we bring up our children. Values and attitudes are as important as anything else that schools deliver to children. Values and attitudes are very much about moral assumptions, social assumptions, assumptions about relationships and, yes, assumptions and judgments about sexual activity.

      1079
      I do not for one minute buy the moral relativism that is part of the agenda of some people on the left. As I said, I suspect that some Labour Members do not buy it either.
      The second point that I wanted to make is about our concern for young people.
      Mr. Willis: There is something in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, almost every objective study on social disadvantage and social exclusion among young people has concluded that such young people, particularly those who are involved in crime, feel bad about themselves—they have an appalling self-image. Given that the majority of young people in our inner-city schools come from homes in which there is not a traditional marriage relationship, what message does the hon. Gentleman think that he and his colleagues are sending to those young people? Are they not telling them, "The relationships and homes that you are living in are very much less valued"? How will that help to give those young people the confidence that they need to go out into the world?
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the lack of self-worth that he has described is reinforced—indeed, it may be caused—by the lack of stability, certainty and order in those children's lives. The point about stable family relationships and marriage is that they provide order in children's lives and thereby increase their sense of belonging, stability and self-worth.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: The point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was urging on my hon. Friend amounts to nothing more than this: if someone comes from an unsatisfactory background, the last thing one should do is tell that person that that background is unsatisfactory because it will damage his or her feelings of self-worth. Surely it is only honest to show people what advantage they can have if, in future, for themselves, they improve on the background from which they suffered in their youth.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend's point is valid in the sense that we do have to provide for young people role models and images of what they may aspire to. The message that we should want to transmit to our young people—through education, but in other ways as well—is that they can aspire to a life that is stable and certain and based on principles such as loyalty and duty. Loyalty and duty may be unfashionable concepts. When one talks about loyalty and duty, some people think that one is being archaic. However, they are important—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman is straying far too far from the amendment, which is about sex education. May I suggest to him that he returns to the point of the amendment?
      Mr. Hayes: I am happy to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 1 was putting sex education in the context of marriage—stressing the importance of marriage—as the amendment
      1080
      is specifically about that subject, and emphasising why marriage was an important role model for young people, but I will move on.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting and putting on the record that concepts of duty and loyalty are possible only within marriage and not within a loving relationship between people who are not married?
      Mr. Hayes: Of course I would not make that point. Of course, those concepts are not only possible, but often occur in other relationships. They occur in relationships that are outside the family. They occur in professional relationships. They occur in all sorts of relationships, but as you have made clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing specifically with the subject before us, and the subject before us is marriage in relation to children and sex education.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is it not the case that marriage is the ultimate test of loyalty and commitment? That is what distinguishes marriage from any other relationship. It is the Government's unwillingness to accept that there is a difference between co-habitation and stable relationships, as they would put it, and marriage that is at the heart of our complaint about the way in which the Government are handling the issue. Marriage is by definition a statement of loyalty. It is a statement of commitment, which co-habitation is not.
      Mr. Hayes: I certainly believe that. In fact, I get married as often as I possibly can for exactly that reason, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Marriage is that test of commitment, that test of loyalty and duty. That is why it is important.
      I must move on before interventions oblige me, or at least encourage me, to stray from the subject at hand. The third point that I want to make is about section 28. It seems to be undeniable that the cocktail that we have before us in the form of an amendment was mixed in order to pacify and placate interests in the House of Lords that were unsympathetic to the abolition of section 28. There is no question about that. That has been made clear during tonight's proceedings.
      For that reason, I ask the Minister: would we have the amendment before us had it not been framed in that context? Would the amendment have been tabled on Third Reading in the Lords if we had not had the prevailing tide, if you like, of the possible abolition of section 28? In that sense, I ask the Minister to think again even at this late stage about whether he can put together something more convincing, not just for the House of Commons but for people beyond the House?
      My final and concluding point is that guidance is not sufficient. It seems to be important, because of what I said earlier—[Interruption.] I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, a former member of the Liberal party, who takes a rather different view. I made my decision about liberalism at an early age; he made his rather later.

      1081
      I take the view that it is important for guidance to be issued. As I said, I do not take a morally relative view about the matter. I do not take the view that in a frail and faulty world one can always trust all people's discretion.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend not share my reservations that perhaps not this but a future Secretary of State might develop guidelines with which neither he nor I would be happy, and that the more these guidelines are entrenched in law, the more damage they might do if they end up being the wrong guidelines from the wrong Secretary of State?
      Mr. Hayes: That is almost an argument against any legislation because we entrust in Government and, in particular, in Secretaries of State much discretion to bring to the House, to debate and to persuade the House to enact guidance on a whole range of things not just in the education sector, but in all other aspects of life, which we honour and follow.
      Therefore, I do not take the rationalist view that if we leave people unfettered and unrestricted, they will always make the right judgment. I just do not agree philosophically with that view. On the contrary, I tend to support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who said clearly that the problem with guidance was that it might not be followed, and did not have the weight of regulation or direction. It might lead to a curate's egg of provision in schools across the country.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Is my hon. Friend saying that, given that we have only guidance which is not subject to the regulatory approvals process or the negative procedure in the House, perhaps the guidance should in all cases be scrutinised by the Select Committee on Education and Employment, to which he in his time made such a valuable contribution?
      Mr. Hayes: I hardly deserve that praise, in view of the slightly barbed remarks that I made about my hon. Friend earlier, but, given his characteristic generosity, I expect nothing less from him. He is right to say that the Government would need to be accountable to the House for the guidance. We would need to monitor it carefully to ensure that it was efficacious. There is no question about that, and my hon. Friend yet again makes a valuable contribution to the debate.
      I have made my concluding remarks—[Interruption.] I know that that will disappoint hon. Members across the House. I cannot finish without saying that I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made an intemperate attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. He brings a great deal of breadth and depth of knowledge about education, but, too often, he lets his own prejudices interfere with that, and we saw that tonight. In the cold light of day, he will regret saying that my hon. Friend did not care about children or young people. None of us would be sitting here, or in my case standing here, tonight, if we did not care very dearly about young people, children and schools.
      Mr. Wicks: Of all the Parliaments in all the world, only the House of Commons could in all seriousness at 12 minutes past 3 o'clock in the morning discuss the
      1082
      importance of marriage and family life. It proves that the English still maintain their dry sense of humour. It may well be that the next debate on ragwort, about which I have learned a lot in the past hour, is a more fitting subject. It may be that the ragwort is at its worst at this time in the morning, but we shall hear later.
      Despite discussing them at this time of night when our families are asleep, family values are an extremely serious issue. I genuinely regret the way in which the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) introduced the subject. As I think we have seen from a number of speeches this evening, and from speeches in the other place, the matter deserves serious attention. We are talking about our children's well-being and their need for appropriate and sensitive sex education within the context of family and personal relationships. Those things are a crucial part of anyone's education. We are also concerned about the risks that our children face—ignorance about sex, stigmatisation, fear, disease and teenage pregnancy.
      We have to grow up as a Parliament in discussing matters such as sex education. In Committee, we managed to have sensible and serious discussions. We did not agree with one another on everything and we occasionally divided, but the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) introduced subjects from the Conservative Benches in a serious way.
      Many of us were struck by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), when he said that as a parent—I hope that I paraphrase him accurately—his main concern was that nothing should get in the way of the provision of objective, thorough, sensible and professional sex education of children. He said that he wanted his children to receive factual, impartial and objective information about those matters, and for nothing to get in the way of its delivery. He spoke for many parents.
      3.15 am
      In all the controversy and furore over the issue—the debate has often not been about sex education but about matters that were discussed earlier this evening—the Government have sought a decent consensus. During the passage of the Bill, we listened on this and on other matters. We have amended the measure. We took seriously the Bishop of Blackburn's amendment. That is why the Bill states that children should
      learn about the nature of marriage…and its importance for family life and for the bringing up of children.
      We acknowledge the importance of marriage. However, the guidance refers to stable relationships because we also understand that, in the complex family world in which young Britons live, many children are not able to be brought up—for the whole or indeed any of their childhood—within a stable, married couple relationship. Many of us may regret that. However, a third of children are born outside marriage. The parents of a large proportion of our children will divorce. Many children in families where their parents are married suffer if their parents are at war with one another—that point was not brought out in the debate; nor is it often acknowledged as evidence. Many children live in one-parent families or in step-families.
      We can be consistent in saying that we need to teach our children about marriage, and in having a sensible understanding of the circumstances in which many of our

      1083
      children are brought up. Many of them are brought up outside marriage, but in perfectly stable relationships where parents are doing a wonderful job. Others have chaotic family circumstances and they suffer as a result. We need to bring some intelligence and sensitivity to bear on the matter.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Wicks: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise to him for not doing so at the beginning of the debate.
      Mr. Howarth: I thank the Minister for his courtesy.
      Why did the Home Secretary say that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and that it is the most reliable framework for raising children? Does the Minister agree with the Home Secretary, or has the Home Secretary got it wrong? Does he not speak for the Government?
      Mr. Wicks: The Home Secretary got it absolutely right. Before I was a Member of this place, I was director of the Family Policy Studies Centre and paid some attention to such matters. The Government's family policy document was also right to recognise their diversity, complexity and sensitivity—as I have done, and more important, as our schools and teachers need to do.
      We were asked how the guidance will be applied. First and foremost, we acknowledge and emphasise that in schools such matters are for head teachers and governors. We should place confidence in them. Our governing bodies are remarkable examples of local democracy. Parents and teachers elect governors—many of us will have been members of governing bodies. Those people have the welfare of children at heart. It will be for teachers and governors to apply our guidance. That is important.
      We also emphasise that parents must be consulted on the school's policy on sex and relationship education. Furthermore, from this autumn, Ofsted will have a statutory responsibility to inspect personal, social and health education. That is another safeguard.
      1084
      I hope that in the next Session we will learn to discuss such issues in a slightly more sensitive and intelligent way. Although people get excited about these matters because of the values and prejudices that we all hold, we need to enable our children to have proper education about sex, family life and personal relationships. If they do not receive that education, the risks that face them are extremely serious.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 182 agreed to.

  PETITION

    Post Office Closures
    3.20 am
    Mr. David Taylor: The 85, 000 people in my mixed urban-rural constituency value and depend on the 36 sub-post offices that serve them.
    Despite the excellent report "Counter Revolution" presented to Parliament last month by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, there remain local misgivings about the future of our post offices. Ravenstone Women's Institute has assembled a petition whose 568 signatories believe that the vital network of rural and urban post offices could be decimated if they are cut off from benefits and pensions work.
    The petition states:
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should not take any action that would jeopardise the survival of the current network but should address the underlying financial and economic pressures that are speeding the closure of post offices, local shops and bank branches.
    And the petitioners remain etc.
    It is my honour to present the petition to Parliament on behalf of residents of the village of Ravenstone and the surrounding area.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Ragwort
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  3.21 am
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I begin by declaring an interest. I receive a modest income from agricultural land and I own a small number of horses and ponies.
  May I invite Members, after our rather earnest and intense deliberations of this evening, perhaps to smile and make the odd joke during this debate? I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker and her team, for choosing this debate today, because in parliamentary time it is still 25 July, which is St. James's day, and ragwort, or senecio jacobaea, used to be called St. James's wort and was in full flower on this day—25 July.
  As colleagues return to their constituencies this week, they will see a tall weed up to 3 ft high, with clusters of angry yellow flowers, growing everywhere. It can be seen on roadsides, on the verges, along railway tracks, on waste land, in hedgerows and in pasture land. I am amazed to have found out this week just how few colleagues know what ragwort is, and this ignorance extends to the media. A farmer told me at the weekend that the BBC, reporting on the impact of bypasses early this week, showed a field full of ragwort and described it as "a wildflower meadow".
  Ragwort is in fact a vile and highly poisonous weed, causing more damage to animals in this country than all other poisonous plants put together. It is a biennial, producing a rosette in the spring of the first year, which flowers in July-August of the second year. Seeds can lie dormant for 20 years and each plant can produce 150, 000 to 200, 000 seeds, which travel in the wind for miles. These seeds land with a 70 per cent. germination rate. Ragwort will grow on the poorest land, and has increased dramatically in recent years.
  Animals will normally not eat ragwort while it is growing if there is any alternative food. However, once it is cut and dried, as either hay or haylage, it becomes extremely difficult to detect, but it also becomes palatable to all farm animals. Ragwort contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids, the best known being jacobine, jacodine and jaconine. They are cumulative in effect and cause progressive liver failure.
  As may have been seen in the Bars of the Palace of Westminster tonight, the liver has an amazing capacity to absorb punishment, but once 70 to 75 per cent. of the liver is damaged, it can no longer carry out its essential functions, in particular detoxification. Despite its large functional reserve, liver damage cannot be repaired, and only 2 lb of ragwort is enough to destroy 75 per cent. of the liver of a large animal such as a horse.
  Symptoms of liver damage are yawning, weight loss, poor condition, sunburn and diarrhoea. They may occur within days. Staggerwort was another name for ragwort, as, in the later stages, it affected the brain, causing unco-ordinated movement and an abnormal gait. In some cases, animals may develop a mania, attacking any other animals or humans that approach. Death soon follows. That process can be rapid or can be drawn out over many agonising months.
  1086
  There is veterinary evidence that sheep, cattle, pigs and even tortoises can be poisoned by ragwort. However, because most livestock are slaughtered at a young age, the impact is not widely noticed. Ragwort is, however, taking a terrible toll of the country's horses. It is impossible to establish an exact figure as every death would require confirmation by an autopsy. However, there is hardly a person in the horse world who does not know someone who has lost a horse to ragwort poisoning.
  Last year, the British Equestrian Trade Association—BETA—conducted a national equestrian survey revealing that 2.4 million people ride and that 500, 000 private households own more than 900, 000 horses or ponies. Roughly £1.5 billion is spent on horse purchases and equipment and a further £1.3 billion on looking after the horses. On top of that, professional stables look after a further 120, 000 horses, spending £200 million running their businesses. The British Horseracing Board has confirmed that racing alone employs 60, 000 people with assets of £2 billion, contributes £450 million annually to Government tax revenues and has exports worth £90 million a year. BETA calculates that total expenditure is about £2.5 billion a year.
  Unless ragwort is brought under control, this huge business will be put at risk. As Dr. Derek Knottenbelt of the Philip Leverhulme large animal hospital at the university of the Liverpool has said:
  It is unlikely that any meadow hay could now be regarded as totally free of ragwort in the UK. This means that damage can be occurring in the horse over the winter without any sign.
  That point was brought home to me in a dramatic manner by my constituent, Richard Matson of Twemlows hall, Whitchurch, who has diversified from milk, cheese and pig production to a variety of horse-related activities. He grows 60 acres of grass for haylage, but this week will have to mow and burn nine acres because of ragwort that blew in as seed from his neighbour's land. The agents looking after that land deny responsibility. That will cost him £2, 800. A legal action would cost far more as would the loss of his reputation if he sold contaminated haylage.
  I had a fax yesterday from Mr. Crockford of Abbott and Co., which is a large hay and straw merchant in Cirencester. He says:
  The changing face of the countryside means that there are an increasing number of people who do not even recognise Ragwort as a noxious weed, or may even confuse it with other plants.
  We have recently had a claim against our Company where, in spite of our best efforts, hay which was supplied did contain Ragwort. The customer fed this, and the resultant damage to their horses meant that our Insurance Company paid out £6, 500 in compensation. In this case you could also ask why the customer continued to feed the hay; presumably because they were unable to identify dry Ragwort in the bale. Obviously in these circumstances, our credibility as a National Forage Company is jeopardised through no fault of our own.
  It is absolutely essential that this notifiable weed is identified and eliminated.
  I also had a fax from Bob Phillips, the company secretary of the Association of British Riding Schools and chairman of the Shropshire British Horse Society. He confirms that the
  biggest problem is for horse owners who have to buy their fodder in. They are at the mercy of harvesters who are at best unaware or at worse unscrupulous…I do feel that this dangerous plant should be controlled in a more managed way than at present.

  1087
  The British Horse Society, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the British Horseracing Board have all given me valuable information. They are all deeply concerned about the disastrous increase in ragwort. They are supported by the National Equine Welfare Council, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross, the Donkey Sanctuary and the International League for the Protection of Horses. Many of those organisations have led campaigns for the eradication of ragwort and are to be congratulated on their work.
  The only sure way to remove ragwort is to pull it up and burn it. Cutting will reduce seed production, but if it is left on the ground, it will still present a serious risk to animals and may still set seed. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recommends 2, 4-D as a herbicide, but warns that it may damage clovers and other plant species. In New Zealand, a weedkiller called Escort, which is made by DuPont, is extremely effective on ragwort, but allows grass to survive. It is not currently available in Europe.
  In the late 1970s, large numbers of the ragwort flea beetle were introduced to the Meander valley in Tasmania and that experiment was highly successful. It was repeated last year in King county, Washington, USA. In Victoria, Australia, where lower milk yields and reduced beef production were estimated to cost annual losses of £4 million, ragwort was reduced by 60 to 70 per cent. by the combined actions of the cinnabar moth, the ragwort flea beetle and the ragwort seed fly.
  Eighteen years ago, damage to livestock in Oregon was running at $2.5 million annually, and whole areas were ungrazeable. The Oregon department of agriculture introduced the same three insects, and estimates the annual savings to be $3 million. It takes eight to 10 years to build up a moth population large enough to control the plant. What research is the Ministry undertaking into more effective chemical and biological herbicides? Is the increase in ragwort related to the reduction in the cinnabar moth population? MAFF spends £50 million on food safety and animal research; how much is spent on ragwort? The cinnabar moth has a most distinctive black and red caterpillar. Why have its numbers dropped in recent years?
  In the meantime, the Government must enforce the existing law more effectively. That means applying the Weeds Act 1959. Section 1, entitled "Power to require occupier to prevent spreading of injurious weeds", states:
  Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food … is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him, within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading.
  Ragwort, senecio jacobaea, is listed as an injurious weed.
  I have written to the Minister several times over my three years in Parliament, and on 10 December 1998, he wrote back to me, stating that
  long-standing Ministry policy has been to take action under the Act only where a serious threat to agriculture is confirmed.
  1088
  However, that is not what the Act requires. He continued:
  The Ministry confines any investigations to complaints from occupiers of agricultural land who consider that their land is threatened by such weeds spreading from other land nearby.
  Where non-agricultural land, including gardens and land used solely for horses, is under threat from the spread of injurious weeds, the local authority may be able to take action under specific byelaws (where they exist), under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  The Minister stressed that local authorities have the power to deal with nuisances, but he went on:
  However, it is for individual local authorities to decide how to use their powers taking all factors into account. It should be emphasised that the Ministry does not have any powers to compel a local authority to pursue any particular course of action here.
  Frankly, that is not good enough. MAFF is utterly feeble in refusing to use the considerable powers given it in the Weeds Act, and local authorities are among the worst offenders in allowing ragwort to grow on their land and on roadsides under their control. Many are inept at using powers granted to them under existing law. As I have shown, the contamination of hay and haylage now poses a massive threat to all livestock, and the Minister must broaden his interpretation of the law. Any ragwort poses a threat to livestock production throughout the country.
  The Government are keen to encourage diversification of the rural economy and must recognise the growing importance of "horsiculture". The contrast of this situation with the pollution of land by chemicals could not be more marked. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that
  contaminated land is any land to be in such condition by reason of substances in, on, or under the land…that significant harm is caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused.
  That provision triggers the involvement of local authorities and the mighty Environment Agency.
  Ragwort is a harmful pollutant and should be treated as such in law wherever it is found. MAFF's regional service centres, or what is left of them after yesterday's announcement, will continue to employ 350 officers who go out to farms. It would cost nothing to extend their remit to taking a much more aggressive stance on ragwort. It should be an integral part of their role in promoting environmental initiatives.
  Education is vital. All too many people see only a pretty flower. MAFF is in constant correspondence with farmers and landowners, and material on ragwort should be included to heighten awareness at little cost. Bad publicity works. Last year, Chequers was excoriated in the equine press for having extensive ragwort. Yesterday, I diverted my journey here and drove by Chequers, and I am delighted to say that I could find no ragwort on the estate.
  The law must be altered so that any landowner or public authority with land that contains the weed should be liable to a heavy fine, and that must be enforced by the police. Local authorities and agencies or companies controlling roads and railways need to be targeted.

  1089
  Finally, the risk to human health should not be underestimated. Dr. Knottenbelt said:
  There is mounting evidence to suggest that ragwort is poisonous also to humans. The poison is almost certainly absorbed through skin. It is unknown whether it is safe to eat meat from animals that have eaten the plant but the alkaloid appears to remain stable in blood and organs.
  In 1995, MAFF researched the toxicity of honey from bees that had been put in ragwort-infested fields. That proved conclusively that the honey contained pyrrolizidine alkaloids. It is also thought that milk can contain toxins. In South Africa, a disease known locally as bread disease occurs among certain native tribes where seeds of senecio isatadeus are mixed with food grains by mistake.
  Ten years ago, ragwort was extremely rare. Now it is visible everywhere, spreading everywhere, seriously damaging livestock and threatening human health. The Government must act before ragwort is totally out of control and it is too late. If MAFF cannot enforce the law and get it strengthened, it should hand over responsibility to a Ministry that can.
  3.35 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on securing this debate, although I would have preferred it to be a little earlier in the evening. Nevertheless, he raises important issues and I certainly assure him that, under this Government, we are determined to root out injurious weeds wherever they may be found. One insect to do with the hon. Gentleman's questions on biological control is the crown boring moth, which has been experimented with. Having heard some of the earlier debates, I think that there are a few of them in this place.
  Much work has been done on biological control in Canada, the United States of America, Tasmania and New Zealand. Several studies in the United Kingdom have looked mainly at a plant closely related to ragwort—groundsel—to which similar biological controls apply. The studies include those called
  Botryis-cinerea kills groundsel Senecio vulgaris infected by rust;
  Patchiness and spatial patterns in the insects community on ragwort Senecio jacobaea;
  Population dynamics of Cinnabar moth—
  which the hon. Gentleman rightly said was a predator of the weed—
  and ragwort in grassland.
  Although the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food chief scientist's group is not currently involved in any MAFF-funded research and development on the biological control of ragwort, the hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the Institute of Arable Crops Research at Long Ashton in Bristol is participating in a European Union-funded, multinational project, "COST 816", which is exploring biological control of a range of weed species in Europe. Although ragwort is not currently included, groundsel is. Any information discovered on the control of groundsel applies to ragwort.
  I shall try to deal with the point about the way in which the law works in respect of the control of ragwort. I shall concentrate on the details, because the matter is important.
  1090
  I stress that, to people who have horses and donkeys, the issue is very serious. There is no doubt that horses and donkeys that eat the weed can die in a most agonising way. I do not want in any way to underestimate the importance of the matter, which is why the Weeds Act was introduced. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) with me in the Chamber, along with other Members. I know that they take such series seriously on behalf of anyone who keeps horses or is involved in horse-related businesses.
  It might help if I explained the background. The 1959 Act applies to Great Britain and empowers Agriculture Ministers to take action against occupiers of any land to prevent the spread of five species of weed. Those are spear thistle, creeping thistle, curled dock, broad-leaved dock and common ragwort. Common ragwort tends to give rise to the great majority of complaints that MAFF receives.
  Section 1 of the Weeds Act empowers, but does not require—that is the point that I make to the hon. Gentleman—the Minister of Agriculture to serve notice on the occupier of any land on which injurious weeds are growing, requiring the occupier in the time specified in the notice to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading. At this point, I should emphasise that it is not illegal to have the weeds growing on individual plots of land; the issue is control of the weeds and the risk of seeds spreading to adjacent land and causing commercial damage to agricultural activities.
  Under section 2 of the 1959 Act, where notice has been served and the person concerned unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he or she shall be guilty of an offence and, on conviction, liable to a fine. Those provisions might have been imperfectly understood. It is not an offence to permit injurious weeds to grow on land one owns or rents, but it will be an offence if, without good reason, one fails to comply with a formal notice served by MAFF requiring one to deal with any injurious weeds within a specified number of days.
  Section 3 of the Act contains default powers that enable the Minister to take action himself if that is required because action has not been taken by the landowner. In practice, default powers are used infrequently. Most landowners approached by MAFF officials following up a complaint quickly realise that it is better and more responsible to deal with the weeds themselves than to have MAFF exercise its statutory powers of entry, employ a contractor and send in a bill for the work done. It should be emphasised that the majority of complaints investigated are quickly resolved.
  It might be helpful if I explained responsibilities in respect of weeds growing on roadside verges.
  Mr. Paterson: Before the Minister moves on from the Act, does he agree that line 3 of section 1(1) uses the words "any land" and that there is nothing in the Act that gives MAFF the ability to interpret that as meaning strictly agricultural land, as he said in his letter to me?
  Mr. Morley: It is a question of legal interpretation. The point at issue is that the powers under the Act are designed for use in respect of agriculture and they have been given to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The land in which MAFF is interested is land that would be defined as agricultural land under the

  1091
  Agriculture Act 1947. Much of the land that is the subject of complaints about weeds does not fall within the definition set out in the 1947 Act, and that is part of the problem.
  The responsibility for control of ragwort on highway verges rests with highway authorities. When complaints are made to MAFF, we draw them to the attention of those authorities so that action can be taken.
  There is some doubt about the policy of enforcement of the 1959 Act in cases where land used to graze horses is threatened by ragwort growing nearby. That arises from the fact that each complaint about injurious weeds received by MAFF is dealt with on its own merits; however, MAFF has responsibility for farmland and farmed animals, not for animals kept for non-agricultural businesses or for recreation. Generally speaking, it has not been MAFF's practice to investigate complaints about weeds threatening land used for horses, ponies or donkeys, because priority is given to protecting livestock.
  I appreciate nevertheless that, at the summit meeting for the farming industry chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it was made clear that equine-related activities were highly relevant to the Government's encouragement of diversification. MAFF now has lead responsibility for most issues relating to horses, so we need to give some thought to the way we operate the 1959 Act. Commercial equine activities are a business and one which we embrace as a legitimate form of agricultural diversification, so it is not unreasonable for us to treat them as an agricultural business. However, whether that extends to all paddocks in which people keep individually owned horses for leisure and recreation is an issue which we have to consider carefully, not least because of the huge resource implications that such an extension would have for MAFF.
  There are certain issues that we need to think about, but we ensure that all complaints from farmers who have diversified into equine enterprises and to whom ragwort poses a threat are fully investigated. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate—I am sure that he will not disagree—responsibility for all matters of horse, pony and donkey welfare rests first with those who own them. As well as ensuring the normal shelter, feed and water, owners need to be aware of the danger of ragwort and other poisonous plants.
  I pay tribute to the ragwort awareness and eradication campaigns initiated by bodies such as the British Horse Society and the Country Landowners Association. Some have been local in nature and some have been national campaigns. They have been backed by bodies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Ministry's officials offer assistance on such points as currently recommended control methods to be included in campaign literature. As well as awareness campaigns, the educational work carried out by specialist equine organisations is of practical help to horse and pony owners. I urge those owners to follow the advice to ensure that any bought-in hay is warranted as free of ragwort before it is purchased—a point made by the hon. Gentleman.
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is producing a new code of practice for maintaining its roads, and is considering a recommendation
  1092
  that it should adopt the same procedures for ragwort elimination as apply on motorway and trunk roads. The MAFF press release of 5 July announced that its advisory material on weeds, which was already available on request from regional service centres, has also been placed on the MAFF website. One full-colour leaflet deals with the identification of weed species. It is well produced and helpful to people who may not be able to recognise the range of poisonous weeds. The other leaflet offers general guidance on control measures. It will get some practical advice to a far wider audience than the Ministry normally has business contact with. It will be reviewed regularly to ensure that control recommendations are fully in accordance with current best practice.
  There are serious issues in relation to ragwort control and a range of other poisonous weeds. We are trying through the Ministry to join in the various awareness campaigns that bodies such as the British Horse Society are involved in. We make a range of information available, and we are making that available to a wider audience. When problems with ragwort are brought to the Ministry's attention, we take action. However, it must be stressed that our priority is agricultural land, which is defined under the 1947 Act. That is where some confusion arises. Some people are not quite clear about where responsibility lies and why MAFF cannot respond immediately to all complaints.
  Mr. Paterson: Give the changing role of the RSCs, does the Minister see a role for officers who are travelling from regional offices to farms to be more active when they see ragwort, by reporting back and getting something done about it?
  Mr. Morley: That is a fairly reasonable point to make. There is nothing wrong when people from our various agencies, especially the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, which will be merged into mainstream MAFF as part of the changes, look out for such infestation and draw it to the attention of landowners.
  Generally speaking, when complaints are raised with MAFF and when we raise them with the landowner concerned, action is taken. It is in only a few cases that we may be forced to use the powers that we have under the Act. Although there are changes taking place within the regional service centres to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, there will continue to be a regional presence of MAFF in all parts of the country. There will still be points of contact with the Ministry so that issues of this sort can be taken up.
  We recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter, and we do not take it lightly. We are doing what we can in relation to our powers within the area of our responsibility. However, it must be understood that MAFF is not responsible, for example, for people's gardens or their allotments. Landowners have a responsibility to control weeds. Our priority is agricultural-based businesses.
  We recognise that equine activities are evolving, and we are keen to promote and support them. We will give further consideration to how we can use our powers to protect the industry, especially where a commercial element is involved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Four o'clock.

Preamble
[Mr. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Hospital Services (Worcestershire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. McNulty.]
10 am
Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for allowing us to debate a matter of exceptional importance to the people of Worcestershire. It is an unfortunate accident of history that Worcestershire has three acute hospitals. Modern medicine probably requires just one large hospital in a convenient location, probably near junction 5 of the M5, with a supporting network of well-resourced community hospitals. However, in reviewing that structure Worcestershire health authority was constrained by the political reality of where we are, and by money and clinical need.
For most of my constituents and me, our general hospital is the Worcester royal infirmary; for a small proportion of people in the north of my constituency, it is the Kidderminster hospital. Many people in the south of my constituency rely heavily on Evesham community hospital, and some people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) use Pershore community hospital, so my concerns range from north to south. When the Alexandra hospital in Redditch provides us with specialist orthopaedic and urological services, my concerns will also spread from east to west—across the entire county.
Worcestershire health authority has faced difficult decisions on clinical and financial grounds, and I agree with its conclusion that a county the size of Worcestershire, located on the edge of Birmingham, cannot justify maintaining three acute hospitals with a full range of services. To do so would be clinically inappropriate and financially reckless, and it is genuinely in the best interests of all my constituents to move from three separate hospitals in three separate trusts to one acute hospital on two sites—Worcester and Redditch—and one redefined non-acute hospital in Kidderminster.
In this debate, I have no intention of pointing the finger of blame. The chairman of the Worcestershire health authority and the chairman of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust are doing a good job in difficult circumstances. I want simply to give the Government an opportunity to address the concerns that many people in Worcestershire feel are being brushed aside by some of their representatives. Sadly, there have been few convincing answers to many of the difficult questions that have been posed. As a result, my doubts have also increased.
Those questions have often, but not always, originated from the Kidderminster campaigners, whose anger is so deeply felt that they have even taken control of the district council. Their concern led to the
144WH
publication of a new report, "Deficits before patients", which was produced by Professor Allyson Pollock and her colleagues at the health policy unit of University College London. I am one of those who believe the report to be flawed. Professor Pollock has her own clear—and perfectly honourable—agenda: to prevent increasing use of private finance in the health service. In other words, she is interested less in the future of Kidderminster hospital than undermining the private finance initiative that is building the new Worcester hospital. The health authority has published a damning critique, with which I have considerable sympathy, of "Deficits before patients". However, Professor Pollock has raised some very important questions, and the authority has been unable to reply to them to the complete satisfaction of anyone other than itself.
We must also recognise that, although mounting concern among GPs, local commentators and the general public outside Kidderminster increased after publication of Professor Pollock's report, it did not begin with it. Friends of mine who are GPs have told me for years that I was wrong to be so optimistic about bed numbers at Worcester. I did not dismiss their concerns, but I took the pragmatic view that it was better to try to improve what was on offer, rather than reject the new hospital because it was less than perfect. Moreover, I was assured by the old Worcester hospital trust that plans to increase bed numbers were flexible. Indeed, I want to thank both the new hospitals trust and the authority for building in flexibility through the establishment of a "winter pressures" facility of 56 beds at the existing Newtown branch. I shall return to the issue of bed numbers in due course.
As the strategy has been implemented, concern has focused on the implications for Kidderminster general hospital. However, concern is growing in the rest of the county that we are asking too much of the Worcester royal infirmary and the Alexandra hospital in Redditch in the transition period and the long term. I freely acknowledge that there are particularly harsh implications for many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who hopes to be able to voice his concerns later in the debate.
In these circumstances, it is a Member of Parliament's duty to obtain clear answers from the Government on the key questions. I had reached that conclusion and applied for the debate before a local newspaper, the Worcester Evening News, wrote in a brief front page editorial last Wednesday:
How many more experts voicing such grave concerns will it take to halt this runaway health juggernaut? It is time for our MPs to take action.
I have my criticisms of the campaign that has been waged in the county against the health authority's strategy. Focusing on the wrong question—how to keep Kidderminster as a full general hospital—has diverted us from the debate that we should have had on whether the new pattern of services will be adequate. I hope that today's debate will be about the future, not the past—about how to make the authority's strategy work, not about seeking to undermine it. I hope that the Minister will reassure my constituents that all will be well, but I am not confident that she will be able to do so.
Local people are witnessing a declining health service in Worcestershire. Yes, there is good news. There is a desperate need for a new hospital in Worcester. The

145WH
current facilities are woefully inadequate and verging on the dangerous. The Castle street site, where the British Medical Association was founded, is a Georgian building, and Ronkswood is a series of prefabs, which are increasingly expensive to clean, heat and maintain.
People have been lobbying for a new hospital for 30 years, and at last it is being built by the Government—even if it is under Conservative policies that new Labour once reviled as the privatisation of the NHS—[Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) laughing—that is a matter of fact and record. No party can gain great mileage in claiming the credit for the new hospital. The policy foundation was laid and the preparatory business casework was done by the previous Government—especially by the distinguished Worcester resident and former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). The Government rightly ate the words they used when in opposition and built—almost literally—on those secure foundations. The new hospital will be occupied late next year and will be fully operational by the late spring of 2002. It will be a joint achievement for which both parties can fairly take some credit.
However, there are several big buts. First, Worcestershire is right at the bottom of the funding tables for both health and social services—a crucial factor in the mounting deficit that has faced the health authority. That deficit undoubtedly brought forward the authority's strategic review, "Investing in Excellence". A healthier funding situation would have delayed that review for a few years, but that is all. I believe that the deficit is now cleared, but that does not make Worcestershire a cash-rich authority. The relative shortage of cash, especially for intermediate care, is a major factor in the problems facing the new hospital structure. Affordability was one of the main doubts raised by Professor Pollock's report. The health authority has put forward a pretty convincing argument that all is well, but doubts remain.
The new money that has come to the county seems to have been used to clear the historic deficit. Our funding situation remains less than robust—less robust than that of neighbouring Warwickshire, despite what must be a similar demographic and health profile. Will the Minister tell me whether the Government are still satisfied that Worcestershire can afford its new hospital? Is the authority's revenue stream sufficiently robust? Will there be money for new services and for an intermediate care strategy that works, or will all the cash go towards paying for the hospital?
Secondly, current resources at the Worcester royal infirmary—WRI—are seriously overstretched. In the county, the acute hospital beds are fully used. The local medical committee tells me that under the authority's plans bed numbers will be cut by 28 per cent. The authority and the trust produce a rather different figure, and I admit to being confused. The authority claims that the number of acute beds in the county stands at 1, 035, and will decline to 988—but if the winter pressures facility stays in place, the number will be 1, 044.
It is clear that Worcestershire hospitals are full to bursting now, at the height of what passes for an English summer. The WRI was closed to admissions on 17 July,
146WH
and again on 19 July. On 17 July, Herefordshire and the Alexandra were closed too. Such closures happen regularly, yet there are no winter pressures in July. Last week, I received an e-mail from a Worcestershire resident, which read:
I thought you should know that at 3.am on the morning of Wednesday the 5th July there were five medical patients for beds in the A&E at Ronkswood. (I know this for a fact for I was one of the patients). Eventually three beds were found in the day ward children's section, others I do not know. That this should happen during summer does not speak well of the future, and this without any patients from Kidderminster. I wish that my name be kept out of this, but I felt that you should know the facts.
A Worcestershire general practitioner told me at the weekend that there were effectively no elective medical beds at the Worcester royal infirmary. GPs can no longer refer patients in for a few days of tests; they must claim that their patients need emergency admission to obtain a medical bed. The local medical committee told me that only three years ago 1, 200 bed days on the surgical unit were filled with medical cases. In 1998, that figure was 1, 750, but in 1999 it was 3, 750. If that is not indicative of a serious bed shortage, I do not know what is.
A constituent wrote to me about out-patient appointments and stated:
My eye appointment was made for 30th July, but this has now been put forward to 11th September, a whole month later.
I have severe arthritis in my ankle too. An appointment was made for me on 30th July, but this has been changed to 20th October at the old hospital at Castle Street, a whole three months further away.
We all know the deplorable state of the NHS, but these dreadful delays cause me considerable discomfort and pain, and to be further down the waiting list is hard to bear.
Is there anything you can do to alleviate this situation please; the NHS was never intended to be as bad as this and steadily getting worse.
At the end of last year, a prominent local consultant wrote to me stating:
I watch the NHS lurch further into crisis. To massage the statistics we are asked to remove wisdom teeth, insert grommets and remove lumps and bumps. Money is poured into the waiting list initiatives whilst individuals wait even longer for coronary artery bypass, cancer treatment and joint replacements.
That leads me to my third point. It is often said that the structure of Worcestershire's hospitals will always be affected by its proximity to Birmingham, but the waiting periods for treatment there, especially for coronary surgery, are also growing with potentially tragic consequences. I have at least one constituent who was forced to spend his life's savings to avoid waiting months for coronary surgery and risk dying while he waited. Two others are in the same position—waiting, worrying and not knowing what to do. Meanwhile, one of them has seen a family friend rushed into hospital to deal with his snoring problem.
To score hospital beds outside Worcestershire against our total is hardly encouraging. Other beds seem to be under pretty intense pressure also. To be fair, the Government have at least been reasonably frank that there is a problem. Recently published figures on waiting lists are given on the Government's annual report website "In Your Area" facility, which states:
There are 9, 788 people waiting for in-patients operations in your area, compared with 9, 625 at the same time in 1997. There are 986 people on out-patient waiting lists locally, compared with 581 people in March 1988 (the first year the figures were collected).

147WH
So we see a local health service under huge pressure with mounting waiting lists, full hospitals and collapsing morale. Those of us who live in the county have friends and neighbours who work in the county's hospitals. The demoralising effect of the current conditions cannot be overstated. Many now fear that they will lose their jobs under the restructuring and are actively looking to leave the area. Kidderminster staff have been hit particularly, but I know that staff at the WRI are similarly gloomy.
I have already made it clear that I remain a supporter of the basic Worcestershire health authority strategy. However, a general may have a perfect strategy to win a battle, but it will work only if the logistic support is also spot on. Logistic support for the health authority strategy seems flawed in two crucial respects: the transitional phase was not properly planned and the resources to support new hospitals are likely to prove inadequate.
I shall deal with the transitional phase first. Clinical services have collapsed or are on the verge of collapsing at Kidderminster. That is what the health authority means in the leaflet, "Changes to Your Hospital Services", which it sends to all Worcestershire residents and which states:
The timing of the changes has become more crucial because of Kidderminster Consultants' concerns that some services cannot be safely sustained throughout another Winter. In short this is because there may not be the appropriate number of doctors or nurses to provide adequate clinical cover for acute in-patients.
That has resulted in a rushed programme of change to the old buildings with hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent on interim arrangements at Worcester. Whoever is to blame for that, it is not the current trust management. In the regrettable circumstances they face, their plans have inevitability about them. That does not make the position more sensible, but it is part of a well—established pattern in the NHS.
Writing in The Spectator in the early 1990s, hospital and prison doctor Theodore Dalrymple stated that his hospital was
so deeply engaged in its Expenditure Maximization Programme that it hardly has time any more for patients. For example, two of our ward blocks, less than architecturally distinguished, I admit, but serviceable nonetheless, were recently redecorated and refurbished. This unaccustomed expenditure on hitherto neglected buildings could only presage demolition, as anyone who has worked in the National Health Service will acknowledge: and so it transpired. No sooner, give or take a month—had the painters and plumbers departed than the bulldozers moved in. This is a phenomenon I have seen several times in the course of my career: refurbishment as a prelude to extinction. Once it happened to an entire hospital in which I worked. It is of course a great comfort to know that all the activity of the decorators and demolishers alike, counts toward the gross domestic product
and, Dalrymple might have added, to the Government's figures for investment in the national health service.
In Worcester, Dalrymple's law is at work: refurbishment, improvement and significant investment in a hospital that will close within a year or so of the work's completion. Refurbishment is a prelude to extinction for both the Castle Street and Ronkswood sites. Despite the investment, my constituents will still face problems with overcrowding this winter. Patients from Kidderminster who go to Castle Street will be treated in some of the country's oldest hospital buildings, rather than in a relatively modern hospital in their hometown. Specific safety concerns have also been raised.
148WH
The die is cast: I accept the clinical arguments for moving services to Worcester, but my support for that strategy was always conditional on the understanding that my constituents, from villages such as Hartlebury, would be forced to go to Worcester for hospital treatment only when the new hospital was finished and was offering better services. I feel betrayed, because they will now be forced to seek treatment in decayed, overcrowded and—some doctors believe—unsafe conditions at the old Worcester facilities.
At least the proper transport arrangements are likely to be in place, to convey friends and relations who do not have cars to the three sites. In that respect, the authority and the trust have listened to local concerns, which is good. The interim arrangements are still unsatisfactory, but I cannot change them now. I can try to ensure that the new hospital structure at Worcester and Redditch will be as good as possible, but I have my doubts. The new hospital is, if anything, ahead of schedule. Occupation is likely to begin in little over a year and will be complete by summer 2002. There is not much time to get it right.
I want to look at four specifics about the new structure: safety, staffing, beds and intermediate care. Many of my constituents will continue to use Kidderminster. Indeed, most of those who use Kidderminster now will continue to do so, and only two categories will not—acute in-patients and real emergencies, many of which will be treated at the proposed ambulatory care and diagnostic centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) will discuss the implications of that, if she catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should be aware that there is much local speculation that, despite the miracles of telemedicine, the protocols and arrangements for the new unit will be rejected on safety grounds. If that happens, there will be no emergency service of any substance at Kidderminster, which will be further downgraded, and there will be more pressure on Worcester.
My second specific concern relates to staffing levels. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire wanted to raise this issue in our debate, but, sadly, he has been detained by his work on the Treasury Committee, scrutinising the Chancellor's expenditure statement from last week. He sends his apologies. My hon. Friend wants to be associated with our concerns on this issue. The Pollock report revealed that the detailed business plan for the new hospital at Worcester envisages a 17 per cent. reduction in the number of nurses. If more patients are being treated—albeit in fewer beds—can that be right? I am happy that there will be more intensive therapy unit and high dependency beds at the new hospital, with more operating theatres and support services—it promises to be a fine hospital, in many respects—but is it right that there should be fewer nurses? If so, why?
There is the critical issue of bed numbers. How many beds will there be in Worcestershire, after the opening of the new Worcester hospital? That is a key question for local doctors, but they cannot get a straight answer. I also failed to get a straight answer from the Government, and that was one of the factors in my decision to apply for this debate, although my experience of getting replies from the Department of Health on almost anything is, to say the least,

149WH
discouraging. I asked a priority written question, which was due for answer on 12 June. Last week—more than a month later—I was still waiting. I asked:
how many acute hospital beds there are per 1,000 of local populations in each health authority area of England and Wales; and how many such beds there will be in the Worcestershire health authority area per 1,000 of population after the complete implementation of the authority's Investing in Excellence strategy.
The Minister for Public Health replied on 20 July:
The important issue for the health service in Worcestershire is the number of patients who need to be treated and the appropriateness of their care. In line with this, the current estimate is that following hospital reorganisation there will be approximately 1,400 acute and community based beds available across Worcestershire.
The Minister goes on to talk about the national beds inquiry, set up to review assumptions about the demand for in-patient care:
The consultation, which was completed on 15 May, focused on how health services, and specifically hospital beds, should be developed over the next 10-20 years. The aim of the consultation is to enable us to get the right number of the right sort of beds in the right places. Our response to the consultation will be published in the summer.—[Official Report, 20 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 275W.]
There were detailed figures on the status quo, as I requested, but none for the future. That made it impossible for me to make the comparisons that I and the people of the county want to make. If the Government are committed to ensuring that there are more beds in the whole care system, why are they, apparently, planning to cut bed numbers in my county? Why did the Minister lump together all kinds of acute and community beds in her reply, when I asked about acute beds? Why could she provide only a current estimate for a hospital that is already being built, under the private finance initiative? I suppose that I should be reassured to know that the consultation's aim is to get the right number of the right sort of beds in the right places. I would hardly expect it to be to get the wrong number of the wrong sort of beds in the wrong places. However, if that is the aim, why are the Government pressing ahead with a commitment to reduce bed numbers in my county, when their own consultation may show that to be woefully inadequate?
There is growing evidence that historic trends in bed usage may be changing. Years of decline may be coming to an end, as day-case surgery and less intrusive methods reduce the demand for overnight stays. Indeed, as the elderly make increased demands on health care, we may need more beds in our hospitals rather than fewer. The old line that no hospital has ever been built with too few beds may no longer be true.
I therefore expect, either in the Minister's reply or in a subsequent letter, a clear indication of how many acute beds there are in the county now, and how many there will be after the full implementation of the strategy. I want those figures on a strictly comparable basis. The Government may want to give the figures for all beds, from intensive care to community, but I want them separated out in detail according to official Department of Health criteria on a comparable basis between what we have now and what we shall have in future.
150WH
I accept the argument that a proper intermediate care strategy is crucial for the new structure, and that the availability of community step-up and step-down beds is a key component of that. However, I do not want all those beds lumped together. We must know how many hospital beds and how many community beds there are now and how many there will be. These concerns are widely shared in Worcestershire. That is why the chamber of commerce has written to the chief executive of the health authority to say:
Members are concerned that the number of beds within the new County structure may not reflect the provision that may be recommended at the conclusion of the national beds inquiry and it will not then be easy or perhaps possible to meet those recommendations.
The questions that flow from this are far from theoretical. A Worcestershire general practitioner wrote to me last week to say:
Even as I write this letter, I have been told of a 92-year-old lady who was discharged from Ronkswood hospital at 5.00 am this morning, back to her nursing home having spent all night in casualty, and died just as the ambulance arrived back at the home. The Coroner of course, has been informed.
Earlier in the same letter, he said:
I would appreciate your clarifying with someone at the Department of Health, that in the case of a patient dying whilst waiting for treatment at Worcester Royal Infirmary, who would be held responsible?
I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to that point at the end of this debate.
Finally, I shall turn to the question of intermediate care, which is, perhaps, the most important of all. The health authority says that up to 38 per cent. of individuals in acute hospital beds in the county could be cared for elsewhere. Other estimates are a good deal lower—as low as 8 per cent. with more accurate criteria. There is bed blocking in Worcestershire, but there is considerable dispute between the health authority and the county social services department about its true extent.
Frankly, I do not understand where the buck stops on intermediate care, and I hope that the Minister can tell me. The primary care groups, the health authority, the acute trust, the community trust, the social services department and the private care home sector all have a role to play. I believe that the health authority is in the lead. However, it is cash strapped, the social services department has seriously overspent on children's services and is seeking to save money on care for the elderly, and the care homes are in crisis as a result of Government policies and are closing fast. The seriousness of the financial situation in the county social services department cannot be overstated. Always the poor relation compared with similar authorities—never mind with Birmingham—the county now faces a deepening crisis following a serious overspend on children's care.
Councillor Carol Warren, the Labour leader of the council, stated in a recent letter to the Minister of State, Department of Health:
Worcestershire County Council is asking that the government make extra funds available in 2001/2002 for [investment in family support and preventative services for vulnerable children and children in need] through Quality Protects and that further funds be made available in future years. In 2000/2001 there is a projected overspend of £2.1 million on Children Looked After.

151WH
This overspend has sent shock waves through the local health care community.
Local doctors are receiving letters from the county council saying:
You are likely also to see a change in our recommended care plans with more children returning more quickly to the care of their families. We will need your help and support to achieve this.
In other words, there will be more work for the hard-pressed GPs of Worcestershire, and probably cuts in the care budget for the elderly too. Intermediate care is not even working smoothly now. The Worcestershire association of carers has recently written to the chief executive of the Worcestershire Community and Mental Health NHS trust to say:
As an Association we are very concerned by the number of carers who have been contacting our offices with major worries about the apparent lack of proper assessment and care planning prior to discharge from hospital and transfer to nursing homes, intermediate care or home. The discharge procedures for patients who have mental health problems, Alzheimer's and general frailty have to be properly thought through in conjunction with the needs of their carers. We are aware that the new hospital development and relocation of various services may well necessitate large numbers of discharges at the same time. This could prove catastrophic to patients and carers if sufficient time and resources are not made available for proper assessments and care plans to be carried out.
At least the community hospitals look secure. I should like to put on record my deep appreciation for the sympathy and understanding shown by the health authority to the community hospital sector and, above all, to Evesham in my constituency. Those hospitals, together with Kidderminster, will play a crucial role in supporting the new hospital structure of the county. They too will have to accept change as they adapt, but their future is rightly secure.
On the broader picture, the intermediate care strategy for the county seems to be emerging almost by accident. There will be no such beds for the major and growing town of Droitwich Spa. What are family and friends from that town supposed to do when their loved ones are discharged from Worcester or Redditch? Will Worcester doctors happily jump in their cars to visit patients miles away in intermediate care beds, recently and rather arbitrarily situated at, I believe, Callow End, when they have overflowing surgeries and home visits to make in Worcester?
Richard Adams, the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Worcester, put it very well in a letter to me at the weekend. He said that he joined me in supporting the aims of Investing in Excellence, but added
I am receiving ever increasing numbers of enquiries about the transitional period and ultimate bed numbers. Some assurances are needed to quell fears, but in Worcester at present we only hear claim and counterclaim from opposing factions. Many people are very worried, and that should not be the case.
The people of Worcestershire need the Minister to answer some specific questions. First, is the new PFI hospital at Worcester genuinely affordable for cash-strapped Worcestershire health authority? Secondly, will there be fewer nurses in Worcestershire's acute hospitals after these changes? Thirdly, on a strictly comparable basis using Department of Health classifications, how many acute beds are there now and how many will there be in the county after these changes? Fourthly, is the Minister satisfied with the
152WH
safety of the Castle street site in the interim period? Fifthly, is the Minister satisfied with the safety of the proposed ambulatory care and diagnostic centre at Kidderminster? Finally, is the Minister satisfied that a sufficiently robust intermediate care strategy will be put in place to support the new arrangements?
I make one final request to the Minister. Please can we have no further structural changes in Worcestershire's health care system before 2003, after the new Worcester hospital is up and running? Please do not transfer the primary care groups to primary care trusts; just leave things alone while all the arrangements for the new hospital settle down. Health care in Worcestershire is going through almost traumatic change as it is. Please do not make matters worse by changing the bureaucratic goalposts, too.
I remain an optimist. The new hospital structure can work. Confidence in the new structure can be rebuilt, but the Minister must seize this opportunity to start that process and to give some specific assurances. If there is one issue that I would emphasise, it is intermediate care. If the new hospital structure is to work, that is the key. I hope that the Minister will use it to unlock the door to a new and robust confidence in Worcestershire on the future structure of hospital services in the county.
10.27 am
Mr. Michael J. Foster: The structure of hospital services has been the subject of much debate in Worcestershire. Since May 1997, questions have been raised in the House and there have been Adjournment debates about changes in the county. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has secured another opportunity not only to debate these changes but to highlight the Government's success in delivering improved health care in the county and once again to show that Labour is delivering its pre-election promise to build a new hospital in Worcester.
The debate should be about reassuring people in Worcestershire, not fuelling fears about the changes that are planned. However, causing unnecessary fear is a consequence of playing out the debate in the media. Headlines such as "I fear for our health" in the Worcester Evening News last Thursday and the demand of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire that Ministers should be put on the spot show clearly how the debate can become party political. Comments to the newspaper claiming that lives will be at risk hardly show a mature response to a debate that has increased in temperature of late.
I am always mindful of the words of a non-practising GP, who said:
I think that there is a role for politicians in regulating the National Health Service, and deciding what we should get out of the service, but they should then allow managers and doctors to do what they are trained to do, which is to manage the service and treat patients.
I hope that all hon. Members support that view. I see the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) shaking her head. Did that indicate dissent?
Mr. Luff: No, Something different.
Mr. Foster: Without doubt, changes to the current structure of the hospital services were always likely when, back in 1996, the annual health report stated:
Now is a good time to undertake a strategic review of health services in Worcestershire.
Before 1996, nobody had looked holistically at Worcestershire's health services. The report went on to say that such a review
will require collaboration between units and sectors.
Interestingly, it went further:
This requires a degree of co-operation, which may be undermined by competition created by the Internal Market.
Worcestershire health authority then produced a strategy for public consultation called "Investing in Excellence". It acknowledged that changes would need to be made at Kidderminster hospital to provide safe, high-quality health care in the most appropriate location and—importantly—to address any areas where population size, number of operations performed or medical staffing problems could pose a risk to patients. The county's Members of Parliament responded to the consultation document, which outlined a range of options, with the health authorities' preference being known. The responses are interesting, given the comments made recently to the press and in today's debate.
I have a copy of a letter dated 8 May 1998 from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire to the chief executive of the health authority. It said:
I hope to write to you again before the close of the consultation after a meeting I am attending in Evesham with the local GPs. I can confirm that within my constituency there is overwhelming support for the Health Authority's strategy and I, therefore, write to endorse it.
[Interruption.] I am not disputing that.
Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman may need to rewrite his speech, because he clearly thought that I would make a different speech from the one that I actually made. I repeat my strong support for the health authority's strategy; it is the detail that worries me.
Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me pursue my point a little further before intervening in an ill-tempered manner. He went on to say:
This letter is to record my strong support for the elements of the review outlined in the document—
we agree on this—
I specifically note that the County Council commissioned its own independent analysis of the document which has also supported the review strategy.
That is a strong endorsement of the strategy. On 11 May 1998, the hon. Gentleman wrote to the chief executive again
to reaffirm my strong support.
Mr. Luff: May I ask where the hon. Gentleman got those letters? They are matters of public record, but no one has ever shared any of the hon. Gentleman's letters with me. I do not exactly regard this as a breach of confidence, but I am slightly surprised that someone has given him the letters.
Mr. Foster: The letters were part of the public consultation relating to the "Investing in Excellence"
154WH
document, and the hon. Gentleman should know that. In his speech this morning, he said that his approval was always "conditional". However, in his letter of 11 May 1998, he said:
Please therefore accept this letter as an unqualified approval for the plans put forward by the Health Authority.
Why is the hon. Gentleman suddenly so concerned that lives will be at risk? Is it because of the interim changes that will be made in September? Those changes will be made on the back of medical advice received by the acute trust board. Clinical working groups were set up to consider all the aspects of the changes planned under "Investing in Excellence" to ensure that the highest possible quality of patient care is available throughout and that particular attention is paid to specialties and clinical areas demonstrating clinical fragility. Many hon. Members in this Chamber have already heard that explanation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire met the acute trust chairman for a briefing on the changes.
Mr. Christopher Gill: On the question of putting lives at risk, the hon. Gentleman may be interested in a letter from the Worcestershire division of the British Medical Association, which says:
Unless plans are revised we fear there will be unnecessary deaths in the western half of the County and immense problems over acute admissions throughout the area from 2001.
That letter is dated 23 June this year.
Mr. Foster: I am under no illusions; I know that the medical profession has concerns and I shall deal with those later.
The clinical working groups reached some chilling conclusions. They suggested that the changes in Worcestershire be made sooner rather than later. The medical director at Kidderminster said:
my own view is that the moves should take place this year rather than waiting for next year or beyond, since uncertainty is the most destructive element in the running of any service or organisation and we are likely to lose a large number of key staff if this continues for any longer. It is also my view that general medicine and surgery should move shortly after Orthopaedics.
A letter to the acute trust board following a meeting of Kidderminster consultants says:
The consensus of clinical opinion was that retaining acute inpatient services at Kidderminster over the winter period of 2000 presented significant clinical risks and the ability to maintain a quality service would be difficult.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire knows and as I appreciate, the reasons for the transitional changes are medical, medical, medical. I accept that change and uncertainty require careful explanation to allay the build-up of unnecessary fears. Without doubt, the so-called Pollock report has added to those fears. The briefing of the report's conclusions to the press before the health authority saw them was a deliberate act.
The Pollock report casts doubts on the capacity of Worcestershire's acute trusts to cope with the reconfigured health service. The focus is on bed numbers, but they are not the sole determinant of good health care. The report claims that when the new hospital is open, bed numbers will fall to a level that poses risks to patients. Reassurances have been given about bed numbers. I shall deal with the statistics mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire as I understand them.

155WH
There are 1,035 utilised acute hospital beds in Worcestershire at present. During the transitional period—from September 2000 until the opening of the new hospital—there will be an increase to 1, 041. When the new hospital opens there will be 988 acute beds but, significantly, there will be 56 extra beds available at the Newtown site in Worcester to cope with winter pressures and high demand. That provides a total of 1, 044 beds. The chairman of the acute trust made it clear that he has no intention of giving up the extra 56 beds until he is convinced that the lower number is sufficient to cope. If extra beds were needed, there is room available at Newtown and at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch for potential expansion. I received a letter from the acute trust, which makes it clear that, after the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire met its chairman, he was largely reassured about bed numbers.
As a result of the Pollock report, the BMA and the local medical committee actively questioned the strategy set out in "Investing in Excellence". Some doctors publicly questioned the changes, as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out, and some have demanded an independent review. They argued that the initial public consultation was "suspect". The fact that it was subject to judicial reviews not once, but three times, seems to have escaped them. The health authority was vindicated three times. Just what is the local medical committee thinking—
Mr. Luff rose—
Mr. Foster: I should like to make further progress.
Further delay in implementing "Investing in Excellence" will heighten the uncertainty for patients and staff and increase the risk associated with clinical fragility. Can the LMC justify further delays when faced with the hard medical facts presented by clinical—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Hon. Members in this Chamber have a reputation for listening carefully to debate. The conduct of argument across the Chamber should be put to one side. Can we please continue with the debate in a proper parliamentary fashion?
Mr. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Can the local medical committee justify further delays when faced with the hard medical facts presented by the trust's clinical working group? Its action demonstrates the forces of conservatism that hold back our public services.
I was pleased to see all six primary care groups sign up to and support changes to health services in Worcestershire. They signed a joint letter to all general practitioners to tell them so. It says:
We ask you not to give credence to this biased and cynical attack on plans but instead to continue to work with the majority of us who want to see a new modern health service providing the highest standards of care for our patients.
The debate is not about genuine concerns over health issues alone because some people use health as a political football. I regret that, but it is no surprise in view of the debate surrounding the history of Worcester's new hospital. The people of Worcester have
156WH
been promised a new hospital for more than 40 years. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire knows all about the false dawns and empty promises that were made. For example, in what I assume to have been a planted parliamentary question on 23 March 1993, he was told by the then Secretary of State:
I know that he will be pleased, as I was, to learn that the West Midlands regional health authority has agreed a capital scheme for his district general hospital in Worcester, that it will not be affected by the capital moratorium and that work on it will start soon. [Official Report, 23 March 1993;Vol. 221, c. 753.]
Nothing happened. Prior to the general election, the Tories claimed that Labour would scrap plans to build a new hospital. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
If Labour came to power they would bring the whole PFI scheme to an end. You could say goodbye to a new hospital.
Events have shown how wrong the Tories were. The new hospital is well under construction, perhaps even ahead of schedule—concrete evidence of Labour delivering in Worcester.
I have doubts about the motives for calling this debate. However, I believe that Labour can be seen to be delivering when a new hospital is being built. The hon. Gentleman previously supported the health authority, at a time when it was planning fewer beds than now. He and I know that genuine care is being taken over the number of beds, to allay fears expressed in the press. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) has called resolutely for clarification of the number of beds that will be made available: I believe that clarification has been given.
The true measure of what is happening in Worcestershire needs to be aired publicly. The so-called killer facts are as follows. Since 31 March 1998, waiting lists have fallen by more than 2, 200, or 19 per cent. That is a creditable performance, but the critics will say that it has happened at the expense of other areas.
Let us consider other areas of health care. Elective activity for the same period has increased by more than 6, 100, or 13 per cent., emergency activity by more than 600, or 1 per cent. and out-patient activity by more than 29, 200, or 8 per cent. Since September 1997, the number of nurses has increased by 144, or 5 per cent. and there are now 10 more doctors and four more consultants.
What is behind such improvements? Without doubt, the extra cash that the Government have made available is fundamental to them. Each year of this Government has brought the health authority true increases in cash, including an extra £26.3 million this year. This investment has enabled all three accident and emergency units in the county to be modernised. In addition, special assistance funding of £4.5 million has been made available for the reconfiguration and restructuring of services. For example, some of it has enabled extra paramedics to be trained, ready to begin in September this year, in time for the transitional arrangements.
The doctors, nurses and support staff who have delivered those improvements deserve our thanks and praise in debates such as this. I am pleased to go on record as offering them both. Indeed, those same staff may now be asking what would happen if the Tory spending cuts guarantee were to bite in the county.

157WH
Reductions of £144 million in Worcestershire are bound to have an adverse impact on health care there, as well as on our schools and the police.
Is it not strange that we did not hear about those cuts from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, or hear him congratulate the Government on securing extra funding, which will result in his constituents as well as mine being treated more quickly—something that I imagined he would wish to welcome publicly?
Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: No. I have said that I will not give way.
In my view, those in the county who are fuelling fears about the health service are playing a dangerous game. It is a political trap that I know the Conservatives are all too willing to spring on people. They wish to deflect attention from the good news in Worcestershire—the new hospital, modernised facilities in all hospitals, shorter waiting lists, more people being treated, more nurses and doctors. It is no wonder that they are so desperate to help fuel scare stories. I will go further and state that were the Tories to succeed in convincing people that the NHS was failing, their privatisation agenda would achieve even greater credibility.
The simple message for the people of Worcestershire who listen to this debate is that the Tories believe in a privatised NHS, while the Labour Government want to modernise it. That is the dividing line on which people will make up their minds whenever called upon to do so.
10.44 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on obtaining the debate and on comprehensively and fluently describing the problems affecting Worcestershire health authority and its area. My hon. Friend's experiences mirror my own, so I sympathise with his difficulties in obtaining an accurate forecast of the bed numbers either before or after the plans have been implemented. Dalrymple's law is certainly operating. The previous Government spent £25 million on Kidderminster general hospital. Brand new wards and other facilities were erected as a consequence of that massive expenditure, yet to this day those facilities have not been used and now may never be used.
My interest in the debate arises from the downgrading of Kidderminster hospital and the concern of about 20, 000 of my constituents about the loss of a full accident and emergency unit at Kidderminster. The chairman of the acute trust has tried to convince me that as the numbers from my constituency using the Kidderminster facilities are relatively small, I should not worry. However, I have taken pains to tell him that that is all very well until someone desperately needs accident and emergency attention and must travel an additional 17 miles to the new hospital at Worcester. That journey involves travelling through and exiting from the other side of Kidderminster.
Since the health authority announced the downgrading plans, traffic calming measures have reduced the A449—the main road between Kidderminster and Worcester—from a full dual
158WH
carriage way to a dual carriageway with only a single lane operating in each direction in parts. That has made the journey longer and more difficult. The future situation will not be as satisfactory as the present arrangements. Last Friday, I was at junction 6 on the M5. It will be necessary for ambulances taking patients from south Shropshire to circumnavigate the island there to reach the new hospital. The interchange was gridlocked last Friday, and that gives my constituents grave fears, because those travel problems are in addition to their current difficulties in reaching accident and emergency departments.
The Prime Minister and other Ministers continually boast about the upgrading of accident and emergency hospitals throughout the country. However, the situation is different for my constituents. In place of a fully-fledged accident and emergency unit at Kidderminster, we are promised an untried and untested concept known as ambulatory care and diagnostics. There are mounting fears about the adequacy of the health care provision after the downgrading in September. The Kidderminster Shuttle reports concerns expressed by the ambulance service
as the D-Day for the downgrading of Kidderminster Hospital looms.
Frontline ambulance staff have revealed the perilous state of affairs at Ronkswood Hospital, Worcester, where Kidderminster paramedics have been queueing to offload patients.
Once the downgrading takes place in September, even more patients will have to be taken to Worcester.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned the demoralisation of staff. That is certainly happening in the ambulance service. Experienced staff are leaving as morale hits an all-time low. A spokesman for the ambulance service described the situation as a "nightmare scenario", stating, for example, that paramedics have not yet been trained to use clot-busting drugs on heart-attack patients. In future, my constituents face the prospect of being brought from their homes to the minor injuries unit at Kidderminster where nurses will give the drug to patients who need it before they are returned to the ambulance to continue their journey to Worcester. Hon. Members will appreciate my constituents' anxiety about such a situation.
It is not only the ambulance service that is worried; everyone involved expresses fears about the provision of medical services in the area. The Worcestershire local medical committee is a democratically elected, statutory body representing 300 or more family doctors in the county of Worcestershire—the secretary of the group, Dr. Simon Parkinson, is based in Redditch, and is therefore not partisan in his attitude to Kidderminster. At a meeting held on 13 July the Worcestershire local medical committee, in conjunction with the Worcestershire division of the British Medical Association, debated a report produced by Professor Pollock entitled "Deficits before patients". They listened to the chief executive and the director of public health of Worcestershire health authority, and at the end of the meeting stated that they were bemused and most unhappy; too many questions had been left unanswered and there was a distinct lack of clarity in the replies that they had received from the health authority. The Worcestershire local medical committee issued a statement saying that the serious questions posed by

159WH
Professor Pollock simply had not been answered. It stated—the point was made by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster)—that the
consultation procedure which took place at an early stage was suspect and the LMC demands an independent and expert analysis as soon as possible to review the situation.
The overwhelming feeling of clinicians is that the situation in the national health service in Worcestershire is bad and will get worse. They have placed on record their great unhappiness about the matter; they are concerned that there are too many unanswered questions, and about the future provision and location of acute medical beds in the county. They believe that there is a real risk that the service provisions for the population of Worcestershire will be inadequate. To the population of Worcestershire, I would add the population of south Shropshire.
The LMC has urged the board of Worcestershire health authority to agree that an independent expert investigation committee should be formed and fully briefed to discover whether the proposed bed configuration will be adequate to meet the need of the county's population when the PFI is fully operational. The LMC thinks that that is important as the original consultation exercise was suspect and inadequate, and the full facts were not given. Evidence has come to light for the first time, and much needs to be clarified.
In summary, the LMC wants five matters to be considered: first, the financial implication of the PFI scheme on the health economy of Worcestershire; secondly, the interim arrangements when in-patient services are closed in Kidderminster; thirdly, whether credible intermediate care will be in place before there are bed reductions; fourthly, a review of projected bed numbers in the various categories across the county when the new hospital is open; and, fifthly, the safety of the new stand-alone ambulatory care and diagnostic centre in Kidderminster, which the committee questions.
The Worcestershire health authority has few friends and no allies; opposition to its plans is unanimous and universal. Wyre Forest district council, where 19 out of 42 councillors were elected on a "save Kidderminster hospital" ticket, is opposed to the health authority plans. The community health council tried to get a judicial review but it was not granted, which controverts what the hon. Member for Worcester said, and of course it remains opposed to the plans. The local medical committee, the Worcestershire British Medical Association, the population of Kidderminster and the surrounding areas are opposed, as needless to say, are my constituents in Alveley, Cleobury Mortimer, Highley and surrounding areas.
Apparently, when the decision was made to proceed with the new hospital at Worcester, there was no thought of altering the status of other Worcestershire hospitals. The downgrading of Kidderminster hospital followed later, as a financial imperative, when it was realised that cash resources would not stretch to existing hospitals plus the new Worcester hospital. By the admission of the hon. Member for Worcester, the hospital was established to redeem an election pledge, but my constituents were also given election pledges. They were told that they would have adequate and satisfactory health care provision and they are extremely disappointed. They are the innocent victims
160WH
of a Government who have failed to get their act together to ensure an overall strategic plan that will deliver adequate and satisfactory health care provision for all patients, regardless of where they happen to live. I endorse the Worcestershire BMA's unanimous decision that the Secretary of State should undertake to establish an independent inquiry that will enable us to see exactly what has happened, and, more to the point, gain assurance that future provisions will be satisfactory.
10.56 am
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the limited time that remains. I associate myself with the excellent exposition given by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) of the circumstances in which we find ourselves in Worcestershire. Although I shall not go into too much detail, I should like to respond to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who claimed throughout his disappointing speech that he did not want to make the health service a political football, but then proceeded to do that in every comment that he made.
The Labour party stood at the last election on the assertion that there were 24 hours to save the NHS, and all three Labour Members present in the Chamber made specific pledges about their local health services during the campaign. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) promised that he would keep the local Kidderminster hospital, but he changed his mind. Now, much to the disgust of his constituents, he believes that it should be closed. I know that he is aware of his constituents' anger, as I recently witnessed a little altercation in Central Lobby in which some of them made clear their concern about his change of heart. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has just made a sedentary intervention, campaigned heavily on keeping open the accident and emergency department at the Alexandra hospital. She knows only too well that the A and E department at the Alex will be scaled down as part of the new configuration of hospital services in Worcestershire. It may or may not be called a local emergency centre—although the name is merely political, they are still worrying about it in the Department of Health—but the fact is that the A and E service at the hospital will not be the same as that which is currently provided and will rely on part-time consultant cover. The pledges of the hon. Member for Redditch to ensure that the A and E department at the Alex was maintained as a proper, functioning department have proved to be hollow. She has been silent on the matter, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances.
Of course, the main A and E centre for Worcestershire will be situated at the Worcester hospital. Although that may be a reasonable decision in terms of clinical care, it is not what the people of Worcestershire expected when the Labour party was elected. I remind Labour Members that they have failed the people of Worcestershire. The hon. Member for Worcester failed them when he did not recognise in his speech the legitimate concerns expressed by local doctors. Opposition Members are present because we have been

161WH
contacted not by party political apparatchiks, but by local doctors. They are the front-line service in Worcestershire and they are deeply concerned about the effect on their clinical services of the new configuration of hospitals in our county. If Labour Members had any respect for their constituents, I should have thought that the hon. Member for Worcester would at least have asked the Minister the important questions that the Government have so far failed to answer.
I support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, who said that an independent inquiry should be conducted. Such an inquiry would not concern judicial process, which has been the subject of previous inquiries, but real bed numbers, staffing numbers and service provision. We want answers about those things, not about judicial inquiries processes. We want answers about real services provided to real people in Worcestershire.
I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know whether she was prepared to instruct Worcestershire health authority to have the inquiry. If she were not prepared to do that, would she please answer the specific questions raised by my hon. Friends? We want to know the real number of beds to be available to the people of Worcestershire after the new Worcester hospital comes on stream under the Worcestershire acute trust. We want the beds to be classified according to the Department of Health's classification. We want to know how many seven-day acute beds we will have after the new health service configuration. We want to know how many intermediate care beds there will be. We do not want the figures lumped together as an answer of 1, 400—an answer that the Minister gave in May and continues to give in July when the situation is clearly changing. We want to know the precise numbers of those beds so that we can ask the relevant services about the situation. According to the Worcestershire acute trust plan, there is to be a 17 per cent. cut in nursing staff. Is that true? It would be wonderful if it was not true and we would like reassurance. Will she kindly clarify the matter?
11 am
Mr. Nick Harvey: I will not detain hon. Members for more than a few minutes because Worcestershire Members have asked questions to which it is important that they receive answers. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) opened his debate sensibly; I congratulate him on securing it. However, it seems strange that calling such a debate is still necessary at this late stage—almost the end of July—just two months before changes start to be implemented. The hon. Gentleman must still press for fairly basic figures that ought to have been transparent to all before any of the processes were ever commenced.
Answers have been too long in coming. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) tabled questions on 10 February that took until 2 May to get an answer. If the Department of Health is in such difficulty coming up with perfectly straightforward answers to perfectly straightforward questions, the whole thing has not been thought through as well in advance as it should have been.
162WH
In moving the debate, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said that the Kidderminster campaigners had focused on the wrong issue, making their goal keeping an acute hospital going in the town rather than addressing the question of whether the proposed alternatives were satisfactory. I know what he means but, if one considers the issue from the campaigners' point of view, it is understandable that the key issue is keeping the full range of facilities in their community.
I do not believe that the campaigners have been reassured or dissuaded from that aim by anything that has happened or by the way in which the matter has been handled locally. In one sense, that shows the shortcomings of democratic accountability in the NHS at a community or regional level. Campaigners have gone to umpteen meetings, asked questions and sought to put their view. However, at the end of it all, they have not been given answers that offer them reassurance.
I was grateful to the chairman of the trust for taking time out of a busy day to brief me on what was happening and on what the new facilities would look like. He certainly seemed determined to press ahead and to do so with all haste. I can understand why, if campaigners have had audiences with him, they have not emerged reassured that he had listened to anything that they had to say or that he had endeavoured to meet the points raised. If they ended up thinking that he was hell bent on ploughing ahead, I could see why.
The hon. Member for Ludlow rightly focused on the worries in the Kidderminster area and over the county border in his area about the emergency arrangements to be available to people living in those parts when there is no longer an effective accident and emergency department at Kidderminster. Those points have not been addressed or answered at all. With his local knowledge, he is able to offer examples of traffic congestion on crucial junctions in even the past week or two. I was completely astounded that, when I spoke to the chairman of the trust, he seemed to consider that his responsibilities lay in the county of Worcestershire because that was what the trust covered but had barely taken into account the problems that would be faced over the county boundary in Shropshire. I can well understand why people in the Kidderminster area and in Shropshire are far from reassured. It seems to me that the whole thing, or at least the speed with which the changes are being introduced, is largely driven by finance. I am well aware that the Pollock report has been knocked: its motivation has been queried and some of its findings have been challenged. There might be some problems with the report, but even if the number of beds remains more or less the same as it was before the restructuring, bed provision in the area will remain far lower than the national average, so it does not put things right.
I hope that we will hear answers to those questions today, in particular, to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. I regret that the Government are not able to answer questions on the PFI rather more quickly. In the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones asked questions about some basic figures relating to the PFI, to which it took the Government six months to reply. The Liberal Democrats have no problem in principle with the PFI, but we believe that the public should be able to see that

163WH
it offers better value for money than alternative methods. As yet, that information is not forthcoming. Even the House of Commons Library says that it is completely impossible to cost PFI compared with other methods.
11.6 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I shall be brief because this debate is of great concern principally to hon. Members who represent Worcestershire constituencies. They have made their points well and we would all like to hear the answers.
I want to say for the record that this is one of the most disappointing debates that I have heard in this Chamber because it was spoilt by the party-political intervention of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I have always enjoyed the fact that there is a different tenor to debates in Westminster Hall. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) tried hard to keep away from party politics, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. There is some urgency in the air because, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) pointed out, we are on the eve of major changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire recognised his responsibility in calling for the Adjournment debate, which enables us to articulate publicly our real concerns about the overall change and the transitional arrangements. It is entirely justified to have such a debate before the changes are introduced because, who knows, we could be successful today in encouraging the Minister to do something to improve the transitional arrangements. Our questions have been designed constructively for that purpose.
We are not trying to reopen an old debate and we are not being politically opportunist—none of the opposition parties has been politically opportunist in today's debate. We accept that the change will take place and our purpose is to articulate the real concerns of Worcestershire's residents about what will greet them in the brave new world of restructured Worcestershire hospitals. The hon. Member for Worcester resorted to swiping at the Conservative party's desire to privatise the NHS, but that has never been our intention, as we have made clear on many occasions. In case the hon. Gentleman has not heard what we have said, I shall repeat that we would match the Government's spending on health.
The key issues are financial viability, bed availability, staff shortages and the range and standard of services. The viability of the new hospital is an important issue. I speak from my experience of seeing a new hospital get up and running in Solihull. That hospital ran into serious financial difficulties almost immediately and, ultimately, a merger had to take place because the hospital proved unviable. Once bitten, twice shy. My concern is that the special allocations that the Government have given in the past two years have simply been used to mop up deficits, which, as I read the figures, are a structural problem at the hospital. I know for a fact from the managers of the trust that there is a problem with the roof on the Alexandra hospital, which will cost £1.7 million to repair. The financial weakness of the situation must be taken into account when we ask the Minister about the financial viability of the project. The preliminary cost of the PFI proposal has escalated by 118 per cent.—a significant increase. What are the
164WH
primary causes of that? I understand that one of them is the 22 per cent. increase in the original projection of bed availability, but I should be interested in the Minister's comments on the ultimate price tag on the new hospital.
That leads me to the question of bed availability, which, on the setting up of the new hospital is, apparently, already tight. The framework for that state of affairs is that NHS bed numbers have declined by 7, 000 every year since 1964, whichever party has been in power, to the point at which we all accept that they can decline no further. The shortage of beds is reflected in the waiting lists, and on the Government's annual report website the harsh fact was revealed that in the area for which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire is responsible, the number of people waiting for in-patient operations has risen, and in the out-patients category the number waiting has doubled. That is despite a pledge to reduce waiting lists—which may have happened elsewhere, but is not happening where the new structure is about to come into operation. That is the reason for the concern about whether there will be enough beds.
I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about categories of beds. Care should be taken about counting intermediate care beds. The winter pressures last year were due in no small part to a shortage of medical beds. The relevant patients were largely elderly people, often with serious chest infections requiring an emergency medical admission. It is not possible to decant elderly men and women in that predicament to a residential nursing home without the full range of clinical support that they need. A bed in a nursing home cannot be classified as the kind of bed that an emergency medical case would need. Even when an emergency has passed, it is not suitable to give that classification to an intermediate care bed. The categories will become very important.
On staffing, I should like to hear about the projected reduction in the number of nurses. When I visited Kidderminster hospital I heard from staff about loss of morale and concern about having to commute to the new hospital to keep their jobs. Seventeen miles is a considerable distance; it is a lot for a working mother who might have been able to walk to the hospital previously but will now have to incorporate commuting time into her day. I know that a bus service will be laid on, but I hope that the Minister will accept that that is not the same. Such disincentives affect non-clinical staff strongly, particularly catering staff, who will not commute in search of jobs in the new hospital.
Will the Minister confirm how many paramedic ambulances will be stationed at Kidderminster hospital? My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) explained the importance of that. I was deeply affected by the death of the late Sir Denis Howell, who died in my constituency while waiting 19 minutes for an ambulance from our acute hospital. Given the distance, and with the equipment on board, perhaps it might have been possible to save his life. It is important for the public to be clearly aware of the number of paramedic ambulances, where they are to be stationed, and the type of equipment on board.
The main purpose of the debate is not political but a matter of responsibility to ensure that hon. Members' worries are dealt with, if possible in the nick of time, before the changes are made. We have tried hard to

165WH
avoid party political contributions, and I am sorry that that has not applied to all interventions. Good, clear answers to our questions would go a long way towards helping us to answer the questions that we receive from people affected by the changes.
11.14 am
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing a debate on a subject that is important to his constituents and the residents of Worcestershire. My ministerial colleagues and I are fully aware of the concerns that have been raised in Worcestershire and Shropshire about those matters, which have been debated in the House on several occasions. I and my hon. Friends in the Department of Health have also had meetings with my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) who are here this morning; they have both been assiduous in representing their constituents' interests.
Hon. Members have raised a series of questions—I shall try to answer them in as much detail as time allows. First, I shall deal with the proposals based on "Investing in Excellence" and the new Worcestershire hospital and, secondly, I shall deal with the transitional arrangements. We take seriously the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members and constituents.
The Government's priority is the modernisation of the NHS and the provision of high-quality care to everyone. We want to ensure that patients receive clinically appropriate service when and where they need it. That means making appropriate use of existing facilities and, if necessary, developing new services. The health service needs to respond to demands from doctors and other health professionals for the skills and experience that result from greater specialisation. That approach, based on "Centres of Excellence", is aimed at providing patients with the very best that medical science can offer.
The backdrop for Worcestershire's strategic review was the need to secure appropriate and high-quality clinical services. The local health authority, the local trust, local clinicians and the Government would be failing in their duty to provide top-quality care for everyone if changes were not made in Worcestershire. Without appropriate specialisation, patients will simply not receive the best-quality care. That is the driving force behind the changes that are taking place in Worcestershire.
The decision to make changes in Worcestershire was based on a thorough and detailed process of strategy development, option evaluation and consultation over a considerable time. It is wrong to say that the changes are being made at the last minute, without proper consultation or investigation of the options. The extended consultation exercises were carefully evaluated by the health authority and, following the formal objection of Kidderminster community health council, they were fully and properly reviewed by Ministers.
In arriving at their decision, Ministers took the advice of clinical professionals, both nationally and locally. We were satisfied that it was not possible to sustain three
166WH
centres for emergency medicine and surgery in Worcestershire. However, concerns were expressed, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. As a result, we instructed the health authority to modify its proposals in order to strengthen the new county-wide accident and emergency service and to increase investment at Kidderminster hospital to ensure that the new emergency centre could deal with as many patients as possible.
We responded also to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch about the Alexandra hospital, which has led to hundreds of thousands of pounds of additional investment in the accident and emergency services. As hon. Members are aware, "Investing in Excellence" has already been subject to external evaluation, including independent scrutiny by the King's Fund. The health authority's approach was upheld in three judicial reviews.
Mr. Gill: Does the Minister not recall the recommendation of the King's Fund that the changes should be made on a
two-year pilot project basis and formally reviewed by a reputable external source…before any irrevocable decisions are made on the future of services currently provided at Kidderminster General Hospital?
That recommendation seems to have been totally ignored.
Yvette Cooper: The strong view of local clinicians is that the changes need to be made as quickly as possible. We have spent a long time circling round the issue of new hospitals in Worcestershire and the configuration of services around the county. Proposals for a new hospital have been discussed for 30 years. It is time to get on with making the changes that are essential to improve the quality of care for people who live in the area.
Mr. Luff: Will the Minister give way?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions, and I should like to make progress.
Mr. Luff: Can the Minister confirm whether the National Audit Office is inquiring into the process, as Wyre Forest district council claims?
Yvette Cooper: There have been many investigations and discussions. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about his question.
I want to deal first with the concerns that were raised about Kidderminster hospital. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) suggested that it will close. That is definitely not so. It has never been proposed, and it is simply not true. Kidderminster hospital will be developed with a state of the art ambulatory care centre delivering out-patient and day case procedures, using the latest technological facilities for telemedicine to speed up access to diagnostic tests and consultant opinion. That will be done according to protocols that have been properly agreed by clinicians across the country and by the royal colleges. We expect Kidderminster hospital to be a leading light nationally in the development of telemedicine, and we believe that it can be a pioneer for modern health services.
Miss Kirkbride: I stand by what I said. Doctors in the county believe that it is unlikely that matters will

167WH
proceed in the way that the Minister describes, simply because it would prove to be clinically unsafe. It may not be possible to put young children and elderly people under general anaesthetic at the hospital, because the nearest emergency hospital is 18 miles away. Will the Minister confirm that there is uncertainty in that respect?
Yvette Cooper: I can confirm that we will proceed with a state of the art ambulatory care centre. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove is trying to make party political points and to spread scare stories by suggesting that Kidderminster hospital will close. For the record, I can state that that is absolutely untrue.
It is estimated that over 40 per cent. of patients who currently use Kidderminster's accident and emergency department will continue to use the hospital's minor injuries unit. That figure does not take into account further changes and increases that could take place as a result of telemedicine development. In addition, rehabilitation facilities will be used by patients returning from major surgery in Worcester.
In recent weeks, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest has raised with Ministers further concerns about Kidderminster hospital. As a result, meetings have taken place between local GPs and the Secretary of State, who has made it clear that he expects detailed cooperation between the health authority and local GPs about the development of services in Kidderminster to continue.
My hon. Friend raised specific concerns about heart attack patients who arrive at Kidderminster and need to receive life-saving thrombolytic drugs as fast as possible. I can tell hon. Members that as a result—
Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the idea of a Minister's speech is to respond to the debate, not to correspondence that he or she has received.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to understand that.
Mr. Gill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may be able to help. I think that the Minister is probably referring to me, because the question that she is answering was posed by me, not by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who has not spoken in the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his observations, but the original point of order was not a matter for the Chair.
Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I clarify for the record that I am discussing points that were raised about Kidderminster by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, and which are relevant to the debate. It is important to make clear the changes that have taken place as a result of representations by my hon. Friend. Life-saving treatments for heart attacks—thrombolytic drugs—will now be available in Kidderminster emergency centre to ensure that people get the timely care that they need for urgent conditions such as heart attacks.
168WH
Several hon. Members asked about bed numbers. Following hospital reorganisation, approximately 1, 400 acute and community-based beds will be available in Worcestershire, compared to 1, 387 in 1998–99. As the trust has pointed out, there are 1, 035 acute beds. From September 2000 until the new hospital opens, there will be 1, 041 such beds. After the new hospital opens, there will be 988 such beds, plus the 56 winter pressure beds that are currently under consideration, which equals 1, 044 beds. In addition, we expect the number of intermediate care beds in the area to increase, because it is clear that the type of bed in question is an extremely important issue. I should point out that, in line with the announcement on the expansion of critical care services, the new Worcestershire hospital has capacity for as many as 15 intensive therapy unit beds. As a result, it will have more critical care beds than the current capacity in the county as a whole.
Mrs. Spelman: Does the figure for ITU beds include high-dependency beds, as well as the "all bells and whistles" ITU beds? If so, how many?
Yvette Cooper: Final decisions on the exact number of critical care beds will depend on further decisions that are taking place at a national level on their expansion throughout the country. That expansion is the result of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on the number of intensive care and critical cares beds. If the hon. Lady wants to raise that issue again, I hope to be able to give more detail at the appropriate point.
Capacity for 2002, when the new hospital in Worcester will open, has been designed to accommodate the anticipated number of emergency and elective patients. At the same time, we expect continuing development in intermediate care. The national beds inquiry found evidence of significant inappropriate or avoidable use of acute beds, and a recent audit in Worcestershire showed that 42 per cent. of patients in acute beds would have been better cared for in another, lower dependency setting.
Hon. Members asked whether intermediate care is expanding sufficiently quickly. It is clear that this is an important issue, and a great deal of work has already been undertaken. An increasing number of schemes are in place to prevent hospital admissions, such as rapid response teams and intensive home care. Worcestershire's investment in intermediate care has increased from approximately £1 million in 1999–2000 to £1.7 million in 2000–01. Local primary care groups have developed a wide range of schemes to prevent admission and support early discharge. Many GP practices in Worcestershire have indicated a desire to develop a wider range of services for patients by bidding for personal medical services.
Improved bed management and discharge planning in acute hospitals is already paying dividends, and the extra £2 million that was invested in continuing care this year is reducing bed blocking. We expect that work to continue. The multi-agency local winter planning group has refined its winter plans for next year, and will submit them to the regional office at the end of July. Last year, Worcestershire managed the winter pressures period well, and expects to do the same this year. In addition, over the past two years we have awarded Worcestershire

169WH
health authority a special allocation—amounting to £8 million—to help re-configure its services. A significant proportion of that sum has been used to pump-prime development of intermediate care in advance of any bed closures.
The exact timing of the move of services is a matter for local clinicians and service managers in Worcestershire, rather than this Chamber. However, the decision to implement the acute in-patient moves was the result of clinical advice given by medical staff at Kidderminster in particular, where an early move was felt to be important.
Miss Kirkbride: What about nurses?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove made a series of allegations, including some relating to nurses and to bed numbers. I have responded in detail to her point about bed numbers. On the question of nurses, her allegation is utterly untrue. A media statement put out by the local hospital trust states:
An active recruitment initiative is under way.
It is estimated that
up to an additional 30 nurses will begin work at the trust.
A reduction in the number of nurses is nonsense. The statement goes on to say:
Miss Kirk bride should stop using hospital services as a political football.
I hope that hon. Members will take note of that, and of the importance of this issue.

Teachers (Administration)
11.30 am
Mr. David Prior: No one is more important in any society than teachers, and no issue more important to any Government than education. Society and its values are shaped to a large extent by the kind of education that we give to our children.
I was struck by a comment made by Lord Hailsham after the passing of the Education Act 1944. He said that the Act
placed the general framework of our education beyond the range of party politics.
That was reflected by the philosophy of both the Labour party and the Conservative party in their 1945 election manifestos, which I looked at recently. The Conservative party manifesto stated:
Our object is to provide education which will not produce a standardised or utility child, useful only as a cog in a bureaucratic machine, but will enable a child to develop his or her responsible place first in the world of school and then as a citizen.
That was reflected in the Labour party manifesto, which stated:
Above all, let us remember the great purpose of education is to give us individual citizens capable of thinking for themselves.
Both those ideas were summed up well by Mary Warnock, writing in the 1970s. She described the three guiding principles that should underlie the school curriculum:
The first is that the schoolchild should be prepared for work. The second, and not conflicting, consideration is that his imagination should be educated in such a way that he will learn to feel the infinite complexities of the world that he inhabits. Both these guides are in fact guides to freedom. The third ingredient is that life should be a morally justifiable life: the life of a virtuous person is better than that of a vicious person. Virtue which can be taught, or at least learned, should be learned at school among other places.
Hon. Members of all parties can sign up to those views. There is more to education than utility, children are creative individuals, and moral responsibility is important. However, I have chosen to debate this subject today because the Government have, almost inadvertently, decided to go down a different path. We risk losing the freedom to teach that should underpin our schools and the curriculum, because education and the curriculum are becoming so prescriptive and reduced to target setting and centralised control.
In Britain, unlike in many other countries—especially in Europe—we do not have a Napoleonic system in which central Government run our schools and universities. Thank goodness for that. Intellectual humility is the most important of all the qualities that a politician involved in education should possess. This issue requires trust. It requires politicians to trust teachers. No one doubts that this Government are—or that the previous Government were—committed to providing decent education. However, the level of trust is in doubt. There is a growing feeling among teachers that that lack of trust is reflected in the avalanche of red tape and paperwork that is flowing from central Government into schools and thence into the classroom. As Mathew Pickhaver, a student teacher from Bacton in my constituency put it:
Don't hammer the enthusiasm out of this generation of teachers. All we ask is the freedom to exercise our professional judgment. Do not try to turn us into mere technicians.

171WH
Most teachers regard teaching as a vocation, not a job. They do it because they know that it is important. The headmaster of Fakenham high school and college in my constituency has hanging on the wall of his study a quotation that sums up that spirit well. It says:
A hundred years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I have lived in or the kind of car that I drive … but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.
Teachers make a difference to the lives of many and I am sure that we all remember the teachers who made a difference to us when we were at school. The Minister will know from the schools that she has visited and the teachers to whom she has spoken that there is genuine and heartfelt concern that the degree of central control is becoming too strong and Government involvement is becoming too prescriptive. The Government should ask themselves whether they honestly believe that the national curriculum has become too prescriptive, whether it is accompanied by too much paperwork and bureaucracy, and whether matters have reached the point at which the Government's actions have become counter-productive, undermining the vocation and morale of teachers and the very reasons why they entered the profession in the first place.
The headmaster of Mundesley junior school in my constituency wrote to me and stated:
We now have a culture in which educational success is reduced to statistics … I care too much about our children's future to have it hijacked in this cynical way.
It is easy for Ministers to dismiss those concerns as being merely anecdotal, so I carried out a survey in my constituency in which more than 40 schools participated. I shall tell the Minister today the findings of that survey.
First, every school—infant, primary, junior, middle and high schools—believes that there has been marked increase in paperwork since 1997. That is not anecdotal and cannot be dismissed. It comes from the Department for Employment and Education, the local education authority and third parties. A number of heads said that the boundaries between the local education authority and the Department for Education and Employment were becoming blurred and that clarification was needed.
The second finding was that the vast majority of teachers believe that the national curriculum is too prescriptive and that it adversely affects the performance of classroom teachers. To be fair, almost all the teachers to whom I spoke believe that a national curriculum is necessary and those in primary schools believe that the numeracy and literacy hours are, on balance, worth while. However, as the head of Tunstead primary school said,
The literacy hour provides a sensible structure for teaching English. However it puts good teachers in
a straitjacket
and inhibits children's ability to do creative writing. It is too prescriptive and can level down.
That sends a clear message. It is necessary to have a framework, but it must not become so mechanistic and prescriptive that it holds back bright children and good teachers.
The third finding concerns Ofsted. The feedback, as one would expect, was mixed. The only general criticism was that Ofsted inspections could be variable and depend
172WH
very much on individual inspectors. From my observations, schools give inspections so much prominence that they put a disproportionate amount of work into getting ready for them and I sometimes wonder whether the inspections give a true picture. One reason is the massive publicity given to Ofsted reports, which can make or break schools, because pupil numbers determine funding levels. I am not convinced that naming and shaming, except in extremis, is the right approach and it can be counterproductive in practice.
Finally, most schools have found that the increasing paperwork makes it more difficult to find governors. One chair of governors wrote to me stating that
Governors are volunteers who give up their time willingly but most are at work or have other commitments during the day. They also feel, as essentially amateurs they are being asked to carry out tasks that would be better performed by professional people.
That plea in particular stemmed from
their dismay at the onus being placed upon them with regard to the latest performance management arrangements.
Most schools are lucky to have supportive governors, but there is a risk that, in time, they will fall away.
The survey shows that the complaints that politicians receive from teachers cannot be dismissed as anecdotal. They are real. The head teacher of Suffield Park infants school in Cromer has been working with Norfolk local education authority on a project to identify areas of stress in the education system. He wrote to me and said:
I have never known the work so demanding. It sometimes feels that you are on a pinball machine, hurtling from one thing to another. I have come across so many people within the education system who are on the verge of not being able to cope much longer. I feel that we are really on the verge of a crisis. Many staff, including myself, still love the job. However, the job dominates to such a degree that personal and family life has to take a very low priority. Stress and ill health are increasing. It is little wonder that many job vacancies remain unfilled.
Teachers' morale is at low ebb, and they are drowning in a sea of paperwork, Whitehall plans and meaningless targets. That was picked up by the Government's better regulation task force, which reported on the teaching profession in April. The task force stated:
There is a widespread and deeply held view that increased red tape is acting as a distraction from the drive to raise standards…over-elaborate processes are being used to achieve straightforward objectives, leading to unnecessary duplication and confusing lines of accountability.
The tentacles of central Government are stretching out to control, regulate and interfere with our education system. There is a danger that that will destroy schools' freedom to show initiative and flexibility. There is a risk that head teachers will become mere functionaries of the state and teachers mere technicians, as Mathew Pickhaver put it. Teachers raise standards by teaching in the classroom, not by filling in forms. Head teachers raise standards by leading their schools, not by following the latest Whitehall plan.
I have no doubt that much of the administrative burden on teachers and heads would fall away if we showed a little more trust and gave them a little more room for manoeuvre. We must accept that, in our society, schools should enjoy independence from the state and that head teachers should not be regarded as state functionaries. The Government should learn some intellectual humility and accept that they do not always know best. The Government should back off and allow teachers to do what they do best: teach.
11.42 am
The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on securing the debate. I would associate myself strongly with the remarks that he made at the beginning of his speech about the importance of teachers. Before entering the House, I spent 11 years working as a teacher and I agree with him—not only for reasons of self-interest—about the importance of the teacher's role in providing opportunity and freedom, as the hon. Gentleman put it, for young people, through high standards of teaching in the classroom.
I also agree that we must build on what the Government has already done to free up more time for teachers and head teachers to spend on raising standards in the classroom. We are committed to that. In June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a powerful speech to the conference of the National Association of Head Teachers, in which he set out our commitment and our view of the way forward. I would like to outline today the actions that have already been taken and those that we propose to take, in order to achieve some of what the hon. Gentleman argued for, in terms of freeing teachers and head teachers from unnecessary administrative burdens.
All of us must distinguish honestly between those tasks that have always been part of teaching—keeping records, writing reports and maintaining schemes of work for departments—and those that have not and distract from the basic task of teaching, when they could be done by someone else. We must take care to do that. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman's constituents recognise the importance of the literacy and numeracy strategies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they have created more work for teachers, but the Government's priority was to raise standards, and there was much to be done. Inevitably, that had an impact on teachers' workloads. I am encouraged to see the results showing through, with improvements in both literacy and numeracy. I take this opportunity to congratulate the teachers in the hon. Gentleman's authority on this year's improvements both in key stage 2 and GCSE results. It is evidence of the partnership between Government and teachers to raise standards for our children. To that extent, I make no apologies for the pace of change, because children have the right to the best possible education and we needed to make improvements as soon as possible.
I have no doubt, from my experience and from talking to teachers, that there is pressure when changes are expected without the necessary resources, but I would argue that the Government have resourced the changes that we expected in the education system. Total funding per pupil has already increased by more than £300 per pupil in real terms since 1997. The 2000 comprehensive spending review announced last week means a real-terms increase of £370 over the three years, bringing the total to almost £700 per pupil between 1997–98 and 2003–04. That gives teachers the resources, both within the classroom and within schools, in general to teach and raise standards.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on the national curriculum and reflected in his thoughtful contribution on some of the tensions in the principle of a national curriculum. It is difficult to strike a balance between prescription in the national curriculum, so that children
174WH
are taught those things that society believes are important, and the flexibility to allow teachers to deliver that curriculum in a way that suits the circumstances and the children. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the substantial review of the national curriculum undertaken last year, which involved wide consultation. The new national curriculum will be introduced in schools from this September. One of the Government's objectives, which is delivered in the new curriculum, was to allow more flexibility in all subjects precisely to enable the type of creativity that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech.
The Government are already taking action to streamline administration. The hon. Gentleman, as is often the case, characterised administration in terms of paperwork. Teachers and heads have told us of that pressure, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pledged at the National Association of Head Teachers conference that, from September, we would cut the number of documents by a third, and the number of pages that we send automatically to schools by a half. We have already set up a group of heads and deputies to advise us on our communications with schools over the next year.
When I visit schools, teachers and heads often say that, although they recognise the significant increases in money that the Government are putting through the standards fund, it has led to a more complicated system. That is why we have announced plans for a drastically simplified standards fund with less bidding, less form filling and streamlined monitoring. That will provide significant timesavings for every school. For example, we shall reduce the number of ring-fenced grants and allow schools—trust them, to use the hon. Gentleman's phraseology—to transfer money between six broad headings, giving them the freedom to decide the detailed pattern of expenditure.
We shall make virtually all allocations by formula, removing the need for the bidding process that currently affects nine of the categories. We shall also ensure that schools know their standards fund allocation at the same time as they receive information about their delegated budget to help them to plan ahead. We shall allow schools to carry over their unused standards fund to the end of the school year from the end of the financial year, rather than having to spend it by 31 March or lose it. Those important flexibilities will ensure that the money continues to arrive in schools, but we are allowing heads and teachers more flexibility as to how to use it, and cutting administration.
We shall also further upgrade our national curriculum website to make it easier for classroom teachers to find and customise information and resources needed to support teaching. I take slight issue with the hon. Gentleman about the comment that all paperwork, guidance and documents issued by the Government are unhelpful. Many teachers welcome much of the good work done in recent years, especially in providing additional support and guidance around work schemes for the national curriculum—for example, work that enables teachers to consider best practice and to use it as a basis for adapting classroom work. That has been widely recognised and welcomed by teachers.

175WH
Action that we have taken already is now having an effect in schools. We have given considerable support and training for literacy and numeracy strategies, especially through training and through expert teachers employed by LEAs, to ensure that schools have LEA support in delivering those strategies which, as the hon. Gentleman said, schools in his constituency have welcomed. Without wishing to spoil the consensual approach developed during the debate, I remind hon. Members that that support would be removed by the Conservatives, judging by the ill-thought-out policy statements from the Leader of the Opposition about removing the role of LEAs. That point is worth remembering.
We have also provided easily accessible information for teachers about best practice through the standard site, which now receives more than 1 million hits a week. That is therefore recognised as support for teachers. We have committed funding to employing and training 20, 000 additional teaching assistants by 2002. We have also recognised the administrative challenges for small schools, which is why we have set up the small schools support fund and the administrative support fund for such schools. The funds, which have a combined value of £80 million this year, will enable small schools to take on more administrative support and to fund developments such as shared bursar services.
I am fully aware that administrative pressures fall more heavily on head teachers in small schools than on those in larger schools. We have provided new heads and small primary school heads with portable computers. We have produced guidance offering advice and examples for schools to streamline administration: this is available on the web or in CD-ROM format. We have co-ordinated Department for Education and Employment communications in monthly batches, presenting each document in a clear format to show at a glance what they relate to and what action is to be taken. On the internet, we have set up an A to Z of school management and leadership to provide key information for heads and senior staff on school management issues, as well as access to more detailed information. By September, that will contain authoritative guidance on 400 topics and will, I hope, provide head teachers and governors with a quicker easier way of accessing necessary information. We are also developing the uses of IT through our EASEA database, a personalised information management service for schools and LEAs, so that those who register can receive an e-mail alert when new material that matches their interests is on line. There are more than 4, 000 users for the pilot service, which will go national in September. We have set up a high-level group with head teacher representation to review all existing and new DfEE data collection. So far, this has cut out more than 10, 000 hours of non-essential form filling in schools and education authorities.
176WH
Frustration often occurs in schools when it becomes necessary to provide the same information for several different uses. We have begun implementing a framework that will establish an information management strategy for schools and education authorities, to improve the manner in which information about schools, teachers and their pupils is defined, collected, analysed, shared and used. That should bring about real benefits to schools that face increasing demands for information.
The administration surrounding Ofsted inspections was mentioned. External inspection is important, but we recognise that many schools and teachers were unduly pressurised by the long run-in time of Ofsted inspections. We have shortened the period of notice before inspections and introduced light touch inspections for schools that perform well.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the better regulation task force report, which welcomed the Government's push on standards. We take the report seriously: we have already accepted most of its recommendations in full and we are in the process of implementation. We have gone even further with our targets for reducing the volume of paperwork sent to schools and have embarked on simplification of the standards fund.
I agree that governors—the largest volunteer force in this country—play an important part in the governance of our schools. That is why the Department seeks to ensure better support and training for governors. We recently consulted on the matter and we shall soon issue terms of reference, regulations and guidance to support governors in the task of identifying their strategic role and establishing what should properly be delegated from governing bodies. The relationship between governors and head teachers also needs to be clarified. I recognise that that is a cause for concern in a small minority of schools. We want to help governors to understand more clearly their role and their contribution to raising standards in schools.
I recognise the concern to ensure that our teaching profession is skilled and enthusiastic, and provides the best opportunities for young people. The teaching profession has had much to do in a short time while managing significant change. I congratulate the profession on the results that are already being achieved. Morale will be further strengthened as teachers see the results of improved standards and increased attainments, and reap the benefit of our considerable efforts to cut and streamline administrative tasks. Over time, the teachers Green Paper reforms will transform prospects for recruitment by ensuring that teaching offers higher rewards, better career progression, support and training, and higher professional status.
Hon. Members are here today because of the hard work done by teachers in our personal histories. The Government are committed to recognising their key role in raising standards for our children and are supporting them in so doing on a day-to-day basis.

Access to Justice
11.58 am
Mr. Harry Cohen: First, may I thank Madam Speaker for granting me this debate on access to justice and civil procedure? My focus is on the first section of Law Commission Report 257 on "Damages for Personal Injury, non-Pecuniary Loss". I am particularly interested in the level of damages awarded and in the impact of the Lord Chancellor's civil procedure reforms.
I shall cite my wife Ellen's case as an example. I have cleared it with the Parliamentary Commissioner, Mrs. Filkin, who advised that it is acceptable providing that the case is completed; that it is about restitution of damages, not personal benefit; and that I declare in my speech that my wife has gone through the experience as I describe.
Ellen sought surgery for two implants to her lower jaw. She was referred to Mr. James Evans, a consultant maxillo-surgeon who practises extensively in the private sector and in the NHS, including Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency, University College hospital and other London hospitals. My wife asked whether there were any contraindications to the proposed procedures. Mr. Evans said that there were none, but at the pre-planning stage, he failed to perform a bone scan, which would have shown that her upper and lower jawbones were extremely thin. Consequently, he broke my wife's jaw during the operation. He failed to notify her of that. To try to strengthen her lower jaw, he performed a bone graft without her consent. However, that did not work. He inserted the two implants too deeply, at angles that made them impossible to use as a base for teeth. He gave Ellen none of that information. She suffered post-operative shock, without understanding what was happening to her, and she received no remedial treatment. At the post-operative check-up a week later, she passed out twice in front of Mr. Evans and was placed in a bed for a couple of hours, before being left to drive herself home.
After seven months, Mr. Evans attempted to reveal the implants and my wife underwent a series of barbaric mediaeval procedures at his hands and those of his orthodontist, Mr. Barnett of Loughton. During those procedures, my wife's facial nerve was repeatedly split and dissected until it resembled the tributaries of a major river. Infections were introduced repeatedly, causing her massive pain and facial disfigurement. Her fractured jawbone began to grow abnormally, and had to be corrected with later surgery. She developed a fistula, which fed poison into the rest of her body. That was ignored and led to repeated illness-in time, it would have resulted in toxaemia. The case against Mr. Evans was convincing.
One year after the original operation, Ellen reluctantly sought legal help. Evans phoned her four times threatening to unleash his insurers on her. His solicitors refused to engage for a couple of years, until my wife had gone to the expense and worry of preparing a case. Shortly before the case reached court, Mr. Evans admitted liability on all counts. His solicitors took another year to agree damages, after again going up to the wire of a court hearing. The process lasted four years, during which my wife could not afford
178WH
reconstructive surgery. Thankfully, Professor Pederson of the Eastman dental hospital and institute saved her from more suffering two years ago, by removing the implants, re-routing the facial nerve and dealing with the bone abnormalities and the fistula. Since then, Ellen has suffered no infections. Her case presents a good example for the two issues that I will raise.
In the meantime, Ellen retired, so her damages did not include loss of earnings. They concerned only the pain and suffering, and the loss of amenity elements. It is important to distinguish between those two aspects. The former—special damages—can result in very large settlements; the latter—general damages—is small potatoes in comparison. However, it was the latter on which the Heil v. Rankin judgment of 23 March 2000 clamped down. That was one of eight test cases on which five top judges adjudicated, including the Lord Chief Justice. First, those judges ignored the Law Commission's recommendations in Report 257, which called for an increase by a factor of at least 1.5—that is, 50 per cent.—but not more than a factor of 2—100 per cent. However, the judgment provided no increase whatever in awards below £10, 000, and only a tapered increase up to one third for the most catastrophic cases. In that respect, the Law Commission's recommendations were thrown in the bin.
The damages award to Mavis Schofield, the widow of Keith Schofield, who died from asbestos-related causes, were raised from £40, 000 to £44, 000; had the Law Commission's recommendations been implemented, she could reasonably have expected a minimum of £60, 000.
Secondly, the judgment discriminates against the medical negligence victims who are less able to bring cases and to get a fair settlement by clamping down on the pain and suffering aspect of damages. It discriminates against those pursuing small claims and against the elderly, the disabled, women, and children and those on low incomes. The class discrimination aspect of the judgment is appalling. In their defence, the judges said that it was for Parliament to intervene if it wanted to, and that is what I am attempting to do.
Thirdly, the judgment was based not on fairness and justified redress for the victim, but on the interests of parties not directly involved in civil actions—the medical insurance companies and the national health service. The judgment says that the court took into account
the impact of the level of damages on the level of insurance premiums and on NHS resources.
That is bizarre; I thought that a civil case was between the two parties to it, yet the judgment takes account of other factors and other parties. That makes the victims pay; it subsidises consultants' medical insurance premiums and, more seriously, it subsidises bad consultants. The NHS already pays out for bad consultants and their medical insurance companies, and that should change. I am told that it cost my local NHS trust more than £250, 000 to suspend a consultant suspected of wrongdoing. Reform is much needed.
Insurance premiums should include no-claims bonuses for good consultants and extra fees for bad ones. The public wants the medical profession to be more accountable, but unless bad consultants incur the full cost, at least in insurance terms, of their negligence and malpractice, they are unlikely to be identified and dealt with. They should certainly not be subsidised, which the judgment allows.

179WH
The judgment protects the consultants and their powerful insurance companies. It is no wonder that Tom Jones of the solicitors Thompsons, who represented one of the clients in the eight test cases, said after the judgment:
It beggars belief. What world are these judges living in to make these kinds of awards? Accident victims throughout England and Wales have been short-changed by a shortsighted Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has sided with the insurance industry that in 1998 made a trading profit of £1.2 billion. It has put the interests of profit before justice. The judgment is a slap in the face for victims.
Damages in Scotland are significantly higher than in England and Wales, so an asbestos victim in Newcastle is likely to receive tens of thousands of pounds less than a similar person just across the border. Germany and Ireland, whose systems are comparable to ours, have significantly higher damages awards.
It is nonsense to say that the courts would be clogged up if damages had been increased to the level suggested by the Law Commission. Spurious claims would still be unsuccessful. The civil procedure reforms introduced by the Lord Chancellor would kick in and ensure that such claims were dealt with more quickly. A claimant would still have to prove his or her case, and a defendant would still have to refute it or otherwise.
The judgment talked about basing future increases in damages on the retail prices index, but made no provision for annual uprating. The judgment was poor, which is why I draw it to the House's attention. The Justices suggested that Parliament could intervene, and I ask that it rectify the judgment in the ways that I have mentioned.
I give credit to the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for their efforts on the civil procedure reforms. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the aim of the reforms, which came into effect in April 1999, was to produce a civil justice system that was quicker, simpler, less costly, more certain and fairer. That aim is laudable, and I strongly support it. However, because of the delays, some claimants could die before they obtain a just settlement. I suspect that some insurance companies play for that. Such delays need to be cleared up.
A couple of reviews have been published since the introduction of reforms. One review, published earlier this year, said that more than 80 per cent. of respondents thought that the courts did not have the resources to process claims sufficiently quickly. Ellen's solicitor said that the court took an inordinate time to pay out her claim because it was understaffed. That needs to be addressed. The review also said that the courts are not appointing joint experts, which was true in Ellen's case. In fact, she did not even know that joint experts existed. It said that the courts do not penalise parties who fail to comply with the new rules. They were not penalised in Ellen's case.
Another review published this month referred to the need for more co-operations between parties, particularly as the court case approaches. That did not happen in my wife's case: the insurance company's solicitors were content to delay until the last minute and were not punished for doing so. The review also mentioned greater case management by judges. Again,
180WH
that was not evident in my wife's case. I think that a newspaper article said that only about 7 per cent. of judges become involved in case management.
The Parliamentary Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock)indicated dissent.
Mr. Cohen: I see my hon. Friend the Minister shaking his head. If it is up to the judges, they will not become involved. They need to be chivvied to ensure that the reforms work, because they have an important role in that. The reviews suggested a host of measures to encourage parties to settle their disputes at the earliest possible stage. Again, that did not happen in my wife's case.
The Lord Chancellor has said:
Of course the Rules are only part of the story of the reforms—a change in culture will occur, with greater emphasis on the settlement of cases, and less ponderous proceedings.
I must retort in the words of my wife's solicitor, who told her that after the reforms were introduced everyone behaved themselves for a couple of months, but now they are back to their old ways.
I support the reforms and their aims. They are terrific, but they need to be implemented. Much more needs to be done to achieve those aims.
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate. He has raised some important issues in relation to damages for personal injury. His wife's case is clearly very distressing, and I would like to express my sincere sympathy to his wife and him. Although he will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, the graphic tale that he has told shows the problem. The victims of accidents or personal injury should not become victims for a second time as a result of the court process. I am grateful that he has raised the issue.
My hon. Friend eloquently and forcefully raised several important matters that lie within the jurisdiction of my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health. I undertake to ensure that his speech is drawn to their attention, and I shall ask them to write to him on the points that are within their competence.
The level of damages for personal injuries has traditionally been seen as a matter of common law for the courts to decide, in their independent sphere. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation on levels of damages either for particular classes of case or generally, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's views will be heard here and considered as part of the overall debate outside the House.
The Law Commission Report 257, entitled "Damages for Personal Injury: non-Pecuniary Loss", invited the courts, in the first instance, to express their views on the assessment of damages to be awarded for personal injury and loss of amenity in particular cases. My hon. Friend referred to the Court of Appeal decision in the Heil v. Rankin case in March. The decision increased damages for the top end of the scale by one third, tapering down to awards of £10, 000, below which there

181WH
would be no increase. I accept that that is less than the Law Commission recommended, but it is more than previously awarded. The court did not ignore the views expressed in the report. Rather, the five Court of Appeal judges, after detailed consideration of the report and its reasoning, and the other submissions made to them, determined the level of increase necessary for general damages to be fair, reasonable and just.
On the impact of the civil procedure rules, I am grateful that my hon. Friend acknowledges that the Government has tackled long-standing problems with a radical approach. I am grateful for his support for the main aims of the reforms. The civil procedure rules include an overriding objective to enable the courts to deal with cases justly. To further that objective, the courts are required actively to manage cases and to ensure that they are dealt with in a way that is proportionate to the complexity and the issues at stake, and with proportionate costs.
Many of the reforms' features are aimed at improving the way in which cases are handled. For example, pre-action protocols for personal injury or clinical disputes claims are intended to encourage the early exchange of information between parties, to bring about settlement of claims without the need for litigation, where possible, and to ensure that parties are better prepared, should litigation be the only way to settle a dispute. Claimants' offers to settle are another innovation aimed at encouraging early settlement. The number of issued cases since the protocols came into force has fallen by about 23 per cent. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the operation of the protocols is causing many more cases to settle at an earlier stage. That is a good outcome, because claimants are being left uncompensated for a much shorter time. I hope that it means also that a smaller proportion of insurance premium moneys are being paid in damages, and less is being spent in getting to the point when damages can be assessed.
Other features of the reforms include the use of single joint experts and the application of sanctions for parties who disobey the rules. I do not know when the case of my hon. Friend's wife started, but it may have been before the civil justice reforms were introduced. If so, the new rules covering the use of joint experts might not have applied. Even if the case had been started after introduction of the reforms, no hard and fast rule says that joint experts must be instructed. In particularly complex cases, it may not be appropriate to do so, but it is a matter for the procedural judges to decide what is appropriate in the light of the circumstances of each case.
The same is true of the application of sanctions for non-compliance with the rules. Sanctions were never intended to be purely punitive, and it was never intended that they should be applied automatically for every minor default. They exist to assist the court, when appropriate, and to act as a deterrent. For example, a delay may be unavoidable or may occur for good reason, or the court and the parties to a case may not be inconvenienced by a short delay; a sanction applied automatically in such circumstances would clearly not constitute justice.
182WH
The difference of principle under the new rules is that, in the absence of compelling reasons, the court expects the rules to be followed, and it is expected to manage cases proactively to ensure that that happens—including using sanctions if it is necessary to ensure that the rules are followed. Before the Woolf reforms, many of the rules were observed in the breach. Since the reforms, we expect the rules to be followed; we also expect cases to be managed by the courts with a view to the rules being followed.
Although it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about how the reforms are working, early indications have been positive. Some bodies have already conducted research within their own legal boundaries. For example, the Birmingham solicitors Wragge and Co. commissioned a study seeking the views of the legal heads of the FTSE top 1, 000 companies. Nearly 90 per cent. of respondents were in favour of the reforms. It may be helpful to my hon. Friend if I quote from that report. It stated:
The main advantage of the Woolf reforms is potentially faster resolution of disputes with less posturing between lawyers. We are now able to focus on the issues at stake, rather than procedures.
The Wragge report said also that 65 per cent. of respondents thought that faster resolution of claims was the main advantage of the reforms. Other procedures were thought to be beneficial. In 89 per cent. of cases, it was felt that offers to settle by the claimant at any point were beneficial; 74 per cent. of respondents thought that pre-action protocols had assisted their case; 64 per cent. were positive about the interventions and the case management function of judges; and 53 per cent. of those surveyed viewed the appointment of joint experts as an improvement. The MORI poll conducted on behalf of the Centre for Dispute Resolution found that about three quarters of those surveyed thought that the new procedures had a positive effect in improving the culture for settlement.
I must reiterate that it is early days, because the Lord Chancellor's Department has only just commenced its own fundamental evaluation of the programme. Even in the relatively short time since April 1999, when the reforms were introduced, there has been considerable improvement, but a lot remains to be done. I am particularly grateful to the Civil Justice Council, the Law Society and the Bar Council, who are advising on our plans and providing major contributions as our partners in the evaluation process.
My hon. Friend referred to a lack of resources in the courts. The nature of the reforms was expected to increase the administrative work of court staff. For that reason, an extra 60 staff were redeployed to meet that initial need. Some £1 million was allocated to allow for the possibility of overtime or the appointment of temporary staff. More recently, a further £1 million has been allocated to handle the residue of old cases that started under the old rules, but which must be concluded under the new regime. All courts were provided with IT support to meet the April 1999 implementation date. There has been a continuous programme of work to introduce further improvements and enhancements since that time. Plans are also in hand to introduce a new system called Caseman-plus in the summer of next year. That will combine the current case management system with other stand-alone systems that deal with case monitoring and listing, and will eliminate some of the duplication of effort that currently exists.

183WH
As part of the service delivery, the Court Service programme, Modernising the Civil Courts, will additionally focus on the needs of the customer and provide better value for money. The programme is one of the key building blocks for implementing strategic change in the Court Service. My hon. Friend suggested that lawyers are perhaps going back to their old ways after a few months. That is not the general view of the Department, the Court Service, or, as far as I am aware, the judges. I pay tribute to the commitment shown especially by district judges, who handle the vast amount of procedural work that is necessary actively to case manage business in the courts. They are committed to the reforms, the success of which is a tribute to their commitment.
I assure my hon. Friend that we will be assiduous in ensuring that the new culture sticks and is not replaced by a sloppy, late or lackadaisical attitude redolent of a pre-Woolf era. The judges have new powers of case management and I am confident that they are exercising them. There are tough sanctions against those who break the rules, and I encourage judges to use them to ensure that cases proceed, as they should. The research evidence to date is encouraging, but we are anxious to ensure that there is no slipping back to the good old bad old days. I am confident that the civil justice reforms are proving their worth. As I said, most of the evidence to date is qualitative and anecdotal, but it shows a high level of satisfaction overall. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall remain vigilant to ensure that the principles set out in the reforms and rules are carried through as cases are managed actively in the courts.

Rural Roads
12.28 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I seem to have found my way in around the back this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I apologise for not being here earlier.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise a subject that is enormously important to my constituency. I have been applying for an Adjournment debate on this subject for about the past eight weeks and it has taken this long to come up in the ballot. It is therefore more than a little ironic that the debate takes place in the week following the announcement of the comprehensive spending review, which included a lot of new investment in transport over the next 10 years. I am especially pleased to bring the subject to the attention of the House of Commons today because the maintenance of local and rural roads affects every motorist, cyclist, bus passenger and pedestrian in the country. The condition of many such roads is a disgrace and has been so for many years. The discretionary nature of road maintenance spending by local authorities has meant that rural roads have been the victim of cuts, cuts and more cuts in the past two decades. Local authorities should not have to neglect rural roads in order to maintain spending on education or social services.
At the end of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) rightly called
21 years of Conservative spending—[Official Report, 19 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 369.]
rural roads are pitted with potholes. There has been too much emphasis on efficiency savings and not enough on the delivery of a vital public service.
In May, we carried out a survey of local residents in the areas around the villages of Inkpen and Kintbury in my constituency. The survey uncovered telling remarks on the state of an all too typical rural road to the west of Newbury. The following three quotations are taken from the responses to that survey. They say:
The whole stretch is far worse than it has ever been.
I travel in Asia extensively and these roads are far worse than third world countries.
My eldest daughter left for New Zealand in 1974 and twenty years later returned to find this road even worse than when she left. She is returning again in May 2000 and should feel right at home, as nothing has changed in nearly thirty years.
That is merely an illustrative selection from a survey of one small council ward. Sadly, the situation is mirrored across the country. Frankly, people are fed up.
One of the most ludicrous results of the under-funding of the past 20 years is the system of rationing repairs that local authorities have been forced to use. Immediate action will be taken only if a pothole is at least 20 mm deep and 300 mm in diameter. For insurers to meet claims by motorists against local authorities, the pothole must be 40 mm deep. It is simply not good enough that potholes should be left unattended because they are classified as "normal"—less deep than the statutory level.
In my constituency and across the country, rural roads play a crucial role in the everyday life of the community. Commuters use them increasingly to get to and from work as traffic increases on the major arterial

185WH
roads. They are vital lifelines for young mothers and the elderly, and they are enjoyed by visitors and cyclists at weekends.
The Government's 10-year transport plan lays down proposals to improve public transport and to encourage people to use local bus services. However, with many rural roads in disrepair, both the safety and comfort of buses travelling along them is at risk. I and my party welcome the promised extra investment in public transport. Nevertheless, the Government must ensure that necessary improvements to the infrastructure are made before they try to develop a series of new bus routes, the usefulness of which will be hugely diminished by a quickly deteriorating rural road network. Likewise, if the Government are to insist on raising fuel prices still higher, is it not reasonable for the people of Britain to expect them in return to fix the many potholes that riddle our local roads?
Although I welcome the extra money that the Secretary of State has allocated to deal with the appalling state of rural roads, I am not sure that it will be sufficient or that it has come soon enough. It is a start, but why could the start not have been made three years ago? When the Government came to power in May 1997, we were all led to believe that things would change. As far as rural roads are concerned, we might have been told that things could only get better but, sadly, things have only got worse.
For 18 years, the Tories forced local authorities to abandon the proper upkeep of their rural roads. However, the rural road network is as important to its users as is the motorway network to those who use motorways. The extra funding that the Government now promise will, on their own admission, take years to make a real difference.
Of course, I welcome the Government's £30 billion programme to eliminate the backlog in local road and bridge maintenance. However, I am concerned that the money is due to be spread over 10 years, and that even the deterioration in local road conditions will not be halted until 2004. Can the Minister tell me how much of the £30 billion will be spent on bridge strengthening and lighting improvements, and how much will be left for the repair of rural roads?
In the section on local transport in the 10-year transport plan, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions acknowledges the fact that under-investment has led to a situation whereby rural roads are still disintegrating at an alarming rate. It states:
The condition of our roads is a matter of concern … Due to past under investment, local roads are now in their worst condition for thirty years, with a backlog of maintenance estimated at several billion pounds and their condition is still declining. This means that substantial sums are being wasted as roads are allowed to deteriorate to the point where more extensive, costly and disruptive repairs are required.
If only the same funding had been made available in 1997 or 1998, we could have halted any further deterioration by the end of this year or 2001. That in turn would have meant that the backlog could have been addressed much earlier.
I am sure that a brief survey of local authorities, or of even the average person in the street, would have told the Government in 1997 that the rural road network
186WH
desperately needed money, at least to halt the deterioration. I understand the Chancellor's arguments that the country's finances needed to be balanced in order to provide for future investment. However, it is a false economy to save money to begin with, only to be faced with a larger bill over the next decade. That is the economics of the madhouse.
The Government are very proud of their "spend to save" special grant programme for local authorities. It is desperately sad that they did not see the need to "spend to save" on rural road maintenance in their first three years in office.
In my constituency, West Berkshire council appears to have in place plans to deal with rural road maintenance. However, funding has repeatedly been lacking for them to tackle the problems of all roads within the rural network. In a letter to a concerned constituent in May this year, the chief executive of West Berkshire council attempted to explain the problems that it faces in maintaining its many rural roads. She wrote:
The maintenance of rural unclassified roads is actually a national issue and not just one particular to West Berkshire. We are very keen to improve the condition of our rural roads, but of course this has to be done within a limited budget. The need to establish a works programme and consequently a treatment regime, which will bring about such an improvement is fundamental in delivering a best value service. Once potholes have been reported, temporary repairs are first carried out to make the roads safe and these sites are then added to an ongoing permanent patching programme.
By adopting new treatment methods and materials I am hopeful that this will bring about an improvement to the road network, but with almost 500km of rural unclassified roads in Berkshire it will be a slow process.
The chief executive's letter was in response to an infuriated local resident whose car had been damaged in an accident caused by a pothole. Like many such car drivers, she was furious to find that she could get no recompense from the council or its insurers for the damage that was done. The justification for that was explained in a letter from the insurers, which stated:
The Council, as Highways Authority, has a duty to maintain the highway under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980. This duty does not, however, place upon the Highways Authority a strict legal liability to anyone who may have an accident whilst using the highway.
For a claim to succeed, a claimant must first prove that the defect which was the cause of the incident was of such a dimension to make it "dangerous and actionable". Many highways claims have come before the Courts in the past and the Courts have stated that the highway cannot be expected to be maintained to the levels of a bowling green and that some unevenness must be expected. In respect of pavements, claims involving tripping edges of up to 1 inch have been found to be within the "normal expectation" limit and the claims have failed. In the case of Mills v. Barnsley MBC (1992) the Court of Appeal held in favour of the Council in respect of a defect, which was a hole in the pavement 2 inches across, and 1.25 inches deep. Where incidents have occurred within the roadway, the level of normal expectation has been generally higher with cases involving deep defects up to 1.5 inches to 2 inches failing.
In respect of your constituent's claim, after the incident the defect was specifically measured at 700 mm x 35 mm x 32 mm (just over 1.25 inches deep). I therefore consider that this size of defect is within what would be deemed "normal expectations" and the claim would therefore fail.
In addition, under Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980, the Highways Authority is provided with a statutory defence to claims if it has in place a reasonable system of inspection and

187WH
maintenance. I can confirm that the road in question is subject to a 3 monthly inspection system. The area was last inspected on 7 January 2000. At that time, the defect was observed and recorded. It was not marked out for remedial action because of its depth, which is below the Council's threshold for repair of 40 mm. The recording, however, would have meant that it would have been re-checked at the time of the next inspection. I also feel, therefore, that the statutory defence would also apply to this claim.
To back up their position, the insurers included with their letter a sheaf of papers that the council had sent them to demonstrate how effectively it was monitoring the state of the road concerned. I have the file here. It contains maps, work sheets, plans of where all the potholes are, their depths, when they are due to be repaired, and numerous other details. One cannot help feeling that, if the council were not forced to spend quite so much time defending itself against damages claims, it could provide more funds for repairing roads. Once again, this is a vicious circle. The worse the roads become, the more claims are made. The more resources are used to defend the council against the claims, the less money is left to repair the roads, and the worse the roads become.
The issue of rural roads is important for many people. I am glad, therefore, that the Government have now recognised that and are at last attempting to address what is fast becoming an impossible situation. I remain convinced, however, that it was unnecessary to wait three years until the increase in funding was announced. A great deal of time has been lost, and the lives of rural road users have been made increasingly difficult.
Moreover, far more funding will now be required to repair the damage that has been done than would have been needed if rural roads had been properly maintained in the first place. However, let me be fair to the Government. The main cause of the problem has been the gross underfunding of the rural road network by the previous Conservative Governments during the 18 years in which they were in power. The underfunding by this Government over the past three years has simply exacerbated an already appalling problem. The rise in funding that has now been announced is very welcome. I only hope that it has not come too late to rectify the rapidly deteriorating network left by 18 years of Tory under-investment.
12.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on his success in securing this debate. Secondly, I express my gratitude to him for his courtesy in providing my office with advance notice of the key issues that he wished to raise. He has crowned his success in securing the debate by choosing a most important subject at what is an appropriate time for several reasons.
I listened carefully to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, and I agree with many of them. Rural roads are in a poor condition; there are too many potholes and much more investment is needed for their proper maintenance. However, there is very good news. We have assessed the problem carefully, with the valuable assistance of the Local Government Association and the Highways Agency, and we are now
188WH
going to stop the deterioration, clear the backlogs and restore rural roads—and all other local roads—to optimum condition over the next 10 years.
Through the spending review and the 10-year transport plan, we shall provide the considerable resources—more than £31 billion—that are necessary. In addition, we are providing managerial and technical guidance to help local authorities use those resources in the most efficient and economic way.
When we took office, we inherited a transport system that was fragmented and suffering from years of under-investment. We are determined to turn that situation completely around. Last week, we announced plans for massive new investment in transport, which will implement the vision in our White Paper and help the country's future prosperity. "Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan" addresses the current problems of congestion, pollution and inadequate public transport, and shows how we intend to create an integrated transport system that is fit for the new century.
Roads will play a vital part in that 10-year plan. There are 284,000 km of roads in this country, of which half—142,000 km, or nearly 90,000 miles—are in rural areas. Rural roads are vital to the areas that they serve, because they provide the major—and, often, the only—infrastructure for private and commercial travel, and public transport. More so than urban roads, they knit together communities and give access to health, education, shopping, entertainment and social facilities, as well as linking people with employment and business opportunities. This Government recognise the importance of roads, but they need to be maintained well if they are to provide a good service for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, as well as motorists. In rural areas, they must also provide a service for agriculture and equestrians.
In terms of traffic importance, strategic national roads are at the top of the road hierarchy. The Highways Agency has confirmed that there is no maintenance backlog on trunk roads and motorways, and its current funding allows the right treatment to be carried out at the right time, consistent with minimum whole-life costs. Unfortunately, the picture is not so rosy on local roads. Despite our having reversed the local maintenance expenditure cuts that the previous Government made in the mid 1990s, the 1999 national roads maintenance conditions survey showed that local roads are in their worst condition since the survey began in 1977. Although the NRMCS showed some welcome improvements in the condition of rural principal and classified roads, the condition of rural unclassified roads has declined since the previous year's survey.
In rural and urban areas, there are far too many potholes, particularly on unclassified roads. Potholes not only show that roads are breaking up; they are also dangerous and damaging to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Unfortunately, they are not the only problem. The bridge-strengthening programme to accommodate 40-tonne lorries needs to be completed, and there is a considerable backlog of other bridge structural maintenance work. If that is not tackled, even more expensive repairs will become necessary. In hillier parts of the country, many retaining walls need strengthening and treatment. Lastly, but by no means least, there is a considerable backlog of life-expired

189WH
street lighting columns that need replacement. More than a quarter of some 5 million columns in England are more than 30 years old.
Drastic action is needed, and we are taking drastic action. We are implementing a step change in resources to stop deterioration and eliminate backlogs. In the 10-year period, we are increasing funding for local road maintenance by 40 per cent. in cash—£9 billion—to £31 billion. Compared to current spending levels, there will be an extra £1 billion in cash in the first three years. This is truly "spend to save".
As has been pointed out, the under-funding of road maintenance wastes money, because more expensive repairs become necessary in the long run. Hon. Members will appreciate that the legacy of years of under-funding cannot be put right overnight. In the spending review, we have worked closely with the Local Government Association to calculate the resources and time necessary to carry out the work. We have had to bear in mind the need for local authorities and the maintenance industry to make proper staffing and resource plans to accommodate the increased funding.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we know how much of the funding will be used in the maintenance of rural roads. We do not, but I expect that local authorities will use an appropriate proportion on rural roads. The £31 billion programme will, first, halt the deterioration in the condition of local roads by 2004; that is an important commitment. Secondly, it will eliminate the backlog in carriageway and footway maintenance within 10 years. Thirdly, it will complete the programme of bridge strengthening to accommodate 40-tonne lorries within six to seven years. Fourthly, it will tackle the backlog in essential structural maintenance to bridges in nine years. Finally, it will clear the street lighting backlog in 10 years.
Mr. Rendel: If the Minister knows so accurately how long it will take to carry out the parts of the programme, he must have some idea of the amount of money that will be spent on each part.
Mr. Hill: As I said earlier, we are still working on that. We hope to make more precise announcements in due course.
We intend to see that the money is spent well. The performance of local highway authorities will be monitored using best value indicators. The current indicators measure the condition of principal and other classified road carriageways, the cost of principal road maintenance against vehicle mileage, the time taken to repair street lights and the time taken to rectify serious road defects. We shall refine and extend those indicators, and future developments may include regular compulsory visual surveys of the condition of all local roads and consistent reporting on the conditions of bridges. We shall also monitor closely the reports that local authorities are required to make on the delivery of their local transport plans. Future funding allocations for local transport plans will depend, in part, on the progress that they make.
We were impressed by the effort that local authorities put into their draft local transport plans last year. The discipline of having to plan five years ahead and merge
190WH
maintenance planning with other transport objectives produced, in most cases, a coherent and considered assessment of needs and priorities. We could not fund the bids in full last year, but the increased resources that are now available will allow us to satisfy needs more closely in the coming round. Local transport plans represent a useful way in which authorities can bring to our attention maintenance needs that are not being addressed. It was through last year's plans that we were made aware of the problem with retaining walls and the extent of the backlog on street lighting. Retaining walls have been taken into consideration in the current transport plan round, and we are still considering the best way to feed extra money for street lighting into local authority funding mechanisms.
To help local authorities to improve the management of highway maintenance, we are working with the Local Government Association and others to produce a new code of good practice. It will be available next spring and will give the latest guidance on managing the maintenance of carriageways and footways. The code will concentrate on the service to the road user, rather than specifying the input, as the present code does.
We have also provided the major part of the funding for the UK pavement management system. It is a computerised system, which allows for the collection of highway condition data and the creation of a database, analysis of the data to identify priorities for treatment and assessments of the treatments needed. It helps highway authorities to plan maintenance in the most efficient and cost-effective way. Future development of the system will allow for analysis of condition trends and the projection of condition deterioration over five years, so that the most economic treatments can be calculated and the financial consequences of not carrying out the treatments quantified.
We have incorporated the UKPMS visual condition surveys into the best value indicators for maintenance, and we are encouraging local authorities to adopt the system. Using UKPMS data for the national road maintenance condition survey could also be a good way to avoid the duplication of surveys and obtain more comprehensive data, to give us a better idea of national road condition trends and maintenance needs. Looking further ahead, machine surveys of local roads may provide quicker and more accurate data collection within a few years. The Highways Agency has done much work in that area and is starting to use machine surveys routinely.
I must not leave local road maintenance without saying a few words about procurement. The abolition of compulsory competitive tendering and the introduction of best value will encourage local authorities to challenge their preconceptions about maintenance procurement and to seek more innovative and better ways of getting the work done. We are already seeing the beneficial effects of that with several local authorities achieving more flexible and better arrangements with the private sector. The partnerships that are coming about are particularly interesting.
Additionally, the opportunities presented by the private finance initiative in giving local authorities a good deal on maintenance are becoming more apparent. We have already approved three street lighting projects in Brent, Staffordshire and Walsall, and we are

191WH
considering three more business cases. Street lighting PFI projects involve a private sector contractor taking over the provision of highway lighting for a period of 25 years, receiving an agreed unitary payment depending on performance. The contractor normally undertakes to replace life-expired columns within five years and that capital work will be supported by central Government in the form of PFI credits. We approve those projects only if the PFI route can be shown to provide better value for money. That has usually been the case with the projects that we have examined so far, mainly due to the private sector's greater scope to innovate and gain efficiencies in procurement and the use of personnel.
192WH
We are also considering an application for PFI credit support from Portsmouth for an innovative project in which the private sector will carry out all maintenance on the city's principal roads for 25 years and provide certain services, including street lighting, over the whole road network.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Newbury that our actions and funding will restore local rural roads to a condition in which they can be maintained at minimum whole-life cost and contribute fully to the better transport system that rural areas need and deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the 1999–2000 annual reports and accounts for each of his Next Steps agencies. [133026]

  Mr. Darling
  The 1999–2000 annual reports and accounts for the Benefits Agency (HC 640), Child Support Agency (HC 658), Information Technology Services Agency (HC 680) and War Pensions Agency (HC 615) have been laid before Parliament today.

  Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the anti-fraud targets announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review are(a) in addition to or (b) instead of, the existing Benefits Agency Security Control Programme. [132400]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefits Agency Security Control Programme ceased in April 1999.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he plans to measure the success of the anti-fraud measures announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [132398]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are now measuring the level of fraud and error by means of a monthly rolling programme of reviews in each Benefits Agency area. A regular, random sample of cases is investigated thoroughly to establish how much fraud and error they contain.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish his new public service agreements. [132395]

  Mr. Rooker
  Shortly.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131427]
  492W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.

  Vacancies

  Number

  Number of unfilled vacancies

  1,187

  Percentage of total staff

  1.39

  Monthly cost of employing civil servants in these positions

  1,370,070.00

  The numbers of staff the Department employs on a temporary basis through Employment Agencies can vary from day to day. For example, during May 2000, the equivalent of 22 staff were employed, which represents 0.03 per cent. of the Department's staff.

  Total payments made to employment agencies for temporary staff for each of the last twelve months

  £

  Month

  Total payments to employment agencies

  July 1999

  39,481.90

  August 1999

  22,238.50

  September 1999

  15,480.35

  October 1999

  42,162.88

  November 1999

  34,874.99

  December 1999

  24,012.67

  January 2000

  14,412.46

  February 2000

  24,863.32

  March 2000

  21,950.25

  April 2000

  28,498.11

  May 2000

  26,279.97

  June 2000

  25,333.14

  It is not possible to predict with any certainty what payments will be made to Employment Agencies for each of the next twelve months. It is expected that the amounts and numbers of staff involved will be similar to those detailed above.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department is planning to spend on preparing for the euro in the period to March 2004, broken down between years. [132396]

  Angela Eagle
  The Second Outline National Changeover Plan said that this Department will expect to spend up to £5 million on euro preparation in this financial year.

  Household Income Statistics
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess which statistics from the Households Below Average Income series could robustly be produced on a quarterly basis. [132097]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Department's statisticians have not made a detailed assessment of whether any Households Below Average Income (HBAI) statistics could be robustly produced on a quarterly basis. However, past experience raises doubts as to whether any robust results could be produced on a quarterly basis.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in Shrewsbury and Atcham he estimates will be taken out of poverty by the end of the present year. [131138]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is not possible to make estimates at a local level of the numbers of children who will be taken out of poverty. However, children in Shrewsbury and Atcham will benefit from the range of measures we have announced which will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Extradition
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many court days have been occupied in hearing extradition cases in 2000. [130603]

  The Solicitor-General
  No records are kept of how many court days are occupied in hearing extradition cases, although applications for judicial review in such cases have occupied the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court for 13 whole or part days this year.

HEALTH

  Flour (Folic Acid)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to issue the consultation document on the implementation of the COMA recommendations on the addition of folic acid to flour. [132646]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom Health Departments and the Food Standards Agency have today published a joint public consultation document on the report from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy which concluded that all flour should be fortified with folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. The consultation period runs until 31 October 2000. The document is available in the Library and on the internet at www.doh.gov.uk/folicacid.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance targets have been set for the Meat Hygiene Service in 2000–01. [133030]

  Ms Stuart
  Following consultation with interested organisations, the board of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) approved at its meeting on 20 July the following performance targets for the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) for 2000–01:

  1. Public Health Protection
  (a) Reduction of microbiological hazards in meat:

  Fully apply MHS Clean Livestock Policy.

  Not to apply the health mark stamp to any meat showing visible faecal or alimentary tract contents contamination.

  Take effective action in slaughterhouses with low Hygiene Assessment System (HAS) scores to improve hygiene standards.

  494W
  (b) Removal of Specified Risk Material (SRM) from the human and animal food chain:
  Strictly enforce SRM controls in abattoirs.

  2. Animal Welfare
  Strictly enforce Welfare at Slaughter and Killing Regulations.

  3. Staff Training
  Provide update training for all Principal Official Veterinary Surgeons and lead Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) in enforcement (training course to be developed in liaison with FSA Legal Services).
  Provide update training for 33 per cent. of lead OVSs in animal welfare at slaughter (training course to be developed in liaison with Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Animal Welfare Division).
  Provide refresher training for 33 per cent. of lead OVSs in hygiene requirements (training course to be developed in liaison with FSA Veterinary Public Health Unit).
  All training to be completed by 31 March 2001 and to comply with Investors in People standards.

  4. Customer Focus

  Provision of high quality service

  Introduce an independent element to MHS Appeals System.

  Sign up to Government Enforcement Concordat.

  To meet the FSA targets for customer service.

  Maintain full compliance with Charter Mark standards.

  5. Value for Money
  Efficiency
  To implement those recommendations in the Pooley report applicable to the MHS and accepted by the FSA for implementation in 2000–01.
  To implement those recommendations in the external efficiency review accepted, and within the timetable laid down, by the FSA Board.

  6. Financial Performance
  To operate within the cash allocations as agreed with the FSA.
  To recover from government departments, agencies and the Intervention Board Executive Agency (IBEA) the full economic costs (calculated in accordance with the relevant charging legislation and accruals accounting) of providing agreed services or other work undertaken on their behalf.

  A copy of the consultation package, summary of responses and details of the assessment of these targets have been placed in the Library. They are also available on the FSA website at www.foodstandards.gov.uk.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131433]
  495W
  Ms Stuart
  Responsibility for staffing and recruitment issues has been substantially delegated to individual business units. As a result, the information requested is not held centrally. To collect it would incur disproportionate costs.

  Clinical Errors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce an early warning system for clinical errors. [131505]

  Ms Stuart
  "An Organisation with a Memory", the report of an expert group chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, was published on 13 June 2000. The group examined the extent to which the National Health Service and its constituent organisations had the capability to learn from untoward incidents and service failures so that similar occurrences are avoided in future. The report's main recommendation is the introduction of a mandatory reporting system for adverse health care events and specified near misses. We are taking steps to implement such a system and expect to have made significant progress before the end of the year.

  Hernia operations NHS hospitals England, 1998–99

  Operation

  Coventry1

  West Midlands

  England

  T19

  Simple excision of inguinal hernial sac

  44

  1,051

  10,315

  T20

  Primary repair of inguinal hernia

  619

  7,670

  66,346

  T21

  Repair of recurrent inguinal hernia

  16

  610

  5,478

  T22

  Primary repair of femoral hernia

  21

  445

  4,119

  T23

  Repair of recurrent femoral hernia

  0

  14

  177

  T24

  Repair of umbilical hernia

  75

  1,489

  12,358

  T25

  Primary repair of incisional hernia

  43

  617

  5,297

  T26

  Repair of recurrent incisional hernia

  6

  87

  689

  T27

  Repair of other hernia of abdominal wall

  38

  517

  4,885

  Total

  862

  12,500

  109,664

  1 The appropriate area of treatment for Coventry, South is Coventry Health Authority.

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several operations within the year.

  2. Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs) where OPCS4R operation codes T19 to T27 appeared as the main operation.

  3. For 1998–99, no adjustments have as yet been made for shortfalls in the data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hip replacement and (b) cataract operations were carried out by the NHS last year (i) in Coventry South, (ii) in the West Midlands and (c) nationally. [131538]

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

  Hip replacements and cataract operations. NHS hospitals England, 1998–99

  Operation

  Coventry1

  West Midlands

  England

  Primary total hip replacements2

  275

  4,704

  37,189

  Hip replacement revisions3

  24

  408

  4,013

  Total hip replacement operations

  299

  5,112

  41,202

  Cataract operations4

  1,995

  20,602

  204,074

  National Plan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making on the National Plan for Health; and if he will make a statement. [131503]

  Mr. Denham
  Over 220,000 members of the public and staff and around 100 national and local organisations responded to our consultation exercise. Their comments and ideas have now been analysed, together with the detailed work of the modernisation action teams and the more in-depth public involvement strategy. All this has culminated in the National Health Service National Plan which will be presented to the House later this week.

  Operations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hernia operations were carried out by the NHS last year(a) in Coventry, South, (b) in the West Midlands and (c) nationally. [131506]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of hernia operations carried out by the National Health Service in Coventry Health Authority, the West Midlands and England during the financial year 1998–99 are shown in the table.

  1 The appropriate area of treatment for Coventry South, is Coventry Health Authority.

  2Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs) with a main operation OPCS4R code in the range W37-W39 or W46-W48, excluding revisions, emergency admissions and FCEs with a primary diagnosis of ICDIO S72.0, S72.I or S72.2 (fracture of neck of femur).

  3FCEs with a main operation OPCS4 code W37.3, W38.3, W39.3, W46.3, W47.3, or W48.3, excluding emergency admissions and episodes with a primary diagnosis of ICD10 S72.0, S72.1 or S72.2 (fracture of neck of femur).

  4Count of FCEs where OPCS4R codes C71, C72, C74 or C75 occurred in any of the four (main and three secondary) operation codes.

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several operations within the year.

  2. For 1998–99, no adjustments have as yet been made for shortfalls in the data.

  3. These figures were provided by Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Health Provision Variations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce variation in health provision between the poorest and the best-off areas across the UK. [131504]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are setting standards through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the national service frameworks. We are ensuring local delivery through clinical governance and monitoring delivery through the performance assessment framework and the Commission for Health Improvement. On 14 July we published a second set of performance indicators which will enable the local health service to identify where their performance falls below that of the best and we expect measures to be taken to improve poorly performing services. We are working with relevant parties, utilising the record increases in National Health Service funding to improve NHS performance and tackle health inequalities.

  GM Food
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the nature is of the feeding trials in which animals are being fed GM herbicide-tolerant forage maize treated with glufosinate ammonium. [132649]

  Ms Stuart
  The Food Standards Agency knows of no current feeding trials, but is aware that the developers of the crop variety intend to use the maize in an animal feeding study in the future. The company has undertaken to seek our agreement to the protocol for such work.

  Neonatal Hearing Screening
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much his Department has invested in neonatal hearing screening for each of the last five years; [131332]

  (2) how much his Department plans to spend on (a) the launch and (b) the national roll-out of the neonatal hearing screening pilot project in each of the next three years; [131333]

  (3) what cost to benefit analysis his Department has carried out of introducing universal neonatal hearing screening; [131334]

  (4) what studies his Department has carried out into the benefits of neonatal hearing screening; [131335]

  (5) what his Department's timetable is for the national roll-out of the neonatal hearing screening pilot project; when an announcement about a timetable will be made; and what factors will inform the timing of an announcement of the timetable; [131336]

  (6) if he will review the findings of the Colorado research project on neonatal hearing screening; [131337]

  (7) what consultations his Department has had with disability organisations of and for deaf and hard of hearing people about the launch of the neonatal hearing screening pilot project; [131338]

  (8) when his Department will establish an advisory group to advise on the launch and national roll-out of its pilot project for neonatal hearing screening; and when it will announce the composition of the group; [131339]
  498W
  (9)by what process his Department will establish (a) the criteria, (b) the selection procedure and (c) the timetable for the establishment of the 20 neonatal hearing screening pilot sites; [131340]

  (10) what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Education and Employment about developing the provision of language and education support for children from zero to two years in preparation for (a) the launch and (b) the national roll-out of its pilot project for neonatal hearing screening; [131341]

  (11) what discussions his Department (a) has had and

  (b) plans to have with (i) health authorities and NHS trusts, (ii) paediatric audiologists, (iii) ENT consultants, (iv) speech and language therapists and (v) cochlear implant centres about (A) the launch and (B) the national roll-out of the neonatal hearing screening pilot project. [131342]

  Yvette Cooper
  Investment in neonatal hearing screening over the last five years is estimated to be in the region of £18 million per annum: that is £3 million per annum on targeted neonatal hearing screening and £15 million per annum on health visitors performing the infant distraction test.

  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee (NSC) has recommended that a universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) programme should replace the infant distraction test to screen for hearing impairment. This was based on a report by the health technology assessment programme 'A critical review of the role of neonatal screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment'.

  An expert group, which included representatives of professional groups, National Health Service bodies, voluntary organisations, Government Departments and other interested bodies, was convened by the NSC and undertook further detailed work on the benefits, cost-benefits and feasibility and service issues of developing a UNHS programme. The committee took existing and emerging research findings into account in making its recommendations.

  We have recently agreed to conduct a pilot programme to evaluate the optimum way in which this change in service delivery might be achieved. The pilot programme will run for 12 months at a cost of £750,000. The pilot will help us gain a better understanding of the operational implications of running a national programme, including its potential cost.

  Project and steering groups will be established shortly to oversee the development of the pilot programme. Key professional, voluntary, NHS and policy stakeholders will be appropriately involved. The Department will be writing to the NHS about participating in the pilot project and the timescales later in the autumn.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 23 May concerning lock purchasing. [132447]

  Mr. Hutton
  The letter of 23 May was a copy of a letter dated 17 April, to which I replied to my hon. Friend on 22 May.

  Back Book
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to provide the Back Book free of charge to patients; [128485]

  (2) how many copies of the Back Book have been sold in each year since its publication. [128486]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: The Back Book was published by The Stationery Office in 1996. I understand that, to date, 115,157 packs of 10 copies have been sold. We do not have information on how that figure breaks down year by year.

  We have no plans to provide the Back Book free of charge to patients.

  Departmental Inquiries
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the inquiries his Department has established in each of last two years, indicating for each the form the inquiry was to take, and an estimate of the number of patients it covered. [129022]

  Ms Stuart
  The inquiries commissioned by the Department in the last two years are as follows. It is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate of the number of patients affected by the matters under inquiry. In most cases that is for the inquiry to establish.

  The BSE Inquiry
  Established in December 1997 to review the history of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) and new variant CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) and the action taken in response to it. Independent chair. Hearings held in public.

  Review of Thoracic Surgical Services at Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
  Established in July 1998 to review the previous investigation undertaken by the trust into its thoracic surgery services. Independent chair. Hearings held in private.

  The Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry
  Established in October 1998 to examine issues relating to paediatric cardiac surgery. Independent chair. Hearings held in public.

  The Ritchie Inquiry
  Established in March 1999 to consider the practice of Mr. Rodney Ledward. Independent chair. Hearings held in private.

  North Lakeland Healthcare NHS Trust Inquiry
  Established in May 1999 to investigate allegations of patient abuse. Independent chair. Hearings held in private.

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust. Liver Surgery Unit
  Established in August 1999 to inquire into allegations relating to gene therapy for patients with liver cancer. Independent chair. Hearings held in private.

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust Department of Imaging Inquiry
  Established in November 1999 to investigate allegations of victimisation. Independent chair. Hearings held in private.

  The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry
  Established in December 1999 to examine circumstances surrounding the removal, retention and disposal of human tissue. Independent chair. Hearings held in private.
  500W
  The Laming Inquiry
  Established in March 2000 to review issues arising from the trial of Dr. Shipman. Independent chair. Form of inquiry under review.

  The King's Mill Centre for Healthcare Services NHS Trust Inquiry
  Established in June 2000 to investigate allegations of inappropriate disposal of human organs. Independent chair. Hearings held in private.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assistance he gives to NHS trusts that are undertaking reconfiguration of patient services, approved by him, towards the cost of(a) redundancy and retirement and (b) capital building costs. [130167]

  Mr. Denham
  A central special assistance fund has existed since 1996–97. It provides financial assistance to some health authorities to facilitate strategic change, such as reconfiguring patient services at NHS trusts. Special assistance helps fund some of the short-term non-recurrent costs of change, for example double running or redundancy costs. Within London, the London Fund also provides non-recurrent transitional funding to support strategic changes.

  Capital funding is approved on the basis of information contained in a business case which is considered by regional offices. Access to funding is dependent on competing investment priorities in the region.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the services provided by St. George's Hospital, Tooting, London. [130524]

  Mr. Denham
  All National Health Service trusts are subject to a formal annual assessment of their progress and future plans by the relevant regional office of the NHS Executive, and this assessment process was carried out with St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust earlier this year by London Regional Office.

  NHS Trust Directorships
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it remains his policy to ban the spouses of hon. Members from non-executive directorships in National Health Service trusts. [130534]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department is currently considering the preparation of new guidance on conflict of interest issues for National Health Service boards and other public bodies for which we are responsible. The issue of appointing the spouses of hon. Members to National Health Service boards will be re-considered as part of this process.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each health authority, the number of patients on a waiting list for infertility treatment; and if he will make a statement. [130820]

  Mr. Denham
  Waiting list information is not collected centrally for specific procedures.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about refurbishment of the accident and emergency unit at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. [131139]

  Ms Stuart
  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital was allocated £600,000 from the accident and emergency modernisation fund to develop a scheme to improve facilities in the casualty department. Work is due for completion by 31 March 2001 with specific aims to improve security for staff, access for the disabled, facilities for paediatric assessment and environmental conditions.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has received from the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital for a new medical assessment unit to be funded from the A&E Modernisation Fund; and if he will make a statement. [131702]

  Ms Stuart
  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals National Health Service Trust was allocated £600,000 in the first tranche of accident and emergency modernisation moneys in June 1999. The approved proposals included the development of an assessment unit, decontamination facilities and improved security. Further bids have been invited in June of this year to be funded from an additional £35 million made available nationally, and the trust have applied for funding totalling £2.2 million for an emergency assessment unit, which incorporates a medical assessment unit

  NHS Executive regional offices are in the process of assessing the applications received. As yet, no decisions have been made nationally on the allocation of this latest tranche of accident and emergency modernisation moneys.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000,Official Report, columns 334–35W, regarding fluoridation, what bodies other than the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York were invited to apply for the commission to report into the safety and efficacy of fluoride in drinking water. [131360]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]: No other bodies were invited to tender for the systematic review on fluoridation. The National Health Service Centre for

  Section 64 General Scheme applications submitted and approved in the last five years

  Financial year (1)

  Number of new applications received (2)

  Number of new applications approved (3)

  Value of new grants approved(£) (4)

  Value of continuing grants approved from previous years (£) (5)

  Annual total value of approved grants (£) (6)

  1996–97

  629

  1 Figure not available

  1 Figure not available

  1 Figure not available

  21,000,000

  1997–98

  627

  268

  9,034,144

  12,405,068

  21,439,212

  1998–99

  784

  280

  10,065,828

  10,545,871

  20,611,699

  1999–2000

  717

  284

  11,834,839

  10,536,731

  22,371,570

  2000–01

  671

  216

  8,388,848

  14,204,905

  22,593,753

  1 A new database was set up in 1996. Figures for columns (3)+(5) for that year are not available because the database was still being tested.

  The amounts approved were not necessarily the amounts paid as some grants, especially project grants,
  502W
  Reviews and Dissemination was itself established by competitive tender to provide the Department with an expert facility for systematic research reviews.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000,Official Report, column 335W, regarding fluoridation, what conditions apply to the moneys given by his Department to the British Fluoridation Society. [131331]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]: Since 1975 successive Governments have funded the British Fluoridation Society to help promote and implement their policies on oral health by providing evidence based advice to all interested parties. The Society is required to maintain accounts which show the use to which funds have been put for inspection by the Department's auditors.

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations his Department has received regarding the pay scales of speech and language therapists relative to other professional groups in the NHS. [131738]

  Mr. Denham
  Following extensive negotiations with staff side representatives, on 19 May a revised grading structure for speech and language therapists was introduced extending the existing pay spine to match that of clinical psychologists. Since then no representations have been received.

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) list the successful applicants for grant aid under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for the last year for which figures are available, (b) the value of each grant and (c) what the grant was for. [131732]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for grant aid under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 were(a) submitted and (b) approved in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what the total value of such grants was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [131733]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  may have started late and payments were therefore made pro-rata.

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2000,Official Report, column 684W, what the values of the public sector comparator and PFI alternatives are in (a) pre-risk and (b) risk-adjusted terms at full business case and financial close stage for the (i) Rochdale, (ii) Royal Berkshire, (iii) Central Sheffield and (iv) Guys and St. Thomas's hospital projects. [131614]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]: Private finance initiative was considered in all four schemes, and in each case did not produce a suitable solution. For the schemes at Rochdale and Central Sheffield PFI was identified as unsuitable early in the procurement process and not pursued further. Comparative figures are therefore unavailable. The figures for the schemes at Royal Berkshire and Guys and St. Thomas's are shown in the tables.

  £000

  Public Sector Comparator

  PFI Option

  Royal Berkshire

  Whole scheme (1994)

  No realistic PFI proposal identified

  —

  Partial PFI (1997) NPC over 60 years—(not risk adjusted)

  10,096

  13,180

  Guys and St. Thomas's

  Net present value—pre-risk adjusted

  357.8

  497.1

  Net present value—post-risk adjusted

  377.2

  497.1

  SCOPE
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish an inquiry into the role of SCOPE under section 81 of the Children Act 1989. [131969]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have no plans to establish an inquiry into the role of SCOPE under section 81 of the Children Act. I understand that allegations concerning a school run by SCOPE near Leeds were thoroughly investigated by the police and child protection services in 1995. They concluded that there was not sufficient evidence for criminal prosecution. The Department for Education and Employment subsequently considered the allegations and, as a result one former care worker was barred from working in relevant employment and placed on List 99.

  The school closed in 1998.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2000 to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley),Official Report, columns 69–70W, concerning the numbers of patients waiting over 12 months for elective admission between March 1997 and March 2000, if he will provide the figures for West Sussex for each of those dates. [131829]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: We are determined to reduce waiting lists and times for all patients from the rising numbers we inherited. As waiting lists have fallen, so have waiting times. The number of over-12-month waiters is almost a third lower than the
  504W
  peak at June 1998 and the average waiting time of patients on the list is 13 weeks—Two weeks lower than at June 1998.

  The numbers of patients waiting over 12 months for elective admission in West Sussex at March 1997, March 1998 and March 2000 are shown in the table.

  West Sussex health authority

  Number of patients waiting over 12 months at March

  1997

  902

  1998

  3,952

  2000

  1,848

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Dorset Health Authority patients had been waiting for over 12 months for elective admission in(a) March 1997, (b) March 1998, (c) March 1999 and (d) March 2000. [132333]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Patients waiting more than 12 months for elective admissions, Dorset health authority

  Month end

  Number of patients

  March 1997

  0

  March 1998

  0

  March 1999

  0

  March 2000

  2

  Source:

  Department of Health forms KHO7R and QF01

  In March 1997 there were 56 patients waiting over six months, in March 2000 there were no patients waiting over six months for treatment in Dorset but there were 28 Dorset patients waiting for treatment outside the county.

  MRSA
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many MRSA incidents have been voluntarily reported in each NHS region since 1996(a) in total and (b) as a ratio to the population in that region. [131648]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The Public Health Laboratory Service compiles aggregate data on numbers of incidents of MRSA which are voluntarily submitted by National Health Service trusts for specialist microbiological tests. These are given in the table. Also shown is the rate per 100,000 population.

  Incidents of MRSA and rates per 100,000 population 1996–2000

  Incidents of MRSA

  Population

  Rate per 100,000

  1996

  Anglia and Oxford

  237

  5,360,925

  4

  North Thames

  539

  6,933,690

  8

  North West

  176

  6,605,118

  3

  Northern and Yorkshire

  150

  6,338,285

  2

  South and West

  206

  6,594,376

  3

  South Thames

  421

  6,819,118

  6

  Trent

  99

  5,120,988

  2

  West Midlands

  121

  5,316,585

  2

  Wales

  158

  2,921,075

  5

  Total

  2,107

  52,010,160

  4

  505W

  Incidents of MRSA and rates per 100,000 population 1996–2000

  Incidents of MRSA

  Population

  Rate per 100,000

  1997

  Anglia and Oxford

  297

  5,410,284

  5

  North Thames

  544

  6,987,622

  8

  North West

  259

  6,597,722

  4

  Northern and Yorkshire

  224

  6,335,813

  4

  South and West

  254

  6,638,509

  4

  South Thames

  385

  6,865,023

  6

  Trent

  123

  5,128,485

  2

  West Midlands

  102

  5,320,784

  2

  Wales

  176

  2,926,933

  6

  Total

  2,364

  52,211,175

  5

  1998

  Anglia and Oxford

  223

  5,452,321

  4

  North Thames

  289

  7,051,978

  4

  North West

  215

  6,603,991

  3

  Northern and Yorkshire

  202

  6,339,044

  3

  South and West

  101

  6,672,263

  2

  South Thames

  220

  6,908,662

  3

  Trent

  109

  5,133,802

  2

  West Midlands

  69

  5,332,521

  1

  Wales

  169

  2,933,324

  6

  Total

  1,597

  52,427,906

  3

  1999

  Eastern

  80

  5,416,242

  1

  London

  290

  7,267,458

  4

  Northern and Yorkshire

  170

  6.348,589

  3

  North West

  180

  6,604,031

  3

  South East

  170

  8,687,156

  2

  South West

  40

  4,934,125

  1

  Trent

  100

  5,149,937

  2

  West Midlands

  30

  5,342,340

  1

  Wales

  130

  2,940,324

  4

  Total

  1,190

  52,690,202

  2

  2000

  Eastern

  30

  —

  —

  London

  100

  —

  —

  Northern and Yorkshire

  40

  —

  —

  North West

  50

  —

  —

  South East

  60

  —

  —

  South West

  10

  —

  —

  Trent

  30

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  30

  —

  —

  Wales

  30

  —

  —

  Total

  380

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Population estimates are mid-year estimates based on 1991 census data

  2. For 1996 and the first half of 1997 data have been amalgamated to the approximate boundaries of the new Regional Office areas. This allows for comparison with subsequent years

  3. Data for 2000 are incomplete, therefore the rate per 100,000 cannot be calculated

  4. An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital

  5. The criteria for submission of isolates of MRSA (and other isolates of staphylococcus aureus) to the PHLS for specialist tests have been revised twice since 1996 (in January 1998 and in January 2000).

  Shipman Inquiry
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the judgment on the Shipman Inquiry. [132643]

  Mr. Denham
  Families who have been victims of Dr. Shipman have suffered enormously and we have great sympathy for them.
  506W
  From the outset, we have wanted to make sure we learn the lessons from the Shipman case as quickly and effectively as possible so that we can take all the necessary measures to protect patients. We are considering the judgment in full.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has plans to carry out routine screening for hepatitis C. [132429]

  Ms Stuart
  There are currently no plans to carry out routine screening for hepatitis C.

PRIME MINISTER

  Appointments (Historians)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2000,Official Report, column 425W, on appointments, if he will list the official historians he has appointed since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement on each. [132329]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: Since 1 May 1997 I have appointed two official historians: Professor Lawrence Freedman and Professor Alexander Kemp.

  G8 Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the matters discussed at and the outcome of the G8 Summit in Okinawa. [132025]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Statement I gave to the House on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 763–65.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [132514]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 18 July 2000,Official Report, columns 140–41W, to our hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1999–2000 annual report for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. [132879]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The 1999–2000 annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate have been laid before Parliament. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1999–2000 annual report for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. [132880]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The 1999–2000 annual report and accounts for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Veterinary Laboratory Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1999–2000 annual report for the Veterinary Laboratory Agency. [132881]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The 1999–2000 annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Laboratory Agency were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Solway Fishery
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Environment Agency on the possible earlier opening of the Haf net fishing season on the Solway in 2001. [131405]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not received any advice from the Environment Agency on the possible earlier opening of the Haf net fishing season on the Solway in 2001.

  Fertilisers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations deal with fertilisers and soil improvers; and what plans he has to decrease regulation in this area. [131809]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: Fertilisers and soil improvers are regulated in Great Britain by the Fertilisers Regulations 1991, SI 1991/2197 (as amended by SI 1995/16, SI 1997/1543 and SI 1998/2024). The regulations implement EU Directives 76/116/EEC, 80/876/EEC, 88/183/EEC, 89/284/EEC, 89/530 and 93/69/EEC. A Commission-led working group is examining consolidation of the existing Directives into a single Directive, but it is unlikely to propose any decrease in regulation in this area.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the publicly-funded organisations which provide advice to farmers about diversification; and if he will make a statement. [131803]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: MAFF will be publishing a free advisory booklet on farm diversification in the autumn as part of the Prime Minister's Action Plan for Farming. The booklet will
  508W
  contain a comprehensive list of organisations which can provide advice to farmers on diversification. The action plan also included a new programme of business advice for farmers through the Small Business Service.

  Pollution Controls
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European counterparts about ensuring(a) uniform implementation of integrated pollution prevention and controls and (b) that disproportionate burdens are not placed on British farmers as a result of these controls; and if he will make a statement. [131899]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: Discussions about the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) have taken place between EU Environment Ministers. Measures to comply with the requirements of the IPPC Directive will be based on Best Available Techniques reference (BREF) documents, which will be agreed at Community level. These documents aim to ensure all member states adopt measures that offer equivalent environmental protection.

  Under the Action Plan for Farming, announced by the Prime Minister following the Agriculture Summit on 30 March, the Government are committed to implementing environmental legislation that impacts on the farming industry in the least bureaucratic and burdensome way. Farmers with existing installations in England and Wales will not be required to implement these measures until 2007. Some other member states already apply environmental controls similar to those required to be implemented under IPPC.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the changes to be applied to the poultry industry under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regulations for(a) England and Wales and (b) each EU country; and if he will make a statement. [131710]

  Mr. Morley
  The measures that we expect will apply to most of the poultry industry in England under the IPPC Directive will be set out in general binding rules. These are currently under discussion between the Environment Agency, the Government and representatives of the poultry sector and will be put out for public consultation shortly. Poultry farmers with existing installations will not be required to implement these measures until 2007.

  Some member states already impose environmental controls similar to those required to be put in place under IPPC. Others plan to implement IPPC for the poultry sector before 2007. The EU-wide Best Available Techniques reference (BREF) document for the intensive livestock sector is expected to be in place in 2001 and will set out measures to control emissions which all EU member states will be expected to apply.

  Rural Enterprise Schemes
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the costs of administering rural enterprise schemes through(a) his Department and (b) regional development agencies. [131816]
  509W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: My Department will be running the new Rural Enterprise Scheme as part of the England Rural Development Programme.

  The cost of its administration will depend in part upon the level of demand, but in 2001–02, its first full year of operation, we estimate the cost to be £1.375 million; this includes £0.628 million for technical support by the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency. This is additional to the programme cost for the scheme.

  The cost of schemes run by the Regional Development Agencies is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the costs of increasing the proportion of less favoured areas covered by the Countryside Stewardship Scheme from 3 per cent. to 10 per cent. [131814]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: It is estimated that the cost of increasing the proportion of less favoured areas covered by the Countryside Stewardship Scheme from 3 per cent. to 10 per cent. would be approximately £5 million per annum.

  FSS Agency Targets:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Financial indicators:

  Return on Capital Employed

  Minimum 3 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  Efficiency Gain (three year rolling)

  Minimum 10 per cent.

  Minimum 10 per cent.

  Quality of service indicators:

  Turnaround time

  24 days

  24 days

  Exceed 99 per cent. of urgent and critical classified cases

  N/A

  Pilot

  Achieve 90 per cent. agreed delivery dates

  Yes

  Yes

  Put in place service level agreements with police forces (BVAs)

  Yes

  Yes

  Put in place routine and robust customer satisfaction measurement processes

  Yes

  n/a

  (milestone 1999–2000 only)

  Demonstrate year on year improvements in police (customer) satisfaction

  —

  Yes

  Quality indicators:

  Achieve external quality accreditation to ISO9000 and NAMAS standards

  Yes

  Yes

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made further appointments to the Police Complaints Authority. [133024]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have invited Mr. Duncan Gear, Mrs. Anne Boustred and Mrs. Alison McDougall to serve as Members of the Police Complaints Authority. Mr. Gear took up his appointment on 1 June and Mrs. Boustred on 5 June. Mrs. McDougall will take up her appointment on 18 September. All appointments are for a three year period initially.

  Mr. Gear was previously a Senior Inspector with the Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate. Mrs. Boustred joins the Authority after serving as Principal Advocate in the Legal Services Directorate of Essex County Council and Mrs. McDougall was previously the Deputy Head of Equity Research, Europe for Lehman Brothers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Science Service
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay before Parliament the annual report for the Forensic Science Service. [132883]

  Mr. Straw
  Copies of the Forensic Science Service's annual report and accounts for 1999–2000 have today been laid before Parliament.

  The Forensic Science Service (FSS) met and exceeded its financial target to achieve a three per cent. return on capital employed and maintained accreditation through external bodies. However, it did fail to achieve the stretching efficiency gain target and service delivery targets. This was a challenging year for the FSS—further expanding its work force, absorbing the associated recruitment and training costs and devoting large human resources to the DNA expansion project. It was also the organisation's first year as a Trading Fund. The targets and plans agreed for 1999–2000 were ambitious, and while the FSS failed to achieve targets in two key areas, it demonstrated a significant improvement in both turnaround times and delivery dates met.

  The targets for 2000–01 are set out in the table, alongside those for 1999–2000.

  Entrepreneurs
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to attract to the United Kingdom entrepreneurs offering exceptional economic benefit but who do not meet the current criteria under the immigration rules. [133025]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are already specific categories in the Immigration Rules designed specially for entrepreneurs. These ensure that those who wish to make significant personal investments in creating employment can enter to engage in business. There are also clear routes for corporations wishing to establish branches and subsidiaries here. But the Government's Competitiveness White Paper signalled the economic importance of a dynamic approach to building a knowledge driven economy and the need to attract people with scarce skills and those willing to set up businesses which create jobs. That paper included a specific commitment to examine the scope for further encouraging certain entrepreneurs to consider migrating to the United Kingdom.
  511W
  In the light of that commitment, we have assessed the current Immigration Rules for business and entrepreneurs and have concluded they may not always fit well with a knowledge driven economy since they require minimum levels of investment and do not focus on innovation. Moreover, the current routes for entrepreneurs do not enable us to focus on those applications with the greatest potential of economic benefit.

  We have, therefore, decided to introduce a scheme, which will be piloted as a concessionary arrangement outside the Immigration Rules in the first instance, aimed at attracting entrepreneurial innovators to the United Kingdom.

  This pilot scheme will come into force on 4 September this year.

  The key features of the innovators entry route are
  it is intended to attract and select outstanding entrepreneurs whose business proposals will result in exceptional economic benefits for the United Kingdom; selection will take place on a rigorous and demanding basis but one that is designed to be flexible to accommodate a wide variety of applications with different strengths and weaknesses; no minimum investment is required; and there is no requirement for personal funds to be invested, but third party funding will be permitted.

  Applicants will need to submit a business plan and a curriculum vitae with supporting documents.

  Initial information about the scheme will be made available on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website. I will place copies of guidance for applicants and information leaflets in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be made in the case of Ms A. (Reference 1013112) whose appeal was allowed by the adjudicator on 22 February. [131571]

  Mrs. Roche
  Authorisation to issue an entry clearance was sent to the entry clearance officer on 19 July.

  Non-conviction Information
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to remove non-conviction information from the requirements in the checks on volunteers and staff dealing with young people. [132245]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We attach particular importance to protecting young persons from those who would do them harm. This underpins the arrangements which we are putting in place to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997, under which information about criminal convictions will be more readily available to employers and voluntary organisations. The highest level of certificate that will be available under these arrangements will relate principally to those regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons under the age of 18. In such cases, in addition to information about criminal convictions, police forces will be required to disclose any other information which, in the chief officer's opinion, might be relevant, and, under a "one-stop shop" arrangement, checks will also be made of a Department for Education and Employment list of persons who are 512W
  barred from employment in the education service, and a Department of Health list of persons who are considered unsuitable to work with children.

  Curfews (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been released to date under the home detention curfew scheme in Cumbria; and how many have re-offended. [132254]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available centrally. Data on releases under the Home Detention Curfew scheme are broken down by contract region but not by country.

  However, I will make further inquiries of the electronic monitoring contractor for the Northern region and write to the right hon. Gentleman with this information as soon as it is available. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the(a) date, (b) nature and (c) action he has taken as a result, of each infringement of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 since 1 January 1995 relating to xenotransplantation research; and if he will make a statement; [130708]

  (2) what (a) benefits and (b) objectives were outlined in the first applications for clinical trials of xenotransplantation procedures; and how many of the pig-primate procedures failed to achieve such objectives and benefits. [130709]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Xenotransplanatation includes the transplantation of organs, such as hearts and kidneys, between different animal species and from animals into humans. Organ transplantation is a hugely successful medical procedure—one that has transformed the lives of tens of thousands of people across the world. The critical shortage of human donor organs has led scientists to investigate xenotransplantation as an alternative potential source of organs. This is a policy on which the Department of Health leads.

  It is not Home Office policy to provide detailed information in respect of infringements relating to specific establishments or programmes of work. Summary information on the total numbers of infringements reported in all establishments for the years 1995 to 1998, inclusive, is provided in the relevant Animal Procedures Committee report. Similar summary information for 1999 will be reported in the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 1999, which will be published in August 2000.

  As to applications for authorities for xenotransplantation research granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, Section 24 of the 1986 Act prevents disclosure of detailed information about specific programmes of work where this has been given in confidence.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research his Department has
  513W
  undertaken concerning the fate of the wild-caught baboons imported from Kenya to the UK in May 1999; and if he will make a statement; [130710]

  (2) what measures his Department has taken to ensure that imported primates for use in xenotransplantation procedures are used for the purposes stated in applications for such procedures; and if he will make a statement; [130711]

  (3) what his Department's policy is regarding the killing of imported primates not subjected to xenotransplantation procedures; and if he will make a statement. [130712]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All but a small number of primates used in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom are captive-bred and not taken from the wild. Under measures introduced in 1996, authority to use wild-caught primates will be given only if the applicant can establish exceptional and specific justification. Such cases are rare.

  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate has maintained a close interest in the condition of the wild-caught baboons imported into the United Kingdom from Kenya in May 1999 and has been kept informed by the relevant designated establishment of its plans for their use and disposal.

  Inspectors appointed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 regularly visit all designated establishments to monitor standards and compliance with licence and certificate authorities.

  If primates imported for use in xenotransplantation procedures are killed, but have never been used in the programme of work, it must be by a method listed in Schedule 1 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 or as defined in a condition attached to the relevant Certificate of Designation.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what factors are taken into consideration when making the cost benefit analysis under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and to what extent these include(a) healthcare costs, (b) corporate profitability and (c) status of the individuals carrying out the procedures; [132576]

  (2) what plans he has to revise the operation of the cost/benefit test contained in section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [132577]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To meet section 5(4) of the 1986 Act, any application to use protected animals in research must be subjected to a detailed cost/benefit assessment by Home Office Inspectors. The likely adverse effects on the animal concerned must be weighed against the benefits likely to accrue as a result of the proposed programme of work. In making this assessment, the general categories of potential benefits that are currently considered are: human, animal and ecological benefits: improved health or welfare, plant protection, food hygiene, safeguarding of the environment; scientific benefits: resolution of controversies, increasing scientific knowledge; educational benefits: meeting educational objectives which cannot be satisfied using non-animal methods; and other benefits: including forensic inquiries.
  514W
  Cheaper health care for everyone can be considered a benefit, but not the profitability of a company which sets out to provide cheaper health care nor the implications for employment arising from the programme of work in the project licence application. The technical expertise of the project licence holder and the personal licence holders may affect the outcome of the cost/benefit assessment. This can be relevant either to the cost (in terms of the standard to which work can be done) or the benefit, when the likelihood of success may be affected. But the involvement of individuals is regulated by the controls applying to personal licences.

  Following its review of the operation of the 1986 Act, the Animal Procedures Committee concluded that the cost/benefit assessment provided a workable and flexible framework in which to decide whether the use of animals is justified (Chapter 2 of Appendix F of the Committee's Annual Report for 1997). However, the Committee felt that there were some areas where further discussion and consideration were needed and it has set up a working group to take this forward. The group plans to issue a public consultation paper later this year and to produce an authoritative statement on how the present cost/benefit system can be improved. The Government will consider what changes are necessary to the operation of the arrangements in the light of the Committee's report.

  Magistrates Courts (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the rate of successful convictions obtained in magistrates courts in Staffordshire in the last 12 months. [130597]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of defendants convicted in magistrates courts in Staffordshire was 31,891 in 1998 and 22,372 in 1999 (provisional figure for January-September only). In both periods, convictions represented 76 per cent. of the total number of defendants prosecuted for all offences.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on measures to bring existing statute law into compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. [130604]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 19 July 2000,Official Report, column 180W.

  Personal Privacy
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the safeguards his Department plans to introduce to protect personal privacy following the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. [132525]

  Mr. Straw
  Privacy and personal information is now well protected by the provision of the Data Protection Act 1998; more generally, the right to a private life is a convention right contained within the Human Rights Act 1998. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill contains within it all the protections necessary in the event of the use of these vital powers.

  Truck Searches
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional funds have been made available to his Department in the past month to develop systems for the detection of people and animals in freight vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [131778]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: No funds have been received, or set aside by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, for research and development of systems for purposes mentioned by the hon. Member in this financial year. However, one Chief Immigration Officer is tasked with the evaluation of such technology, including conducting trials of equipment which is commercially available.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated rate of return on capital is to the contractors under the PFI contracts in his Department. [131349]

  Mr. Straw
  I am unable to give precise detail of rates of return on capital due to the commercial sensitivity of the information required. However, I can tell the hon. Member that for the following contracts the rate of return varies between 12 per cent. and 20 per cent.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Caseworking

  Medway Secure Training Centre (STC)

  Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre (STC)

  Hassockfield Secure Training Centre (STC)

  Park Prison

  Fazakerley Prison

  Ashfield Prison

  Forest Bank Prison

  Ryehill Prison

  Dovegate Prison

  Lowdham Grange Prison

  Energy Tranche I Boilerhouses

  Quantum

  Police Service Radio Communications Project.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to him to allow the police on-line access, via the Police National Computer, to databases held by private sector insurance companies; and what plans he has to introduce legislation on this issue. [129139]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  Provisions in Regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1988 require insurers to keep records of their policyholders and the policies they have issued. Information from those records must be provided without charge on request to the police. Legal advice is that these
  516W
  powers are sufficient to allow the information to be collected on a database and to allow the police access, subject to safeguards, on a case-by-case basis. The insurance industry are setting up an electronic database in order to help the police enforcement effort.

  I have accepted, however, the Data Protection Commissioner's advice that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the matter and we will be laying an Order later this year to allow the keeping of information electronically and to provide access to the insurance information for the police on a case-by case-basis. Safeguards to prevent misuse of the information, agreed with the Data Protection Commissioner, will be included.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) how many bus lane cameras were established in the last year and (b) how many there are in total in (i) the Metropolitan police area and (ii) in England and Wales; and how many (A) successful and (B) unsuccessful prosecutions there were in (1) the last 12 months and (2) since the introduction of bus lanes. [132285]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  The London Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Project (introduced by the Traffic Director for London and now transferred to Transport for London in partnership with the Metropolitan police) uses video cameras, mounted either on buses or at the roadside, to enforce bus lane regulations in the Metropolitan police area. The project has reached the halfway stage with some 300 bus lanes being enforced by camera. 90 bus mounted and 19 fixed cameras had been installed by 1999, rising to 151 and 29 respectively by 31 March 2000. There are no bus lane enforcement cameras outside the Metropolitan police area.

  Six thousand one hundred and seventy-five notices of intended prosecution were issued in the year to 30 June 2000, and 9,543 have been issued since this project started in December 1998. To date only one prosecution has been successfully challenged in a Magistrates court.

  In addition, five London boroughs have been piloting a scheme using CCTV cameras, to enforce bus lane contraventions. In the financial year 1999–2000, the authorities issued approximately 57,000 penalty charge notices and warning letters. Of these, there were 314 appeals for adjudication, all of which were upheld.

  Figures are not available for the number of prosecutions or fixed penalty notice offences issued by the police for bus lane offences outside London, nor for the 30 years that bus lanes have been operating.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of accidents caused by cyclists bumping into pedestrians on(a) pavements and (b) public carriageways in the last year for which figures are available. [132096]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.
  517W
  Information on the causes of accidents is not available. The table gives the number of single vehicle accidents which involved a pedal cyclist and an injury to a pedestrian, by vehicle location.

  Accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians on footways and verges1 and carriageways2: Great Britain 1999

  Vehicle location

  Accidents

  Footways and verges1

  79

  On main carriageway 2

  217

  1 Footway or verge comprises footways for use by pedestrians only, which form part of the highway but are separated from the main carriageway, including grass verges

  2 Main carriageway includes bus/cycle lane and other restricted lanes within the carriageway itself

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Newspapers and Magazines (Distribution)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the market share of retail magazines carried by WH Smith, Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Safeway. [132486]

  Dr. Howells
  None. Under UK competition legislation, responsibility for monitoring markets and investigating complaints of anti-competitive behaviour lies with the Office of Fair Trading. The Office of Fair Trading would look at market share figures if they were relevant in any particular case.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the proposed agreement between W. H. Smith News and Tesco over the supply of magazines to the Office of Fair Trading. [132483]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading is aware of the proposed supply arrangements between Tescos and W. H. Smith News. The Director General considers it premature to speculate on the outcome of these or other proposals. However, he will continue to monitor developments in the industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Competition Commission inquiry into supermarkets will look at the distribution and supply arrangements of newspapers and magazines to Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Safeway. [132482]

  Dr. Howells
  The Scope of the inquiry into supermarkets is a matter for the Competition Commission. The Commission is due to deliver its report to the Secretary of State on 31 July.

  Holocaust Payments
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government are taking to extend the scheme he announced on 20 June 2000,Official Report, column 137W, for banks to waive charges relating to holocaust payments from Germany to Austria. [132152]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: I am pursuing this matter with the banking industry and will make an announcement about the outcome.

  BNFL
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what performance targets he has agreed with BNFL in the last three months; and when he expects the company to publish its new corporate plan. [130873]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: No new targets have been agreed for BNFL within the last three months. The company's corporate plan is a management tool which contains commercially confidential information, and is not published.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the cost and effectiveness of(a) retrofitting dry store facilities to magnox reactors and (b) using dry store canisters in his consideration of the closure process of the magnox reprocessing line at Sellafield. [130872]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: None. These are commercial matters for BNFL.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 18 July 2000,Official Report, column 106–07W, on export licences, how many of the standard individual export licence applications and open individual export licence applications outstanding for over a year were made by small firms. [132359]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry does not request details of the size of a company when it makes an application for an individual export licence.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 18 July 2000,Official Report, column 106–07W, on export licences, what the approximate value is of the potential exports subject to decisions on standard and open individual export licences which have been awaiting a decision for more than a year. [132358]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: Applicants for Standard Individual Export Licences are required to record on the application form the value of the goods for which a licence is sought. The approximate total value of the goods as stated on the applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence which have been awaiting a decision since before 7 July 1999 is £10,700,000. The actual value of exports made under a licence is often less than the value stated on the corresponding application.

  Open Individual Export Licences allow the exporters concerned to make multiple shipments of the specified goods to the specified destinations in accordance with the licence conditions. Such licences do not normally impose any limit on the volume of exports that may be made under the licence.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-employees of British Coal have(a) made claims and (b) been paid under the Government's scheme for respiratory disease litigation. [131745]
  519W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department's claims handlers have registered over 110,000 claims for chronic bronchitis and emphysema from former miners and their families. To date, we have made nearly 23,000 payments in full and final, and part settlements, totalling £65 million.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many compensation claims to date there have been by former miners for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger in the North Staffordshire Area; and how many have been settled since 1995. [131800]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department's claims handlers have registered 2,679 claims for chronic bronchitis and emphysema and 1,007 claims for Vibration White Finger (VWF) from former miners and their families in the North Staffordshire area. To date, in the North Staffordshire Area, we have made 916 payments in full and final, and part settlements to respiratory disease claimants, and 277 payments to VWF claimants, totalling £3.7 million.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he received the report of the Euratom Safety Assessment and Radiological Protection Mission team visit to Dounreay; and what actions he plans to take arising from the report's conclusions. [131996]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scottish Executive has devolved responsibility for environmental issues relating to licensed nuclear sites in Scotland. I understand that the final text of the Main Findings and Technical Report documents was submitted by the European Commission to the Scottish Executive on 31 May 2000. The publication of these documents, together with the schedule of follow-up action taken or ongoing in response to the Commission's conclusions, was announced by Written Answer in the Scottish Parliament on 6 July.

  Copies of these documents, incorporated into an overall report, have been placed in the Libraries of the House and in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre. The report can also be accessed through the Scottish Executive web-site at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ library3/environment/art35. asp

  ECGD
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the outcome of the review of the ECGD's risk management systems, the Terms of Reference for which he announced on 26 May. [133099]

  Mr. Byers
  Following a competitive tendering process, KPMG Management Consultants were appointed to carry out the review.

  KPMG's main findings were as follows:

  "For risk management to be effective there are four primary and critical requirements

  Risk identification

  Risk measurement

  Risk reporting, and

  Pro-active risk management.

  ECGD generally achieves good results in identifying and measuring risks accurately. Reporting of risks has been flagged as an area which needs attention.
  520W
  KPMG's report presents recommendations which will enhance the identification, measurement and reporting of risk.
  If the recommendations are successfully implemented, HM Treasury will be able to return to a more strategic role and provide added value oversight of ECGD.
  At present ECGD is constrained from truly managing risk by its competitive position and operating framework. In particular it is set up to price long-term transactions upfront in highly volatile markets with very limited opportunities to influence their risk/return balance once risk positions are accepted. Making the step forward necessary to accommodate the final element of pro-active risk management requires fundamental change to the business strategy and operating framework. ECGD and HM Treasury have been jointly considering a capital based approach through the development of PMS III; continuation of this initiative should be a priority."

  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I welcome the conclusions made by KPMG. We have drawn up an Action Plan to address all the recommendations made in their report. A copy of KPMG's report and the Action Plan Summary (Cm 4792) have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on various reviews of the ECGD; and if he will make a statement. [133100]

  Mr. Byers
  I am pleased to announce the Review of ECGD's Mission and Status, which I announced to the House on 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 305–06, is now complete and the Government have accepted its conclusions.

  When I announced this Review, I referred to a number of other concurrent reviews of ECGD's activities. These are also complete and I refer my hon. Friend in particular to a separate announcement on the outcome of the Risk Management Review, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) today, Official Report, columns 519–20W. The Report of ECGD's Mission and Status (Cm 4790), and all other Reports connected with this fundamental scrutiny of ECGD's role, have today been placed in the Library of the House, including the Report of a study by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) on the Economic Rationale for the Public Provision of Export Credit Insurance by ECGD (Cm 4791) and a Report on the provision of ECGD's Reinsurance for Exports Sold on Short Terms of payment (Cm 4793). This now means that all the Government's current reviews of ECGD's activities are at an end.

  The Mission and Status Review was informed by a wide-ranging public consultation exercise and Reports by the Trade and Industry Committee, in its Third Report on ECGD: "The Future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department" published by the Committee on 20 January this year (Third Report, HC 52) and the International Development Committee's Report: "ECGD—Development Issues" published 20 December 1999 (First Report, HC73).

  While strongly reaffirming ECGD's role in bringing economic benefit to the UK, and maintaining jobs, by supporting UK exporters and investors in overseas markets—and proposing greater freedom to provide this

  521W
  support in the future—the conclusions of the Review published this afternoon set out a new direction for ECGD. It says ECGD should:
  Introduce greater openness and transparency to its operations. This includes greater consultation with customers and interested parties together with the appointment of outside Directors to ECGD's Management Board. The Export Guarantees Advisory Council's remit and membership should also be changed to advise on policy and principles, not individual risk decisions.
  Seek to attract more medium-sized exporters and investors as direct customers; offering a package of products geared to light capital goods and services and smaller projects. ECGD should work with the Small Business Service, Regional Development Agencies and British Trade International to increase understanding of ECGD services amongst smaller exporters.
  Support the Government's objectives of promoting sustainable development, human rights, good governance and trade throughout the world, by ensuring its activities are consistent with these wider international policies. ECGD will publish further details of how it plans to assess project impacts by the end of 2000.

  We need to ensure that UK firms remain able to compete effectively against exporters and investors supported by Government-backed Export Credit Agencies in other countries. The changes will ensure speedier decision making, giving greater certainty to firms and new efforts to attract smaller exporters who may be looking to export to unfamiliar areas of the world.

  The Report recommends that ECGD should be reformed and strengthened to ensure it is able to meet the challenges of the years ahead. From today ECGD will be working to a new Mission Statement.

  ECGD's financial targets will be maintained, as will its overall risk appetite. It will be strengthening its risk management systems and establishing a capitalised framework and a Trading Fund, this should lead to ECGD having complete operational autonomy.

  Further development of its systems for assessing sensitive projects and publication of more information on these, together with a statement of Business Principles to guide and inform its business policies and practice will help increase transparency and understanding.

  The Reinsurance Review, which is also published today, concludes that, without withdrawing its present reinsurance arrangements, ECGD should work to transfer 100 per cent. of its short-term credit insurance risk to the private sector.

  The Report sets out an ambitious reform agenda for ECGD which it needs to take forward in consultation with its customers and other interested parties. I am confident that ECGD will be able to continue to give first-class support to UK firms to compete for business opportunities abroad—thereby bringing economic benefit to the UK and countries in which it is supporting projects.

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received the 1999 annual reports of the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors under Part II of the Companies Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [133101]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received the 1999 annual reports of the five recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors: a combined report from the Institutes of 522W
  Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and one each from the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131441]

  Dr. Howells
  On 1 June 2000, some 240 temporary workers were engaged within DTI headquarters. This is equivalent to 5.7 per cent. of the number of staff in post. Information on vacant posts is not collected centrally.

  In 1999–2000, around £6 million was spent on the hiring of temporary workers. It is not possible to estimate the difference in cost between permanent and temporary staff, given the wide variation in the cost of the latter. The cost of temporary workers is carried on salary cost budgets: it is not, therefore, possible to anticipate the likely expenditure on the hiring of temporary workers during the current financial year.

  Post Office Network
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the size is of the major package for the Post Office network provided for in the 2000 Spending Review, paragraph 15.12. [132456]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The 2000 Spending Review includes a provision for ring-fenced funding of £270 million as the first stage of the investment in a range of measures to modernise the post office network. The Government have also made clear that they are prepared to add significantly to this investment over the next few years. The amount of further financial support will be determined once viable proposals have been drawn up and approved.

  Motor Industry
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals in the report of the UK Competition Commission on car pricing in the UK published on 10 April(a) have been and (b) will be implemented. [132515]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear in his announcements of 10 April 2000,Official Report, columns 39–41W, and 12 June what action he was taking in response to the Competition Commission report on the supply of new cars. The order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 implementing the remedies will be made when the responses to the public consultation, which closed on 14 July, have been considered.

  Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what share of the Government's programme of capital investment for science will be allocated to the National Environment Research Council to fund programmes which were developed by the Scottish Association for Marine Science at the Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory. [132362]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to announce the allocations of the Science Budget to individual Research Councils, including the Natural Environment Research Council, in the autumn, after taking advice from the Director General of Research Councils. It will then be for NERC to determine the balance of its priorities for funding including the funding of programmes at the Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications for marine science in Scotland of the closure of the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences at Dunstaffnage. [132361]

  Ms Hewitt
  NERC has decided to disband the overarching Centre for Coastal and Marine Science (CCMS), not to close the CCMS laboratories themselves. The crucial role of the Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, in delivering core strategic and applied marine science for NERC and other customers, will continue in different ways involving local and regional collaboration.

  Public Holidays
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2000,Official Report, column 145W, on public holidays, when he will announce the date of the bank holiday in 2002 to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [132314]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Appropriate consultation is being undertaken with regard to the proposed bank holiday to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee. As soon as the consultation is complete and a final decision has been taken, I shall make a formal announcement to the House.

  US-EU Dispute (Farmers)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to give assistance to those industries affected by the US-EU dispute over farmers; and if he will make a statement. [132372]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are currently two high profile disputes between the EU and US involving agricultural products—bananas and hormone-treated beef. A number of sectors are currently affected by US retaliation over the banana dispute, with further sectors threatened by the US move to carousel retaliation. The only way to alleviate the burden being borne by the companies facing US sanctions is to find a solution to the banana dispute that is satisfactory to all parties. UK companies are not affected by the hormone-treated beef dispute. I have no plans to make a statement on this issue.

  Miners Pension Scheme
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the current status is of the Miners 524W
  Pension Scheme Actuarial Review; for what reason it has been delayed; and when he expects it to be completed. [132437]

  Mrs. Liddell
  These are matters for the Trustees of the pension scheme. I have asked them to write to my hon. Friend.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Westminster Hall
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the President of the Council when she plans to review the Westminster Hall experiment. [130612]

  Mr. Tipping
  The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is currently reviewing the experiment and hopes to report before the end of the Session.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if it will be a condition of appointment to the House of Lords by the Appointments Commission to attend the House on at least a specified number of sitting days per year. [130615]

  Mr. Tipping
  The Appointments Commission is an independent body. I have no doubt that attendance is one of the criteria they will take into account.

  Modernisation Committee
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has made to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons regarding the use of computers by hon. Members during Committee proceedings. [130621]

  Mr. Tipping
  The Chairmen's Panel is currently being consulted about this matter.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons since 1997. [130622]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Details of implementation up to April this year will be found in the First Special Report from the Committee of this session "Work of the Committee: Second Progress Report" (HC865). Since then the Committee has successfully worked with the Administration Committee to ease restrictions on the work of journalists and has reported on programming legislation and the timing of votes. The House will have an opportunity to debate this report in the normal way.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the recent proposals by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons concerning programming of business. [130624]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The House will have the opportunity to debate the proposals of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in due course.

  Scottish Members (Voting Rights)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on Government policy relating to amending the law on the rights of Scottish hon. Members to vote on legislation affecting England. [130625]

  Mr. Tipping
  Government policy on the matter is well known. No legislation has ever been identified which affects only England.

  Parliamentary Scrutiny
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to increase parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. [130619]

  Mrs. Beckett
  We have already implemented the proposals of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons for better explanatory material to be published with Bills, increased pre-legislative scrutiny and more freedom for standing committees. The House will have the opportunity to debate the Modernisation Committee's proposals for programming legislation in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  West Bank
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the visit to the United Kingdom of Professor Moshe Arens to raise funds for a college in the West Bank settlement of Ariel. [130947]

  Mr. Hain
  Settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. We have repeatedly raised our concerns and objections with the Israeli Government.

  We were not associated with Mr. Arens's visit in any way.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the setting up of a checkpoint by Turkish troops at Strovilia in the Republic of Cyprus; and what discussions he has had about this with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. [131955]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK regrets the setting up of a checkpoint in Strovilia and has made this clear to the Turkish Cypriots. This action is one of the measures taken by the Turkish Cypriots against UNFICYP, which we consider to be unjustified. But the matter is fundamentally for the UN to resolve, and we have given them our full support in their efforts to do so. We understand that despite the restrictions UNFICYP are still able to carry out their mandate and the people of Strovilia are able to travel freely.

  Belize and Guatemala
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position regarding the dispute between Belize and Guatemala. [132266]
  526W
  Mr. Battle
  The UK fully supports Belize's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We welcome the talks currently taking place between Belize and Guatemala under the auspices of the Organisation of American States. We welcome the agreement at their most recent meeting on 17–20 July to hold further talks on the dispute, to implement confidence building measures and to establish military to military contacts.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the UN Settlement Plan for Western Sahara and the proposed referendum. [132050]

  Mr. Hain
  We support fully the efforts of the United Nations to bring about a just, durable and agreed resolution to the Western Sahara dispute. The UN Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy, James Baker, have reported fundamental differences between the two parties to the dispute—Morocco and the Polisario Front—on the provisions of the UN Settlement Plan and referendum. They are working to resolve these differences including the possibility of the parties agreeing a mutually acceptable political solution.

  Ambassadors and Commissioners
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2000,Official Report, column 652W, on diplomatic representation, in which countries (a) female ambassadors and high commissioners and (b) the female heads of subordinate posts represent the United Kingdom. [132499]

  Mr. Hain
  The answer is as follows:(a) The United Kingdom is represented by women ambassadors and high commissioners in the following places:

  The Hague

  Luanda

  Ulaanbaatar

  Cape Town

  Helsinki

  Colombo

  Maseru

  (b) The United Kingdom is also represented, by women in the following subordinate posts:

  Lille

  Nagoya

  Chongqing

  St. Petersburg

  New York (Joint Management Office)

  St. Johns

  Hong Kong (Joint Liaison Group).

  Sino-British Joint Declaration
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the next report to Parliament on Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. [132834]

  Mr. Battle
  The seventh report in this series, covering the period January-June 2000, was published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and
  527W
  Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  International Organisations (Non-Domestic Rates)
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of the diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom which have outstanding balances of over £10,000 as at 4 April, in respect of National Non-Domestic Rates. [133028]

  Mr. Battle
  Most diplomatic missions and International Organisations in the United Kingdom meet their obligations and pay the National Non-Domestic Rates requested from them. However, at 4 April 2000 the following missions owed over £10,000 in respect of National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR):

  £

  Country

  Amount

  Algeria

  37,025.01

  Angola

  19,855.30

  Cameroon

  23,849.51

  Iran

  84,348.90

  Jordan

  30,674.95

  Senegal

  10,927.33

  Yemen

  29,903.16

  Total

  236,584.16

  Seven additional Diplomatic Missions who owe £10,000 or more in respect of National Non-Domestic Rates have made arrangements with the Valuation Office Agency to clear the outstanding debts or who are awaiting instructions from their Governments have not been included in this list. The total amount outstanding from all Missions, including these exceptions, is £1,074,469.

  OSCE
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the OSCE has taken to ensure that it is able to respond rapidly in the event of a crisis. [133027]

  Mr. Vaz
  On 30 June, the OSCE adopted measures to improve its capability to respond more quickly and effectively to crises through the despatch of Rapid Expert Assistance and Co-operation Teams (REACT). The aim is for the OSCE to be able to deploy civilian personnel, with a range of conflict prevention and resolution skills tailored to the requirements of a particular crisis, anywhere in the OSCE area, when required. As part of this, the OSCE is to create an Operations Centre to plan and co-ordinate the rapid, as well as regular, deployment of international staff to OSCE missions. The success of this initiative, agreed at the Istanbul Summit, will depend on the commitment and will of OSCE participating states to provide the necessary personnel within the requisite timescale. In line with our current policy, the UK aims to provide about 10 per cent. of the OSCE's overall deployment of personnel in the field.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131434]

  Mr. Hain
  There are currently around 150 unfilled vacancies within the Department. This is 2.7 per cent. of the total number of staff positions in the Department. The monthly cost of filling these positions by civil servants would be £241,000. There are currently around 20 temporary staff employed throughout the Department, less than 0.5 per cent. of the total number of staff. The Department paid £971,657 to employment agencies in the year 1999–2000. In the financial year to date the Department has spent £221,146 out of a total allocation for the financial year of £838,096. Monthly figures for expenditure on temporary staff could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the Papal Nuncio the inclusion of the Pope's Personal Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei in Clause 49 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. [132391]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in regular contact with the Papal Nuncio on a range of issues. Any points he wished to raise concerning the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, or any other matter, would be carefully noted, and, where appropriate, passed on to the relevant authorities.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the President of the Council to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has to improve child care facilities in the House. [130623]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  None at present, but we will continue to keep the facilities provided for Members and staff under constant review.

CABINET OFFICE

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff have been seconded from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to work within the civil service(a) during 1999–2000 and (b) currently; and to which Departments they were seconded. [131914]
  529W
  Mr. Stringer
  Due to the amount of interchange activity undertaken, details on organisations are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Red Boxes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 11 July 2000,Official Report, column 485W, on ministerial red boxes, if she left her ministerial red box unattended on the GWR express from Bristol to Paddington. [131120]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 July 2000,Official Report, column 485W.

  Northern Ireland Executive Committee
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the Northern Ireland Executive Committee intends to become a party to the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the devolved executives. [132833]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Northern Ireland Executive Committee has recently decided to become a party to the Memorandum of Understanding originally agreed by the UK Government, Scottish Ministers and the Cabinet of the National Assembly of Wales last year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is, therefore, publishing today (as CM4806) the text of the Memorandum of Understanding and the supplementary agreements as agreed by all four administrations. The paper will also be made available on the Cabinet Office internet site shortly.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Colombian Earthquake
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being provided from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the EU and (c) UN sources, to assist with rehousing victims of the earthquake in the Quindio region of Colombia on 25 January 1999. [131919]

  Clare Short
  My Department contributed over £850,000 for immediate emergency relief and rehabilitation assistance—including shelter. But like the United Nations, we have looked to the International Financial Institutions to support longer term reconstruction and rehousing efforts. For example, the World bank provided a loan of nearly £150 million for reconstruction. This is administered by the Colombian authorities and is targeted at supporting the poorest people.

  The European Commission also provided over £2 million for emergency relief and longer term rehabilitation assistance—of which the UK share was approximately £300,000.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis in Zimbabwe. [133097]
  530W
  Clare Short
  The scale of the HIV/AIDS crisis in Zimbabwe is enormously serious. Twenty five per cent. of adults are HIV positive. Fifteen-year-olds have a one in two risk of dying from HIV/AIDS in their lifetimes. It is sinking countless families further into poverty.

  We have worked with others to tackle HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe for a number of years. I have recently agreed to continue and expand this work with a new commitment of over £20 million over five years. This will maintain condom supplies to the poor, provide drugs for sexually transmitted infections, and promote behaviour change, particularly among young people.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with members of the(a) Foreign and Commonwealth Office (b) Ministry of Defence and (c) Department of Trade and Industry concerning the AIDS epidemic in Africa; and how often she had discussed AIDS with them. [132287]

  Clare Short
  The HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa is a major development policy priority for the UK Government. I myself hold regular discussions with other Whitehall Departments on a wide range of development issues, including HIV/AIDS. My Department has an on-going dialogue with FCO and other Whitehall Departments concerning HIV/AIDS policy both at the international level and within the African region. Recent examples include co-ordination with FCO for the UN Security Council Resolution on HIV/AIDS, the EU-Africa summit in April and on preparation of briefing for last week's G8 summit. My Department, with DTI and FCO, is also involved in developing UK policy on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, this has been raised as one issue in the debate surrounding access to essential drugs for HIV/AIDS.

  At a regional and country level in Africa, DFID and the FCO work closely on the implementation of our country strategies, each of which have HIV/AIDS prevention and care as a major priority. HIV/AIDS is increasingly recognised as a potential threat to security in Africa. The new cross-Whitehall forum and shared budget for conflict in Africa (MOD, FCO, DFID, CO, Treasury) will provide an important means for developing a shared policy and priorities on HIV/AIDS and conflict.

  Debt
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's increased expenditure for 2000–2003 is earmarked for(a) unilateral debt cancellation and (b) the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Trust Fund. [132288]

  Clare Short
  This information is as follows:

  (a) For 2000–01 and 2001–02 the extra costs incurred for unilateral debt cancellation will be met by access to the Reserve in 2001–02. For 2002–03 and 2003–04 an amount of £6.5 million per year has been included in the addition to the DFID baseline announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. This is additional to other payments in respect of debt relief for HIPC countries on a multilateral basis.
  531W
  (b) During the spending period, DFID will continue to contribute to the international costs of HIPC by making payments to the HIPC Trust Fund. We expect to contribute £35 million in each of 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff her Department has; what percentage of staff positions in her Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to her Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff her Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much her Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much she expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131431]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Unfilled vacancies for permanent staff—13

  Percentage of staff positions currently vacant—0.95 per cent.

  Monthly cost of employing civil servants in these positions—£22,000

  Number of staff employed on a temporary basis through

  employment agencies, on average, in the last 12 months—23,

  and

  Percentage of total staff so employed—1.6 per cent.

  Amount paid to employment agencies in the last 12 months to 30 June 2000—£328,710.

  As far as the next 12 months are concerned it is not possible to anticipate precise needs but we shall be undertaking a number of external recruitment exercises and would expect to see a reduction in the need to use employment agencies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many written parliamentary questions tabled to her Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000, have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason commercial or other confidentiality. [132126]

  Clare Short
  Of the 574 written parliamentary questions tabled to my Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000, three did not receive substantive answers due to reasons of confidentiality.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial support for St. Helena has been provided by the British Government in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [131757]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: Expenditure figures for UK assistance are published in Statistics on International Development which is in the Library of the House.

  In January of this year, my Department agreed a new £29 million programme of assistance to the St. Helena Government (SHG) for the three year period 2000–01 to 2002–03. A DFID team is currently en route to the island
  532W
  to discuss the public sector investment programme in more detail. DFID has recently recommended to SHG consultants to carry out the comparative costs study of air and sea access to the island. We expect the consultants to start work within the next month.

SCOTLAND

  Ports
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the use of reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues in all Scottish ports; and if he will make a statement. [130570]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since January 1998, the Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 1997 have required all UK ports to report to the Government on how they plan their waste reception facilities. Through consultation with their regular users, ports are seeking to provide tailor-made reception facilities in a manner which should encourage greater use.

  Parliamentary Representation
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the level of parliamentary representation at Westminster from Scotland. [130571]

  Dr. Reid
  Section 86 of the Scotland Act removed the statutory minimum of 71 Scottish MPs. It is now a matter for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to propose the future number of constituencies in Scotland.

  Paper Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his oral answer of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 703, what assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on the paper industry in Scotland. [130572]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government recognise the need for special consideration to be given to the position of energy-intensive industries, of which the paper industry is one. Consequently, the Government intend to provide an 80 per cent. discount from the levy for those sectors that can agree challenging targets for improving their energy efficiency or reducing carbon emissions.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding regulations to implement the climate change levy. [130574]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are committed to getting the design of the climate change levy right and have been following Lord Marshall's recommendation that industry must have full involvement in the development of the levy through extensive consultation exercises. Hence HM Customs consultation exercises, pan-industry meetings with Ministers, full consideration of representations from companies and trade associations, and input from relevant Government Departments have helped to refine the design of the levy.

  New Deal
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for improving the employment opportunities of the disabled in Scotland through(a) the New Deal and (b) other means. [130575]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Chancellor announced in the Budget the first stage in developing nationwide services to help disabled people find work, building on the experience of the pilots and innovative schemes in the New Deal for Disabled People. Other recent measures to improve employment opportunities for disabled people include: the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, the Disabled Person's Tax Credit and the modernisations of Remploy and of the Supported Employment Programme.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister on the implementation of the New Deal in Scotland. [130577]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the operation of the New Deal in Scotland. [130583]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has frequent discussions with Scottish Ministers on a wide range of issues, including the implementation of the New Deal. The New Deal has been an outstanding success. It has placed 25,000 young people into jobs in Scotland since it began two years ago. In April, 1,000 young people found work through the New Deal. And 3,600 people in Scotland have found work under the New Deal 25+.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week that because of the success of the New Deal there is an underspend which will enable us to fund it well into the next Parliament.

  Work-life Balance Challenge Fund
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications from Scotland have been made to the work-life balance challenge fund. [130576]

  Mr. Wilson
  To date, there have been five applications from Scotland. There have been a further 45 applications from England.

  Poverty
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on poverty in Scotland. [130578]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government welcome the recent report by the Scottish Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend, on Poverty in Scotland, and will publish a full response. We are working in partnership with the Scottish Executive to combat poverty through, for example, the work carried out by the Joint Ministerial Committee.

  The Government have taken major steps to eradicate poverty. Measures taken include: the Minimum Income Guarantee, which benefits poorer pensioners; the Working Families Tax Credit, which could benefit around 130,000 families in Scotland; the 36 per cent. increase in Child Benefit for the first child when comparing April 2000 with the amounts in 1997; the National Minimum Wage,
  534W
  which benefits around 100,000 employees in Scotland; and the New Deal, through which 25,000 young people in Scotland have found employment.

  Ferry Services (Northern Ireland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Executive concerning ferry services between Scotland and Northern Ireland. [130579]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Scotland Office is in contact with all relevant parties, including devolved Administrations and other Government Departments, concerning ferry services between Scotland and Northern Ireland. I chaired a meeting in Glasgow on 10 July on a strategy for the resumption of ferry services between Campbeltown and Ballycastle. Attendees included the local Member of the Scottish Parliament and representatives of both Scottish and Northern Irish local authorities, the local enterprise company and the Scottish Executive.

  Since then I have had informal discussions with Sir Reg Empey, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who reiterated the support of the Northern Ireland Executive for the Campbeltown-Ballycastle service.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of manufacturing jobs transferred to countries of central and eastern Europe from Scotland in each of the last two years. [130580]

  Dr. Reid
  No information is held centrally to allow such an estimate to be made. Clearly it is regrettable when companies take decisions to relocate manufacturing operations from Scotland, as in the recent case of Philips Lighting Hamilton. The Government are committed to continuing the work of providing a sound and stable economic environment for business and making a long-term investment in skills. As a result, Scotland remains attractive for inward investment. Indeed the latest figures released by Locate In Scotland show that in the year to March 2000 Scotland successfully attracted a total of 91 projects involving planned investment of £650 million and planned creation or safeguarding of over 19,000 jobs.

  Textiles Industry
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government have taken to avoid the Scottish textiles industry being adversely affected by the trade dispute between the USA and the European Union. [130582]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have been lobbying the United States hard to push the message that the retaliation faced by the United Kingdom should be reduced in view of our constructive approach to trying to find a solution to the banana dispute. The Government are also playing a major role within the European Community to reach a World Trade Organisation-compatible resolution to this dispute.
  535W
  I shall continue to have discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive on how we can best help the cashmere industry should it remain in the retaliation list.

  Tourist Industry
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the impact of the current level of fuel prices on the Scottish tourist industry. [130584]

  Mr. Wilson
  The level of fuel prices is one of many factors which is relevant to the performance of the Scottish tourist industry.

  European Union
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. [130585]

  Dr. Reid
  The United Kingdom's membership of the European Union has delivered to Scotland tangible economic benefits through such measures as the Common Agricultural Policy, delivering direct funding in 1999 of £475.9 million, and structural funds worth £1 billion in 1994–96 and £1.1 billion for 2000–06. Membership of the European Union also delivers to Scotland access to the biggest market in the world with some 375 million consumers—63 per cent. of Scottish manufacturing exports in 1998 went to Europe. These tangible benefits are in addition to the benefits Scotland enjoys from the peace and security brought about through the collaboration of member states in the Union. UK membership of the Union also affords Scotland a role and position of influence on the European and global stages that could not be achieved by Scotland acting on its own.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent measures the Government have taken to improve rail services in Scotland. [130586]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government plan to improve rail services through their 10-year transport plan. This is based on a long-term investment by Government and business to modernise the country's transport system and includes £60 billion to improve the national rail network with new track, signalling, stations and rolling stock. This is the biggest investment in railways for generations which will undoubtedly benefit Scotland by delivering better quality for the travelling public as well as lower regulated fares.

  Quarrying Industry
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the consequences of the aggregates levy for the Scottish quarrying industry. [130587]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss a wide range of matters. The aggregates levy will bring about environmental benefits by making the price of aggregates 536W
  better reflect their true environmental costs. This will provide an incentive for all business to use more recycled aggregates and to use all aggregates more efficiently.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the impact of a single European currency on the Scottish economy. [130588]

  Dr. Reid
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues, including the healthy state of the Scottish economy. The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997, and restated by the Prime Minister in February 1999. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision is whether the economic benefits from the UK joining are clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor regarding the future of Scottish bank notes if the UK joins the euro zone. [130581]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) today,Official Report, column 881.

  Rural Post Offices
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the future of rural post offices. [130589]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry over a range of issues.

  We are in full agreement that post offices in rural areas make a vital contribution to the local community. That is why the package of post office reforms announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 28 June included a commitment to ensuring that the Post Office prevents all avoidable closures of rural post offices, with Government support being provided where needed.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to stimulate economic activity in those areas in Scotland ineligible for regional selective assistance; and if he will make a statement. [130590]

  Dr. Reid
  Proposals for the assisted areas map, which defines areas of the UK eligible for regional selective assistance, balance needs and opportunities and represent a very fair deal for Scotland. All areas of Scotland will benefit from the strong performance of the economy and its prospects for future growth. Responsibility for particular measures to stimulate economic activity is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the measures being taken by the Government to promote the export opportunities of Scotland's oil and gas industry businesses. [130591]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government continue to work hard to identify and promote export opportunities for the oil and gas industry through such initiatives as Pilot, the Government/industry forum. Export promotion is particularly important, and I was happy to address the Caspian Oil and Gas Conference in Baku last month. Earlier this year I was able to promote our expertise in the oil and gas sector during a visit to the Far East.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Human Rights Convention
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Advocate-General what assessment she has made of the number of additional cases expected to be brought under the European convention on human rights when it comes into force; and if she will make a statement. [130595]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  The Government anticipate that the vast majority of convention points will be raised in existing cases rather than new cases. This is certainly the experience in Scotland over the last year. It is expected that a significant number of convention points will be raised following implementation of the Human Rights Act in October, but it is anticipated that the number of challenges will be reduced when the higher courts determine the basis on which the Act and convention are to be applied.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the courts closure programme for magistrates courts in Essex. [130602]

  Jane Kennedy
  No. The Government's policy is that magistrates courts are best managed locally. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in Essex are for the Essex Magistrates Courts Committee to determine, in consultation with its local paying authority.

  Legal Aid Solicitors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent week of action by legal aid solicitors. [130605]

  Mr. Lock
  The Department has made no formal assessment of the impact of the recent week of action called by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG).

  The LAPG invited 5,000 firms to take part in the week of action by suggesting that they write to the Lord Chancellor's Department. To date, my Department has received letters from about one in 100 firms invited to
  538W
  take part in the action. The Lord Chancellor is confident that solicitors will agree that, in future, constructive consultation on remuneration will be more productive than proposals of non-co-operation with the Legal Services Commission.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about funding the Community Legal Service. [R] [130606]

  Mr. Lock
  The Community Legal Service is funded by local authorities, the Legal Services Commission, the National Lottery Charities Board and a host of other organisations. The different funders are now coming together in Community Legal Service Partnerships to plan and co-ordinate the local provision of services, based on meeting local needs and priorities.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria he applies when determining appeals against closure of magistrates courts. [130608]

  Jane Kennedy
  When determining appeals, the Lord Chancellor looks for evidence that the MCC has followed the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees good practice guide. Issues to be considered: accessibility for court users, the facilities available, costs of necessary renovations to bring the court up to standard, the provision of courtrooms and workload, extra travelling distances, additional costs and overall efficiency.

  Judges (Training)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how often judges are expected to attend training sessions regarding changes in legislation. [130609]

  Mr. Lock
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board. All judges receive induction training on appointment and continuation training at three yearly intervals thereafter in each of the jurisdictions that they exercise. The JSB advises on, and provides training on specific changes in law and procedure where directly affect the conduct and management of cases.

  Drug Dealers (Sentencing Policy)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent guidance he has given to magistrates regarding sentencing policy for drug dealing with intent to supply. [130610]

  Jane Kennedy
  None. Within the statutory limits laid down by Parliament, the nature and severity of penalties imposed by the court are matters of judicial discretion subject to any guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

  The Magistrates Association has recently published the Magistrates' Courts Sentencing Guidelines which has been sent to all magistrates. This contains guidance on sentencing in all types of case, including cases of supplying drugs.

  Road Traffic Cases
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the number of road traffic cases which will be brought under the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [131487]

  Jane Kennedy
  No assessment has been made of the number of cases likely to be affected as the Government anticipate that the vast majority of human rights points will be raised in existing cases, rather than new cases. We expect a significant number of human rights points to be raised in all areas of the law in the months following implementation, but it is anticipated that the level of challenges will reduce subsequently as the higher courts determine the basis on which the Human Rights Act 1998 and Convention are to be applied. The Government have

  Public trust office executive agency key performance targets 2000–01

  Indicator

  Target

  1. To carry out accounting transactions within target times.

  To bring to account at least 99 per cent. of receipts and payment transactions within turnaround targets.

  2. To achieve investment performance targets.

  (a) On an annual basis to ensure that 85 per cent. of all measured funds perform in line or better than their model based on stock market indices.

  (b) On a three year rolling basis to ensure that 80 per cent. of all measured funds perform in line or better than their model based on stock market indices.

  The benchmark to be the Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers (APCIMS) indices. The Office will aim to introduce an income element from 2001–02.

  3. To achieve service standards.

  To achieve 95 per cent. of the Public Trust Office Service Standards.

  4. To achieve targets for collection of private receivers' annual accounts (Protection Division) and for review of annual accounts field by both private receivers and in Public Trustee receiverships (Protection and Receivership Divisions).

  (a) To review 95 per cent. of accounts received within eight weeks of receipt (to apply to both Protection and Receivership Divisions).

  (b) To collect 90 per cent. of accounts within six months of the due date; 95 per cent. within nine months of the due date; and 100 per cent. within 12 months of the due date (to apply to Protection Division only).

  5. To achieve targets for the visiting of Public Trust Office clients.

  (a) To visit all existing Receivership Division clients in the course of the year.

  (b) To visit all new clients within one year of the Public Trustee being appointed receiver.

  (c) To double the number of visits undertaken to Protection Division clients in 2000–01 from 2,000 to 4,000.

  (d) 100 per cent. of urgent visits at the direction of the Court of Protection to take place within four weeks of the direction being given.

  6. To achieve financial performance and targets.

  (a) To come within the Change Programme budget for 2000–01.

  (b) To lay the PTO's Annual Report and Accounts 1999–2000 before Parliament before the summer recess.

  (c) To reduce debtor days in the Office's Protection Division from 94 to 85 days and in the Receivership Division from 96 to 85 days.

  Note:

  Fuller details of the Office's plans and targets are given in its Business Plan, which is available from the Public Trust Office.

  Stipendiary Bench
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when section 78 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, concerning the unification of the stipendiary bench in England and Wales, will come into force. [133033]
  540W
  made annual provision for the overall costs of implementing the Human Rights Act in the courts—£60 million, including £39 million for legal aid. In addition, £4.5 million has been set aside to ensure that all full and part-time judges, lay magistrates and their legal advisers, are trained to deal with Convention points effectively, which should reduce the impact on court time.

  Public Trust Office Executive Agency
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the key performance targets are for the Public Trust Office Executive Agency for 2000–01. [133032]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table sets out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for the Public Trust Office for 2000–01.

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor has decided that section 78 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 will come into force on 31 August 2000. Section 78 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 contains certain provisions relating to the Stipendiary Magistrates Bench; namely the amalgamation of the Metropolitan and Provincial Benches to form one national jurisdiction throughout England and
  541W
  Wales, and a change of title from Stipendiary Magistrate to District Judge (Magistrates Courts).

  The Unification of the bench will mean that it will have a single, judicial head, the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate), who will be responsible for the administration of the bench. The Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) will be supported by a Deputy Senior District Judge (Magistrates Courts). Acting Stipendiary Magistrates will be known as Deputy District Judge (Magistrates Courts).

  These changes are part of the Access to Justice Act reforms to improve the efficiency of Magistrates Courts. The newly unified bench will allow greater flexibility in the allocation of judges to hear cases and respond to fluctuations in workloads.

  District Judges (Magistrates Courts) will continue to complement and work alongside the 30,000 lay magistrates, providing an efficient partnership in delivering the criminal justice process.

  The Lord Chancellor is very pleased to announce these measures. They will recognise the professional standing of the Stipendiary Magistracy and the importance of the work undertaken by the Magistrates Courts as a whole.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131430]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters currently has 80 unfilled permanent vacancies (a percentage of 12.9). If the positions were filled permanently by civil servants it would be a monthly cost of £148,000. Headquarters currently employs 44 temporary staff from employment agencies—a percentage of 7.1 of total staff. The total spent on staff from employment agencies for the period April 1999 to March 2000 was £553,452 (VAT included). We are unable to quote the expected cost for the present year as demand constantly fluctuates.

  Access to Justice (Cheshire)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on access to justice in Cheshire. [130600]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's aim is to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice.

  There are nine county courts which are situated in or cover parishes within Cheshire, nine magistrates courts and three Crown Court centres.

  In Cheshire, as elsewhere, courts are being modernised, fit for the 21st Century. For example, one of the aims of the Crown Court Programme is to improve efficiency and
  542W
  enhance the facilities at all Crown Court centres, irrespective of size, location or current accommodation limitations.

  The Community Legal Service (CLS) will improve access to good quality legal advice, through creating local networks of legal services based on local needs, so that people can resolve potential or actual legal disputes and enforce their rights effectively. A local CLS network is being set up in Cheshire, consisting of local solicitors and advice agencies, and it will be supported by the work of the Cheshire CLS Partnership. The CLS Partnership will co-ordinate funding and provision of services, based on meeting local needs and priorities. I had the pleasure of launching the Cheshire CLS Partnership on 19 May.

DEFENCE

  Co-operative Capability Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the costs and benefits of United Kingdom participation in the United States Navy's Co-operative Capability Program. [130379]

  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. Mike Hancock, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the costs and benefits of United Kingdom participation in the United States Navy's Co-operative Capability Program. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  I am pleased to say that the MoU for the UK's participation in the United States Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) programme was signed on 18th July 2000. The application of CEC technology will improve the RN's ability to detect, monitor and counter current and future air threats, reducing the risk of losing high value warships, as well as reducing the risk of casualties and fratricide. UK participation in CEC will also increase considerably the interoperability of UK and US Naval Forces. Royal Navy Type 23 Frigates are planned to be the first RN warships equipped with CEC. Other major surface warships will also be fitted with CEC in due course.
  The estimated total procurement cost of integrating CEC into Type 23 and Type 45 is £174M and the whole life costs are estimated at around £250M. Both these figures are at 1999 prices.
  The programme is still at an early stage; costs, performance and timing will be explored and refined before a Main Gate submission in 2004.

  Royal Navy Vessels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Royal Naval vessels under construction. [131471]

  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.
  543W
  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of Royal Navy vessels under construction. this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  There are currently ten major Royal Navy vessels under construction. Three ASTUTE class submarines and two Landing Platform Docking (Replacement) vessels are being assembled at BAE SYSTEMS Marine yard at Barrow. The last two vessels of the Type 23 Class of Frigates are being fitted out at BAE SYSTEMS Marine yard at Scotstoun on the Clyde. Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd (VT) is finishing construction of one and fitting out a further two Single Role Minehunters at its yard in Southampton.
  As well as these Royal Navy vessels BAE SYSTEMS Marine at Barrow are also constructing the first Auxiliary Oiler for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary whilst the second of class is being built at BAE SYSTEMS Marine leased yard at Govan. The Allsa Troon yard in Ayrshire is currently involved in the build of the second prototype Landing Craft Utility as part of an order for ten such vessels to be carried on the Landing Platform Docking Replacement.
  There is also a variety of small boats such as rigid inflatables being constructed/procured for the Royal Navy and the other services.
  As well as the above, the Government has been able to announce recently details of orders for several new Royal Navy vessels. Appledore Shipbuilders in North Devon will be constructing two new Survey Vessels under sub-contract from VT with fabrication starting later this year. On 11 July the Secretary of State for Defence announced that orders for three new Type 45 Destroyers would be placed later this year, the first and third being assembled by BAE SYSTEMS Marine and the second by VT. Further orders are expected later this year for two Alternative Landing Ship Logistics, to be manned by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

  Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many AIM-120 B/C AMRAAMS missiles his Department plans to procure from Raytheon; and if he will make a statement. [131490]

  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. Mike Hancock, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles (AMRAAM) 120B/C MoD intends to procure from Raytheon Systems Company (RSC) in the USA. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Disclosure of the information you request would harm UK defence and, accordingly, I am withholding it under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason his Department is reducing its order for AMS Brimstone missiles; and if he will make a statement. [131498]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence keeps the mix of weapons we require under review to ensure that our forward equipment programme reflects the circumstances of the world today and those we expect in the future. Brimstone will be one of a number of anti-armour weapon systems that we will be able to deploy. While there is still a firm requirement for the Brimstone missile, we have 544W
  concluded that we will require fewer missiles than envisaged when the Brimstone contract was placed in 1996.

  Frigates
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to his Department of replacing 20 Type 22/23 frigates in the Royal Navy after 2010; and if he will make a statement. [131494]

  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. Mike Hancock, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of replacing 20 Type 22123 frigates in the Royal Navy after 2010. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Current plans envisage a new class of surface combatant which will enter service from around 2013 when the later Type 22 and Type 23 frigates pay off.
  We expect a contract for the Future Surface Combatant to be placed with a prime contractor in 2007 following competition. The FSC should benefit from the innovative ideas arising from the Type 45 and CVF procurements and it will also exploit emergent technical innovations and concurrent engineering practice to achieve SMART procurement objectives.
  It would, however, be premature to release details of the budgetary costs of these ships as this could prejudice the negotiations which are expected to take place with industry post initial Gate in mid 2002.

  Defence Procurement Agency
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel by rank are currently working for the Defence Procurement Agency. [131632]

  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 Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many military personnel by rank are currently working for the Defence Procurement Agency. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  There are a total of 606 military personnel working for the Defence Procurement Agency. The breakdown by rank is shown in the table attached.

  Staff

  Navy rank:

  Rear Admiral

  1

  Commodore

  4

  Captain

  14

  Commander

  42

  Chief Officer (Royal Fleet Auxiliary)

  1

  Surgeon Commander

  1

  Lieutenant Commander

  72

  Lieutenant

  22

  Chief Petty Officer

  8

  Warrant Officer

  7

  Total

  172

  545W

  Staff

  Army rank:

  Major General

  2

  Brigadier

  2

  Colonel

  9

  Lieutenant Colonel

  31

  Major

  89

  Warrant Officer Class

  15

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  13

  Staff Sergeant

  5

  Sergeant

  2

  Lance Corporal

  1

  Total

  169

  RAF rank:

  Air Marshal

  1

  Air Commodore

  3

  Group Captain

  5

  Wing Commander

  24

  Squadron Leader

  77

  Flight Lieutenant

  29

  Flying Officer

  1

  Warrant Officer

  5

  Flight Sergeant

  19

  Chief Technician

  58

  Sergeant

  40

  Corporal

  2

  Aircrewman

  1

  Total

  285

  Nimrod
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to eliminate the slippage in defence contracts with particular reference to slippage in Nimrod; when it is estimated that all Nimrod 4 aircraft will be operational; and how many are currently available for operation. [131591]

  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. Alex Salmond, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about slippage in the Nimrod MRA4 programme. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  You asked what steps are being taken to eliminate the slippage in the Nimrod MRA4 programme. 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 Defence Procurement Agency (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 and with the MoD securing various benefits in compensation.
  The DPA are working very closely with BAE SYSTEMS to ensure that all possible measures are taken to support delivery of the full operational capability in the required timescales, consistent with a March 2005 ISD.
  You also asked how many Nimrod MRA4 aircraft are currently in service. Nimrod MRA4 is due to enter operational service in August 2004. The In Service Date (ISD) of March 2005 marks the delivery of the 7th aircraft, with the 21st and final aircraft due for delivery in December 2008.

  BOWMAN
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the procurement strategy is for BOWMAN. [132877]

  Mr. Hoon
  BOWMAN aims to provide a tactical combat radio communications system to replace Clansman, which as been in service since the mid-70s.

  To deliver this project, we have been working with Archer Communication Systems Ltd. (ACSL), as our preferred supplier. ACSL has improved in recent months, but we have concluded that their proposal (submitted to us on 23 June) would not represent best value for money. We have, therefore, decided to hold a competition to meet the BOWMAN requirement. Through competition, we shall seek to achieve the best combination of performance, cost and timely delivery into service. The competition will offer substantial opportunities for participation for UK industry.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the armed forces' equipment capability as a result of lessons learned from Kosovo. [132675]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement I made on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 777–89.

  DERA
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; and if he will make a statement. [132682]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement I made on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 777–89.

  Thomson CSF
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost was of work placed to Thomson CSF by his Department in each of the last three years; what the projected value is of the contracts to them for the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [130378]

  Dr. Moonie
  The value of contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence with Thomson CSF in each of the last three years was:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1997–98

  44.5

  1998–99

  32.2

  1999–2000

  30.6

  These figures are for prime contracts only, they do not include the value of any sub-contract received by Thomson CSF from MOD prime contractors.

  It would not be appropriate to prejudge the results of any future competition for MOD contracts. It is therefore not possible to speculate on the projected value of the contracts which may be awarded to Thomson CSF in the

  547W
  next five years. Thomson CSF are at liberty to tender for MOD contracts and such tenders will be considered on a competitive basis with tenders received from other companies.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the name, position, and time of placement of senior staff in his Department who have been seconded to the defence industry in the last five

  Company

  Position

  Time of placement

  April 1995-March 1996

  Raytheon

  Director International Requirements

  1 year 10 months (January 1995-October 1997)

  April 1996-March 1997

  Avery Berkel

  Business Development Director

  1 year (October 1996-September 1997)

  BAe

  Project Director, European Consolidation

  2 years 6 months (October 1996-March 1999)

  April 1997-March 1998

  GEC Marconi

  Commercial Director

  1 year (June 1997-June 1998)

  Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd

  In-Service Support Project

  10 months (November 1997-September 1998)

  April 1998-March 1999

  Marconi Electronic Systems

  Customer Service Project

  1 year 6 months (March 1999-September 2000)

  April 1999-March 2000

  Northrop Grumman (USA)

  UK Fellow for Defense Industry Strategy and Technology

  1 year 6 months (October 1999-April 2001)

  Raytheon (USA)

  Manager of International Business

  2 years (October 1999-October 2001)

  Thomson CSF

  Technical/Security Director

  2 years (April 1999-April 2001)

  April 2000

  Thomson CSF

  Director

  2 years (May 2000-May 2002)

  Plutonium
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to recycle plutonium from dismantled redundant nuclear warheads as civilian MOX fuel. [130678]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 14 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1040–5W and 17 July 2000, Official Report, columns 11–12W. The Ministry of Defence's remit is to examine all options for disposing of this material including its conversion into civilian MOX fuel. However, as the quantity of weapons grade plutonium which is surplus to Defence requirements is a very small percentage of the overall UK plutonium stocks, we shall be taking account of civil industry's plans for disposal of their much larger amounts. Disposal of such materials is, of course, a very complex matter and final decisions are unlikely for quite some time.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 434W, on Porton Down, if it is the assessment of the Chemical Defence Establishment that the nerve agent GF is more toxic to humans than sarin (GB). [130528]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  548W
  years; to which companies; how many of those employees are still employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [130380]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of Senior Civil Servants in my Department who have undertaken secondments to companies in the defence sector over the last five years are contained in the table. Of the ten individuals, three are no longer employed by the MOD and one is currently on loan to another Government Department. Encouraging interchange with the private sector has been the policy of successive governments.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about the relative toxicity of nerve agents since the laboratories at Porton Down are part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  The relative potency of the nerve agents GB and GF depends on the route of entry of nerve agent into the body, the conditions in which the exposure occurs and the toxicological end point chosen. It is not our policy, or that of the Ministry of Defence, to publish our assessment of the human toxicology of potential chemical warfare agents because to do so could aid proliferation. I am, therefore, withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 435W, on Porton Down, for what reasons the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has compiled since 1970 an alphabetical list of individuals who took part in the service volunteer programme; and when this list was compiled. [130529]

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

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about information relating to the service volunteer programme at Porton Down since the Porton Down laboratories are part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  549W
  Alphabetical lists of those attending DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector and its predecessor organisations at Porton Down as volunteers have been maintained since about 1940 in order to provide a record of participants in the service volunteer programme. The lists contain the name and service number of the volunteers and their dates of attendance at Porton Down.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 435W, on Porton Down, if he will list the dates on which the Health and Safety Executive visited the Porton Down site between 1996 and 2000 in order to discuss specific issues. [130530]

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

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about visits made by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to Porton Down since the laboratories at Porton Down are part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  As I explained previously, there have been two formal inspections since January 1996 during February 1996 and May 2000. HSE staff also visit the site either to seek our advice because of our expertise in specific areas or to discuss various aspects of our own operations at Porton Down. These visits occur relatively frequently and are arranged at all levels in the organisation. It is therefore not possible to provide dates as records of these visits are not kept centrally.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in the UK served at(a) Porton Down and (b) other chemical and biological warfare establishments; how many of these are suffering illnesses that they claim are attributable to exposure to chemical and biological warfare experiments; how many are in receipt of pensions for these illnesses; how many of these are in Scotland; and what the total expenditure is on these in Scotland. [131590]

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

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 25 July 2000:
  I am replying to your question about CBW experiments as the Chemical and Biological Defence sector at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Since 1916, establishments based at Porton Down have been involved in the research and development that has underpinned the UK's chemical and biological defence capability. Throughout Porton Down's history, volunteers from the services have been a vital part of the research programme. Over 20,000 individuals have participated in projects aimed at developing protection against and treatment for the effect of chemical and biological agents. The majority have had no complaint about their attendance at Porton Down. We are, however, aware that there are some former volunteers who believe that they have suffered ill-health as a result of the trials in which they took part. I am afraid we are unable to provide the exact number of complainants as they have made their representations through a number of different channels.
  Since 1 March 1998, we have responded to 42 enquiries from the War Pensions Agency concerning claims arising from taking part in the service volunteer programme at Porton Down. In each case, we have provided information about the particular trials in which an individual participated but we have not been informed whether these
  550W
  claims have been successful. We are, therefore, unable to answer your specific questions about the number of pensions and expenditure on them in Scotland.
  We are not aware of any other establishments in the UK that have carried out chemical and biological defence research involving service volunteers.
  I hope this explains the position.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the quantities of(a) precursors for chemical weapons and (b) chemical weapon agents held at Porton Down research establishment, used for prophylactic research; on what dates the United Kingdom disposed of its chemical weapons; and what amount was disposed of on each occasion, in the last 10 years. [130852]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) permits the retention of toxic chemicals and their precursors, where they are intended for purposes not prohibited under the Convention. Such permitted purposes include research, medical, pharmaceutical and protective purposes. Toxic chemicals and precursors are classified according to three Schedules, primarily on the basis of their usability as chemical weapons, the risk they pose to the Convention, and their commercial utility.

  The UK, as a State Party to the CWC, is permitted to hold up to an aggregate of 1 tonne of Schedule 1 chemicals. The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down is licensed by the CWC National Authority to hold Schedule 1 chemicals for permitted purposes and is required to make an annual declaration of holdings and usage.

  The declaration is not made public for reasons of national security and so I am withholding information about specific quantities under Exemption 1 of the Code Of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, total holdings are substantially less than the permitted maximum of 1 tonne.

  In addition to Schedule 1 chemicals, Porton Down holds smaller quantities of Schedule 2 and 3 chemicals.

  The UK abandoned its offensive chemical weapons capability in the 1950s. The bulk of residual stocks of munitions and agents were disposed of at that time. Approximately 4,500kg of bulk chemical agent dating from before 1946 was destroyed between 1993 and entry into force of the CWC in 1997. In addition, from time to time, munitions suspected of containing chemical agent dating from before 1946 are found in the UK, for example, during land remediation, and brought to Porton Down. Disposal takes place throughout the year as operational constraints permit. Over the last 10 years, 3,418 items of this type have been disposed of.

  Chinook
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew the extent of his Department's legal claim against the FADEC manufacturer, Textron Lycoming, at the time of their investigation into the fatal crash of RAF Chinook ZD576; [131259]
  551W
  (2) if the engineering member of the RAF board of inquiry into RAF Chinook ZD576 informed the other members of that board as to the precise nature of the Wilmington incident, in which an RAF Chinook was severely damaged in 1989 as a result of an FADEC fault. [131258]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: In the short time available it has not been possible to establish whether, at the time of their investigation into the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew the extent of the Department's claim against Textron Lycoming. This litigation sought redress for faulty test procedures that caused a Chinook helicopter undergoing tests on the ground at Wilmington, USA to be severely damaged. We know that in their report to the RAF Board of Inquiry, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) states:
  In view of reports of a number of ongoing service difficulties experienced with the operation of FADEC, the Engine Change Units and FADEC were examined in some detail.

  The report goes on to say that:
  Strip examination of the engines indicated that both were running at high speed with turbines hot at the time of impact, and revealed no signs of pre-impact failure or malfunction that could have affected the operation of either engine.

  Thus, as the evidence available indicated that the engines were working normally up to the point of impact, it was reasonable to conclude that FADEC could not have been a factor in the accident. The action taken by MOD arising out of faulty test procedures in the early days of the system's development programme had no relevance to the accident under investigation. It is therefore irrelevant whether Sir William and Sir John were aware of the litigation against Textron Lycoming. Similarly it is irrelevant whether the engineering member of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the Chinook ZD576 accident advised the other members of the Board about the test at Wilmington.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if Textron Lycoming was required to demonstrate it had validated the design of FADEC software for the Chinook Mk2 prior to its release into operational service; and if he will make a statement; [132454]

  (2) if Boscombe Down was satisfied that the FADEC software for the Chinook Mk2 (a) met aviation software standard RTCA Do. 178A or JSP 188 in June 1994 and (b) was verifiable and suitable for its intended purpose in June 1994. [132455]

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

  RAF Carlisle
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department received for the sale of the RAF Carlisle site; what the estimated value of the site was at the time the decision was taken to close the base; and what the cost to his Department was of the clean-up of the site. [131407]

  Dr. Moonie
  The core sites at RAF Carlisle were sold to Carlisle City Council and Cumbria County Council in March 1999. The outlying sites, with the exception of site 552W
  four which remains on the market, were sold to Alard Properties in March 2000. The prices paid by the purchasers remain commercially confidential and I am therefore withholding the information under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Archive research is needed to address the other points raised and I will write to my hon. Friend when this exercise has been completed. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Computer System
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure the security of information held on, or transmitted via, his Department's computer system. [132145]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The Defence Manual of Security mandates the baseline security requirements, which must be met before Communications and Information Systems are allowed to handle official information. Before any IT system is allowed to operate it must obtain a security approval known as accreditation from the security authorities. Electronic protective measures that are employed include the use of firewalls to protect systems, the identification and authentication of users and audit of user activities. All Ministry of Defence staff are required to read and agree to comply with the Security Operating System for the system that they will use.

  The Ministry of Defence is continuously reviewing and seeking ways to improve, both the procedural and electronic security of its systems.

  Service Personnel Children
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel by rank are currently working for the(a) British Army Education Service and (b) Army Training Service in the education of service personnel children. [131633]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no military personnel employed to educate children of Service personnel attending Service children's school overseas. There are, however, two Warrant Officers Class 1 employed in Headquarters Service Children's Education in support functions.

  Welbeck College, the Army's sixth form college, employs one Captain to teach core skills and one Warrant Officer Class 1 to teach physical education.

  Service Pensions
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total cost to public funds of service pensions(a) nationally and (b) by region for the most recent financial year, indicating the number of ex-service personnel to which these are paid. [131593]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total expenditure on Service pensions for financial year 1999–2000 was £2.205 billion and is paid to around 335,000 pensioners. Analysis of this expenditure by region is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown of the cost of potential claims
  553W
  resulting from Gulf War related illnesses for (a) the UK and (b) Scotland, indicating for each the estimated numbers of claimants. [131596]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 4 July 2000 the Ministry of Defence had received 1,841 notices of intention to claim from veterans and members of their families in respect of illness allegedly arising from the Gulf conflict, although no writs or properly formulated claims have so far been received. It will not be possible to estimate the overall cost of these claims until such time as specific allegations of negligence have been submitted together with an indication of an individual's symptoms, degree of disability and personal circumstances, which would determine the level of any award.

  The Ministry of Defence does not record the number of intentions to claim by region.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people claiming to be suffering from Gulf War related illnesses there are in Scotland; and how many of these are in receipt of(a) pensions and (b) benefits as a result of these illnesses. [131637]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information required is either not available at all or is not held in the required form. I will write to the hon. Member setting out such information as is available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Service Personnel
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out by service, rank, length of service and education and professional qualifications the total number of service personnel nationally and by region of the UK for the most recent year for which figures are available. [131636]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Land Decontamination
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all(a) current and (b) recently disposed of MoD lands that require environmental decontamination (i) nationally and (ii) by region of the UK. [131594]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has a policy of carrying out Land Quality Assessments in order to assess the Department's potential environmental liabilities. Individual budget holders within the Department are responsible for carrying out their own Land Quality Assessments, and such detailed information on contamination, is not held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Veterans
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Korean War veterans and (b) former Japanese prisoners of war there are in Scotland; how many are in receipt of forces pensions; and what the total expenditure is on these in Scotland. [131589]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Food Sourcing
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is on sourcing food supplies for the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [132878]

  Dr. Moonie
  The supply of food for our armed forces is contracted to "3663". A key requirement of the contract, as with other procurement programmes, is that it should deliver value for money. 3663 are required to seek the best prices in the open market for the products we need. I am as keen, however, on seeing our Servicemen and women eating British products as I am for our contractor to secure the best value for money, and 3663 are required specifically to give full consideration to British products which we look to them to buy wherever they are competitive. 3663 are currently supplying a range of over 1,300 different products for our armed forces, including fresh, chilled and frozen commodities, a number of which are not made or grown in this country. The company advise that almost 1,000 of these are presently British.

  We have given particular attention to meat procurement. We are currently sourcing 100 per cent. of our pork and 50 per cent. of our gammon and bacon from the UK, and I am pleased to announce that with effect from July our supplies of bacon and gammon have been 100 per cent. British sourced. Since the autumn of 1998 we have been supplying 100 per cent. British beef to our Service personnel based in the UK, following agreement by the EC to release British intervention beef, at competitive prices, for our use. Our supplies of British intervention beef will, however, start to run out progressively later this year and current market prices are likely to lead to a mix of British and imported beef for future supplies. We will, however, be working closely with farmers' representatives to ensure that we maximise the amount of British beef that can be supplied competitively. In the case of lamb, our efforts to source British products at competitive prices have so far been unsuccessful. The market has been unable to take up our offer of a substantial forward buy which we hoped might attract competitive prices. The main difficulties have included capacity issues (in particular butchery and blast freezing) and the narrow range of cuts we require, as well as price. Our efforts to source more British lamb are, however, continuing.

  Condoms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many condoms have been purchased, and at what cost, over the past two years for supply to UK Service personnel; and what is the average supply per individual(a) in the UK, and (b) for each operation abroad. [131686]

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

  Service Personnel Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much Service personnel housing is owned by his Department(a) in the UK and (b) overseas. [132072]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence owns 13,508 properties in the United Kingdom and 3,215 overseas.
  555W
  The majority of Service Families Accommodation in England and Wales were sold on a 999 year lease to Annington Homes Ltd. in November 1996. The Ministry of Defence leases back those properties it needs to house Service personnel and their families.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the(a) inflow and (b) outflow of fully-trained qualified medical personnel in the Defence Medical Services in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1996–97, (iv) 1998–99 and (v) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [131022]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The total number of personnel entering and leaving the Defence Medical Services between the years 1993–94 and 1999–2000 are listed in the table. It is not possible, without disproportionate effort, to identify separately those personnel who are professionally qualified on entering or leaving the Defence Medical Services.

  Inflow

  Outflow

  1993–94

  604

  986

  1994–95

  611

  1,056

  1995–96

  335

  1,283

  1996–97

  598

  1,359

  1997–98

  742

  730

  1998–99

  830

  773

  1999–2000

  941

  742

  Notes:

  1. Intake figures comprise medical and dental students entering as cadets, qualified doctors, dentist and nurses, nurse trainees, and other personnel who may or may not be professionally qualified on entering the Defence Medical Services.

  Number of pages

  Documents sent to all Primary schools from January 2000

  Consultation

  Teachers and staffing

  Professional Development Pack

  41

  Guidance—including information on statutory requirements

  Exclusions From School

  2

  Performance Management—Guidance for governors

  20

  Performance Management In Schools: includes Performance Management Framework Model Performance Management Policy

  46

  Pupil Records and Reports—guidance

  8

  School Teachers Pay and Conditions document 2000

  92

  School Teachers Pay and Conditions—guidance 2000

  59

  Capability Procedures for Teachers

  8

  Schools, "Parents" and "Parental Responsibility"

  6

  Summary Guidance on Disapplying the National Curriculum

  3

  Guidance—non statutory

  Curriculum guidance for the Foundation stage

  128

  Literacy and Numeracy

  Literacy and Numeracy Posters—Every Lesson Counts

  5

  National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies: Guidance on Teaching Able Children

  11

  The National Literacy Strategy, Phonics (with CD ROM)—Progression in phonics: materials for whole class teaching

  36

  The National Numeracy Strategy—Framework for teaching mathematics: Year 7

  91

  School Curriculum

  Art and Design. Schemes of Work for Key Stage 1 and 2

  108

  Guidance on Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship at Key Stage 1 and 2

  21

  Music. Schemes of Work for Key Stage 1 and 2

  107

  556W
  2. Outflow figures comprise all personnel leaving the Defence Medical Services, whether professionally qualified or not.

  3. The figures comprise mainly medical personnel, but include some medical administrative personnel.

  4. Outflow figures include personnel leaving on premature voluntary retirement, completion of engagement or commission, redundancy, medical discharge, death or dismissal.

  Lock Purchasing
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 23 May concerning lock purchasing. [132445]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence can find no trace of having received the letter in question. If my hon. Friend cares to forward a second copy, I will ensure that he receives a reply as quickly as possible.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Circulars
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the circular documents which have been sent by his Department to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools since (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) 1 January; and how many pages each document contained. [129784]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: The documents sent automatically by this Department to all primary schools and all secondary schools since 1 January 2000 are listed in the table. I will write to the hon. Member with the information from 1 May 1997, including page numbers, as soon as it can be compiled, and place copies in the Libraries.
  557W

  Number of pages

  Physical Education, Schemes of Work for Key Stage 1 and 2

  168

  Religious Education. Schemes of Work for Key Stage 1 and 2

  154

  School Management

  Index for Inclusion: Developing a Learning and Participation in schools

  109

  Managing staff sickness absence and checklist for managing sickness absence

  4

  Teaching Profession

  Employing Disabled Teachers—A good practice guide for schools

  40

  Information

  Literacy and Numeracy

  Numeracy Campaign Poster

  1

  National Numeracy Strategy (NNS) "BEAM" leaflets

  15

  School Management

  Data Collection Timetable: September 2000 to December 2001

  2

  Education Funding in England for 2000–01. A Guide for Heads and Governors

  2

  Extra Education Funding announced in the budget

  3

  Spectrum 28

  7

  Spectrum 29

  11

  Spectrum 30

  9

  Spectrum 31

  14

  Spectrum 32

  15

  Spectrum 33

  8

  Spectrum 34

  8

  Special Education

  SEN update 4

  6

  School Standards

  Beacon schools

  1

  Letter about school competitions—Write Here, Write Now

  4

  Removing the Barriers: Raising Achievement Levels for Minority Ethnic Pupils—Key Points for Schools

  1

  SEN update 4

  10

  The Queen's Commonwealth Day Message and Commonwealth Day Poster 2000—The Communications Challenge

  4

  Transforming Key Stage 3

  2

  We want to show the Educational benefits of the internet to all parents

  1

  Teaching Profession

  Are you aiming for headship—NPQH

  1

  Fast Track—Frequently Asked Questions

  4

  General Performance Management Arrangements—Video

  1

  General Teaching Council for England (poster)

  1

  GTC—Election Results—Staff Room Poster 5

  2

  GTC—listening to teachers

  1

  Induction Period for Newly Qualified Teachers

  1

  Leadership Programme for Serving Headteachers (LPSH)

  1

  Occupational Health Guidance: Summary

  3

  Pay and conditions for Teachers in England and Wales, 2000–01

  4

  Pay: The Future—New pay plans for teachers

  2

  Performance Threshold Standards Guidance on completing the application form

  9

  Performance management interviews—video

  1

  STRB—Teachers Pay 2000–2001

  14

  Teaching Reforms Brief No. 3

  2

  Teaching Reforms Brief No. 4—Teacher Reform Planner

  1

  Teaching Reforms Brief No. 5—Performance Threshold: How you can apply for the £2,000 pay rise

  2

  Teaching Reforms Brief No. 6—Career options for teachers

  4

  Teaching Reforms Brief No. 7—Standards Fund

  4

  Teaching Reforms Brief No. 8—Performance Management

  1

  Teaching Reforms Brief No. 9—The Leadership Group

  4

  Threshold Assessment Process—prompts for headteachers and cover note

  14

  Threshold Assessment Training

  1

  Your GTC, Your Vote

  1

  Documents sent to all Secondary schools from January 2000

  Consultation

  Teachers and Staffing

  Professional Development Pack

  41

  Guidance—including information on statutory requirements

  Exclusions From School

  2

  Performance Management—Guidance for governors

  20

  558W 559W

  Number of pages

  Performance Management in Schools: includes Performance Management Framework Model Performance Management Policy

  46

  Pupil Records and Reports—guidance

  8

  School Teachers Pay and Conditions document 2000

  92

  Schools Teachers Pay and Conditions—guidance 2000

  59

  Capability Procedures for Teachers

  8

  Schools, "Parents" and "Parental Responsibility"

  6

  Summary Guidance on Disapplying the National Curriculum

  3

  Guidance—non statutory

  Literacy and Numeracy

  The National Numeracy Strategy—Framework for teaching mathematics: Year 7

  91

  School Curriculum

  Guidance on citizenship at Key Stage 4

  36

  Guidance on Personal, Social and Health Education at Key Stage 3 and 4

  20

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—Physical Education

  32

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—Art and Design

  79

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—Geography

  164

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—Modern foreign languages

  108

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—Music

  95

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—Religious Education

  104

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—Science

  287

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—History

  167

  Key Stage 3 Schemes of Work—Information and Communications Technology

  79

  Special Education

  Index for Inclusion: Developing a Learning and Participation in schools

  109

  Teaching Profession

  Employing Disabled Teachers—A good practice guide for schools

  40

  Managing staff sickness absence and checklist for managing sickness absence

  4

  Information

  Literacy and Numeracy

  Count on Me Song competition

  9

  School Curriculum

  Careers Education in the New Curriculum: Its relationship to PSHE and citizenship at key stages 3 and 4

  19

  House of Lords reform

  14

  Letter about DfEE Careers Publications Which Way Now, Job File and It's Your Choice 2001

  2

  Your Creative Future—by Creative Industries Task Force

  25

  School Management

  Data Collection Timetable: September 2000 to December 2001

  2

  Extra Education Funding announced in the budget

  3

  Spectrum 28

  7

  Spectrum 29

  11

  Spectrum 30

  9

  Spectrum 31

  14

  Spectrum 33

  8

  Spectrum 34

  8

  School Standards

  Beacon schools

  1

  Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Award Nomination Pack: covering letter, newsletter, guidance notes and two posters

  12

  Letter about school competitions—Write Here, Write Now

  4

  Removing the Barriers:Raising Achievement Levels for Minority Ethnic Pupils—Key Points for Schools

  1

  The Connexions Service and Schools

  4

  The Queen's Commonwealth Day Message and Commonwealth Day Poster 2000—The Communications Challenge

  4

  Tomorrow's World Live 'How to claim over £1,250 worth of free tickets1

  4

  Transforming Key Stage 3

  2

  We want to show the Educational benefits of the internet to all parents

  1

  Special Education

  SEN update 4

  6

  Teaching Profession

  Are you aiming for headship—NPQH

  1

  Education Funding in England for 2000–01. A Guide for Heads and Governors

  2

  Fast Track—Frequently Asked Questions

  4

  General Performance Management Arrangements—Video

  1

  General Teaching Council for England (poster)

  1

  GTC—Election Results—Staff Room Poster 5

  1

  560W 561W

  Number of pages

  GTC—Listening to teachers

  1

  Induction Period for Newly Qualified Teachers

  1

  Leadership Programme for Serving Headteachers (LPSH)

  1

  Maths and Science Placement Scheme: Regional Listing of Trainees

  3

  National Numeracy Strategy (NNS) "BEAM" leaflets

  15

  Occupational Health Guidance: Summary

  3

  Pay and conditions for Teachers in England and Wales, 2000–01

  4

  Pay:The Future—New pay plans for teachers

  2

  Performance management interviews—video

  1

  Performance Threshold Standards Guidance on completing the application form

  9

  Professional Development Pack

  41

  STRB—Teachers Pay 2000–2001

  14

  Teaching Reforms Brief No 4—Teacher reform planner

  4

  Teaching Reforms Brief No 5—Performance Threshold: How you can apply for the £2000 pay rise

  2

  Teaching Reforms Brief No 6—Career options for teachers

  4

  Teaching Reforms Brief No 7—Standards Fund

  4

  Teaching Reforms Brief No 9—The Leadership Group

  4

  Teaching Reforms Brief No. 3

  2

  Threshold Assessment Process—prompts for headteachers and cover note

  14

  Threshold Assessment Training

  1

  Your GTC, Your Vote

  1

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of pupils at(a) Key Stage 1, (b) Key Stage 2, (c) Key Stage 3, (d) Key Stage 4 and (e) in school sixth forms were in classes of 31 or more in (i) January 1997 and (ii) January 2000; and what estimate he has made of the percentage in each case who will be in classes of 31 or more in September 2000. [131678]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is shown in the tables.

  Estimates of class sizes in September for older children are not available.

  Percentage of pupils in classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in England 1997 and 2000 (provisional)

  Position as at January

  Key stage

  Year

  1

  2

  3

  Mixed

  Total primary

  2000

  11.0

  38.2

  21.2

  26.0

  26.5

  1997

  29.0

  37.9

  27.4

  29.8

  33.4

  Percentage of pupils in classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools in England 1997 and 2000 (provisional)

  Position as at January

  Year

  Mainly under 14

  Mainly 14 and 15

  16 or older

  Overall

  2000

  14.9

  7.1

  0.9

  11.3

  1997

  11.2

  5.7

  1.0

  8.7

  Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level Qualifications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the finalised specifications for the new Advanced Subsidiary and 562W
  Advanced level qualifications to be introduced for teaching from September 2000 were made available to teachers. [131691]

  Mr. Wicks
  The finalised specifications for the new GCE Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced level qualifications to be introduced for teaching from September 2000 have been available to schools and colleges since January 2000. Copies of these documents have been placed on the awarding bodies' websites. In addition, the awarding bodies produced and issued hard copies of the specifications to all schools and colleges offering these qualifications.

  Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties in(a) special and (b) mainstream schools; and what guidance he is giving to teachers in mainstream schools regarding the handling of challenging behaviour by children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. [131717]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department does not collect statistics identifying children with special educational needs by specific categories. The total special needs population was shown as 1,700,000 on the last full return in 1999—just over 20 per cent. of the total school population.

  This Government have demonstrated their commitment to improving education for all children with special needs. Schools are educating children with a wide range of needs, and so need a range of programmes and advice. We are supporting schools with a broad package of measures, including the SEN Programme of Action, the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and our Excellence in Cities programme.
  563W
  To improve the education for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties in particular, this year we have:
  provided £140 million through the Social Inclusion Pupil Support programme—guidance to support this programme, on pupil attendance, behaviour, exclusion and re-integration, was issued in July 1999;
  developed On-Site Learning Support Units. We will increase the number of these units to over 1,000 in mainstream schools in England within two years. To help meet this target we announced earlier this year that £28 million is being provided to create a further 360 units in secondary schools and £8 million to pilot 60 units in primary schools. These units are school-based centres for pupils at risk of exclusion owing to behavioural problems; they provide tailored teaching and support programmes.
  produced a revised SEN Code of Practice and guidance on thresholds to simplify, and to support better, teachers' assessment of a child's needs and their planning of appropriate strategies to address these. Both documents are currently out for consultation;
  issued to all schools the Index for Inclusion produced by the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. This practical, self review tool will help all schools develop their policies for addressing barriers to participation pupils face, including those with emotional and behavioural difficulties;
  consulted on additional guidance on promoting positive handling strategies for pupils with severe behavioural difficulties. This guidance will be issued in the autumn, to supplement existing guidance on Section 550A of the Education Act 1996.

  In addition, we are planning further practical guidance on best practice in the education of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, and on effective teaching for children with mental health problems.

  We have also provided guidance on the wider issue of dealing with violent or very disruptive pupils. We do not expect teachers to keep troublemakers in the classroom at any cost, and have written to all headteachers so that they know they have our full support if they have to exclude such pupils permanently. The Secretary of State also announced at the National Association of Headteachers' conference on 1 June that he would be changing the guidance to exclusion appeal panels to indicate that where there has been violence or severe threat of violence it is inappropriate for a permanently excluded child to be re-instated to the same school.

  Criminal Offences (School Premises)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) pupils, (b) teachers and (c) members of non-teaching staff have been the victims of (i) assaults and (ii) other criminal offences on school premises in each of the last 10 years. [131718]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. We have taken a range of measures to create safe and secure environments for pupils and staff. Since 1997–98, we have made specific grants to local education authorities in England to support expenditure of £22 million annually on school security measures. We have also published guidance, such as "School Security: Dealing with Troublemakers", produced with the Home Office.

  Hawksworth Hall
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what investigations his 564W
  Department has conducted into allegations of child abuse at Hawksworth Hall; what the results of the investigations were; and what actions he proposes to take. [131968]

  Jacqui Smith
  The allegations of abuse at Hawksworth Hall were thoroughly investigated by the police and by child protection services in 1995. They concluded that there was not sufficient evidence for criminal prosecution. My Department subsequently considered the allegations, and as a result one former care worker was barred from working in relevant employment and placed on the Department's List 99.

  We feel there are no grounds for any further action in the case of Hawksworth Hall, which closed in 1998. We are however fully committed to measures to safeguard children's welfare and protect them from unsuitable people. The Government recently published "Learning the Lessons," its response to "Lost in Care:" the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974. This sets out many of the measures being taken to protect the welfare of children in residential schools, or in the care of local authorities.

  The Protection of Children Act 1999 makes provision for a new list of people who are unsuitable to work with children to be kept by the Secretary of State for Health, and further measures to protect children from unsuitable people are proposed in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much section 11 funding has been allocated to each of the London borough councils in the current financial year. [132074]

  Jacqui Smith
  The education element of the Home Office's Section 11 Grant scheme ceased on 31 March 1999. It was replaced by a new grant, the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant, administered by my Department. For 2000–01 £162.5 million will be available nationally to improve the attainment of ethnic minority, Traveller and refugee pupils. This represents an increase of 7 per cent. on the amount available for the same purposes in 1999–2000. The details requested are set out in the table. They include, separately, allocations under the Adult Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant which was also previously funded under Section 11.

  £

  LEA

  Ethnic minority and traveller achievement grant

  Adult ethnic minority achievement grant

  Total

  City of London

  107,415

  1,085

  108,500

  Camden

  3,102,868

  0

  3,102,868

  Greenwich

  1,866,510

  10,500

  1,877,010

  Hackney

  4,442,766

  0

  4,442,766

  Hammersmith

  1,189,642

  88,354

  1,277,996

  Islington

  2,529,175

  0

  2,529,175

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,219,975

  13,000

  1,232,975

  Lambeth

  3,603,405

  34,000

  3,637,405

  Lewisham

  2,543,947

  0

  2,543,947

  Southwark

  1,910,192

  0

  1,910,192

  Tower Hamlets

  8,095,454

  81,254

  8,176,708

  Wandsworth

  2,163,323

  0

  2,163,323

  Westminster

  2,136,538

  15,000

  2,151,538

  565W

  £

  LEA

  Ethnic minority and traveller achievement grant

  Adult ethnic minority achievement grant

  Total

  Barking

  672,625

  27,605

  700,230

  Barnet

  1,190,476

  0

  1,190,476

  Bexley

  313,705

  0

  313,705

  Brent

  2,804,240

  165,000

  2,969,240

  Bromley

  166,547

  25,822

  192,369

  Croydon

  2,163,023

  150,000

  2,313,023

  Ealing

  3,556,921

  0

  3,556,921

  Enfield

  2,357,497

  0

  2,357,497

  Haringey

  3,526,622

  0

  3,526,622

  Harrow

  1,214,881

  0

  1,214,881

  Havering

  131,090

  0

  131,090

  Hillingdon

  872,091

  80,624

  952,715

  Hounslow

  2,279,528

  0

  2,279,528

  Kingston upon Thames

  309,329

  0

  309,329

  Merton

  913,930

  0

  913,930

  Newham

  1,038,976

  0

  1,038,976

  Redbridge

  2,228,929

  106,900

  2,335,829

  Richmond upon Thames

  164,041

  0

  164,041

  Sutton

  301,005

  0

  301,005

  Waltham Forest

  2,426,419

  0

  2,426,419

  Total

  63,543,085

  799,144

  64,342,229

  Children with Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what standard assessments are used in schools to assist children with learning disabilities to progress with their education. [132091]

  Jacqui Smith
  The introduction of Baseline Assessment from 1998 in all primary schools helps teachers plan to meet the learning needs of all pupils, including those with learning difficulties. The National Curriculum also provides a framework within which teachers have the flexibility to deliver programmes of study appropriate to the needs and abilities of the children they are teaching, and the assessment arrangements associated with it provide schools with a reliable and consistent analysis of pupil performance, enabling teachers to assess pupils' progress and develop their teaching strategies accordingly. More generally, the "Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Education Needs" contains practical guidance for schools, local education authorities and others on how to identify, make provision for, and to monitor the progress of children with special educational needs, including those with learning disabilities. A variety of assessment procedures and ways of tracking pupils' progress are used, depending on the type and extent of a child's special educational needs.

  Mersey Partnership
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the contribution made by Merseyside Training and Enterprise Council to the Mersey Partnership in each of the last five years. [132093]

  Mr. Wicks
  Merseyside TEC has been an active supporter of the Mersey Partnership since its inception both in cash terms and in Board representation. The TEC has made a financial contribution of £176,000 in each of the last five years.
  566W
  The TEC Chief Executive has been a Board Member since the Mersey Partnership was established in 1993 and the TEC is also represented at senior manager level on the Mersey Partnership steering group, a membership forum that meets regularly to review progress.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the likely contribution of the Merseyside Learning and Skills Council to the Mersey Partnership. [132094]

  Mr. Wicks
  Learning and skills are an integral part of wider economic development and regeneration activities. We will therefore expect the Merseyside Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to work closely with the Mersey Partnership. It will be for the LSC to decide how its resources might support the work of the Partnership.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employees in his Department are able to communicate in British Sign Language. [132103]

  Mr. Wills
  At the current time, the Department does not keep centralised records of those employees that are able to communicate in British Sign Language.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines are provided to educational institutions by his Department in relation to British Sign Language; and if he will make a statement. [132438]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is for Local Education Authorities and schools to determine how to provide best for deaf children in the light of local circumstances. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs includes guidance on the steps to be taken to identify and meet the needs of children with sensory impairments, including hearing difficulties.

  The Department does not provide guidelines specifically on the use of British Sign Language. The Teacher Training Agency has set standards towards which teachers involved in the teaching of deaf children are encouraged to aim. These include standards on the use of British Sign Language as a means of teaching deaf children. In addition, teachers of whole classes of deaf children are required to gain a mandatory qualification, approved by the Secretary of State. Providers of courses leading to such a mandatory qualification are now required to bid against a national specification in order to run courses beginning in September 2001. The national specification requires that all participants completing the mandatory qualification for teaching deaf children should have a minimum competence in signing, equivalent to the Stage 1 qualification from the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People.

  We have also supported the National Deaf Children's Society's quality standards in the education of deaf children, which do not favour any single approach to deaf education, but which do provide practical guidance to LEAs and schools on ways of educating deaf children, including the use of British Sign Language.

  Deaf People
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many deaf people he has appointed to educational bodies in the last three years. [132104]

  Mr. Wills
  As part of our commitment to the achievement of equal opportunity targets, and for monitoring purposes only, appointees to DfEE Non-Departmental Public Bodies voluntarily disclose whether they have a disability. However, information as to the nature of the disability is not requested so data on deaf appointees are unavailable. Of the 410 DfEE NDPB appointments and re-appointments since 1 May 1997, 30 applicants indicated they have a disability.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason that the information is(a) not held centrally, (b) not held in the form requested or (c) not available. [132136]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 21 July 2000, Official Report, column 331W.

  Further Education
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the allocation process of funding by the Further Education Funding Council to the further education colleges in Southport, as part of the national settlement. [132492]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about the allocation of funds by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) to further education colleges in Southport.

  Higher Education (Access)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to amend Section 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in order for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to provide financial help for universities submitting plans for year-on-year improvements in the widening of access. [132529]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government have no plans to amend Section 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much additional funding will be made available to higher education institutes through HEFCE to facilitate access between 2000–01 and 2003–04. [132532]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced, on July 18, £20 million of additional funding to widen access to higher education in 2001–02. Further announcements will be made in due course.
  568W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to consult representatives of higher education institutions on the criteria for access plans to be acceptable for additional funding. [132533]

  Mr. Wicks
  This is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England which already negotiates annual operating statements that include a statement about widening access with all HE institutions. Further details will be available in due course.

  Further Education Lecturers (PRP)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how he proposes to consult the further education sector on matters connected with performance-related pay; [132534]

  (2) if the criteria for performance-related pay for further education lecturers are intended to be identical for those teaching in state schools; and what steps he will take to secure this alignment or broad equivalence; [132535]

  (3) how, in the absence of a statutory payment framework, he will secure performance-related payment to further education lecturers; [132536]

  (4) which organisation will consider the pay and remuneration of further education lecturers including any matters related to their performance. [132537]

  Mr. Wicks
  A first meeting of representative bodies of employers, unions and officials in this Department has been arranged for Friday 28 July to discuss and take forward this initiative. The Government do not have a fixed model that it is intending to impose: we are intent on building on, and working within, existing national arrangements.

  School Buildings and Facilities
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions there are in PFI contracts for schools and LEAs on the control of and charging for out of school hours use of school buildings and facilities by the contractors in relation to(a) IT facilities, (b) sports facilities, (c) music facilities and (d) use of meeting rooms. [132742]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is not directly responsible for the procurement of schools PFI contracts, and therefore does not hold comprehensive information about the use of school facilities out of school hours. Provisions for any third party use are a matter for negotiation between the school, local education authority and the contractor and, as such, vary from contract to contract. Within schools PFI contracts, however, it is open to the local education authority and the schools concerned to permit their private sector partner to charge for the use of the facilities by others when they are not being used by the schools. There is no requirement, or expectation, that a school must make its facilities available to the wider community on a commercial basis, but allowing such use may encourage lifelong learning, help to reduce vandalism, and have the added benefit of reducing the cost of the scheme overall.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sentences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received in respect of the sentences imposed on Darren James Neil, Michael Magowan, Andrew Timothy Lea and Matthew Shane Butcher. [124459]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason that the information is(a) not held centrally, (b) not held in the form requested and (c) not available. [127435]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information for the period requested is as follows:

  (a) 0; one partial answer

  (b) 0; 13 partial answers

  (c) 2; 11 partial answers.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many written parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April; and how many have not received substantive answers, with disproportionate cost cited as the reason. [131222]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Of the 564 written parliamentary questions tabled between this period, 10 did not receive a substantive answer with disproportionate costs cited as the reason, and a further 12 received only a partial reply.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have been made to guidance concerning the deployment and use of plastic baton rounds since publication of the Patten report. [130995]

  Mr. Ingram
  No changes have been made since the publication of the Patten Report. New guidelines were produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and were announced by the Home Secretary in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 246–47W.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic baton rounds have been fired since publication of the Patten report; what the circumstances were of each use; and what reports by the Chief Constable were sent to(a) the Police Ombudsman and (b) the Police Authority. [130993]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period 9 September 1999 to 17 July 2000, 33 plastic baton rounds were fired by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and one by the army. In each instance the Royal Ulster Constabulary came under attack by crowds throwing petrol bombs and other missiles including blast bombs. One complaint was received from a member of the public and this has been forwarded to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. No 570W
  reports have been sent to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. On each occasion ACPO guidelines were followed.

  Water Cannon (Portadown)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evaluation the Chief Constable has made of the use of water cannon in Portadown. [130994]

  Mr. Ingram
  Water cannon were used on three occasions in Portadown and provided an effective resource in creating distance between police and military lines and those threatening and using violence. The ability to deliver water in differing modes and at a varying pressure enabled a flexible and graduated response to the violence. While it was considered to be effective, it was one of a range of tactics and equipment used to counter serious violence.

  Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's Annual report will be published. [133031]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I am pleased to announce that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's First Annual Report, covering the period up to the end of March 2000, has been laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131429]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The NIO currently has:

  (a) 34 unfilled vacancies for permanent staff;

  (b) 2 per cent. of staff positions are vacant;

  (c) the monthly cost of employing civil servants in these positions would be £59,000;

  (d) five staff are employed on a temporary basis through employment agencies;

  (e) 0.3 per cent. of staff are employed on a temporary basis through employment agencies;

  (f) the amount paid to employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months was:

  £000

  July 1999

  6.3

  August 1999

  7.1

  September 1999

  2.4

  October 1999

  5.0

  November 1999

  6.9

  December 1999

  4.9

  January 2000

  5.5

  February 2000

  8.5

  March 2000

  8.1

  571W

  £000

  April 2000

  2.6

  May 2000

  8.6

  June 2000

  5.7

  (g) it is impossible to anticipate future months spend due to fluctuating requirements but is unlikely to be in excess of last year's figure.

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to decide on holding a public inquiry under section 44 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 into the circumstances surrounding the death of Robert Hamill. [132538]

  Mr. Ingram
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave him on 19 July 2000,Official Report, column 358.

  Public Processions
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what consultations he has had with the Parades Commission about bringing into force parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 before 2 October for the purposes of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998; and what advice he received; [132579]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the Human Rights Commission about bringing into force parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 before 2 October for the purposes of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998; and what advice he has received on this matter. [132432]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government consulted widely with a number of individuals and organisations, including the Parades Commission and the Human Rights Commission, on this issue. It is not our practice to publish individual views unless the organisation concerned does so. In the consultation process, there was a wide range of views on the early incorporation, but a unanimous view that incorporation in October would have a positive effect.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had with the Royal Ulster Constabulary about bringing into force parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 before 2 October for the purposes of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998; and what advice he received. [132580]

  Mr. Ingram
  Although this issue was discussed with the police, it was determined that whatever decision was made, it would not have any implications on their current position on the policing of parades.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to bring parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 into force before 2 October for the purposes of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. [132433]

  Mr. Ingram
  During consultation, the Government received mixed views on the issue of early incorporation of the Human Rights Act. The Act will, however, come into force in October as planned.

WALES

  Advisory Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the(a) task forces, (b) action teams, (c) policy reviews and (d) other temporary advisory bodies with external members currently in existence within his Department; and on what date each body (i) was set up and (ii) is expected to terminate. [131444]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the extra cash totals under the Comprehensive Spending Review for the(a) NHS, (b) education and (c) transport; and if he will make a statement. [132382]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have discussed the spending review with the First Secretary on a number of occasions, and he welcomes the outcome as much as I do.

  The increase for Wales resulting from extra spending in England announced in the spending review is:

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Health

  163

  458

  728

  Education1

  78

  183

  290

  Transport

  40

  94

  163

  1 Excluding Welsh increases as a result of increases in education funding for local government in England

  The Assembly has the freedom to make its own spending decisions about the use of these extra resources in response to Welsh priorities, and this settlement will make a huge difference to the services it provides.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of Wales's Lords Lieutenant are(a) women and (b) members of an ethnic minority. [132142]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: There is one female Lord Lieutenant in Wales, the Lord Lieutenant of Powys, the hon. Mrs. Elizabeth Shan Legge-Bourke. There are not currently any Welsh Lord Lieutenants who are members of an ethnic minority.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131425]
  573W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has seven unfilled vacancies for permanent staff, which represents 15 per cent. of staff positions. Costs for employing civil servants into these positions can only be provided yearly, the salary scales for these positions are:

  Band A—Minimum £11,096, Maximum £14,850—1 vacancy

  Band B—Minimum £12,272, Maximum £17,609—2 vacancies

  Band C—Minimum £15,237, Maximum £22,736—2 vacancies

  Band D—Minimum £19,297, Maximum £28,942—2 vacancies.

  Four staff are employed on a temporary basis through employment agencies, which is 9.4 per cent. of the current staff complement.

  The table shows the amount the Wales Office has paid to employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months.

  The Wales Office budget for 2000–01 for casual staff is £70,000. It is not possible to predict how much expenditure will be incurred to employ temporary staff in each of the next 12 months, because this will depend on whether vacancies can be filled with permanent staff, but expenditure will be within budget.

  Payments made by the Wales Office in each of the last 12 months to employment agencies

  Month

  £

  1999

  July

  2,964.09

  August

  4,666.96

  September

  2,668.43

  October

  8,031.35

  November

  7,426.53

  December

  7,850.53

  2000

  January

  9,692.70

  February

  9,640.07

  March

  12,121.65

  April

  8,494.44

  May

  9,016.50

  June

  10,062.04

  Total

  92,635.29

  New Deal
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people who have participated in the New Deal in Wales had previously been unemployed for six months or more in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [130986]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ombudsmen
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the First Secretary in the National Assembly for Wales about the implications for Wales of the implementation of recommendations in the Cabinet Office report on the Review of the Organisation of Public Sector Ombudsmen in England. [123522]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Although I meet regularly with the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales, we have not had discussions specifically about the 574W
  implications for Wales of the Cabinet Office's report. The report proposes the creation of a single Ombudsman service for England by amalgamating the Parliamentary, Local Government and Health Service Ombudsmen. It will be for the National Assembly for Wales to consider the report's recommendations and to determine whether it would wish to follow the report's recommendations in relation to the Ombudsman service in Wales.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications for Wales of the implementation of the recommendations in the Cabinet Office report on the Review of the Organisation of Public Sector Ombudsmen in England. [123521]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This report proposes the creation of a single Ombudsman service for England by amalgamating the Parliamentary, Local Government and Health Service Ombudsmen, and does not affect Wales directly. It is for the National Assembly for Wales to consider the report's recommendations and to determine whether it would wish to follow the report's recommendations in relation to the Ombudsman service in Wales.

TREASURY

  Non-Aggregate Minerals
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason he is not proposing to introduce a tax on the extraction of non-aggregate minerals. [131917]

  Mr. Timms
  As aggregates are the largest tonnage of onshore minerals extracted, they generate the largest environmental impact, costed at around £380 million per annum in research conducted for DETR in 1997–99. The aggregates levy will send a permanent price signal about this damage, and provide an incentive for the construction industry to reduce waste and make more use of recycled material as substitutes. The scope of the levy was determined following extensive consultation with interested paries, which suggested that certain non-aggregate minerals should not be taxed. These minerals are not open to the same degree of substitution as aggregates. In some cases they are constituents of products subject to significant international competition, so the application of the levy to these materials would raise difficulties over the international competiveness of UK producers.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 23 May concerning lock purchasing. [132448]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no record of the correspondence being received. My hon. Friend would like to forward a copy, it will be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

  Tax Law Rewrite
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there have been further developments on the Tax Law Rewrite project. [133029]
  575W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to tell the House that the Tax Law Rewrite project will soon reach a major milestone. Next week, the Inland Revenue will publish the project's first draft Bill, on capital allowances, for a final round of consultation. The Bill will be ready for introduction in Parliament by the end of the year. Earlier versions of this rewritten legislation have been extensively revised in the light of comments and suggestions from tax professionals and other interested parties. This continuous dialogue between the project team and business interests, tax practitioners, the legal profession and Inland Revenue specialist is a key feature contributing to the success of the project.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors were taken into account in considering the relative value to the environment of the introduction of the proposed aggregates tax and the rejection of the Quarry Products Association's New Deal package of voluntary measures. [132264]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government held discussions with the Quarry Products Association regarding its proposed package of voluntary measures for a number of months, but at the time of the Budget, no viable package was on offer. In particular, the QPA attached conditions relating to Government procurement which were considered to be inconsistent with EU procurement law and would have had potential negative implications for competition within the industry.

  The levy will achieve environmental benefits by making the price of aggregates reflect the environmental costs of quarrying and by encouraging the use of recycled aggregates.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his statement of 18 July 2000,Official Report, columns 219–44, on the Spending Review, and the document entitled "Prudent for a Purpose", Cm 4807, page 32, how he defines productivity for the purpose of his target of raising productivity; if his measure of gross domestic product per capita will incorporate regional price information; and if he will make a statement. [132248]

  Mr. Timms
  There are two measures of productivity for the purposes of the target concerned. One is output per worker, the other is output per hours worked. The source for both of these is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

  Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita for the UK expressed in real terms is estimated using price information which is collected from a wide range of consumer outlets and businesses, chosen to ensure that prices from all parts of the UK are represented.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2000,Official Report, columns 98–99W, what representations he has received this year concerning new appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee; if he will publish the
  576W
  terms of reference that are used to draw up shortlists for appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee; and if he will make a statement. [131951]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The criteria for the appointment of external members of the MPC are set out in section 13(4) of the Bank of England Act 1998.

  Stock Exchanges (Stamp Duty)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the level of stamp duty payable on transactions at the stock exchanges in(a) London, (b) New York, (c) Frankfurt, (d) Amsterdam, (e) Zurich, (f) Milan, (g) Madrid and (h) Paris. [131918]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Transfers of shares in UK-registered companies are subject to UK stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax (SDRT) wherever they are traded. Shares in non-UK companies may be traded in the UK without incurring UK stamp duties. The rate of stamp duty/SDRT on transfers of UK shares is 0.5 per cent.

  The information on the taxes imposed by other jurisdictions is available from:

  The Inventory of EU Taxes (16th Edition)

  Taxation of Individuals in Europe (International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation)

  The United States State Tax Handbook.

  HIPC
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the UK's unilateral debt cancellation initiative has been paid by(a) the Treasury and (b) Department for International Development. [132289]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As the Department responsible for public spending in support of development, of which HIPC debt relief is a major element, the funding for debt relief is provided by the Department for International Development. Additional resources have been included in the Department for International Development's budget for the costs of debt relief.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the UK's contribution to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Trust Fund is(a) from the Treasury budget and (b) from the Department for International Development budget. [132290]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK has pledged over $350 million to the HIPC Trust Fund. As the Department responsible for public spending in support of development, of which HIPC debt relief is a major element, the funding for debt relief is provided by the Department for International Development.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Roads
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was allocated for road infrastructure in England and Wales in
  577W
  (a) each year from 1993–94 to 2000–01 and (b) such future years for which information is available; and what proportion of that spending will be for funding PFI in each year. [130980]

  Spending on road infrastructure in England from 1993–94 to 2003–0

  £ million

  National roads

  PFI content

  Local roads

  PFI content

  London roads

  Total

  PFI content

  Percentage PFI

  1993–94

  2,062

  —

  2,139

  —

  1—

  4,201

  —

  —

  1994–95

  2,038

  —

  2,485

  —

  1—

  4,523

  —

  —

  1995–96

  1,760

  —

  2,468

  —

  1—

  4,228

  —

  —

  1996–97

  1,573

  —

  2,372

  —

  1—

  3,945

  —

  —

  1997–98

  1,483

  —

  2,342

  —

  1—

  3,825

  —

  —

  1998–99

  1,355

  2,313

  1—

  3,668

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  1,396

  —

  2,206

  —

  1—

  3,602

  —

  —

  2000–01

  1,396

  —

  2,420

  —

  1—

  3,816

  —

  —

  2001–02

  1,632

  206

  2,386

  59

  495

  4,512

  265

  6

  2002–03

  1,803

  220

  2,504

  103

  633

  4,940

  323

  7

  2003–04

  1,925

  239

  2,672

  153

  707

  5,304

  392

  7

  1 n/a

  Notes:

  1. Figures include new construction, improvements and maintenance.

  2. Before 2001–02, London figures are included in national or local roads as appropriate.

  3. The London provision is notional. Actual expenditure is at the discretion of the Mayor.

  Mersey Partnership
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what studies he has(a) undertaken and (b) evaluated on the sustainability of funding to the Mersey Partnership from the public sector; [131727]

  (2) what value for money assessment he has made of the public sector contributions to the Mersey Partnership. [131729]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There have been no individual studies undertaken to look at the value for money and sustainability of funding to the Mersey Partnership from the public sector. For each Objective 1 bid a full appraisal has been undertaken which include assessments of value for money and the level of public sector contributions. Also, the Mersey Partnership's performance has been monitored primarily on a quarterly basis as Objective 1 claims are submitted; and a separate but connected process has been established for monitoring the use of the Merseyside Development Corporation's residual funding. In addition, the Regional Director of Government Office for the North West has been a member of the Mersey Partnership Board which is provided with quarterly progress reports.

  Year

  Objective 1

  Merseyside development corporation contribution fund

  Membership contributions

  Private sector contributions

  Totals

  1995–96

  609

  —

  415

  359

  1,383

  1996–97

  543

  —

  415

  388

  1,346

  1997–98

  605

  —

  412

  472

  1,489

  1998–99

  869

  689

  406

  924

  2,888

  1999–2000

  783

  1781

  382

  778

  2,724

  Total

  3,409

  1,470

  2,030

  2,921

  9,830

  1 Residual value of fund £155,000

  Notes:

  1. Includes all private sector income.

  2. Includes other private sector income e.g. sponsorship.

  3. From 1998–99 includes all private sector income from Tourism company (including "commercial" revenues generated).

  4. 1998–2000 is 15 month year for TMP and 12 month year for Tourism.

  5. Membership contributions included local authorities, Merseyside TEC, English Partnership and represent voluntary contributions as part of the partnership agreement.
  578W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The table shows the figures for England between 1993–94 and 2003–04. Funding for road infrastructure in Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the expenditure of public funds by the Mersey Partnership in each of the last five years. [131726]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Government Office for the north west undertakes an assessment of progress against agreed outputs for the Mersey Partnership's Objective 1 funded activities each quarter. The latest claim was received at the beginning of June and the Mersey Partnership appear to be on course to meet all the outputs by 31 December 2000, and indeed have already surpassed some of the outputs signed up-to.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the sources were of public sector contributions to the Mersey Partnership in each of the last five years; [131724]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the division between public and private sector in membership contributions to the Mersey Partnership in each of the last five years. [131728]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Funding for the Mersey Partnership over the past five years has been as follows:
  579W
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for future public sector funding for the Mersey Partnership. [131725]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no specific plans as yet, but it is anticipated that the Mersey Partnership will be making an application to the new Objective 1 programme. However, any bid will be subject to the usual rigorous appraisal that takes account of value for money and the level of public sector support. Membership subscriptions received from public sector agencies are a

  £000

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997

  1996

  1995

  Administration

  377

  302

  236

  284

  208

  Corporate Communications

  613

  589

  —

  49

  367

  Investor Services

  342

  319

  495

  329

  —

  Partnership Development

  162

  25

  126

  78

  76

  Research and Intelligence

  105

  144

  —

  —

  —

  Image Promotion/Public

  —

  132

  657

  559

  948

  Added Value Programmes

  369

  129

  —

  —

  —

  Tourism

  681

  538

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2,649

  2,178

  1,514

  1,299

  1,599

  Operational ratios (Expressed as a percentage of total expenditure)

  Administrative overhead

  15.2%

  Full unallocated establishment cost

  34.6%

  Cost per job created (excluding tourism expenditure)

  £1,172

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the resignation of the Chief Executive of the Mersey Partnership. [132088]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The resignation of the Chief Executive is a matter for him and the board of the Mersey Partnership. I understand the Chief Executive announced his intention to step down from the post at the end of July, and the board will appoint an interim manager until a new Chief Executive has been appointed.

  Aviation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the remit and role are of the sectoral teams in the new Joint Aviation Requirement-Flight Crew Licensing Committee procedures proposed at the JAR-FCL Committee meeting of 8 to 11 May; and how the new procedures will improve the accountability of the JAR-FCL Committee and its Examination Sub-Committee to the Governments of the member states of the Joint Aviation Authorities. [132003]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under a reorganisation at the Joint Aviation Authorities its specialist committees will be replaced by sectorial teams. The exact remit and role of these teams are still being developed within the JAA. The actions of the JAA are generally accountable to the Governments of the JAA member states through the JAA board.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the provisions of Paragraph 10.2.1.1. of Section 5,
  580W
  matter for those organisations and they have to decide whether they are receiving value for money, although I understand most subscriptions are now underpinned by service level agreements.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on spending under the principal expenditure headings using public funds by the Mersey Partnership in each of the last five years. [131730]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Expenditure by the Mersey Partnership over the past five years has been as follows:

  Chapter 10 of the document, JAA administrative and guidance material, referring to harmonised conduct of the JAA ATPL theoretical knowledge examinations throughout Joint Aviation Authorities member states, have not been enforced. [132002]

  Mr. Mullin
  Paragraph 10.2.1.1 of Section 5, Chapter 10 of the JAA administrative and guidance material states an intention to harmonise the procedures for the conduct of JAA theoretical knowledge examinations. I can assure you that the UK applies the harmonised procedures.

  The national aviation authorities in all JAA member states will be subject to a standardisation visit to ensure that the state complies with the agreed procedures. If these visits reveal that the state does not comply with the harmonised procedures, its licence holders will not benefit from the mutual recognition provisions of JAR-FCL.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is the Government's policy to ensure, through the Civil Aviation Authority, that the Joint Aviation Authorities introduce regulations that permit the harmonisation of JAA ATPL theoretical knowledge examination procedures in all member states of the JAA. [132000]

  Mr. Mullin
  Requirements for the harmonisation of theoretical knowledge examination procedures are already contained in the Joint Aviation Requirements—Flight Crew Licensing. The national aviation authorities in all JAA member states will be subject to a standardisation visit to ensure that the state complies with the agreed procedures. If these visits reveal that the state does not comply with the harmonised procedures, its licence holders will not benefit from the mutual recognition provisions of JAR-FCL.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions where responsibility lies in the Joint Aviation Authorities or Civil Aviation Authority for ensuring that the JAA ATPL
  581W
  examination guidelines published at Attachment 2 to Paragraph 10 of Chapter 10, Section 5 of JAA Administrative and Guidance Material are followed. [132001]

  Mr. Mullin
  Attachment 2 to Paragraph 10 of Chapter 10, Section 5 of JAA Administrative and Guidance Material refers to the construction of individual theoretical knowledge examination questions. The responsibility for ensuring that these questions comply with the guidelines rests with the Joint Aviation Authorities' Flight Crew Licensing Committee through its Sub-Committee for Examinations and with the individual member states' subject expert teams.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Joint Aviation Requirement-Flight Crew Licensing Committee is not minded to accept the proposals of the European Association of Airline Pilot Schools to review the central question bank and the learning objectives of the JAA ATPL theoretical knowledge examinations. [132004]

  Mr. Mullin
  I understand that this proposal was rejected because review by the European Association of Airline Pilot Schools would infringe the confidentiality of the central question bank. The Association has two representatives on the committee and should be fully aware of the reasons for the rejection of these proposals.

  Child Safety
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funds have been allocated to Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council for(a) child safety and (b) safe routes to school, for each year since 1997. [131708]

  Mr. Hill
  Between 1996–97 and 1999–2000, Shropshire county council was allocated funding through the Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) system towards local safety schemes, integrated transport packages and minor works. Any funding for child safety schemes and safe routes to school would have been made from the local safety scheme element of these allocations. The table gives details of the total TPP allocations to Shropshire from 1996–97 to 1999–2000.

  £ million

  Year

  Total TPP allocation

  1996–97

  4.328

  1997–98

  4.207

  1998–99

  3.364

  1999–2000

  4.348

  From 2000–01 onwards, under the new Local Transport Plan system, authorities receive an integrated capital block allocation for all local transport and maintenance purposes—except schemes costing more than £5 million, which are funded separately. For 2000–01, Shropshire has been allocated £6.093 million for these purposes.

  Housing Renovation
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funds have been allocated to Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council to reduce the backlog of housing renovation work for each year since 1997. [131707]
  582W
  Mr. Mullin
  The table shows the resources allocated to Shrewsbury and Atcham by central government to help finance their overall programme for housing investment. The decision about the share of this programme to be devoted to tackling backlog repairs in the council housing stock is a matter for the local authority.

  £000

  1997–98

  1,429

  1998–99

  1,699

  1999–2000

  1,664

  2000–01

  2,581

  The figures cover the main Housing Investment Programme (HIP) allocations and the resources allocated through the Capital Receipts Initiative (1997–98 to 1999–2000 only). The 2000–01 allocation includes resources for support for private sector renewal grants which was previously provided in a separate ring-fenced allocation.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the damage to the environment caused by cyclists in(a) rural areas and (b) areas of outstanding natural beauty. [132065]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has made no such estimate. Together with Government agencies and nongovernmental organisations, we seek to encourage responsible behaviour in the countryside by all users to ensure that damage is kept to a minimum.

  Partnership Investment Programme
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the abolition of the Partnership Investment Programme on the Government's 60 per cent. target for development on brownfield sites. [132571]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The necessary closure of the PIP scheme, following a European Commission decision, is not helpful to us in achieving the 60 per cent. target. However, this funding mechanism was only one method of achieving a target to which a number of programmes and policies contribute. We are determined to achieve that target. As announced in the Spending Review last week, we are making additional substantial resources available to the RDA's programmes, including £60 million this year and £150 million next year for physical regeneration.

  Recycling and Composting
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Government's recycling and composting targets for each of the next five years. [132569]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have set the following targets for recycling and composting of household waste:to recycle or compost 17 per cent. of household waste in the financial year 2003–04
  to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste in the financial year 2005–06.
  583W
  There are no specific targets for the recycling and composting of industrial and commercial waste. However the Government have set a target of, by 2005, reducing the amount of commercial and industrial waste landfilled to 85 per cent. of that landfilled in 1998.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations his Department has received about early morning air flights over the London Borough of Wandsworth. [132630]

  Mr. Mullin
  Over past three months one letter has been received from a resident of SW11(Battersea).

  Beach Pollution (Southport)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) levels and (b) types of beach pollution were measured in Southport in each year since 1994. [132490]

  Mr. Mullin
  The bathing water at Southport passed the mandatory coliform standards of the Bathing Water Directive in 1994, 1996 and 1998 but failed in 1995, 1997 and 1999. I refer the hon. Member to my Department's annual publications "Bathing Water Directive, Detailed Summary of Survey Results, United Kingdom", available in the Library, for information on levels and types of beach pollution for each year in question. Details are also available on the Environment Agency's internet site: "www.environment-agency.gov.uk", and then follow "What's in your backyard".

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities have scored better than average rating for their Housing Investment Programme assessment. [132511]

  Mr. Mullin
  Details of the performance assessment rating given to each housing authority in the 1999 Housing Investment Programme were included in the press notice (DETR 1160/99) issued on 7 December 1999, which announced housing capital allocations for 2000–01.

  Water Additives
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what chemical compounds are added to water supplies by water companies; from what sources these compounds are derived; what is the(a) largest, (b) smallest and (c) average dosage added; what powers are available to him in respect of the addition of such compounds to the water supply; and what recent research his Department has (i) undertaken and (ii) evaluated into the environmental impact of increasing the levels of fluoride in water. [132420]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 provide for approval by the Secretary of State of products, substances and processes used in the provision of public water supplies. The Secretary of State is advised on approvals issues by the Committee on Chemicals and Materials for Use in Public Water Supply. That Committee also considers the impact on the environment of residues from approved chemicals. The 584W
  Secretary of State's list of approved products, which includes all chemicals approved for use in public water supplies, is published annually by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The list is installed on the inspectorate's website, www.dwi.detr.gov.uk, and includes as a public health protection measure, conditions of approval that limit the maximum dosing concentrations.

  Coastal Byelaws
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to take forward the recommendations of the Review of Byelaws for the Coast published in 1998. [132645]

  Mr. Mullin
  We shall implement the review's recommendations, which require legislation when parliamentary and other pressures permit. We have already published a voluntary code of best and safe practice for leisure craft users, and we are exploring options for a voluntary boat registration and identification scheme.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131435]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The number of permanent, casual and temporary staff employed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Centre), and cost associated with employing temporary staff, are set out in the tables. The Department does not have a target number of posts to be filled by permanent staff. Budgets for staff fall within the Department's running cost limits. Vacant posts are filled by permanent or casual staff, or by temporary staff, depending on the nature and duration of work.

  Number of staff in DETR(C)

  Permanent

  Casual

  Temporary

  Total

  July 1999

  Number

  3,844

  50

  195

  4,089

  Percentage

  94.0

  1.2

  4.8

  August 1999

  Number

  3,730

  57

  173

  3,960

  Percentage

  94.2

  1.4

  4.4

  September 1999

  Number

  3,773

  61

  164

  3,998

  Percentage

  94.4

  1.5

  4.1

  October 1999

  Number

  3,789

  40.0

  185

  4,014

  Percentage

  94.0

  1.0

  4.6

  November 1999

  Number

  3,820

  39

  162

  4,021

  Percentage

  95.0

  1.0

  4.0

  December 1999

  Number

  3,836

  44

  130

  4,010

  Percentage

  95.7

  1.1

  3.2

  585W

  Number of staff in DETR(C)

  Permanent

  Casual

  Temporary

  Total

  January 2000

  Number

  3,832

  43

  145

  4,020

  Percentage

  95.3

  1.1

  3.6

  February 2000

  Number

  3,872

  43

  171

  4,086

  Percentage

  94.8

  1.1

  4.2

  March 2000

  Number

  3,897

  41

  192

  4,130

  Percentage

  94.4

  1.0

  4.6

  April 2000

  Number

  3,912

  39

  148

  4,099

  Percentage

  95.4

  1.0

  3.6

  May 2000

  Number

  3,925

  41

  116

  4,082

  Percentage

  96.2

  1.0

  2.8

  June 2000

  Number

  3,946

  39

  157

  4,142

  Percentage

  95.3

  0.9

  3.8

  April 20011

  Number

  3,924

  29

  41

  3,994

  Percentage

  98

  0.7

  1.0

  1Forecast number of staff in DETR(C) including casual and temporary staff—monthly forecast data are not available

  Staff costs

  Temporary

  Permanent

  July 1999

  Number

  195

  195

  Costs (£000)

  292

  252

  August 1999

  Number

  173

  173

  Costs (£000)

  290

  224

  September 1999

  Number

  164

  164

  Costs (£000)

  276

  212

  October 1999

  Number

  185

  185

  Costs (£000)

  135

  240

  November 1999

  Number

  162

  162

  Costs (£000)

  294

  210

  December 1999

  Number

  130

  130

  Costs (£000)

  189

  168

  January 2000

  Number

  145

  145

  Costs (£000)

  212

  188

  February 2000

  Number

  171

  171

  Costs (£000)

  238

  221

  March 2000

  Number

  192

  192

  Costs (£000)

  290

  249

  April 2000

  Number

  148

  148

  Costs (£000)

  221

  192

  May 2000

  Number

  116

  116

  Costs (£000)

  172

  150

  June 2000

  Number

  157

  157

  Costs (£000)

  235

  203

  April 2001

  Number

  41

  41

  Costs (£000)

  725

  637

  Definitions:

  Permanent = established civil servants

  Definitions:

  Permanent = established civil servants
  586W
  Casual = employed by the Department on a short-term basis, not exceeding one year

  Temporary = employed on a temporary basis through employment agencies

  Notes:

  1. All staff numbers have been calculated on a full-time equivalent basis

  2. DETR(C) staff numbers do not include Government Office, Agency and NDPB's therefore comparisons cannot be made with Cabinet/Treasury reports

  3. Figures for temporary staff have been based on the total number of hours invoiced (based on 36 hour week)

  4. Average cost for permanent staff to replace temporary staff are compared with Pay £15,538 per annum

  5. Statistics for temporary staff may not be complete—local arrangements are in place—clarification of details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost

  6. Monetary values are in £000.

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 54W, on Connex South Central, what plans he has to introduce requirements for train operators to provide for a well planned and smooth changeover period between franchises in future franchise contracts. [132291]

  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director has produced a revised template franchise agreement for replacement franchises. This contains improved provisions for smooth transfer at the end of the franchises.

  Radiological Protection
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plan to implement the justification requirements of Euratom Directive 96/29 on radiological protection; and if he will make a statement. [130875]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are still considering the best means of implementing these requirements in the light of advice received from the Health and Safety Commission.

  A63
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of and prospects for the proposed new junction on the A63 at Melton. [132652]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. David Davis, dated 25 July 2000:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you asked if he "will make a statement on the progress of and prospects for the proposed new junction on the A63 at Melton".
  In A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England, the Government confirmed its commitment to the scheme by stating that preparatory works would continue, so that it could be taken forward without delay, subject to full appraisal and the views of the Regional Planning Bodies. We are currently waiting for the formal views of the Regional Planning Body on this scheme. It has responsibility for

  587W
  preparing draft regional planning guidance, encompassing a long-term regional transport strategy, and consulting on it, before its submission to Ministers for approval.
  We are continuing preparation so as to be able to discuss very quickly with local people draft highway and compulsory purchase orders. If made, these orders would give the legal authority to build the scheme. Further progress would be dependent on any objections and associated statutory procedures.
  If you wish to discuss any aspect of the above further, please contact Alan Burgess, the Highways Agency's Project Manager for the scheme, on 0113 283 5417.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish proposals for amendments to Part H of the Building Regulations which deals with drainage and solid waste; and if he will make a statement. [132575]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A consultation paper was issued today setting out proposals for the revision of the Approved Document to Part H of the Building Regulations.

  The new document provides guidance on sustainable urban drainage systems in order to satisfy requests for information on sustainable water use, and guidance on solid waste storage to encourage recycling.

  As well as addressing a wide range of technical issues, the review of Part H has included the examination of the enabling legislation which sets out how the Building Regulations related to drainage and solid waste should be applied. This should enable all those involved with the provision of drainage for buildings to make better informed decisions on the system of drainage to be used.

  Rural and Urban White Papers
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to publish the Rural White Paper. [132157]

  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.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the Urban White Paper. [132156]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Urban White Paper is being prepared in tandem with a White Paper on rural policy and we intend that both White Papers will be published when the House returns in the autumn.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish(a) a consultation draft and (b) a final draft of the proposed safety code for fishing vessels under 12 metres in length. [132155]

  Mr. Hill
  I will consider shortly the current proposals and the views of the Fishing Industry Safety Group on a new safety regime for under 12 metres fishing vessels. Thereafter we will commence formal consultation in August on proposals to change the existing statutory 588W
  safety regime, including a draft Code of Practice. Subject to the results of consultation we hope to publish the code by the end of the year.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the need for new safety measures for under 12 metre fishing vessels. [132154]

  Mr. Hill
  Earlier this year, I reviewed the work undertaken by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the fishing industry to develop a new statutory safety regime for under 12 metre fishing vessels based on a code of safe practice. I also reviewed accident and search and rescue information for this sector. I will shortly consider current proposals, together with the views of the Fishing Industry Safety Group.

  Aggregates and Other Minerals
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the extraction of minerals other than aggregates. [131923]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Part 1 of the London Economics study "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of Aggregates", published in 1998, examined how far the estimates of the value of environmental impacts of aggregates could be transferred to the surface extraction of other minerals. It was found that extraction of other surface minerals does not create any specific or additional environmental impacts that were not identified in the case of aggregates. However, the estimates of the value of the costs cannot generally be transferred directly, because the size of the environmental impacts of different types of extractive operations vary, and there may also be specific local factors.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the constituent elements are of the average environmental cost of £1.80 per tonne associated with the extraction and transport of aggregates quoted in HM Customs & Excise press release Number 5 of 21 March. [131915]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Total environmental cost was estimated as at least £380 million tonnes per annum for 208 million tonnes of land-won primary aggregate. Just over half of the total estimated costs relate to local impacts of quarrying. The remainder relates to the non-local impacts of quarrying in National Parks and AONBs, generated by the application of the national survey results to such areas. It was assumed that quarries outside these areas have an impact only on those who live locally.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned to identify the environmental cost and benefits of the supply of minerals other than aggregates. [131921]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  No research has been commissioned to identify the environmental cost and benefits of the supply of minerals other than aggregates.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the environmental costs per tonne are for each of the
  589W
  16 crushed rock and sand and gravel quarries surveyed in the London Economics report into the supply of aggregates. [131916]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The quarries were selected in order to provide a coverage that was representative of all aggregate quarries in Great Britain in terms of source type, scale of output and population density. The methodology used could not generate robust estimates of environmental costs at the level of the individual quarry.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the report he commissioned from London Economics into the supply of aggregates does not include a valuation of benefits. [131920]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government fully recognise the importance of aggregates to the economy. While there is a substantial body of information on the value and uses of aggregates, there had not previously been a valuation of the environmental effects of extraction.

  The first phase of the research, published in April 1998, identified that the principal potential environmental benefits of aggregates extraction lie in the restoration of former quarries. Restoration could only be considered an externality—a benefit not reflected in the price of aggregates—if the value of the site was better after restoration than before operations began. It was not possible to identify any such sites in the time available. Most quarries are restored to a level in keeping with the surrounding landscape.

  More generally, the survey method used assessed the value that respondents placed on the environmental impacts of quarries. This value therefore reflected the balance of perceived environmental benefits and costs of the quarry remaining open for its permitted lifespan.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the research he commissioned from London Economics into the supply of aggregates included survey questions designed to value the cost of aggregate supply from areas of outstanding natural beauty. [131922]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The research included a national survey to evaluate the costs of quarrying in areas of special environmental value. To elicit such values, respondents were asked about attitudes to quarrying in the Yorkshire Dales and Peak District National Parks. While attitudes to quarrying in other national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty were not examined directly, the results of the national survey can be used to inform judgments about the values placed on quarrying in such areas. National planning policies for minerals are identical in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, reflecting the equivalent value society places on landscape protection in the two types of area.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) who will have responsibility and over what timescale for taking forward the proposals on Crossrail contained in his Department's 10 year transport plan; and if he will make a statement; [132516]
  590W
  (2) if it is his policy that the proposed Crossrail link should connect with the Chiltern Line; and if he will make a statement. [132517]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government's 10 Year Transport Plan announced last week by the Deputy Prime Minister envisages that an east-west rail link will go ahead. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority is currently undertaking a review of the possible east-west cross-London links and expects to report its findings to Ministers by the end of the year. Crossrail is one option for providing through services which will be considered and funding for preparatory work for an east-west rail link, such as Crossrail, was included in London's settlement under the spending review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week. The Mayor will wish to consider Crossrail in the light of his priorities for an integrated transport strategy for London. A number of options exist for the westerly connections to the Crossrail option, including the Chiltern lines.

  Chiltern Line
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who will be responsible for taking forward the capacity enhancements on the Chiltern line mentioned on page 47 of his Department's 10-year transport plan; what works will be included in these enhancements; over what timescale this will be; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [132518]

  Mr. Hill
  The Chiltern franchise is one which the Franchising Director is currently re-negotiating and a decision surrounding a preferred bidder is expected shortly. When this decision is announced, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be in a position to provide capacity enhancement details on the Chiltern lines which have been developed as a part of the bidding process.

  Central Railway plc
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is towards Central Railway plc in the context of his Department's 10-year transport plan. [132519]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government cannot comment on the proposals that are being developed by Central Railway plc, as I understand they may in due course be the subject of a Transport and Works Act application.

  Seat Belts
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, columns 3–4W, on seat belts, what plans he has to publish the results of the public consultation exercise, being conducted by his Department, on draft regulations to require seat belts to be fitted to minibuses, coaches and buses which do not carry standing passengers. [132393]

  Mr. Hill
  Copies of the responses to the consultation exercise have been placed in the library of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions where they can be viewed by appointment. A list of respondents has also been placed in the House Library. We plan to
  591W
  write to all the respondents when the regulations are published, explaining changes made following the consultation.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received about the provision of seat belts in buses carrying more than 16 passengers seats but incapable of exceeding 60 mph when they are used for school trips. [132392]

  Mr. Hill
  We have received 13 letters since the beginning of the year expressing concern about children being carried on buses without seat belts.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what grants are available in the UK to enable coach operators to fit seat belts in minibuses, coaches and buses used in transporting children to and from school; and if he will make a statement. [132394]

  Mr. Hill
  We are not aware of any grants available specifically for this purpose. The majority of existing minibuses and coaches will already be equipped with seat belts, and we estimate that over 95 per cent. of new minibuses and coaches are now fitted with seat belts at the time of manufacture.

  GMOs
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what end use or uses are planned for the 250 hectares of GM herbicide-tolerant maize being produced annually in UK field trials. [132647]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's agreement with the industry body SCIMAC, which was announced on 5 November 1999, sets out what will happen to the Farm Scale Evaluations produce.

  The GM maize does not currently have all the necessary approvals to enter the UK food or feed chain. Therefore, the GM maize (and the all of the other GM crops) being grown in this year's farm scale evaluations programme will be destroyed.

  Should the GM maize receive full clearance for food or feed safety during the farm scale evaluations period, the resulting produce will be utilised within identity-preserved channels which will ensure that consumer choice can at all times be respected.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent deliberations of the informal gathering of Environmental Ministers on GMOs in Paris. [132648]

  Mr. Meacher
  I represented the United Kingdom at an informal meeting of EU Environment Ministers in Paris between 14 and 16 July. On 14 July, the Presidency facilitated a discussion on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) whose purpose was to look at wider issues outside the strict framework of the current revision to Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release of GMOs to the environment.

  No decisions were taken as a result of this informal discussion. Ministers agreed, however, that it is important to finalise the conciliation procedure between the Council
  592W
  and the European Parliament on the revised Directive 90/220 and to ensure that the Directive is implemented in a framework which takes account of wider issues such as labelling, traceability and liability.

  The Commission indicated that it would present new proposals on labelling and traceability of GMOs and GMO products in the autumn. It also undertook to work with member states to ensure that decisions under Directive 90/220 can be taken in a way which respects both legal obligations and the need to provide a high level of protection for consumers and the environment.

  Air Routes
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on varying the Cranford agreement at Heathrow to create more slots for fragile routes in the UK. [132528]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department is currently undertaking a study into all aspects of airport capacity in South East England, having regard to future forecasts of demand. This is looking at a wide range of options: at this stage, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. However, there are currently no plans to modify the Cranford agreement.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's role in the creation of public service obligations on internal UK air routes between Heathrow and fragile rural locations. [132522]

  Mr. Mullin
  The use of public service obligations (PSOs) is governed by European Regulation 2408/92. This empowers member states to impose a PSO on a route serving a peripheral or development region or on a thin route to any regional airport, where such a route is considered vital for the economic development of the region in which the airport is located, and where an adequate standard of service would not be provided by air carriers having regard solely to their commercial interest. Those standards relate to the continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing of services.

  The UK Government have imposed PSOs on certain lifeline routes serving the Scottish Highlands and Islands. There are no PSOs on routes to London. A judgment in the European Court of Justice suggests that any PSO would have to be city to city, and not airport specific.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tenants in local authority and housing association accommodation are lone parents; what proportion of the total they constitute; and what proportion of new tenancies in the past year have been given to lone parents. [132399]

  Mr. Mullin: The figures requested are as follows (for England only):
  593W
  Registered Social Landlords (RSL)
  It is estimated that in March 1999 there were 180,000 lone-parent households living in RSL accommodation; about 17 per cent. of the total. (note 2)
  There were 204,168 new RSL lettings between April 1999 and March 2000, comprising 143,135 general needs lettings and 61,033 supported housing lettings. Lone-parent households accounted for 39,534 lettings (19 per cent. of the total). (note 3)

  Local Authorities
  At the national level, there is less information available for local authority households than for RSL households. (note 4)
  In 1998–99 there were an estimated 503,000 local authority households headed by lone parents; about 15 per cent. of the total.
  Of these, 81,000 had been resident for less than a year (21 per cent. of the local authority households that had been resident for less than a year).

  Notes:

  1. A lone parent with dependent children is defined as any person who is not married or cohabiting and who has their dependent children (aged under 16 or 16–18 and still in full-time education) living with them. Lone parents might be single (never married), widowed, divorced or separated.

  2. RSL Tenants' Survey, 1999–2000, carried out by MORI on behalf of The Housing Corporation. Estimates are subject to sampling variation.

  3. New RSL lettings data is from CORE General Needs and CORE Supported Housing, April 1999 to March 2000.

  4. Local authority figures given are estimates from a sample survey, the "DETR Survey of English Housing", and therefore are subject to sampling variation.

  Planning Appeals
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on recovering planning appeals in England. [132884]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Most planning appeals are transferred to the Planning Inspectorate for Inspectors to decide on behalf of the Secretary of State. Typically between 100 and 150 appeals have been recovered by the Secretary of State for his own determination, out of around 13,000 planning appeals each year. My right hon. Friend's policy for recovering cases is set out in the following guidelines:

  1. Residential development of five or more hectares or of 150 or more dwellings regardless of size of site.

  2. Proposals for development of major importance having more than local significance.

  3. Proposals giving rise to significant public controversy.

  4. Proposals which raise important or novel issues of development control.

  5. Retail or leisure development over 9,000 sq m.

  6. Proposals for significant development in the Green Belt.

  7. Major proposals involving the winning and working of minerals.

  8. Proposals which raise legal difficulties.

  9. Proposals against which another Government Department has raised major objections.

  10. Cases which can only be decided in conjunction with a case over which Inspectors have no jurisdiction (so-called "linked" cases).

  11. There may on occasion be other cases which merit recovery because of the particular circumstances.

  These criteria replace the previous guidelines for recovering appeals set out in the 1986 White Paper "Planning: Appeals, Call-In and Major Public Inquiries" (Command 43).

  Packaging Regulations
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations on the packaging regulations and related matters he plans in 2000; and if he will make a statement. [133098]

  Mr. Meacher
  A consultation on the charging mechanism for registration fees for compliance scheme members was published in May and the responses to that paper will be considered and decisions announced in due course. I will also shortly be issuing a paper with business recovery and recycling targets that the Government propose for 2001. The Government do not intend to carry out any further consultations in 2000.

  In late 1999, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced that it intended to carry out a consultation on the accreditation system for reprocessors under the packaging regulations, and related matters. However, earlier this year, an application for Judicial Review was made to the courts of a decision taken by the Environment Agency as to who should and who should not be accredited as a reprocessor for the purposes of the packaging regulations. As the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is a party to this litigation, the proposed consultation will now be deferred until a court ruling has been given.

  I was also minded to consult industry on proposals that have been put to me to change the operation of the Packaging Waste Recovery Note (PRN) System, but in view of the need for industry to focus fully at this stage on achieving the packaging directive recovery and recycling targets, which must be met in 2001, I have decided to defer the decision on whether to consult on this matter until after the deadline for meeting the directive targets has been met next year.

  Local Authorities (Electricity Suppliers)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which trade in electricity; and if he will make a statement. [130628]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The records of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets show no local authorities as licensed electricity suppliers. As with any other legal person, a local authority which meets the requirements of licence exemption (set out in Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 989) may supply without a licence, and is not required to register with the regulator or the Department.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of 9 June 2000,Official Report, column 397W, on the Millennium Dome, what average gross yield entrance receipt per visitor was anticipated for the Millennium Dome prior to 1 January. [126263]
  595W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 20 June 2000]: The average gross yield entrance receipt per visitor to the Millennium Dome anticipated prior to 1 January 2000, was £15.37.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of schoolchildren from Wales who have visited the Millennium Dome free of charge. [131049]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: To date 23,000 schoolchildren from Wales have been allocated free school trips to the Dome.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of people from Wales who have visited the Millennium Dome. [131050]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: There are various ways of purchasing tickets to visit the Dome, from Lottery outlets around the country, from the Dome Ticket Line, from travel and tourism companies and in person at the Dome. With so many possible purchase sources it is impossible to estimate the exact number of visitors from one particular location.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met Mr. Robert Bourne of Legacy plc; what representations he has received from(a) Mr. Robert Bourne and (b) Legacy plc; and what discussions he has had with Legacy plc regarding the future use of the Dome site. [131369]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport last met Robert Bourne on 30 March 2000. The future use of the Dome was not discussed. In December 1999 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took a decision to stand apart from the decision making process in recognition of the contacts which he has had with Robert Bourne of Legacy plc. Since December 1999, he has not received any representations from Robert Bourne or any other member of Legacy plc on the future use of the Dome.

  Osborne House
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding the use of surplus beds at Osborne convalescent home by recuperating NHS patients. [127312]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 22 June 2000]: Osborne House Convalescent Home remains open until the middle of October 2000 to recuperating NHS patients who are serving or retired members of the armed forces or the civil service. There has been no reason to discuss this current facility with the Secretary of State for Health, although note has been taken of the substantial alternative private sector provision available on the Isle of Wight.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the firms of quantity surveyors employed by the New Millennium Experience Company since May 1997, the duration of their contracts and the remuneration paid to them in each case. [127309]
  596W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 June 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company is currently employing Currie & Brown and Always Sayer and have done so since their contracts commenced in August 1997 and July 1998 respectively. As the contracts with both companies are ongoing, details of the fees paid to each are commercially confidential. Additional quantity surveying services have been provided by McAlpine Laing Joint Venture, as part of their construction management duties. The overall fee paid was calculated as a percentage of the construction cost, so it is not possible to separate the figure for the quantity surveying element of their work.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money was committed by the New Millennium Experience Company to underwrite the costs of the firework display on the River Thames on New Year's Eve. [128506]

  Janet Anderson
  The amount spent by the New Millennium Experience Company for the display, including fireworks, was £1.447 million.

  Broadcasting and Telecommunications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those who have been formally invited to make submissions in respect of the forthcoming White Paper on broadcasting and telecommunications. [129686]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: My right hon. Friend has, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, sought views on the White Paper in a number of ways. The scope of the White Paper was announced to the House on 3 February 2000, Official Report, columns 729W and 668W. On 19 April 2000, Official Report, columns 499W and 548w, my right hon. Friends announced to the House that all views should be submitted in writing or via e-mail by 23 June and officials wrote on the same day inviting submissions from stakeholders in industry and related organisations, identified from those who had contributed to recent consultations on the topic. Details were widely publicised including on the official White Paper website (www.communicationswhitepaper.gov.uk). Further copies of the letter were sent out on request, to a total of 287 organisations and individuals. A list of their names has been placed in the Library.

  As my right hon. Friends announced on 17 May 2000, Official Report, columns 125W and 131W, they also invited a number of experts to prepare papers and these were discussed at a seminar on 3 July. The expert team consisted of Sir Quentin Thomas (chair), David Cleevely, Liz Forgan, Andrew Graham, Janice Hughes, Mark Oliver, Damian Tambini and George Yarrow. The papers, with the report of the seminar's Chair, are also posted on the website, and copies have been placed in the Library, as announced on 21 July 2000, Official Report, columns 361W and 343W.

  Millennium Festival
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress with the Millennium Festival in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom. [129931]
  597W
  Janet Anderson
  Through the commitment of the 11 UK National Lottery distributors, working in partnership with the New Millennium Experience Company, a £100 million Millennium Festival fund has been made available for national, regional and local Millennium celebrations in the year 2000.

  The Millennium Festival in Scotland has provided £11 million to fund over 500 events throughout Scotland from the Highlands to the Borders. Highlights have included "The Thrie Estaties", a re-creation of one of Scotland's oldest pieces of drama recently performed in Fife and the Commonwealth Youth Games which will see young people from 14 countries coming to Edinburgh to compete in eight different sports. There have also been many hundreds of community events held across the country from Stewartry in Dumfries and Galloway to Inverness and Arbroath. The feedback received by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) from smaller and local groups has been very positive.

  A further £89 million has been made available for thousands of events, festivals, arts and sports activities which have been taking place throughout the year, across the rest of the UK. The Millennium Festival of Cycling celebrated the millennium with local family fun days, bike surgeries and a Cycle to Work day; the National Trust Coast Show has toured the UK coast with the Grand Turk, a replica 18th century frigate, providing an on-board exhibition of the maritime conservation work of the Trust and promoting public access to Britain's coastline; while the voice of young Britain has been heard on the internet radio station Youth FM, which has toured the UK with its mobile studio.

  BBC (Independent Production Quotas)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to receive the report of the Director General of Fair Trading into the BBC's compliance with the independent production quotas for the year ending 31 March 1999; how long it has taken to report in previous years; for what reasons there was a delay this year; and if he will set a deadline for receiving such reports in future. [131568]

  Janet Anderson
  The Report of the Director General of Fair Trading into the BBC's compliance with the independent production quotas for the year ending 31 March 1999 is expected to be published in September. This is later than would normally be the case. The reporting period corresponds with the BBC's financial year (1 April to 31 March) and the Director General's report is usually published towards the end of the calendar year. The delay has been caused by the need to reach agreement on some issues of legal interpretation arising from the introduction of digital channels.

  Hyde Park Cycle Way
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many accidents caused by cyclists there have been on the Hyde Park cycle way since it was opened. [131998]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, William Weston. I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.
  598W
  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 25 July 2000:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of accidents caused by cyclists on the Hyde Park cycle way since it was opened.
  I am afraid I am unable to give you the information you have asked for. We keep a record of accidents involving injury to park users that are reported to the park manager or the Royal Parks Constabulary. The police do not investigate the cause of an accident on the cycle way unless there is evidence (or an accusation) that the cyclist was riding recklessly or dangerously, in which case the police would consider reporting the cyclist for prosecution.
  The original cycle route in Hyde Park was opened in 1975 and records are no longer available for earlier years. We have no record of anyone being reported for prosecution for dangerous cycling as a result of an accident since the Royal Parks Agency came into existence in 1993.

  Free Television Licence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people living in the London Borough of Wandsworth will benefit from the introduction of a free television licence for a person aged 75 years or over. [131952]

  Janet Anderson
  Television licences cover households rather than individuals. Figures for the number of households which will benefit from the concession are not available. However, the 1991 Census County Report Series, published by the Office for National Statistics, shows the population of the London Borough of Wandsworth as 252,425 of which 2.10 per cent. were men aged 75 and over and 4.47 per cent. were women aged 75 and over.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 21W, if he will provide a breakdown of the £23.4 million cost of administering the concessionary television licence scheme for people aged 75 years and over. [131655]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The estimated costs of administering free television licences for people aged 75 or over in 2000–01 are £24.3 million rather than £23.4 million as stated in my reply to the hon. Member of 2 May 2000, Official Report, column 20W, a transposition error for which I apologise. £3.3 million of these costs represent a carry over of set-up costs incurred in 1999–2000.

  These costs will be met by the Department of Social Security, via payments to the BBC. The BBC is responsible for the administration of the scheme and has advised that a detailed breakdown of these costs is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and by diverting resources which would otherwise be devoted to the successful implementation of the scheme.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total amount is spent by(a) his Department and its predecessor and (b) English Heritage since its establishment on (i) design work, (ii) public consultation and inquiries and (iii) other identifiable costs in connection with Stonehenge. [131535]
  599W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 October 1999, Official Report, column 427W, giving details of costs up to mid October 1999. Since that date English Heritage has spent; (i) no money on design work, (ii) £23,758 on public consultation and inquiries, and (iii) £778,570 which includes consultancy fees relating to the new visitor centre, the World Heritage Site Management Plan and contributions towards the cost of the A303 improvement scheme at Stonehenge.

  My Department and its predecessor Departments have not incurred any directly attributable costs in connection with Stonehenge. It is not possible meaningfully to apportion the cost of official time spent in respect of consultations and correspondence.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what price was paid for the site of the proposed Stonehenge visitors' centre at Countess East; and what price was paid for Countess Farm. [131534]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The site for the new visitor centre at Countess Farm East has not yet been purchased. English Heritage is currently in negotiations with the owners so it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage. Countess Farm West was purchased by the National Trust and no public money was involved.

  World Cup
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date the Minister for Sport wrote to the Football Association seeking information on the cost of England's World Cup 2006 bid. [132521]

  Kate Hoey
  As I advised the hon. Member in my answer to him on 24 July 2000,Official Report, column 416W, I wrote to the Chief Executive of the Football Association on 20 June 2000 to request details of his plans to publish accounts for the 2006 World Cup bid.

  British Tourist Authority
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will review the services and functions of the British Tourist Authority. [132835]

  Janet Anderson
  I am pleased to announce that, as part of a regular programme of reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department is commencing a review of the British Tourist Authority.

  The terms of reference for the review, which will be conducted in two stages, are as follows:
  To review the continuing need for the services and functions carried out by the British Tourist Authority (BTA) and consider how they can be provided more effectively in the future.
  600W
  Stage One: Getting the organisation right
  To determine whether there is a continuing need for the services provided by the BTA and to assess whether these services are best delivered by an NDPB.

  To consider specifically:
  the role and functions of the BTA, how its role has been affected by devolution and how and to what extent its functions contribute to the delivery of wider DCMS and governmental objectives;
  the links BTA has or should have with other parts of the public sector and with private and voluntary sectors;
  BTA's past performance against its aims, objectives, key targets and quality standards;
  what BTA's customers and other interested parties (including their staff and trade unions) think about its role, performance and responsiveness to their needs; and whether there are any groups whose needs should be, but are not being addressed;
  how the BTA should be organised to deliver responsive, efficient and quality services in future, and whether there is scope for other organisational options, such as abolition, market testing, merger, rationalisation, privatisation or strategic contracting out; and
  examples of good practice in how BTA has delivered its services.

  Stage Two: Improving performance
  Taking account of the Stage One report, to consider how the BTA might make improvements in efficient, effective and responsive service delivery.
  To consider specifically:

  the BTA's aims and objectives and the part they play in delivering wider DCMS and governmental objectives;

  performance targets and whether they are sufficiently comprehensive and stretching, and properly reflect the BTA's aims and objectives;

  the structure and effectiveness of BTA's organisation and how it involves staff, including those at the front line, and their trade unions in the way it works;

  partnership arrangements and opportunities for joint working with other bodies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery;

  how the BTA can make better use of new technology to improve the delivery of its services and functions;

  the BTA's relationship with its stakeholders and the stakeholders' views on how it can best meet their needs, and the way BTA could improve its responsiveness;

  whether the BTA needs different freedoms and flexibilities to improve the delivery of its services;

  the scope for increasing the current level of efficiency savings and income and to improve the utilisation of assets; and

  whether the roles and reporting arrangements of the BTA, the Department and Ministers need clearer definition and whether they provide proper support for operational and policy work.

  The aim is to complete the review in six months.

  Arts (North)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the management and administration expenses of(a) Northern Arts and (b) North West Arts in each of the last three years. [132654]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have asked the Arts Council of England, which has responsibility for the English regional arts boards, to provide this information. When it is available, I will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Message from the Queen
Lord Carter Lord Carter: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address concerning the 100th birthday of Her Majesty. Queen Elizabeth. It gives me great pleasure to convey to Queen Elizabeth the loyal and affectionate sentiments you express on behalf of my Lords, the British people and the Commonwealth on the occasion of her birthday".

Government Priorities
2.36 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their top three priorities for the rest of this Parliament.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, judging by the way he has framed his Question, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is clearly looking for a snappy answer, so let me reply. The Government's top three priorities for the remainder of this Parliament are investment, investment and investment. To continue the three-point theme, that investment will focus on a trio of priorities—health, education and transport—to revive and revitalise our public services. This will continue against the background of a stable and growing economy.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her succinct and clear Answer; I am very grateful. I listened with respect to what the noble Baroness said, but has she not perhaps forgotten one other priority for the Government of which she is a distinguished member—that is, to explain to the British people, who are a fairly pragmatic and sensible lot about the difficulties of government and the challenges that face Ministers, that they, as a Government, actually believe in something and have an underlying philosophy? Should not the Minister be advising her colleagues to give up spin; to give up too much reliance on focus groups; to give up looking every day for eye-catching initiatives; and, above all else, should not the Minister be persuading her colleagues and the Government as a whole to give up the impression that they are being blown hither and thither by every passing political breeze?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his flattering remarks
274
about my influence on the Government. I am delighted to respond. I do not think that there is any spin in what I said about the proposals for public investment, but I am very happy to elaborate and will do so. Our proposals are built on the strong economic record from 1997 to date, which has lowered inflation, brought a million new jobs into the economy and created a situation in which we can have record real investment in the public services. As I said, 75 per cent of the increases in public expenditure will be going to main line public services. There will be a 5.4 per cent above inflation increase for education, way above that of the previous Tory government. We are doubling public investment in transport to more than £6 billion. The National Health Service plan, which will be announced later this week, will revive our National Health Service through a 6.1 per cent real terms increase in growth for the next three years, more than double the rate under the Tories. The noble Lord describes that as spin; I describe it as very effective economic management leading to very important public investment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Patten, be well advised to give up spending so much time on the midnight oil to such worthless purpose?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to go further. Perhaps I may refer back to the implications for the education budget—in which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will be particularly interested. The public expenditure increases will mean an extra £40,000 for each primary school; up to £70,000 for a secondary school; and sure-start funding, one of the most important ingredients in the under-fives' programme of creating a good start to education for millions of children, will rise to £500 million. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will be very pleased to see that additional funding for education. I am sure that he will approve of the increases in literacy rates and the decline in class sizes, which are already represented in the education sphere.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has not the noble Baroness forgotten to list also the rise in pensions?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may begin with the minimum income guarantee— or would the noble Lord prefer to consider the rises in the winter fuel allowance, which has been raised to the level of £150 per pensioner per year? There is also the free television licence—which, regrettably, noble Lords in this House seem to have little time to enjoy because of the appalling hours we seem to be working.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, there is also the issue of the rule of law, the protection of life and property and the rise in crime—or have the Government given up on that too?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches tells me it is on page four

275
of my brief; actually it is on page two. There has been a 6 per cent reduction in crime overall since the election, with burglary down by a quarter and car crime down by 17 per cent. The Government have acknowledged the disturbing increase in violent crime and intend to tackle it. With the extra expenditure on crime prevention and action against crime——a 3·8 per cent rise above inflation over the period of the spending review—there will be funding for an extra 4,000 police recruits, which we hope will bring the violent crime figures more into line with the other figures.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may also offer the Government some helpful advice. They should have less legislation; they should have shorter and more lucid Bills.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in reply to the previous question, we would all enjoy shorter hours.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to say that I entirely agree with the Government's priorities of investment in the three issues which the noble Baroness mentioned. However, perhaps I may add a fourth. That is housing. Does she agree that there should be major investment in housing in view of the relatively high proportion of poor housing in this country which causes suffering to people's lives, their health and their heating standards?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be aware, the problem of poor housing is one that has been constantly addressed. The quality of housing, in terms of the numbers of people living in houses which are deemed to be almost beyond repair, needs to he addressed in a number of ways. The noble Lord is quite right to identify that there is a broad swathe of issues in that area. Housing is one; health is another and poor education is another, which is why I referred to the Sure Start programme in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I would say to the noble Lord that he identifies an important priority for restoring the social fabric of this country.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in his supplementary question asked the noble Baroness for an expression of political philosophy. Could we press her not for another list of facts and figures but for a succinct expression of the Government's political philosophy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can do that very succinctly. Their philosophy is to pursue all the issues of social justice, to build the investment of Britain so that we have a sustainable investment, a strong economy, and to create a country where there is opportunity and security for all our citizens.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of a three-fold increase in assaults on
276
young people in young offender institutions over a period of three years? Is she also aware of a three-fold increase in incidents of self-harm and suicide over a period of 10 years? Will investments in the prison estate and training of prison officers who work with young people be among the priorities for investment?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl identifies a worrying trend in young offender institutions. I know that he has been personally involved with this issue. Why young people offend and how they can best be looked after if they are in an institution of the kind the noble Earl describes is at the base of criminal justice and crime prevention policy. Attention needs to be addressed to the social issues which may lead to children being in these unfortunate circumstances at a very young age. One of the emphases of the public spending programme is to increase the number of policemen, and to increase the number of policemen on the beat in local communities who—particularly we hope through the Excellence in Cities programme—will work with schools to try to prevent some of the unhappy circumstances which lead to young people ending up in young offender institutions. I shall write to the noble Earl with regard to the specific question of detailed funding for those institutions.

Centre for Defence Medicine
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to set up the new centre of excellence for the Defence Medical Services.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence's new Centre for Defence Medicine is due to open on 1st April 2001. We are developing the new centre in association with the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust and its academic and clinical partners. The project is going well and we are very pleased with the enthusiasm and commitment of our partners in Birmingham.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that hopeful reply, but is she aware that with the present parlous state of manning in the Defence Medical Services, the establishment of a really credible, high quality Centre for Defence Medicine is of the utmost urgency for their morale and essential recovery? Any slippage from that promised up-and-running date would be disastrous. Since as yet not a sod has been turned at Birmingham to prepare physically for such a centre of excellence, can the Minister tell us how many clinical, academic and research military staff will be assembled there by the due date and what sort of service they will then be able to provide?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord that there has

277
been a crisis of morale in the Defence Medical Services following on Options for Change. I am pleased to say that the recruitment figures have now been turned around. The net recruitment figures for the previous year after outflow is taken into account show a plus figure of 199 personnel. So far this year we have a plus figure of 83 personnel, plus another 80 accepted. That shows a very different position from that which pertained in previous years. It is planned to open the hospital with between 70 and 100 personnel, including administrative support. The centre will then build up progressively over the next five to 10 years or so. I should point out to the noble and gallant Lord that there is no requirement for additional buildings; some existing buildings will require refurbishment. That refurbishment is in hand already. We are on course for the opening on 1st April 2001.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the major problems relating to the falling recruitment by the Defence Medical Services over the past few years has been the inability of the Defence Medical Services, with the progressive closure of hospitals, to offer the training, research and academic opportunities which are so vital to the future of that service? Can she be satisfied that the appropriate training facilities will be available in order that progress to consultant status, for example, can be based on a programme that will acceptable to the Royal Colleges which monitor such training, not only in the NHS but also in the Defence Medical Services?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that I can. That is the point of having the centre of excellence in Birmingham. My honourable friend Dr Moonie, the Under-Secretary of State, who has a certain expertise in this area on the medical side, is looking at ways to ensure that recruitment is enhanced. I have been able to tell the House that recruitment figures are moving in the right direction. It is important to remember that the centre of excellence will be not only a centre of excellence for defence medical studies but also a dual focus for a centre of excellence over the particular medical specialities of the individuals concerned. With that dual focus—with the clinical expertise and the teaching expertise—we hope that we shall turn around the problem that we all recognise is inherent in the morale of the Defence Medical Services at present.
Lord Carver: My Lords, who will run the Centre for Defence Medicine? Will it be the Ministry of Defence or the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it will be done through a partnership agreement. Agreements covering the operation of the centre are being negotiated at the moment. They are expected to be signed later this year. But we expect it to be done on a co-operative basis with the NHS trust and the university.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall that part of the concern about the small size of the Defence Medical Services relates to closer integration into the National Health Service and, in particular, to the provision of reserves? How much progress has been made in negotiation with hospital trusts about the provision of civilian doctors as reserves for the Defence Medical Services? When the subject was last debated, we were told that there were considerable difficulties in that area.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Under-Secretary of State is looking at ways in which we can improve the recruitment figures. I have been able to tell your Lordships something about improvements in overall recruitment, but I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we look to other sources of recruitment. I discussed this matter with the Under-Secretary of State today in preparation for answering this Question. I can assure the House that he is open to a number of different suggestions and is himself considering a number of options to improve recruitment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, following the engaging monologue that we have just enjoyed from the Lord Privy Seal, can the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that money will be made available, and will continue to be made available, from the Ministry of Defence budget, which is so badly stretched, for the centre of excellence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend answered the questions put to her. She was hardly giving a monologue but answering very sensibly the questions put to her from around the House. I can tell the noble Lord that the Strategic Defence Review provided an additional £ 140 million for the Defence Medical Services. We shall not be closing six hospitals in this country, as the previous government did during the course of the 1990s, and we shall not be closing three in Germany. It is a little difficult for the noble Lord to argue from the record of his government about the record of the present Government, who are investing very considerably in the Defence Medical Services. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wishes to make a point, I suggest that she rises to do so.
Lord Roper: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when a decision will be made on the Royal Army Medical College site, which will become available with the move to Birmingham? Is the imaginative idea to use it for the future of the Chelsea College of Art & Design being given full consideration?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this matter is being considered by the Under-Secretary of State. The site at Millbank has now been put on the open market. Several offers have been received for it and they are currently being evaluated.

Zimbabwe
2.53 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are content with the state of relations with Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, given the long, shared history between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe, we are disappointed that our relations with that country are going through a difficult phase. Zimbabwe is facing a number of economic and social challenges which require an urgent common effort. In the event of real reform, which reflects the people of Zimbabwe's clear desire for change, Britain will be ready to build a new relationship with the new Zimbabwe government.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I believe that noble Lords will agree with the sentiments she expressed. Is there not one person outside Zimbabwe who, more than anyone else, has the potential to influence events in Zimbabwe in a helpful manner? I refer to President Mbeki of South Africa. When the Prime Minister met Mr Mbeki in Japan last week, was that not a good opportunity for him to raise the question of Zimbabwe, bearing in mind that the situation in that country is still serious and could become catastrophic? Did the Prime Minister raise that matter with Mr Mbeki and what was the result?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that there has been ongoing contact with Zimbabwe, particularly in relation to President Mbeki's efforts. I cannot tell the noble Lord the exact nature of conversations that occurred in Japan, but I undertake to write to him in relation to that matter. It is right to say that our partners in Africa have played a helpful and significant role and we certainly expect them to continue to work closely with us.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, when will President Mugabe be required to recall the parliament of Zimbabwe, which was elected in the last week of May, rather than govern by using his presidential powers? Can the Government make any representations in this matter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is a set timetable for recalling parliament. At the moment, the Zimbabwe government are working within that. I am not able to give the noble Duke a specific date for when the parliament will be recalled. However, if it goes beyond that date, those matters will be raised.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does my noble friend's answer mean that the Government would be prepared
280
to resume aid to Zimbabwe provided that we were satisfied with the circumstances in which that aid was deployed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the challenges of Zimbabwe are clear. We have had close contact with all sides of the debate in Zimbabwe. We have met parties and made very clear the basis on which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to help Zimbabwe in relation to the recovery. If Zimbabwe's government show themselves to be serious in relations to those conditions, we have made it clear that we would be willing to consider how that help could be more easily given.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, many of us have great sympathy with those in Zimbabwe, both black and white, who are calling for the return of democracy and who have suffered greatly in doing so. In view of the rather biting criticism of committees of another place, can the Minister give an assurance that we will consider carefully the supply of any further arms to Zimbabwe, given the way in which the Hawk spares were used in the Democratic Republic of Congo?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly say that the embargo is in place. It will continue to be in place for so long as we reasonably believe that it is necessary. We shall look very carefully at the way in which Zimbabwe behaves before any change occurs in relation to that position.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given that the rule of law continues to be flouted in Zimbabwe and, as we have just heard, the parliament that was elected has not been recalled, might this not be a instance where for once quiet diplomacy is not the answer but a time when the Movement for Democratic Change must be greatly reinforced and Mr Mugabe put more on his guard by strong calls for the upholding of the rule of law? Cannot the Commonwealth, Mr Mbeki and others be prevailed upon to raise their voices in support of democracy and the rule of law so as to give some hope to people that they will be able to outwit Mr Mugabe's dislike for law and his determination to carry on with the present chaos?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. This Government, in all that they have done in the past few months, have made absolutely clear to Mr Mugabe the importance we place on the rule of law. I should also like noble Lords to take into account the fact that Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, who spoke to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 18th July, made clear that the opposition are seeking to work with the government to ensure that democracy prevails and also that the opposition wish to act in a constructive manner. If we wish to see a

281
strong Zimbabwe we have to honour the indications to us while of course continuing to emphasise that the rule of law is of the utmost importance.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if the situation were to improve, as the noble Baroness has indicated the £32 million compensation for land redistribution could then be made available. Given that many farm workers stand to lose considerably as a result of any land redistribution, will they be compensated under that package?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific response. However, I can say that a policy of continuing compulsory uncompensated land acquisition will do nothing to foster the sense of unity that President Mugabe wishes to see and spoke of in his address to the nation on 27th June. Furthermore, that policy will not help the economy, which is already in crisis. We recognise the importance and urgency of the land issue, but any resettlement will need to be arranged in a way that is acceptable to all concerned and that minimises the impact on Zimbabwe's already beleaguered economy. In that context, we very much hope that such issues will be taken into account.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the Government are in contact with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank? Have any plans been drawn up for decisions to be taken during the period of the Summer Recess? The coming six weeks will be a critical time, not only for the white farmers, but also for the unfortunate farm workers who stand to lose all they have: their livelihoods, their homes, schools and hospitals. That could happen during the weeks when we are not here. What plans have been made?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the IMF will apply the rules it customarily applies. It will take into consideration all proper matters. That is what we would reasonably expect it to do.

Light Aircraft: Noise Pollution
3.1 p.m.
Lord Lloyd-Webber Lord Lloyd-Webber asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to regulate the noise pollution caused by the recreational flying of light aircraft over the countryside, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have recently published a consultation document on noise from civil aircraft. This fulfils a commitment given in the 1998 White Paper, New Deal for Transport, and proposes powers to assist—and, if necessary, to compel—aerodromes to operate noise
282
amelioration measures and for local authorities to enforce these where necessary, with provision for arbitration. We have asked for comments on this consultation paper by 13th October.
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does he believe that the only rule which applies to light aircraft and recreational flying; namely, that aircraft must fly 500 feet from—not above, but from—a building, is adequate? Does the Minister further believe that that rule will stand in good stead in the light of a case brought under Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights concerning individual amenity?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was aware that a case is being taken to the court in Strasbourg on this particular issue. Given that, I expect that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the specific case. Clearly, in certain circumstances there may be a perceived infringement of the environment by individual citizens. Under normal circumstances, we would assume that the 500 feet rule would be sufficient to minimise noise heard on the ground. However, the consultation document is in part directed at investigating whether the responsibilities of aerodromes should be enhanced and 'whether the powers of the Secretary of State to regulate aerodromes as regards noise amelioration should be given further attention.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, as regards the consultation document arising from the White Paper, will the same consultation exercise apply to model aircraft? They can be just as much of a nuisance as some light aircraft.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that the consultation paper has not been drafted quite as widely as my noble friend would wish. I do not believe that model aircraft are covered; nor, I regret to say, do I believe that model aircraft are subject to the 500 feet restriction. Model aircraft can cause a nuisance on occasion, but I believe that they are covered by the normal nuisance laws rather than specific aviation law.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, no mention has been made in the consultation document of the noise produced by helicopters, in particular in built-up areas. Does that mean that people will still be able to present written submissions to the consultation on this point, even though no specific proposals as regards helicopter noise appear to have been included in the document?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no restriction has been placed on the subjects to be covered by written submissions to the consultation. I should tell the noble Baroness that the aviation rules covering helicopters are somewhat different. As regards the situation in London, about which I know the noble Baroness is concerned, a system of helicopter routes operates through London which defines the heights at which the

283
craft can fly and the areas in which they can operate. Effectively, most single-engine helicopters must follow the line of the Thames. Although helicopter noise is not covered specifically in the consultation document, any views expressed on the issue will be most welcome.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several low-flying aeroplanes pass over our garden in Scotland over the weekends? One of those aeroplanes makes a peculiar grinding noise when it flies up to disgorge parachutists? That is extremely distressing for people on the ground.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness had experienced aircraft passing over her garden from which parachutists jump—I was "unsighted" on that matter, as they say. Parachuting is subject to separate regulation. So far as I am aware, the same 500 feet rule applies in Scotland because the regulations cover the whole of Great Britain.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in some parts of the country, such as in the Lake District, we wish that we could hear the noise of light aircraft, which is drowned out by the screams of military planes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that the rural idyll may quite frequently be interrupted by military planes. However, they too are subject to severe regulation. I am sure that if my noble friend has a particular complaint to make, then my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will respond in her normal courteous way.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I speak as a recreational flyer and as vice-chairman of the Popular Flying Association, which is a regulatory body covering some 1,500 planes which fly under the permit-to-fly system. Is the noble Lord aware that we sympathise fully with my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber? We intend to bring in noise restrictions on all new aircraft and to require the existing fleet to comply where possible.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of that initiative. I believe that it will be helpful and we commend the association for bringing forward those proposals.

Business of the House: Football (Disorder) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with today to allow the Football (Disorder) Bill to be taken through
284
its remaining stages, and again on Friday next to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved as a manuscript amendment to the Motion:
Line 2, leave out "today to allow the Football (Disorder) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages, and again"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, careful scrutiny is one of the best guarantees of good legislation. I hope that all noble Lords will endorse those wise words that were once spoken by the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw. He made that statement in 1995, when he was a member of the Front Bench Opposition.
The intervals laid down between the stages of parliamentary consideration of legislation are crucial to the legislative process. In three circumstances those intervals may justifiably be dispensed with. First, when, for constitutional reasons, this House does not have a full locus on consideration of a piece of legislation. An obvious example of this is in debate on a finance Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will have noted that my amendment does not infringe on the proposal in the Motion that the Finance Bill should be taken through all its stages on Friday of this week. Another example might be consolidated fund Bills, which are in effect a front for supply Bills.
Secondly, when Bills are of a technical and wholly uncontroversial nature, they may sometimes have accelerated processes; but here the intervals of parliamentary process would normally apply. A third category would be in cases of national emergency, when to delay legislation would either seriously damage national security or destroy the whole purpose of a Bill. Obvious examples have been legislation connected with the emergency in Northern Ireland or, in earlier days, matters such as the Ugandan Asians and Commonwealth immigration. But the Football (Disorder) Bill cannot conceivably be reckoned to fall into any of those three categories.
There is a fourth reason why governments may be tempted to accelerate the process of legislation through Parliament; that is, for the convenience of the executive—either to get legislation on to the statute book because of the positive impact that it might make on the reputation of the government of the day, or perhaps even because the drafting of legislation is so defective as to make parliamentary scrutiny an embarrassment.
The intervals laid down have three purposes. The first is to enable parliamentarians to reflect on a Bill during its passage and to decide in that context what further changes may be needed. In the case of the football Bill, the Committee stage was concluded only after five o'clock this morning. Therefore, the later proceedings are not even published in Hansard. Only a handful of Members who remained to the end can know what was decided. It is also clear that, under Standing Order 48, it would not be possible for any amendments to be tabled for Third Reading. That could be a serious handicap in terms of our wish to improve the Bill.
The second reason for the intervals between stages is to allow Ministers and their Civil Service advisers to consider points that have been made in debate and to decide whether, and if so, how, they can be accommodated.
The third reason, and possibly the most important, is to allow the people to have their say in the legislative process. Almost every Bill that comes before Parliament is improved because of the views of the people, whether through professional bodies, pressure groups, lobbies or individuals. Those views are made known to Parliament at each stage in the consideration of a Bill. To take a recent example, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill was immeasurably improved in its passage through Parliament largely as a result of public representations. To some of us, that Bill still falls short of the ideal; but without the changes made to it, it would, frankly, have been an abomination in terms of both liberty and practicality.
I do not believe that it is widely appreciated that our legislative process makes provision, through the intervals between the stages of a Bill, for the people to have a real say, and thus to influence law-making. That applies particularly in this House, where we are relatively free of the inducements of patronage and the fear of party discipline. I hope, therefore, that the House will consider whether the case for immediate enactment of a football Bill, argued as it seems to have been on the date of a particular series of football matches, outweighs the abandonment of proper parliamentary consideration. It is a precious feature of our democracy. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I was taking guests round the Royal Gallery today, and I looked again at the Petition of Rights 1628, which won for us our freedom from arbitrary imprisonment. It has lasted 372 years. If we pass this Bill in the form that it is in at present, that is all that it will last.
The Bill allows someone who is not suspected of any criminal offence—indeed, against whom no charge is contemplated—to be imprisoned on the whim of a police officer, to be remanded in custody merely at the request of the police for a further period which may well amount to a matter of months, and if at the end of the day the police bring no charges because they can find no evidence, there is no cause for compensation to that person.
This is a disgraceful state of affairs. We are being asked to rush through a Bill which abuses our freedom as citizens to an extent which very few Bills do. I understand why the Government are doing this. They will come to regret it. I understand why those on our Front Bench are supporting them. They should regret it already. There is no reason why we should all have to share that shame. I very much hope that we shall support my noble friend in his amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, the delays between the stages of a Bill give everyone time to ponder, think, consider and inwardly digest—and to calm down. It is
286
rather like writing rather a hasty letter and putting it under your pillow at night. In the morning, you may have changed your mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, even if we accept the Government's attitude that this is a Bill that must reach the statute book before Parliament rises at the end of this week, I suggest that adequate time should be given for its proper consideration. We really cannot say that it can be properly considered if there is no gap at all, even of 24 hours, between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the start of the Report stage.
Many years ago, the Committee on Preparation of Legislation of which I had the honour to be chairman, which produced the only advisory document of its kind in the past 130 years, stressed that there must be adequate time between the Committee and Report stages for improving a Bill and making sure that it works properly and is understood by the people.
Admittedly, we have only this week to consider the Bill. But if the Government were wise enough to have Hansard published as soon as possible and considered by us on Thursday, any amendments—and we are not likely to make many—could still be considered by another place on Friday and the Bill could receive Royal Assent before we rise. I do not understand why that system cannot be followed.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I hope that those on the Government Front Bench are pondering those wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is an extremely seasoned and experienced parliamentarian.
When I heard what the Government were planning, it summoned up for me the expression of the great John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has previously made a number of points. The Government are treating the Bill as though it were emergency legislation with the war clouds gathering, instead of seeing it as a response to a particular problem. Regardless of what has been said by those on the Front Bench opposite, I hope that there are enough Members, not only on our Benches—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that we shall be with him if he seeks to divide the House—but on the Cross-Benches, and even on the Benches opposite, who regard this kind of behaviour by a government on legislation as simply not acceptable.
As the Government Chief Whip well knows, he would have lost his business last night had not these Benches co-operated with him in giving him the votes to carry on. We need some "give and take" on the part of the Government. We need space between Report and Third Reading, for all the reasons mentioned.
As was said, there were very few Members in the Chamber last night, but we are working through the Bill and we are improving it. Even as we talked, we saw some initiatives: the effectiveness of tighter rules for the membership of supporters' clubs, not least the Football Association Supporters Club.
A letter from a Leeds director printed in The Times today points out that clubs' life bans are having a salutary effect on behaviour. As the Bill progresses

287
through the House, Members with experience have put forward constructive and good ideas which improve it. However, I think that the Government will now sour the deliberations for the remainder of the Bill. They will also demonstrate a high-handedness which I believe that they will come to regret.
The speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Lucas, are unanswerable by anyone who cares for this House and its proceedings. As has been said, those spaces between deliberations are for a specific purpose. This House abandons them at certain times for certain grave reasons. I do not think that the Bill deserves to be escalated to that height of concern.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there is an easy way for the Government to deal with this issue. They can give us that breathing space between Report and Third Reading which would allow us and outside bodies to carry on the good and constructive work of improving the Bill.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he advocating that we should take Report stage today and put off Third Reading? With respect, I do not think that that is the proposition put by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said twice that he wanted a gap between Report stage and Third Reading. Does he want that; or does he want to put off the whole Bill for now?
Lord McNally: My Lords, I should prefer to have Report stage today. It is up to the Government's business managers to sort the matter out. But to move from Report stage to Third Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows better than anyone, concertinas a Bill. This is a Bill on football disorder. It does not involve troops crossing frontiers or a major terrorist outrage. Let us have a sense of proportion about the Bill; and let us protect the proceedings of this House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have been involved at the coal-face on this Bill. It has been a rather fruitless exercise. The situation is not fair to the Minister. He has done his very best in impossible circumstances. It is not fair to the House because the Minister cannot have the opportunity to consider the reasoned arguments which have been put to him, even if he agrees with them. I suspect—I do not commit him—that he is fair minded and would wish to give time and credence to many of the points that were made on the Bill. It is also a technical Bill. It has been made ludicrously technical. It involves erosion of individual freedom and many other consequences—criminal consequences.
It is not only unfair to the Minister and the House; it is jolly unfair to the subjects of the Queen—innocents who will be hauled in and treated as criminals. That is one thing that we seek to avoid. We cannot do so today. The Minister must have time to
288
understand why they are breaches of natural justice and why the Bill is oppressive. Unless time is allowed, a great misery of injustice will be done.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Attorney-General responds, can he tell the House on what grounds he defends the taking today of Report stage of the Bill when the vast majority of the Members of this House has not been able to read the Committee stage. There is no way we can know on what the Report stage is based.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have two different points to make. First, I am concerned about the precedent that is created. After today it will be impossible to resist this kind of approach to Bills on many other issues. Secondly, I am concerned that in a Bill which is supposed to be about football hooliganism we are about to breach a basic principle of our justice system: that you are innocent until you are proved guilty. For those two reasons, I strongly support my noble friend.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for having moved the amendment. Indeed, the House should be indebted to him for raising an immensely important issue on the timings in our House and the usual intervals.
By now it will be common knowledge that the Official Opposition have accepted the argument made by the Government in another place, and, therefore, in this House, that the Bill needs Royal Assent by the end of this week. That is why we have sought to an extent to co-operate with them on the timings although by no means the contents of the Bill. I hope that when, or if, we reach amendments on certain issues this afternoon not only will they be fully debated, but the Government will lose the debate. I refer in particular to the sunset clause. If anything justifies the appalling nature of some of the powers taken in this Bill, it is the ensuring of a clear cut-off period during which the Government can think again.
What seems to have gone wrong today is that the Government were caught out by the length of the Committee stage last night. I am aware that a Division took place in the small hours of the morning. Only 22 Members of the House voted on the Government side and 17 on the Opposition side. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, it was only because of the co-operation of the Opposition that that business was able to be continued.
However, the greatest miscalculation was in not ensuring that a complete Hansard could be provided. Only those who were present in the House—unfortunately, they included neither myself nor the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—have the faintest idea of the arguments proposed in amendments and the arguments put forward in defence of the Government's position.
Over the course of the past few weeks we have seen a long succession of government Bills which were not dealt with effectively or appropriately in another place

289
but which needed to be amended in this House not just because of pressure from Members of the Opposition parties and the Cross-Benches, but also because of government amendments.
The arrangement today is that the Third Reading should be taken on the nod immediately after Report stage, leaving no room for amendments from any Member of the House including the Government. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General winds up he will explain why the Government believe that there will be no further need to amend this legislation.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford has provided a useful opportunity to debate this matter fully. I hope that the Government will take clear note of what has happened. After the noble and learned Lord has responded on behalf of the Government, I hope that my noble friend Lord Marlesford will feel that the Government have offered enough for him to be able to withdraw his amendment to the Motion.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am also conscious that on my own side that is not a popular move. It may well be that my noble friend will seek to take the matter to a Division. However, I hope that he does not, because many Members have come to the House today expressly to deal with the Bill.
I ask a final question. If, as appears likely given the precedent of last night, debate on the Football (Disorder) Bill continues for many hours into the evening, what will happen to the first day of Committee consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill? Can we agree that if debate goes beyond the dinner hour, the matter should be left until we return in the spill-over?
3.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am gratified to find myself in such agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. As always, I am grateful for his full-hearted support. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that the observations made were unanswerable by anyone who cares for this House. I believe it is the time of year when Members of your Lordships' House become a shade too ready to drink too deep of the cup of hyperbole, to put it tactfully.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as a Welsh lawyer, I take that as a tribute.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am glad to see once again that my arguments have proved overwhelming. It goes without saying—and therefore I shall say it—that everyone who is a Member of this House cares for it. What the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, in general terms, is completely accurate: normally we abide by standing orders. He pointed to exceptions. There are exceptions of great significance and importance to our fellow citizens.
290
First, the Finance Bill and the debate on the Consolidated Fund are of very substantial importance but, as he rightly observed and demonstrated, stages of those Bills are commonly truncated.
If I noted it correctly, the noble Lord's second category was technical measures. His third category was Bills of national emergency. I believe that he went on to warn your Lordships gently to avoid the convenience of the executive. This has nothing to do with the convenience of the executive, which I shall demonstrate in a moment with your Lordships' patient understanding. It has nothing to do with the reputation of the executive, but a good deal to do with the reputation of our country internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was quite right to distinguish carefully between timings and the content of the Bill. One or two of your Lordships have not resisted the temptation to go to the content of the Bill whereas the Motion is about its timing. Of course, we are up against a tight timetable, which arises from external circumstance. The next match to be played abroad, according to my instructions, is on 2nd September. It is France versus England—(friendly).
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The distinction between timing and content is a little less easy than he suggests. There were many occasions which emerged last night when the Government clearly did not know their own mind. It would assist us in tabling amendments if the Government were to have time to resolve themselves.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, perhaps I may put forward a correction of fact. I understand that the next really sensitive match is on 4th August. It is to be played in Munich between Manchester United and the Munich club.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always in my experience, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right. My briefing was wrong, but I have been corrected by the Chief Whip. I am most obliged for their correction.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was making points of genuine and fundamental importance. Perhaps I may put a wider one to your Lords hips. We are the controllers of our own procedure, Perhaps I might sketch in a little history so that no one might be under the sad misapprehension that all this somehow arose unusually and on the basis of the quirkish determination of the Government Front Bench. Nothing could be further from the fact.
The draft business was discussed, as usual, last Wednesday. It was circulated on Thursday and, I imagine in the usual way, discussed at the various party meetings. That is the fact. As I understand it, the timings were those suggested by the Official Opposition. If I am wrong I shall sit down and withdraw. The business was agreed between the usual channels. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord,

291
Lord Harris of Greenwich, will forgive my pointing out to your Lordships that he is nodding assent to my proposition.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was nodding assent to something which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had just said to me.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always knew that we should have completed the expulsion of the hereditaries! Had the noble Earl, Lord Russell, not been in conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, what I said was nevertheless right. All the timings were agreed between the usual channels. If I am wrong I shall sit down and withdraw.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I was saying to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. It was that the timing appeared much better until the Government fell apart in the Chamber last night.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government did not fall apart, unless engaging in rational, coherent discussion is falling apart. That may be so among those Benches where presently dwells the noble Earl. But I do not regard having an extensive discussion until, as has been said, 20 minutes past five in the morning as the Government falling apart. I have read Hansard. Many of your Lordships have commended my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lord Bach for the very great care and attention that they have given to the Bill. I have read the earlier copies of Hansard to which I was plainly referring. But since your Lordships and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked me the specific question, I am told, and verily believe, that in the Library there is a typed copy of Hansard containing all of yesterday's and this morning's proceedings. The noble Baroness says "ridiculous". I can only deal with one intervention at a time. I am dealing with the sotto voce intervention made opposite. Now I shall give way, as always, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I was anxious to discover what had happened to three amendments I tabled which were towards the end of the Marshalled List. I asked when the second part of Hansard would be available. I was told that that would not be until tomorrow, but that there was a copy in the Library. I went there and found the part where my amendments should have been discussed. Ten pages covering the amendments moved on my behalf were missing and the staff are busily trying to find them at the moment. So that which is in the Library is not complete and in my particular case can provide no comfort at all.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not know that the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had not been recorded. From what he is saying, I take it that he was not here to move them. As
292
the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, I was not here myself. I imagine that the amendments must have been moved on his behalf.
I return to the fundamental point, because it relates to a very important way in which we conduct our business. If agreements are made through the usual channels, it has been my unfailing experience that they are adhered to and honoured. If we are to do business in a different way, it will mean a very different House. If your Lordships want that it is a matter for them because we control our procedure. But as I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was saying, he intended scrupulously to adhere to the business arrangement that had been arrived at. It does not surprise me at all to find that he sticks scrupulously to the agreement and honours the bargain. That has always been my experience of him and, I hope, his experience of our Chief Whip also.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, could he explain to those of us who have never formed part of the usual channels, and are never likely to do so, whether the deliberations in the usual channels took account of the fact that the proceedings would not end until 5.20 a.m. this morning?
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord answers that question, perhaps I may ask him whether what was agreed between the usual channels foresaw what happened in the early hours of this morning. In answering that question, would he consider the helpful suggestion that I made, which was warmly supported by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, that if the Report stage took place on Thursday immediately followed by Third Reading, which is not unexpected, then it seems to me that everyone would be satisfied and the Bill would have proper consideration, which it has no hope of having today?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was the same as that put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. In parenthesis, the noble Lord said that he was unlikely to become a member of the usual channels. It does not behove me to comment on that parenthetical observation, except to say that we are soul brothers because I have never been part of the usual channels either and have no expectation of such glory in this world.
The proposition I am putting is deep. We shall be able to run our business only if we run it in a way which we all know perfectly well. If we have such a system, there are bound to be occasions when one or other of us will be dissatisfied. That is inevitable.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord moves away from that point, would he not agree that the usual channels are our servants and that we are not the servants of the usual channels? Most of the time, it may suit us, for the proper conduct of this House, to go along with what the usual channels suggest. However, when they suggest something that is

293
so outrageous, so at variance with the liberty of the citizen and so inappropriate, as they have now for reasons which we understand and for which they are politically driven, it is our right and proper function respectfully to disagree with their conclusion. It is no fault of the operation of this House that we should occasionally do so, but merely a reassertion of the relationship between us and the usual channels: we are the masters and they are the servants.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Indeed, I thought that I had twice said that we are the controllers of our own ways. But that as a proposition does not determine all. If we are not able to work with the usual channels in the way we all know, the business of the House will not—and I mean it literally—be manageable.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, feels aggrieved on this occasion. I sympathise with and understand that. No one who took part in discussions between the usual channels knew for certain that the sitting yesterday would have continued until 5.20 a.m. but let us not forget that that was partly in order to accommodate other matters in respect of Section 28 about which your Lordships also felt strongly. I do not believe, to coin a phrase, that the argument is answerable by anyone who cares for this House. Unless we stick to and honour our arrangements we shall not be able to run ourselves effectively, efficiently or at all.
Your Lordships will have had two opportunities to amend the Bill. This is not the first time the Standing Order has been dispensed with. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, gave certain examples but perhaps I may give another. In February this year, we took Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of the Northern Ireland Bill all in a single day. Whether your Lordships agreed with that decision or not, I am simply pointing out that this is not setting a precedent which will upset the whole of discovered civilisation as we know it. We did it on that occasion because we are masters of our own machinery and business.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I have privately made it known that those of us representing the Northern Ireland constituency areas would not feel greatly aggrieved if the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill were dropped from this part of the Session and brought back immediately after the Recess. It is not a delaying tactic but it seems to me that no benefit is to be gained from having a Second Reading and then a two-months Recess before dealing with the Committee stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know the noble Lord well enough to recognise an offer which I feel unable to refuse. I am sure that his offer was put forward helpfully but it is not something which the Government can contemplate accepting.
Noble Lords: Why not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, because the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is a matter of enormous
294
importance. It needs to be discussed at the earliest possible opportunity. It is extremely serious for all those who live and serve in Northern Ireland and I personally do not think it would be appropriate to put off that stage of that Bill in these circumstances.
I gave that precedent and am returning to the wider precedent for the last time. The usual channels are not infallible. They are the way in which we run our business. I submit to your Lordships that there has been a certain amount of truncation of business, which was agreed. It has been truncated partly because the Chief Whip on our Benches tried to accommodate every possible diverse view about the relative spectrum of importance to be given to different Bills. I do not believe that anyone could dispute that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said and prima facie I agree with it. Why does the noble and learned Lord insist that this Bill has an importance which does not accord with anything said in the debate? It is important that we should discuss the issue fully on Thursday and we have the opportunity to do so. Why does the noble and learned Lord, who is a personal friend of mine, take the view that we cannot take the Bill on Thursday, as the noble Lord suggested?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. The reason is that if your Lordships want to make amendments to the Bill, the other place must have an opportunity to consider them and they must then return here. That will not be possible within the timetable of this week, bearing in mind the other business. The alternative is for your Lordships' House to sit next week and to invite, with infinite respect, another place to do the same. I should be happy to invite your Lordships to sit next week and ask for a volunteer to request another place to do the same.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord properly referred to a number of precedents but perhaps I may put to him another. In 1974, when the Prevention of Terrorism Bill was rushed through the House of Commons and through this House, the then Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, assured the House of Commons that the Bill would be reintroduced in the next Session and be discussed as normal with all legislation. Why are not the Government prepared to give a similar undertaking today?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, because we have not yet reached the final stages of the Bill. There has been substantial discussion of it and your Lordships will have to take a decision. The Opposition in another place gave us an assurance, and delivered on the promise, that we would have their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave me a similar indication in the Chamber not on this but on a related Bill the day before the Bill was introduced and a

295
similar question was raised. Your Lordships will have to take a view. There is no prospect of completing this business this week in either Chamber.
I have a little further information. I realise it interrupts what I was seeking to say but it is right to give it to your Lordships in response to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Inquiries have been made and I am told that the overspill record was delivered soon after 9.30 a.m. and that the noble and learned Lord was right in saying that there were missing pages. They were delivered about 20 minutes ago. It is no good to complain. I am giving your Lordships the fullest information that I genuinely have. I should not like to say, "I have in my pocket this piece of paper". I am making a New Year's resolution, beginning tomorrow, that on future occasions I shall cease to try to be helpful.
At least two noble Lords want to intervene. I shall give way, first, if I may, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, as he has the great distinction of being a former Attorney-General.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord realise how proud he makes me to be a member of his profession? Can he even visualise the thunderbolts that he would have been hurling had he been on this side of the Chamber? Does he accept that he is making a beautiful argument in favour of form rather than substance? In his study of such Hansards as have been produced in the time available, did he note the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who said:
"I find it very difficult to accept the proposed new Section 21A as it stands, without much greater consideration being given to it than has been possible because of the way in which the Bill has been brought forward at the last moment".— [Official Report, 24/7/00; col. 157.]
Whatever the position may be with regard to the possibilities for future business in the next two or three days, does that arouse in the noble and learned Lord's mind the real belief that what has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is now the right way forward for democratic and sensible government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to me by an illustrious predecessor. I do not believe that I am simply making a case without form and substance. If I am, your Lordships must adjudicate upon it. Of course, I know what certain noble and learned Lords have said. I repeat that the business was agreed last Wednesday and Thursday and the Bill was introduced in the House last Tuesday. I do not believe that anyone who stayed here last night until twenty past five in the morning could suggest that a fair scrutiny had not been given to the Bill.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, may wish to raise a different point.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Would it be unduly cynical of me to wonder whether the urgency behind the proposals that we are discussing derives, as of course it does in the other place, more from a fear of the tabloids than from a fear of football hooligans?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that that is a worthy reflection of the present state of matters. There is significant concern in this country about the serious damage that a small, unrepresentative number of persons do to our international reputation. However, if the noble Lord is right, his remedy is to vote against the Bill and he has had ample opportunity to do so.
I do not believe that I can usefully assist your Lordships further. I believe that we should stick to the course that has been charted and agreed, and I ask your Lordships to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, metaphorically if not literally, perhaps I may, as a very Cross-Bencher, ask a question. He says that the usual channels are not infallible. I make no comment about that. Does it follow also that, when they are proved to be fallible, they cannot retreat and regroup? That appears to be what is being said.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that it is. I was trying to say—and it is obviously my infelicitous forensic skill that has led the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, astray—that if we want to run our business in the way that we do, based on consent and on honouring bargains, some people occasionally may be aggrieved. That is the fundamental point that I sought to make about the running of our House. I believe that when I sit down the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is entitled to his observations.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for the case that he has made. I am disappointed in four respects. First, I consider that the Government still do not appreciate the importance of the principle of proper consideration of legislation before it is passed and the crucial part that the intervals between stages of legislation play in that consideration. Secondly, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has made the case that this Bill merits, or ever has merited, the suspension of those procedures. Thirdly, I regard it as unfortunate that it is felt that in the consideration of legislation the obligations entered into by the usual channels should be regarded as paramount. Fourthly, it is an undoubted fact that this legislation has not been considered properly and now, whatever happens immediately, it cannot be.
I can say only that I very much hope that the sunset clause, which at least will limit the damage which this legislation could impose over a period of time, will be passed. I hope also that my intervention will have signposted the feelings of this House that the

297
suspension of the procedure of proper intervals between stages in the consideration of legislation should not again be entered into lightly. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the manuscript amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ackner, L.

Jopling, L.

Addington, L.

Kimball, L.

Alderdice, L.

Kirkham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Barker, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Bell, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Biffen, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

Ludford, B.

Bradshaw, L.

McConnell, L.

Bridges, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

McNally, L. [Teller]

Brookeborough, V.

Maddock, B.

Butterworth, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L. [Teller]

Chalfont, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Methuen, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montrose, D.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eames, L.

Newby, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elles, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Erroll, E.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Ezra, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Falkland, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Patten, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goodhart, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Greaves, L.

Plumb, L.

Hamwee, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Quinton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Razzall, L.

Haslam, L.

Reay, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hogg, B.

Rennard, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Roper, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Russell, E.

Jacobs, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

298

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Swinfen, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Sandberg, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Selborne, E.

Tope, L.

Selsdon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Sharman, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sharples, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Walmsley, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Warnock, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Strange, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bach, L. [Teller]

Islwyn, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Laming, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Layard, L.

Burlison, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lipsey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lockwood, B.

Christopher, L.

Longford, E.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Donoughue, L.

Marsh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Molloy, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Orme, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gate, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gavron, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gregson, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hayman, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Healey, L.

Stallard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tenby, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Thornton, B.

299

Tomlinson, L.

Whitaker, B.

Turnberg, L.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Varley, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Waverley, V.

Young of Old Scone, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and the manuscript amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Joint Committee
4.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Lea of Crondall be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Walker of Doncaster.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Disorder) Bill
4.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Football matches: prevention of violence or disorder]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Lord Richard: My Lords, are we now proceeding with Report stage on this Bill or is Report stage to be taken tomorrow? It would be useful to have some guidance.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are now taking Report stage. I apologise, but there will now be a discussion through the usual channels to agree how we deal with Third Reading and so forth.
Last Wednesday an agreement was reached, which was circulated to all the party meetings, as my noble friend said last Thursday, and everyone knew that Report and Third Reading were to be taken today. In order to allow for a gap between Report and Third Reading, a suspension of the Standing Order would need to have been tabled yesterday. To do that I would have needed to know that the Committee stage would last until five o'clock this morning. The Opposition Chief Whip will agree with me that yesterday we believed that all yesterday's business would finish by
300
midnight. We revised that estimate at ten o'clock last night to two o'clock. We got it wrong because, quite fairly, it took a lot of time. That is why we are in this position. That agreement, which was clearly reached and understood through the usual channels, was not supported when it came to the vote.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, was the Convenor of the Cross Benches involved in that process and will he be part of the decision-making process that follows?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Viscount knows that the Convenor of the Cross Benches is not a member of the "usual channels". It is clearly understood that he can speak only for himself and not for his group.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, while we are dealing with niceties, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, where is the Leader of the House? It was her Motion and one would have expected her to have been present to reply to it and to help the Government out of this mess.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is attending an important Cabinet committee. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was tabled quite late. It was not possible for her to rearrange her commitment. Accordingly, she asked me to do the best I could, to be as persuasive as possible to ensure that we had an overwhelming defeat.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Leader of the House would have done better, and more charmingly, than the noble and learned Lord. However, he referred to his noble friend as "learned". I did not know that she was "learned". I congratulate her.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 14, leave out paragraph (c)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 31, 33 and 34. The aim of the first of this group of amendments is to remove paragraph (c) of Clause 1 which states:
"(c) for enforcing authorities to require persons subject to banning orders to surrender their passports in connection with certain association football matches played outside the United Kingdom".
This amendment was debated at a fairly late hour this morning and, therefore, does not appear in Hansard. As a result I am tempted to redeliver, word for word, the extremely eloquent and persuasive speech that I made on that occasion! However, that may be inappropriate.
The provisions requiring surrender of passports are wholly and entirely unnecessary. In Schedule 1, paragraph 3, new Section 19(2A) states that, at the beginning of a control period in relation to a match or a tournament, if the enforcing authority, as it is called,

301
"is of the opinion that requiring any person subject to a banning order to report is necessary or expedient in order to reduce the likelihood of violence or disorder at or in connection with the match, the authority must give"—
the subject of the banning order—
"a notice in writing".
New subsection (2B) states:
"The notice must require that person—

(a) to report to a police station specified in the notice at the time, or between the times, specified in the notice,

(b) if the match is outside the United Kingdom and the order imposes a requirement as to the surrender by him of his passport, to surrender his passport at a police station specified in the notice at the time, or between the times, specified in the notice".

So there are two elements both of which are compulsory: one is attending a police station and the other is surrendering the passport. The obvious course of action is to require the subject of the order to attend the police station at the time when a match is taking place. That already happens in domestic banning orders. Effectively, in the case of a match outside the United Kingdom, that prevents the subject of the banning order travelling to watch the match.
Therefore, what on earth does an order to surrender a passport accomplish that cannot be accomplished by a banning order? Effectively, the answer is nothing. A subject of a banning order is not likely to be persuaded to hand in his passport if he is not willing to comply with such an order anyway. In either case, if he does not comply he will go to gaol. The only possible value of a surrender of a passport is a symbolic one.
It has been said in the press that the Germans prevented hooligans from travelling to Euro 2000 in the Netherlands and Belgium by removing passports from known hooligans. In fact, as became apparent last night, that is wholly untrue. The Germans imposed reporting orders on most of their hooligans. Under German law a passport can be required to be surrendered only for very serious crimes and there is no question of a football hooligan being required to surrender a passport. Sometimes the authorities stamp a passport in such a way as to make it ineligible for admission to the country where a match is to take place. That is something that the Government, in this case, have decided not to do.
The requirement to surrender a passport is wholly unnecessary. It is not only unnecessary but for many people it is also a highly intrusive order. It will have all sorts of effects which may happen at unpredictable times and which may persist for long periods such as a month or more continuously. The requirement to surrender a passport may prevent someone from going abroad for family reasons, for work or even for a pre-booked holiday to Florida, which is thousands of miles from the nearest serious football match.
Admittedly, under Section 20 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 there is a power to apply for exemption from the requirement. That has to be applied for separately each time an exemption is sought and, worse, there is no provision that enables the subject of a banning order who wants to go abroad on a permanent basis—perhaps for a job or
302
to live—to apply for a discharge of the order on the grounds that, in the new circumstances, it is no longer appropriate.
The surrender of a passport is a serious infringement of the right of movement and is almost certainly contrary to European Union law unless it is proportionate to the evil which it is sought to prevent. It may be that if the surrender of a passport was the only possible way in which a hooligan could be prevented from going abroad, that condition might be satisfied. But what is plain here is that, given that a reporting order will do the job just as well, requiring the surrender of a passport in addition is wholly disproportionate, serves no useful purpose, is certainly contrary to European Union law and possibly also to the Human Rights Act.
In those circumstances it is impossible to see why this provision has been included. It should be removed from the Bill as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this provision for the surrender of passports on top of the provision for reporting to the police station could be regarded as belt and braces; as two ways to achieve the same thing. But sometimes it is correct to use belt and braces to ensure that the desirable aim—the prevention of the individual concerned from travelling to a football match—is achieved. Therefore I cannot support Amendment No. 3.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, will the Minister share with us the legal advice he received in relation to the points made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart on the potential clash of the free movement provisions of the European Union treaties? My noble friend makes a serious point. At a time when efforts are being made to put more flesh on the bones of the free movement provisions, certainly in communications of which I am aware in the European Commission and currently going through the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, this provision appears to be going in the wrong direction. Can the Minister tell us precisely how he responds to this question of a clash between the provisions of the Bill and the rights under the European treaties?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, this amendment was discussed yesterday. Its impact is important. It would remove the provision that banning orders must, save in exceptional circumstances, impose a requirement on recipients to surrender their passports when required to do so by the enforcement authority during control periods.
I am particularly surprised that the noble Lord should choose to return to this amendment. Mandatory surrender of passports is one of two measures in the Bill which had been accepted by all sides, including the Liberal Democrats in another place. The imposition of such a requirement will be a key element in the new structure of controls which this

303
Bill will set up in order to ensure that the requirements of banning orders are complied with, at least so far as they relate to overseas matches.
I made it clear that there is provision for a person to appeal against a requirement to surrender his passport and that the enforcing authority can waive compliance with the condition in certain circumstances—perhaps in some of the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, alluded. Section 19(2A) makes clear that the enforcing authority under the Bill—the football banning orders authority—may only impose passport surrender conditions in relation to specific matches if satisfied that such conditions will reduce the likelihood of violence or disorder at that match.
I should also like to repeat that Section 20 of the Football Spectators Act, which does not appear in this Bill because it is not amended in any way by this Bill, already provides for the recipients of banning orders to apply for exemptions from any requirement, and for them to be able to appeal to a magistrates' court if the football banning orders authority refuses the application. That seems to me to be good due process.
The regime we propose to put in place for the surrender of passports, which is closely based on the existing system which was set up for international football banning orders, will be no more stringent than is required to meet the purpose for which it was instituted. As I made clear earlier, this proposal was widely supported.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me to reveal our legal opinion. But it is not customary to do that. However, I addressed this issue in the debates yesterday and made the point—fairly, I believe—that rights of movement in Article 509 of the EC treaty and set out in Directives 73/148 and 64/221, are not absolute rights of free movement. The right to travel to receive services may be restricted in the interests of public policy and public security. Those restrictions must of course be applied on the basis of the personal circumstances of those concerned and on the judgment that those concerned represent a genuine threat to public order.
The scheme of the Football Spectators Act, as amended by this Bill, in our view meets those criteria and represents a balanced and proportionate package of measures. Ultimately, it is our opinion that it is right. We believe that this measure is proportionate; that it will make a contribution to securing the security and public safety that we have debated. And this is a measure which attracted widespread support beyond this House. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am unhappy with the Minister's response. I am of course aware of Section 20; indeed, I referred to it in moving the amendment. Section 20 is amended by this Bill in paragraph 14 of Schedule 2, though those amendments are purely consequential.
The problem here is that there is a serious gap. That is one of the reasons we are particularly concerned. The gap arises because, although of course if there are
304
exceptional circumstances the court is not bound initially to make the banning order and there is a right of appeal against the order, the exceptional circumstances must exist at the date of the banning order or when the appeal is heard. Thereafter there is a considerable gap in time when the banning order continues. Section 20 allows an exemption only on a case-by-case basis; it has to be reapplied for each time.
Given that under new Section 14B(2) of the 1989 Act, a banning order can be made in the absence of a criminal conviction and the Government continue to insist that they are making a civil law order, there plainly ought to be a power to go back to the court to ask for the discharge of the order if it is clear that the subject of the banning order is no longer likely to indulge in violence or disorder. It is because of that gap that we are particularly concerned.
Having said that, I realise that we have to recognise what our priorities are in this Bill. Although it is an important amendment, in our view it is not the most important of those we tabled. Therefore I do not intend to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, leave out paragraph (d)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 3 is to remove the power to make a summary order which will prevent somebody who is thought to be a hooligan or potential hooligan from travelling abroad, even at a time when there is no subsisting banning order against him.
We are dealing here with the last of the Government's four main proposals under the Bill, and the one that has attracted the most widespread opposition among all sections who are concerned about this legislation. Indeed, when this matter was debated last night—I do mean last night, not this morning—it gained widespread support from all sides of the Chamber. There is a serious problem here. One has to consider what this proposal is intended to achieve. It will no doubt be used to stop at some point people who are on their way to an overseas match before they leave the United Kingdom or, indeed, England and Wales.
On Second Reading many speakers, including myself, pointed out that the real hooligans do not turn up in their Union Jack or St George's Cross T-shirts, with their beer bellies hanging out and swilling cans of lager. Indeed, if this legislation is enacted, the serious hooligans will dress tidily and discreetly—although perhaps not quite like your Lordships—and will escape notice. If the police start arresting people on mere suspicion based on their appearance, they will soon find that they have saddled themselves with a lot of very unhappy and innocent people who have been prevented from attending the match that they wanted to see. This will cause a great stink via newspaper reports. Moreover, under the new provision for

305
compensation that I was very glad to see incorporated into the Bill in Committee, the police will have to pay out large sums of money.
Obviously, the police understand all that as well as anyone else. Therefore, they are not likely to spend their time at airports looking for the most likely potential hooligans and arresting people simply because they have a tattoo or a beer belly. Plainly the police will act on the basis of intelligence. They will be told the names of the people with records for whom to watch and, having identified them, they will stop them and inform them that they can go no further.
Therefore, in those circumstances, the question will arise as to why the police did not seek to obtain a banning order earlier, rather than wait until these people arrive at an airport. There are two possible answers. First, they may not have quite enough evidence to justify obtaining a banning order or they may not be satisfied that they have it—in which case they should not have stopped the person, save in very rare circumstances where last-minute information has come to their notice. The second possibility is, frankly, the more likely one Even though the police may have information that could lead to the issuing of a banning order, the police may decide for reasons of cost and time not to seek such an order against a potential hooligan until he has actually set off to attend a match. That seems to me to be a wholly improper use of the power and one that should not be permitted.
If the police are going to apply for banning orders, they should do so in good time so that such an order can be made and the requisite notice served on the person concerned before he leaves home to make his way to a match. However, there is more to it than that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said last night, this is an unprecedented power. It is not just inappropriate; it is an infringement of the rights that have been recognised in this country for a very long time. New Sections 21A, 21B and 21C give the police power to stop and detain someone; to order that person to appear at the magistrates' court within the following 24 hours; and to arrest that person and keep him under arrest if the police officer believes that the suspect is likely to fail to appear in court.
As I said, the Government persistently—and, I believe, contrary to all recognised standards—regard a banning order as a civil rather than a criminal order. Therefore, one has to ask: how on earth is it possible to justify giving powers of detention and arrest, even for 24 hours, as regards someone who has not had a criminal conviction for violence in the past and against whom there is nothing more than a suspicion, a belief, that he may take part in violence if he is allowed to proceed to the football match? Moreover, the police can not only detain someone for 24 hours: the magistrates can also remand him and remand him in custody, which is an extraordinary position for what is allegedly the prelude to the making of a civil order.
It seems to us that this is a wholly improper use of the power that should not be exercisable. The power given to the police to arrest and detain people merely
306
on the basis of suspicion is wholly inappropriate and should be removed firmly and completely from the Bill. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this set of amendments attracts me a great deal. However, we now have the opportunity to deal with the final solution on Third Reading. It seems to me that that may be the more appropriate way to deal with this group of amendments. My judgment on these matters will very much depend on what the Minister says. If he can indicate that, as far as concerns Amendment No. 36 and those following it, he has taken note of the points made and admits that there are changes to be made to the Bill—if not now, perhaps at Third Reading—we should surely allow consideration of this part of the legislation to proceed until we reach those amendments.
However, if, as I fear, the Minister has come to the House today with the word "resist" written all over his brief and has no intention of making any accommodation as regards the points that we have all been making on this extremely unsatisfactory part of the Bill, I shall have a great deal of sympathy with the pursuit of these amendments at this stage.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions the answers to which may be helpful. First, have chief constables really recognised that this provision, as drafted, releases a new area of arbitrariness into their hands? Do the Government accept that it is very likely that the provision will be used against those who appear eccentric, those who are slightly drunk and scruffily clad, or those who may have rather extreme forms of supporter kit about their bodies? Indeed, the provision is most unlikely to impact against those who, properly clad and cunning in their careful planning, are out to subvert the enjoyment of the rest of us who like to attend good football matches.
My second question goes to the text of the Bill. My noble friend referred to the provision in Schedule 1 which imports into the legislation the right of a magistrates' court to grant compensation if one of these orders has been obtained wrongfully. The Minister will be aware that there are many actions for false arrest and unlawful imprisonment against the police, which are usually brought in the county court these days. They are tried by juries. Claimants have the opportunity to have their claim judged by their peers. It is possible for them to be awarded damages not only for financial loss but also for injury to their feelings and for the fact that they have lost their liberty for a period of time.
The provision in Schedule 1 which relates to compensation appears to allow compensation to be paid only for actual financial loss suffered. Further, it contains no provision whereby a claimant can ask a jury of his or her peers to decide whether this quite extraordinary new power has been exercised on a proper basis. Will the Minister tell the House whether a

307
person is to retain his or her right to bring a civil action before a jury in a county court if one of these orders has been obtained wrongly? If they are not to retain that right, even if they lose in the magistrates' court that would constitute a scandalous change in the law depriving the citizen of a valued and long held right.
My first question concerned what has been asked of chief constables in relation to arbitrariness. My third concerns what has been asked of chief constables in relation to the burden of dealing with this provision, which is likely to be used almost always in extremely controversial circumstances likely to lead to dispute and applications for compensation. Do chief constables really want this? Does the ACPO really feel that it needs this? Does it consider that it adds anything to the effective powers already in existence? One has a suspicion that although there may be laudable aims behind the Bill, this is a piece of unnecessary window dressing. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions, especially the one about compensation claims and civil actions.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, why does he think that new Section 21D, which entitles the magistrates' court to order compensation if satisfied that the person has suffered loss as a result of the giving of the notice, either limits that to actual financial loss or prevents that person from bringing any other claim to which he might be entitled? I hope that the noble Lord will answer that question before he sits down.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the amendment to the provision appears to provide payment of compensation in respect of a loss. If I am wrong about that, I am happy to be corrected. However, the noble Lord did not appear to correct me; he merely asked why I said what I said. I said what I said because I thought that I had read the provision properly. However, the noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer and I am happy to defer to him if he can establish otherwise. What concerns me—this is most important—is that a citizen who may have been the victim of arbitrary action should have recourse not to a magistrates' court, which lives under one set of judicial pressures, but—like every other aggrieved citizen who complains about false imprisonment—to a civil court where there is often a jury and where compensation is at large and unlimited.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I did not take part in the discussion either at Second Reading or Committee stage and for that I apologise. I asked the question of the noble Lord because I could not immediately see why a reference to suffering loss should prevent the magistrates awarding compensation for any loss they thought had been incurred. It is clear that, as a matter of law, courts award compensation for loss of enjoyment, amenity and benefits, for which money can compensate but which is not simply a case of pounds or pence out of one's pocket. As the noble Lord has
308
participated in the Bill to such a large extent, I thought that he might have had some reason for interpreting loss in the rather narrower sense which he put forward.
Further, I assumed—that is why I asked the question—that there must be something in the Bill which takes away rights of citizens to bring claims which otherwise they would have. I hoped that, if there were such a provision, he would have drawn it to your Lordships' attention. For those reasons I inquired about the questions which the noble Lord posed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am now intervening in the noble Lord's speech or whether I am replying to an intervention in mine. However, I crave your Lordships' indulgence. With great respect to the noble Lord, I disagree with him on the interpretation of new Section 21D(1)(b). I suggest to your Lordships that it is likely that on judicial review—if that were the appropriate procedure—or in the administration court, as I believe we have to call it now, loss, as described in the provision, would be limited to financial loss. In any event, the figure for loss is capped at £5,000. However, the figure for loss in a county court is not capped at £5,000. As I understand it, county courts frequently award damages of more than £5,000 in actions for false imprisonment. I am not sure what the hourly or daily rate is now, but £5,000 may well be at the lower end of compensation awards in that context. There is plainly an interesting dispute here which the noble Lord and I could more profitably—in the literal sense—have adjudicated elsewhere, were we on opposite sides. But perhaps the Minister can relieve the public of that expense by answering the questions that have been posed.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that we are all agreed—at least those of us who have discussed the Bill for many hours—that the provision which the amendment seeks to knock out is the most controversial in the Bill. It is also apparently regarded by the Government as the most important power in the Bill and the most potent power to address the mischief of British football hooliganism carried out overseas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we have discussed the clause both in principle and in detail for a long period. I do not believe that these provisions will be much used in practice for the practical reasons which have emerged in the debate and which emerged in more detail overnight. These include the existence of the compensation provisions. I shall not enter into the legal discussion which has taken place as no doubt we shall return to that when we reach the compensation provision later in our discussions. That is one practical reason. The other—which has also been mentioned—constitutes the difficulties that the measure will pose for the police. As I say, I believe that because of those practical difficulties, these provisions will not be much used in practice. I also strongly believe that the power should only be temporary to give us the opportunity to judge whether in practice the power is important and works—whether the Government are, in effect, right—and whether it is a balanced power with regard to civil liberties.

309
I am not minded to deny the Government this power at this stage. We want the Government to be able to tackle British football hooligans who commit offences overseas. We want to do that in the interests of our country and its reputation but also in the interests of football and of ordinary decent fans who wish to attend matches of the character we have discussed. While I doubt whether the power will be as important or as effective as the Government maintain, if they are allowed to try it out for a temporary period we shall be able to judge the truth of their claim and the practical effects of the proposed power.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may add a practical observation to the legal analysis advanced by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. Before doing so, I shall share with your Lordships a certain realisation based on the recent debate between my noble friend Lord Carlile and the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. It is a point which has not been discussed hitherto but which has a great deal of substance. I suspect that there are many more such points in the Bill.
I suspect that some noble Lords will not be content with proposed new Section 21A, whatever pragmatic success it might achieve if enacted. There are such profound civil libertarian objections involved—some of which have been voiced this afternoon and many of which were voiced overnight, perhaps most effectively by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick—that we would not accept it at any price.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would like a suspension of business?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should hate to miss the noble Lord's attention because much hangs on this amendment. Effectively we are talking about the severe, pragmatic, likely consequences of proposed new Section 21A. It is common ground that the Government made strenuous efforts to prevent trouble at Euro 2000; it is common ground that NCIS spent an immense amount of time and effort trying to draw up a list of those who would cause trouble in a competition such as Euro 2000. The Home Secretary has let us know that of the 965 people arrested and deported from Brussels and Holland, only 30 were on that list of 1,000 most-wanted hooligans, if I can call them that. We also know that there were only four prosecutions of the 965, and only two of those for violence, of which one is currently being appealed.
Many noble Lords were not here at whatever hour we debated the matter this morning or last night, so I have to repeat my question to the Government—I have not yet had a reply—on the issue of how the people in the sights of the law enforcement agencies will be targeted? If they are the 1,000 most-wanted hooligans on the NCIS list, we know from the recent evidence in Belgium that they either escape the net somehow, or do not go there, or whatever else. Could it therefore be that the next most likely group to be targeted under the provisions of proposed new Section
310
21A are the 30 per cent of adult males under the age of 30 who have convictions? That group was much referred to by the Home Secretary in another place and when we met him a fortnight ago.
How on earth can one target a group that is hundreds of thousands strong? That is what it boils down to. If 30 per cent of the population of that age group have convictions of this kind, it represents hundreds of thousands of people. How will the law enforcement authorities target them? We debated this sharp, practical point enough last night to leave many of us believing that the poor police will have a simply impossible task in seeking to utilise proposed new Section 21A. If it proves an impossible task and, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, if the exercising of it is likely to be so arbitrary against a particular group that it causes more trouble than it solves, then, besides being obnoxious in legal and civil libertarian terms, proposed new Section 21A is likely to prove ineffective in fact. On that basis—quite apart from the broader legal basis—the House would be well advised to remove this whole provision from the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we spent a lot of time last night trying to get an answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Phillips. It is a vital question in relation to any decision on the state of the Bill as a whole. Clearly, if prevention is to be attempted—which the Minister recommended at great length and with some virtue last night—one must be able to identify the group which is to be prevented. On the one hand, we are shown an NCIS list which is too narrow; on the other hand, a range of people with previous convictions which is too wide. Clearly neither of those will actually be used. Unless we can show some criterion for identifying these people which has some genuine correlation with their propensity to commit disorder, we shall have no way of telling whether the Bill is more likely to impact on the guilty or on the innocent. Unless the Minister can answer that question, the Bill as a whole should fall.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it may be useful if I clear up one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his interesting exchange earlier. I know that the noble Lord is concerned about civil actions; he has a long history of asking Written Questions on the subject in another place. I had some involvement in the subject earlier in my career when I was doing research as a law centre worker; I understand fully his point about the importance of a citizen being able to undertake and conduct a civil case in circumstances where they feel they have been wronged.
However, the noble Lord should understand that the provision in the Bill at proposed new Section 21D is designed to give immediate compensation without the need to make a separate application to the county court. Setting that provision into the legislation does nothing to compromise the individual citizen's absolute right—
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am sorry, I d id not mean to interrupt the noble Lord in mid-sentence.

311
However, I think I have anticipated the rest of the sentence. Can the Minister confirm that if a citizen is able to bring a civil action later, then an adverse finding of fact in a summary hearing in front of the magistrates' court will not be capable of being used by the police to put forward, for example, pleas of res judicata in the civil action which later ensues?
I see the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, shaking his head in apparent disbelief. Having been in a rougher end of the trade than he for 30 odd years, I can tell him that these are the kind of issues that arise day by day in county courts up and down the country. Perhaps the Minister will address the question and give the House an answer in addition to the very helpful answer he has given already.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I always feel modest in the face of such legal knowledge and expertise. I cannot provide the noble Lord with an off-the-cuff response; I think he appreciates that. The point I am trying to make is that there is nothing in the legislation which compromises the individual citizen's right or ability to undertake a civil action where they feel they have been wronged.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I understand the Minister raising his eyes to the heavens; I promise not to interrupt again on this matter. But does not this illustrate the danger of bringing forth legislation in haste without considering what are not abstruse questions at all? I said to the Minister—and I mean it—that this is the kind of question that arises every day of the week in county courts up and down the land. Should not the Government bring forward legislation in which, at least in a Pepper v. Hart sense, they can resolve ambiguities which will come before the court—or should they not think about this provision again?
5 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the compensation element within the legislation was brought forward in an effort to be helpful and also to indicate that we fully appreciated the seriousness, and measured the seriousness, which the proposals in the legislation might have for an individual citizen. They were, if you like, a balancing part of the package of provisions. I find it rather strange now that the noble Lord is almost advancing an argument which says, "Well, because you put this compensation clause in, it somehow compromises the individual citizen's right to take civil action in the county court". That is not our intention. Nor is it the intention of the legislation. No doubt people will continue, as they have done for many decades, to pursue civil action where they feel they have been wronged by a public authority—in this instance by the police service.
I turn now to the other issues which are very much at the heart of the debate. While I shall do that at length, I think that what I say will cover most of the issues raised during the debate. It has been a very useful debate. Most noble Lords' concerns in the debate this afternoon and earlier in the day have been
312
focused on the civil liberties end of the business; concerns about those detained or issued with a notice commencing a banning order by consent procedure. Some noble Lords have focused on the pivotal question of implementation. I shall come to how the measure will actually work. Some noble Lords have expressed concerns about thousands of detentions— the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, used that term—and banning orders that might arise from new Sections 21A and 21B. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I thought helpfully, placed those fears into context with his dismissal of the notion of a police officer picking individuals arbitrarily out of a queue and saying, "I want to investigate you". As the noble and learned Lord made clear, the police officer has at that moment to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a condition in new Section 14B(2) has been met. Of course, he is quite correct.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope the Minister can assist me. I heard the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The question that we should like to have answered is what sort of grounds might it be thought reasonable to proceed upon? What type of evidence in a policeman's possession would warrant taking proceedings under the new section?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I said I would try to answer the questions. That is one of the issues to which I shall return. But, with respect, having listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, I think that he clearly understands the importance of the civil liberties issues. He has addressed also the implementation matters. It is right to concentrate first on what the debate in Committee only touched upon, perhaps almost in passing. That is the experience that has convinced the Government and the police that the measures proposed in Section 21 are a vital component of the Bill. Indeed, I argue that they are crucial if we are to seriously tackle the kind of mindless 'yobbery' and nonsense witnessed in Charleroi, Brussels, Copenhagen and elsewhere during the course of the last football season.
Some noble Lords—I hope many noble Lords—may have seen over the weekend a timely television documentary on football in the 1970s. It was a real trip down memory lane. It featured footage of the then Home Secretary, police and football authorities in a high profile meeting convened to discuss the scourge of football hooliganism. It was a timely reminder of the longevity of the phenomenon and the need for radical measures. These measures, like the extensive use of CCTV, were radical for the day. They attracted opposition and concern. But the nettle was grasped. It can be fairly argued that the domestic manifestation of football disorder was confronted head on and has been dealt with in good measure. Today, we can rightly be proud—as I have said in the past—of our domestic stadia. They are among the safest and most secure in the world. There were no easy solutions then; there are no easy solutions today.
Those of us with a passion for football, and who take pride in our national image, have no choice but to focus on the involvement of English louts in football

313
disorder overseas. Riots in Italy, Marseilles and Copenhagen came and went and we sought succour in pointing the finger at a small minority of dedicated troublemakers staining our national reputation and national game. That view mistakenly persists.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—
Lord Bach: I am sorry. I hope the noble Lord will sit down for a moment before he asks his question. I should remind the House, not because the noble Lord has just got to his feet but because there have been a series of questions to the Minister while he has been giving his reply, that we are on Report now, not in Committee. If I may read briefly from the Companion so that all noble Lords are equally aware of the position:
"On Report no Lord may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply or a Lord who has obtained leave of the House, which may only be granted to a Lord to explain himself in some material point of his speech, no new matter being introduced, or to a Minister of the Crown. Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down".
Having reminded noble Lords of our conventions and rules, I invite the noble Lord to ask his question. I hope that noble Lords will allow the Minister to finish what he has to say. Then, if there are matters for elucidation, they will be asked. Then the mover of the amendment no doubt will speak to the amendment again.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the last time I sought to ask a question on Report the noble Lord made the same point. I may be a slow learner, but I receive the message. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Given that the problems with Scottish fans misbehaving over the period he was referring to overseas were solved without legislation, why is it necessary to have legislation in order to deal with the problems afflicting English fans? Does he not think that the remedy might not lie elsewhere, as proved to be the case in Scotland?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very good point. I do not dispute it. It is for that reason that we are setting up a football working group to look at the other range of issues that surround the issue. The noble Lord is a football supporter. The government of which he was a Minister introduced six measures to attempt, through legislation, to curb and deal with football hooliganism. Clearly, in the past he has supported legislation designed to tackle some of the problems we have identified which we are bringing forward to your Lordships' House today.
There is a myth that has survived that it is a problem with just a small minority. I do not believe that that is the case. The truth is that the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 and other widely accepted measures in the Bill will provide the legislative framework necessary to tackle the known football thugs. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and others referred yesterday to the hooligans
314
known to NCIS. He has made reference again to that fact. He is right to do so. These people are known to the police; they know how their operate and, as Euro 2000 confirmed, they know how to minimise the impact of their thuggery. We can all take pride in the fact that our police have a world-wide reputation for combating the activities of the known football hooligan. The police use of intelligence and targeted operations are praised throughout Europe. Indeed, they were praised during Euro 2000.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was one of a number of noble Lords who also drew attention to the absence—he did so this afternoon—of known football hooligans among the many hundreds arrested, detained and deported. He was right to draw attention to that point. The dedicated hooligan was effectively removed from the scene during Euro 2000. But, and it is at the heart of the debate, English football disorder was present with a vengeance. The evidence before us is stark. Removing or banning known football troublemakers will not tackle the problem unless—the noble Lord's point—supplemented by other measures.
The Government could not ignore the Euro 2000 experience. We had an obligation to analyse the data before us and determine the best means upon which to act. Noble Lords face a similar test today. The measures contained in new Sections 14B, 21 A and 21 B are the Government's response. They are not knee-jerk; they are calculated; they are measured; and they are a response to the problem of English football disorder based on the evidence. They are radical but necessary.
The information gleaned by the police from the Dutch and Belgian authorities confirms that a significant number of those arrested in Belgium and the Netherlands were known to the police, though not necessarily in a football context.
Many have criminal convictions in their own localities for violence and disorder. They come from that pool of disaffected white males who have increasingly opted to act in an anti-social and violent way in town centres. Many appear to have racist views and a distorted view of patriotism and Englishness. In their case, rioting in Charleroi and Brussels is a football manifestation of a wider social malaise. Alcohol can and does play a crucial part.
Of course, and as we have accepted, legislation alone cannot deal with the problem, but it has a key role to play. New Section 14B will enable the police to seek a banning order by complaint on those who have previously caused or contributed to violence and disorder as soon as evidence linking the individual with football becomes available. However, the reality is that the police will not always be able to make such a link in sufficient time to pursue new Section 14B proceedings before a match or tournament commences. England followers are notorious for making last minute decisions about travelling to watch the England team. Louts are no different. In many cases, local police will have no knowledge that a known hooligan with a propensity for violence, racism

315
or disorder intends to travel until a few days before the match. That would provide insufficient time to pursue a new Section 14B banning order.
We have to build in a long-stop measure designed to meet those circumstances. And that in essence is what new Sections 21A and 21B attempt to do—successfully in my view and in the view of the police. It is a vital component of the Bill. There are no other apparent means for empowering police to protect our national interest in this field and to ensure that innocent citizens abroad are not subject to abuse and violence.
The Government also recognise the need to put in place safeguards. We have already demonstrated our willingness to do so. We have listened and responded to the concerns aired in this House and in the other place. The safeguards may hamper police operations but they recognise, and we know, that the measures we propose must enshrine in law an appropriate balance between individual civil liberties and our national and international interests and responsibilities.
A number of noble Lords queried how new Sections 21A and 21B would operate. Of course, once enacted, it would largely be an operational policing matter. But I recognise that effective scrutiny of the Bill demands some understanding of how the measure would be pursued. I, and others, have already made clear that the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Superintendents Association, all strongly support the inclusion of new Sections 21A and 21B, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They would not, and have not, provided that endorsement without carefully thinking through how the measure would work and what it would deliver.
Your Lordships may wish to know that in anticipation of new Sections 14B and 21, the police are already examining what mechanisms they will need to put in place to ensure that new Section 21, in particular, will be effective. The focus will not be on targeting known football hooligans but on developing systems which gather information on individuals against whom there are unspent convictions for, or other substantive evidence of, violence or disorder once a link with football has been established. It will not feature football fans against whom there is no such evidence nor violent or disorderly persons with no connection with football. Local police forces will play a key role, particularly in the build-up to a big match or tournament overseas. They will need to gather information on local thugs and racists once it becomes known that these characters intend travelling overseas to a match. And, I repeat, that could be a matter of hours before the individuals arrive at their point of destination. That is why new Section 21 is so important.
Of course, the information gathered and used for new Section 21 purposes will still have to undergo a thorough examination in the courts. I should stress again that new Sections 14B and 21 provide the police and the courts with an effective means for preventing individuals who are known to be violent and disorderly, but who do not usually demonstrate their
316
tendencies at a football match, from travelling to matches overseas and possibly using violence and causing mayhem. The new Section 14B option is the preferred option—that needs to be understood—but, for the reasons that I have explained, the removal of new Section 21 would significantly reduce the capacity of the police to deal effectively with this menace.
Innocent people have nothing to fear; neither do the overwhelming majority of law-abiding football fans. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said in Committee,
"I do not think that there is any risk of random picking of people [by the police]".—[Official Report, 24/7/00; col. 183.]
The powers in new Section 21A and 21B will be used in the same targeted fashion which characterises football-related UK policing operations.
I appreciate that this has been a long contribution on my part. I am sure that every one of your Lordships wishes that restricting the scope of the Bill in the way proposed would still leave us with a Bill that would empower the police and the courts to prevent a reoccurrence of the appalling scenes witnessed in Brussels, Charleroi, Copenhagen and many more places over the past few years. Alas, I do not believe that to be the case. The measures contained in new Section 21 are necessary because the alternative would be to ignore the Euro 2000 experience and the express wish of the police to have the means at their disposal to minimise the risk of those thugs being able to bring further shame on our nation and national game. I urge the House to oppose Amendments Nos. 3, 8, 9 and 35.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was not able to be more supportive. He took the view that new Sections 21A and 21B were unlikely to be used to any significant extent. I am unable to agree with him. The Minister has made it fairly clear that the Government intend that the power should be used quite extensively. It is likely that for a period of at least several months there will be many arrests and detentions under new Sections 21A and 21B and that that will continue until it becomes apparent, as I suspect it will become apparent, that far too high a proportion of those who are arrested have the applications for banning orders against them thrown out by the magistrates' court.
The Minister's speech confirmed very much what I suspected the aims of the police would be and why the Government want to have new Sections 21A and 21B in their armoury. It is clearly intended that those who are suspected of having hooligan tendencies—there may be a great deal of evidence to show that they are hooligans—will not be made the subject of immediate banning orders under new Section 14B but will be kept under watch and proceeded against under new Sections 21A and 21B only at the point at which they show that they have decided and have taken steps to go to a match. All the troubles will result from that.

317
The provision—it is said to be a civil remedy but is plainly in reality a criminal remedy—will not satisfy the tests of human rights. The opinion by Clare Montgomery and Rhodri Thompson, which was referred to extensively in the Committee stage, stated:
"The power conferred on the police to detain persons for the purposes of ascertaining whether section 14B(2) applies to the individual in question does not apparently fall within the scope of any of the exceptions provided for in Article 5(1)(a) to (c) of the ECHR to the general right of liberty and security of person".
In referring to hooliganism in the 1970s, the Minister said that there were no easy solutions then and that there are no easy solutions today. My problem is that I believe that the Government look on the Bill, and in particular the provisions in new Sections 21A and 21B, as being an easy solution. However, I believe that if they attempt to enforce those sections, they will find that this is far from being an easy solution.
The Minister has not moved in any way to satisfy the concerns expressed by myself and my noble friends and, indeed, others who hold similar views on these provisions. I therefore seek leave to test the opinion of the House.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lucas, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ludford, B.

Attlee, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

McNally, L.

Barker, B.

Maddock, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Biffen, L.

Methuen, L.

Bowness, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Bradshaw, L.

Monson, L.

Brightman, L.

Naseby, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Newby, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Desai, L.

Onslow, E.

Dholakia, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Ezra, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Falkland, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Goodhart, L.[Teller]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greaves, L.

Razzall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rennard, L.

Haslam, L.

Renton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holderness, L.

Roper, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Russell, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Jacobs, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sandberg, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Sharman, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

318

Smith of Clifton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vivian, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Warnock, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Watson of Richmond, L

Tope, L.

Williams of Crosby, B

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.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Layard, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brett, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Longford, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Chandos, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Molloy, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

David, B.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dixon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Palmer, L.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Filkin, L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gavron, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Slim, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grenfell, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harrison, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tenby, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

319

Uddin, B.

Wilkins, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Whitty, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 4:
Insert the following new Clause-

Football (Disorder) Bill

  Extra-territorial offences
  (".-(1) Any act or omission which-

  (a) takes place outside England and Wales, and

  (b) would, if taking place in England or Wales, constitute a relevant offence within the meaning of the Football Spectators Act 1989,

  shall, for the purposes of the law of England and Wales, constitute that offence ("an extra-territorial offence").
  (2) Proceedings for an extra-territorial offence may be taken, and the offence may for the purposes of those proceedings be treated as having been committed, in England or Wales.
  (3) Subject to any contrary provision attaching to any such relevant offence an extra-territorial offence may only be commenced against a person who is either a British citizen or resident in England or Wales.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I crave the indulgence of the House to ask for a correction to be made to the amendment in my name. The words "prosecution of" need to be inserted in line 2, so that the amendment reads:
  "Subject to any contrary provision attaching to any such relevant offence prosecution of an extra-territorial offence",
  and so on.
  I am afraid that I have a terrible sense of déjà vu in relation to this matter—indeed, it seems like a Joycean continuity—but I am afraid that I must run over the main sinews of the justification for the amendment because many noble Lords were not present when we debated it just a few hours ago.
  The first, important point is that the amendment in no sense works against the Bill. It seeks to add to the powers already present the Bill in order to achieve its purposes. It in no way affects or detracts from the other powers. Secondly, I should make clear that the amendment is not entirely a creature of my own imagination. For the wording, I drew on the extraterritorial arrangements in the legislation between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
  The arguments that were adduced against the amendment in last night's debate could be summarised as follows. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that there should be a definition as to whom the extra-territoriality would relate. That is the purpose of
  320
  the addition of subsection (3), which was not in the amendment proposed in Committee. That clarifies a perfectly legitimate point.
  The second objection was that the amendment, if carried, would represent a significant extension of the present, very limited powers of extra-territoriality. That is true; at present, they apply to offences such as piracy, terrorism and paedophilia. I think it fair to say that the justification behind extra-territoriality—or rather, against extra-territoriality—is that it is usually not in the public or national interest. If there is a theft or burglary in Portugal, why should the authorities here have any concern with the matter at all? But in the Bill there is a particular interest and objective, which is precisely to bring to heel our citizens who misbehave, usually in mainland continental Europe. One of the problems repeatedly referred to—and there is no issue between us on this—is that it is a heck of a job to get at the people whom we wish to bring to heel. The amendment would make that task a great deal easier.
  The third objection is that there could be a problem in terms of what lawyers sometimes call the comity of nations. For example, would there be a problem between us and the Belgians with us both having the right to prosecute for the same act? The answer is no. It does not require any further legislation. All that is required in order to avoid that sort of muddle is for British authorities to converse and agree with Belgian authorities—as indeed they did, expensively over Euro 2000—and to decide between them, when offences have been committed that speak to both Belgian law and to our law, who is to take the initiative.
  One of the problems that arose over Euro 2000 was, of course, that of the 965 British people arrested and deported, only two have been prosecuted for violence. I partly understand why that is so. I am sure that the Belgians say, "Why on earth should we go to all the trouble, hassle and expense of prosecuting these over-beered louts? Let's ship 'em out"—and that is what they did, rather indiscriminately. The amendment would mean that instead of a large number getting off scot-free, we should with evidence, as I shall set out, be able to prosecute in this country according to our own laws, in our own way, according to our own standards of proof, without any new-fangled laws, and achieve the deterrent effect without which, frankly, the Bill is a total waste of time.
  I turn briefly to the question of obtaining evidence and the whole issue of arrest. Again, that is a pragmatic partnership matter between the authorities here and those in the country concerned. I emphasise that a great deal of co-operation goes on in main tournaments as it does in regard to important matches. I foresee the Belgians being happy with the prospect of our taking responsibility for our people by prosecuting them here. That would be a severe deterrent to bad behaviour; and that is what they devoutly hope for when British fans go over to Belgium. So I see no problem in terms of arrest.
  Nor do I see any problems over evidence. The same evidence would be required in this country for an offence committed in Belgium as would be required for

  321
  any offence committed here. The simple issue remains whether there is enough evidence. It could be video evidence or direct evidence. We send large numbers of our police and security people over to the Continent for football tournaments anyhow. I do not see that the Belgians would wish to be obstructive in terms of their personnel coming to Britain to give evidence. These are all practical matters which can readily be resolved by sensible talking between the authorities in the countries concerned.
  If one ran into a situation where, for example, the French said, "We are not having anything to do with your law, your people and the rest of it. To hell with you", so be it. We lose nothing by the Bill. It would simply mean that with regard to a particular tournament or match the Bill would be ineffective as regards extra-territoriality.
  The question of expense was raised: would it not be frightfully expensive having to ship over Belgian police or ship over to Belgium considerable numbers of our own police? But we do that anyhow. The expense referred to is piffling compared with the ill that we seek to address and the damage to our national reputation —and indirectly to our chances of holding the tournaments in this country, the commercial benefit of which is enormous.
  The advantages of the amendment are implicit in what I have said. It would give a second string to the bow available to the police and other authorities to combat this insidious problem. It would use existing law, and would avoid altogether the civil libertarian and other issues on which so many noble Lords have been eloquent and about which we feel so strongly.
  Happily, Clause 3 of the Bill as it stands already contains a power to allow the necessary supplementary provisions to be made under the Bill to fill in the gaps that exist with regard to what is a relatively short provision in the amendment. Most happily of all, Schedule 1 provides a complete, work-through set of offences to which the extra-territoriality would relate—something like 23 separate categories of football-related offences are all worked through practically. This amendment simply taps into that provision.
  Finally, the amendment would provide us with the power to deal with some of these thugs ourselves. We should not be reliant on reluctant foreign authorities. Jack Straw made clear how disappointed he was at the Belgian failure to prosecute. We should have the remedy in our own hands, in our own courts, according to our traditional protections. Publicity would undoubtedly ensure when we had had 10, 20 or even 100 exemplary prosecutions. I sincerely hope that the Government will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, and that they will not oppose the addition of extra-territoriality to the Bill's provision. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have a terrible suspicion that, regrettably, the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will be dashed. Last night the Government were determined to introduce
  322
  into English law a system which will exacerbate the tendency to detain and ban the innocent, whereas if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is accepted it is most likely that the guilty will be prosecuted. I accept the comment made last night about the slightly novel concept of extending extraterritoriality to what might be termed relatively minor offences. However, the Government do not treat these as minor offences. Basically, the Government believe that football hooligans who travel abroad are nearly as bad as the Black Death or Hitler's invasion of Europe. The Government and the newspapers are becoming hysterical about it. Why else is the Bill being rushed through in nanoseconds and noble Lords are unable to read what was said yesterday in Committee because Hansard has not yet been published?
  Undoubtedly, the Government have panicked and produced rotten, lousy legislation. We might get somewhere if only we could persuade some of the more libertarian Tory Members of the House to vote for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The noble Lord has provided a rescue helicopter for the Government. Here is a lovely way to identify the guilty, prosecute them and punish them in a way that deters others. If that leads to a lack of hooliganism in this country it may be translated into a lack of hooliganism overseas. I wish that I had not heard as much as I did last night, which was depressing beyond peradventure.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, much as I admire the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as a civil libertarian. I cannot understand his amendment. It emerged last night in debate that the use of extra-territoriality to deal with football offences is a step too far. The noble Lord has, as it were, internalised his rhetoric against Football hooligans and sought to provide a super-solution which is more violent than the Government's proposals.
  Noble Lords will be aware that I do not like the Bill. I believe that the Government make too much of the issue of football violence. Be that as it may, to extend the concept of extra-territoriality, which is normally concerned with serious offences like paedophilia, to football hooliganism is very worrisome.
  I should like to ask three questions to aid my understanding since I am not a lawyer. First, I do not know whether under subsection (3) of the noble Lord's amendment a British citizen who is resident abroad is subject to extra-territoriality. Secondly, the noble Lord said that if the French wanted to punish football hooligans, so be it; we should not bother. However, I see nothing in the noble Lord's amendment to prevent double jeopardy. If the French punished football hooligans and the British press reported the presence of English thugs abroad those individuals could be punished here on their return. Thirdly, I put a quest ion to my noble friend purely out of curiosity. I believe that the Bill does nothing to prevent English foot ball fans from travelling to an international game in the Republic of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Perhaps my reading of the legislation is entirely wrong. However, one does not need a passport to visit Northern Ireland,

  323
  and to travel to the Republic via Northern Ireland is very easy. Perhaps I am pointing out a loophole which will strengthen the Bill at Third Reading. However, while sitting here that thought has come into my mind.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I opposed a broadly similar amendment last night and shall not weary noble Lords by repeating my arguments this afternoon. I spoke at about 11.25 p.m. and so my reasons are already in print—in the unlikely event that anyone will be remotely interested. Of far more interest is that at least two noble and learned Lords have opposed the amendment, largely on the ground that it is undesirable to create extra-territorial offences over and above the very limited grave offences of murder and sexual offences against children. Despite the very persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that this is a step too far. As I said at Second Reading, I believe that a better way to deal with the matter is to encourage more prosecutions on the Continent by offering to accommodate and feed convicted prisoners in this country, as the law already provides.
  The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in reply to criticisms last night suggested that the Liberal Democrat amendment was the lesser of two evils as compared with Sections 21A and 21B. That is so. I do not, however, see why we should put up with either of them, provided that at Third Reading tomorrow we can have another go at watering down Section 21A, even though we are no longer in a position completely to defeat it.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is the last amendment to be dealt with today which we debated yesterday. All of the amendments to be dealt with after this were debated earlier today. That gives noble Lords a small advantage, in that the report of that debate is now available. There is a draft of Hansard in the Library, as the Government Chief Whip informed us earlier, but there is only one copy of it. When I sought to steal it I had to return it rather rapidly. I have not had an opportunity to study it. Therefore, it is not able to assist us in later debates. However, for the purposes of this amendment we have the benefit of the report of the debate last night.
  When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, moved his amendment last night I had some sympathy for it. However, two noble and learned Lords pointed out that the amendment gave rise to problems. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has returned with subsection (3). Since I am not a lawyer, perhaps when the Minister winds up he will inform me whether that subsection deals with the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick; namely, whether if a Belgian hooligan arrived in this country for, say, a holiday he could be arrested when he next came to the UK and be made subject to an English banning order.
  324
  We are aware that extra-territorial jurisdiction works for serious offences. There are provisions to deal with terrorism as between this country and the Republic of Ireland, and there are also provisions to deal with paedophiles. However, there is concern as to whether, if we suddenly widen the power to include this specific offence, we shall begin a new trend.
  My noble friend Lord Onslow was concerned about someone who hurled a brick in the Champs Elysées. Most of my noble friend's analogies last night concerned that part of Paris, which says something about his holiday destinations and the style that he adopts when there. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has also been to the Champs Elysées—or even the Left Bank. Perhaps Montmartre is more suitable. The Government could reassure noble Lords in one respect. Last night we asked what the Government were doing to encourage prosecutions in the country where the offences were committed.
  I do not want to repeat the debate. From listening to the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, we know that many of the vast numbers of people arrested were simply caught up in the sweep. Nevertheless, out of those vast numbers there have been only three prosecutions. The view on the Continent seems to be, "Arrest them; put them on the train and ferry; get rid of them as quickly as possible and we don't have to deal with them". That must be unsatisfactory. The Government said that they wanted people to be prosecuted. However, the Minister did not say what help the Government were giving to encourage prosecuting authorities in those countries. Noble Lords might be reassured if the Minister were able to do so. The Minister said that there would be difficulties. If someone were prosecuted because he was filmed on CCTV would the Government have access to that film? These are not strong reasons. Reasons of principle are perhaps stronger arguments against the amendment.
  We started off by being sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. However, we are concerned about creating a whole new raft of extraterritorial offences. Therefore we shall listen to the Minister's reply with an open mind. It would help if the noble Lord could expand on how the Government can encourage the conviction of more hooligans in the country where the offence is committed.
  Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment which fits into an increasing trend in the European Union towards mutual assistance in criminal matters. The amendment concentrates on gaining convictions—a point that we on these Benches have made consistently. As regards the lesser of two evils, when attempting to steer a path between the devil of continental deportations and the deep blue sea of summary justice it seems valid to provide for a practical and effective way forward.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, makes a valid point about seeking to ensure that the Belgian authorities gain convictions. The problem is that that aim is more in our self interest than that of the Belgians. It will always be easier to deport. After all, that country has had the expense of keeping people in

  325
  custody. It has suffered its worst part whereas for us the damage to our reputation continues. The onus is on this country to do something about it.
  The problems regarding access to evidence could also be addressed within the EU context. It was one of the areas identified for greater effort at the summit meeting of heads of government on justice and home affairs last October in Tampere in Finland. It is not necessarily a question of the harmonisation of criminal law—that alarms many people—but of mutual assistance and more recognition regarding convictions and orders relating to evidence.
  That is a good way forward. The convictions can be secured in Belgium, Holland, France, or wherever. Alternatively, recognising that it is more in our interests than those of the other countries, we should consider the evidence collected and secure convictions at home. I believe that this is one of a narrow range of offences for which extra-territoriality should be considered.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, as the Minister gathers his brief, I hope that he will respond with an open mind. As the Bill progresses, I have a growing suspicion that we may be finding some of the solutions to soccer hooliganism. But the Government will not regard as key parts of the Bill some of the solutions which will work.
  I suspect that hooliganism will be weaned away from soccer not by the policeman exercising these powers at the points of departure but by a range of measures instituted by clubs and others. I agree with the noble Viscount's point that soccer hooliganism has lacked any kind of "truth and consequence". Individuals go away and cause mayhem and no one is ever prosecuted. The Minister needs to consider how to establish truth and consequence both at home and abroad. The Minister describes the powers that he wants to give police at the points of departure as preventive. I am not so sure that they will be as preventive as the Government hope. When hooligans see their friends being prosecuted, convicted and paying a price for soccer hooliganism, that will be the real deterrent. The Minister should devote his attention to that aspect. That is why I hope that his response indicates an openness of mind.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall try to be as encouraging as I can. It was an interesting debate last night. Perhaps it was the lateness of the hour which made me sound more negative than I did when we discussed the issue at Second Reading.
  I thought that I had made plain the problems with extra-territorial jurisdiction. The views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, were telling. It remains the case that extra-territorial jurisdiction exists in only fairly limited circumstances—murder, certain serious sex crimes, and piracy, which I think was mentioned during the debate. It is fairly constrained territory.
  I am quite attracted to the amendment. It has had some currency with debate within the Home Office and with the football authorities. It has the benefit of
  326
  convenience in the sense that perhaps it will add greater certainty to outcome. I recognise the strength of the noble Lord's argument on that point. There are problems. Burdens and standards of proof, transportation of evidence and witnesses, the less easy transposition of like offences, and so on, would be real difficulties.
  There is another difficulty. The extra-territorial jurisdiction procedure would relate to criminal offences and therefore to criminal law and procedures. That is an important point. That would mean that retrospective evidence would be excluded from such proceedings. We believe that one of the strengths of new Section 14B(2) is that it is a civil and not a criminal proceeding. That means that the use of retrospective evidence is far more easily squared with the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Finally, extra-territorial jurisdiction in our view could never constitute a strategy against football hooliganism. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, saw it almost as the answer when he passionately put forward his argument. We believe that we need these proactive and preventive powers to try to stop likely troublemakers from travelling overseas in the first instance. I think that we are right to push for that. Punishing them afterwards will, for us, always be a second best option. In politics one should never say "never". This particular amendment falls carefully into that category.
  I suggest to the noble Lord that he withdraws his amendment on the basis of an undertaking that we shall bring back a report on the discussion of the first sunset clause so that we can consider what merit and value there is in extra-territorial jurisdiction. I believe that it will be one year for the first period of the sunset clause. Then some further consideration can be given to this matter with a view perhaps to considering legislation at some later date when the opportunity arises.
  I recognise that that is perhaps not what the noble Lord wants and that that undertaking is not as firm and crisp as he would like. We have a measure of interest and sympathy with the direction of the amendment. It may well be part of a wider armoury of measures which we need to consider.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, quite properly asked what we were doing to encourage prosecutions abroad. When I visited the mayors and police chiefs of Charleroi and Eindhoven, I was pretty fulsome in my encouragement that they should adopt a zero or a low-tolerance approach and back that up by using their courts to prosecute those apprehended during the course of the Euro 2000 tournament. They gave me their assurances that they would, as they always do in such circumstances. We had a very happy signing ceremony of protocols where it was agreed that that would take place.
  The Belgian authorities chose to use the exportation route. Because the offence for which arrests were made was "administrative", to use their own description, no prosecutions are likely to ensue except in the few and limited cases which have been widely discussed in the

  327
  British press and to which much reference has been made. That is a great disappointment. I believe that it would be better for justice to be done, and be seen to be done, across Europe when instances of hooliganism take place. That would send a very loud and powerful message and make the hooligans extremely uncomfortable about being prosecuted in another jurisdiction and having to put up with all the inconvenience and unpleasantness that that sometimes brings. We as a Government are keen to work closely with our European partners to encourage them to make full use of their powers within their own jurisdiction where there are similar offences and where persons have been arrested for acts that constitute hooliganism.
  I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will treat my comments as encouraging, sympathetic and practical because that is how I intend them. I trust that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. There is a slight problem in that there were five questions addressed specifically to me. Perhaps I may give one-sentence replies. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked whether their would be double jeopardy. I think not. He asked about British citizens abroad. They would be within the Bill, but it is highly unlikely that we would bother about them. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about Belgian tourists here. They would not come within the territoriality provisions. The objection of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is covered by subsection (3) of the amendment. As regards the misgivings in principle of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, we did not know what his views were after I had endeavoured to persuade him that there was no problem. He did not speak after that.
  I am not worried about the trend towards extraterritoriality because the circumstances warranting that will be few and far between. I believe that the rationale of traditional extra-territoriality will be found consonant with this proposal.
  As regards encouraging others to deal with our hooligans, I hope that at least the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, got a good lunch out of his protocol signing because he got very little else. I fear that that is how it is going to be. Finally, his "problem" as he put it, of the burden and the standards of proof is precisely why we are keen on this amendment. It overcomes the problem which for us is that the burden and standard of proof under the Bill is not as we would have it.
  Having said that, I am grateful for the Minister's comments which were constructive. I accept that such a major incision into the Bill now is problematic. I like to believe that mature consideration will lead to the Government wanting to introduce an amendment such as this fairly soon. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Supplementary]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 2, line 19, after ("Act") insert ("or affirmative instrument")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I move this amendment and speak to government Amendment No. 6. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I can be brief as regards Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. They fulfil the Government's intention as regards Clause 3 of the Bill in complying with the recommendation of the Select Committee's report on the delegated powers.
  The considerations are explained eloquently in the Select Committee's report, which I am sure noble Lords will have read. Therefore, I simply commend the amendment to your Lordships. I shall speak briefly to the noble Lord's amendment. It would make all orders made under Clause 3 of the Bill subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, even those amending orders which themselves were subject only to the negative resolution procedure.
  Perhaps I may attempt to assist the House by emphasising the limited nature of the power to make amendments under Clause 3(1) of the Bill. The suggestion that it gives the Government complete authority to make any changes that they wish in the Bill is unfounded. The power is limited to supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provisions. I have undertaken to advise the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the arcane legal thinking underlying the difference between transitory and transitional. I said yesterday that I would do that as soon as possible. However, in the time available to me this morning, I have been unable to do the necessary research. The important point is that we accept that any amendments to primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is already provided for by Clause 3(4) of the Bill.
  I have now brought forward an amendment which fully complies with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on the point now that we have been able to ensure that it poses no obstacle, as it was feared it might, to the availability of legal advice and assistance to those who may need it. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord who is a great expert in this field, that his amendment would not necessarily improve the Bill. I ask him to consider not moving it.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the purpose in tabling the amendment was to seek the very tight, analytical exposition that we have just received and to have it on the record. It seems to me to be wholly satisfactory. The other point in tabling the amendment is the very extraordinary width of powers and the arcane distinction which rather foxed me, too. Even

  329
  without elucidation of that matter, I am wholly content. I thank the noble Lord. I shall not move my amendment.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, as a member of the devolved legislation committee, and speaking only for myself, perhaps I may express my own gratitude, which is neither transitory nor transitional, for the way in which the Government have responded to our recommendations. They were inspired by exactly the considerations that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway had in mind when he tabled his amendment. The present position will be very satisfactory.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, I am grateful to the Government for accepting the Committee's recommendation.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, when I moved my amendment earlier this morning the noble Lord, Lord Bach, intervened and said that I would be pleasantly surprised by what he had to say. He has fulfilled his promise by coming forward with Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. We welcome them and thank him.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 2, line 21, at end insert-
  ("In this subsection, "affirmative instrument" means a statutory instrument a draft of which was laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament or the House of Commons.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [Commencement and duration]:
  [Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 9A:
  Page 2, line 43, leave out ("four") and insert ("three").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9A has been tabled by the Government this afternoon during the course of our deliberations. It reflects the Government's intention to take on board some of the concerns and criticisms raised about the extent of the widely noted and acknowledged sunset clause. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, made a valuable contribution to our deliberations. When the Home Secretary had a lively, useful and entertaining meeting in the Committee Room upstairs, the noble Lord suggested that there should be a sunset clause. The Home Secretary, quite within character, said that he thought it was a good idea and that he would take it away and think about what such a clause might look like. We now have two sunset clauses on the face of the Bill. One comes into effect after one year and the second after four years.
  Yesterday, a number of Members of the Committee were critical of the proposal. They believed that there should be a six-month sunset clause followed by a one-year sunset clause. During the course of the Committee I managed reasonably to persuade Members that that was too short a period of time for us to examine, analyse and consider the impact of the legislation. Members of the Committee realised that we had a fair point.
  There are few international football matches within the next six months. Yes, there are some important ones—football fans would say that all international matches are important—but there was a recognition that, perhaps with the exception of the one in Paris in September, they would not attract major problems and that we needed a longer period of time to examine the effectiveness of the measures after enactment of the Bill.
  We rightly made the point that we needed to see how the measures would work over a number of years. Two important competitions are coming up. The run-up games to the final of the World Cup 2002 will provide a severe test—
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord wants to see whether the system is working effectively. Is there any prospect of the evaluation being carried out by an agency independent of the Home Office? That would provide many of us with great reassurance.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It is a matter to which we could give careful consideration as it has some merit. However, we must carry out a proper appraisal. A measure of independence, and certainly advice independent of the Home Office, would add value.
  In addition to the World Cup 2002 there will be the Euro 2004 games which are to be played in Portugal. That is an important competition and qualifying for it will be a major test. The location and time of the matches is yet to be determined because the draw has not been made. But they will obviously be against other European countries and the matches might be a lightning rod for the kind of hooligan acts we have seen during the past few months.
  It is the view of the Government, which will probably be shared by NCIS and the police, that we need to have these measures in place in the run-up to the qualifying games for the World Cup 2002 and Euro 2004. It would be a poor reflection if we had in place a sunset clause which provided only limited cover for that period. If the measures which we believe will be effective were to be removed during the run-up to Euro 2004, no doubt our European competitor countries would have something important to say. They made their views volubly known during Euro 2000. They felt that perhaps we had not gone the extra mile towards putting in place measures which would deal effectively with the hooligan problem.

  331
  For that reason, and because we have carefully reflected on what noble Lords have said, at page 2, line 43, we propose to leave out "four" and insert "three" for the second sunset clause contained in the legislation. That will take us up to 2004 and will provide us with ample opportunity to see whether the measures have been effective; perhaps to have a degree of independent evaluation and to receive those views; for us to work closely with the National Criminal Intelligence Service; for us to continue our close working relationships with the UK-wide police service; and for us to ensure that those measures enable us to make good use of the powers contained within them.
  I recognise that the amendment we have tabled today does not go as far as some Members of your Lordships' House would like. I know that some of them take the view that the measure, because it is in some respects an infringement of civil liberties, should remain on the statute book for only the shortest possible time. We take the view that it needs to be there somewhat longer so that we can evaluate its effectiveness.
  I say that based on the history of the football-related measures which have been passed in this country. As I have said on several occasions, we have seen the steady creation of legislation which has attempted to deal with different aspects of the problem of football hooligans. Collectively, that legislation has become effective. The legislation we seek to place on the statute book during this Session adds another element to that. We need to have a careful, thought-through, constructive evaluation of the impact of the legislation.
  I recognise that another amendment on the Marshalled List would dramatically reduce the sunset clause by halving it from four to two years in its accumulated effect. I believe that that would be a mistake. I do not believe that it will enable us to make the type of judgment that we need to make on the value of the legislation; nor do I believe that it will give us the time to discover what impact it has had.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way on that point. I am not sure whether my question is addressed to him, to the Table or to the Chair. We are debating Amendment No. 9A. If it is carried, does that mean that Amendment No. 10 cannot be moved? We are often told that—
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the answer is that, if Amendment No. 9A is accepted, Amendment No. 10 can also be moved.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, that means that we would have two contradictory measures. I sometimes believe that we walk into the bacon slicer in this place.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was looking forward to yet more learned debate and discussion about matters of procedure.
  332
  The other important point with regard to our amendment is that it will provide a first year review. I believe that it would be wise for annual reviews to be built into the whole of the sunset period so that we may have a rolling programme to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation. In a sense, we already do that with other pieces of legislation, examining the impact of particular measures. I am not afraid for us to go down that route.
  I believe that this legislation requires a period of stability. It is important and the measures are proportionate. I recognise the civil libertarian concerns, and we have brought forward amendments which actively pursue some of the points raised in another place and in your Lordships' House to match that concern. We have also given assurances. I believe that this longer sunset clause period is needed in order to carry out the important job of understanding whether the legislation is effective. That type of approach has not been adopted previously. It is a new approach and I believe that it says a great deal that it has been developed from your Lordships' House. I believe that the measure is right and proportionate and I urge your Lordships most strongly to adopt it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister has explained that Amendment No. 10, standing in my name and those of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, addresses the same point. It seeks to reduce the second half of the sunset period to one year, making a total of two years.
  Last night I advanced a more restrictive formula but did not press it. The Minister suggested that we should try to obtain a greater measure of agreement. There is agreement between the Liberal Democrat and our own Benches but, unfortunately, that does not include the Minister. However, he has—and I acknowledge and am grateful for this—moved from four years to three.
  My point is that, first, in any of its formulations the sunset clause affects only the powers in new Sections 14B, 21A and 21B. Those who were with us through the night now know those sections in detail. We know that they are novel—the Minister has just said so. We know that they are dangerous from the libertarian's point of view, and we know that they are full of practical problems to an acute degree. In some respects, they are also suspect in relation to European legislation, the European Convention on Human Rights and so on.
  In particular, to start with new Sections 21A and 21B appeared to be essential to the Bill. However, a few minutes ago in a previous debate the Minister described them as "longstop" measures. Therefore, their importance in the Bill has retreated somewhat, but they are still important for their novelty, their libertarian problems and their practical problems. However, the question is: how long should they be allowed to run for this experiment? As I made clear during debate on an earlier amendment, our acceptance of the experiment is based on the notion that it is an experiment and that, given the nature of the

  333
  problem, it is worth trying. The Government proposed and examined the measure. Therefore, it is worth trying, but not, I suggest, for very long.
  Last night we understood that the provisions will apply to approximately 20 international games a year, involving England playing overseas in various competitions and friendly matches and also significant British clubs playing overseas. All those games may give rise to problems. Therefore, over the two years as a whole some 40 games will take place, together with some 40 experiments relating to the provisions. During that time we shall be able to discover whether the libertarian dangers are as great as are supposed and whether the practical and legal problems can be overcome.
  From what we read in the newspapers, apparently two years will easily clear the next election and take us into the next Parliament, whatever that may bring. I believe that a two-year period provides the best solution; that is, one year until the affirmative order, which is agreed on both sides, and one further year until the expiration of the primary legislation which will require further legislation to renew it. That further legislation should not prove too difficult if the experiment works well.
  Finally, I want to clarify my understanding of the position concerning these two amendments. Amendment No. 9A—the manuscript amendment recently moved by the Government—provides for three years. Whatever the result of the House's decision on that amendment, we can still move Amendment No. 10 to reduce the period to one year. As I understand it, that is the advice of the Clerks, which the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip gave us. Of course, we believe that three years are better than four and, so far as I am concerned, we shall accept Amendment No. 9A, although I must let the noble Lord, Lord McNally, speak for himself. However, I believe that we shall also wish to press Amendment No. 10 to reduce the whole of the sunset clause period to two years.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask a further technical question. Is this how the process works? In goes three years. There is then a new amendment which states two years. Out goes three years and in pops two? Is that how it works? If so, that would be the shortest period that I have ever heard stated in an Act of Parliament.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend has stated the position correctly. Amendment No. 9A will be put. If my opinion prevails, it will be accepted and the figure will be lowered to three. Subsequently, I shall move formally Amendment No. 10, reducing the period to two years in total—that is, one year plus one year. The House will then no doubt decide whether or not we should take that further step which I recommend.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, although I do not want us to get into barrack-room "lawyery" on this matter, I believe that it is now clear that, if we want the period
  334
  to be one year plus one year, we must carry Amendment No. 10. If we carry Amendment No. 10, that will go into the Bill and not the provision for one plus three years.
  From the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I believe that it will have been noticed that there is now among those of us who were here in the wee small hours a certain camaraderie, rather like Henry V's troops at Agincourt—we band of brothers. Indeed, there was a point last night when I started to feel brotherly love towards the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—something that I was not expecting.
  Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps he would say whether that was during my presence or my absence.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, after the earlier decision yesterday on Section 28, I had better keep that to myself.
  I do not know whether it is by accident or by design that the usual channels have allowed us to make our decision in this way. As it seems a rather ingenious solution, I assume that it must have been an accident. We have an opportunity to balance the two arguments. One, which was made last night by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, who has spoken with increasing authority during the passage of the Bill, is about giving the Bill time to bed in. The other, made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others, stresses the concerns that the civil rights implications of the Bill are so fundamental and the way in which it is being taken through the House at a gallop is so worrying that it should stay on the statute book for the shortest possible time before it is examined again with the full rigours of parliamentary scrutiny.
  The Liberal Democrats come down in favour of the latter argument. We shall acquiesce in the passage of Amendment No. 9A, but only to give it the shortest parliamentary life, because we intend to seek the House's approval for Amendment No. 10. Given the way in which the Bill has been put through and the civil liberties issues that it has raised, it should be brought back to Parliament at the earliest possible moment.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I welcome a new Tory Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit of Philadelphia—the city of brotherly love. I even extend a fraction of brotherly love to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on this issue, although it is up to him whether he accepts it. He has at least moved a small way, which is an improvement. As the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Cope, have said, there is too much that is wrong with the Bill and too much that is bad in it. If it had been up to me, it would have gone the way of the Test Acts, but it will probably go through. At least if we do not get two years, we have got three. For that and for very small mercies, let us be grateful.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that the Opposition would support

  335
  the Bill as an experiment. If it is an experiment and there is agreement that there should be a sunset clause, surely it is essential that there should be sufficient time to see whether the experiment is good, bad or something in between.
  I am no fan of the Bill, but it seems that it will be passed, so we should allow the reasonable time that the Minister has suggested for the sunset clause. I doubt that the purpose of the Bill will be achieved, although I also have a somewhat conflicting fear that it may be, but at the price of unreasonable and dangerous damage to the civil liberties of a number of innocent people.
  The period allowed by Amendment No. 10 would be inadequate. The issue is not just the number of international matches that would be covered—let us say 24. We will not necessarily be able to tell whether the Bill is useful, effective and valuable—or otherwise—immediately after a match.
  A number of points have been made on that issue by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally. There will be challenges in the courts and questions about the European Convention on Human Rights, which may not be resolved as soon as the match is over. After we have spent however many hours it was that your Lordships spent in Committee last night and further hours today, it would be unwise to leave an inadequate period for an experiment—to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Cope—to see whether the Bill has good effects.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, may have used the word "experiment", but I do not believe that Mr Straw would associate himself with the idea that the Bill is an experiment. That is why I asked about independent evaluation. The problem is that civil servants will be under immense pressure to say that it has been a triumphant success. That is why we need an independent agency to evaluate it and publish a report to the Home Office. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that it is best to persuade the Minister that that is desirable.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, I can see great value in that suggestion. If the Home Office did not engage independent researchers to inquire into the issue, no doubt the noble Lord and many others would ask questions about it so that the Home Office was well aware of the issue.
  Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the procedure by which we are going to vote is peculiar, but we have agreed it and we should not reopen the issue. However, if we come to a similar situation in future, it would be wise to take the most restrictive amendment first, because if that was passed, there would be no need to go further. However, that is a side issue.
  The assessment of the Bill will be conducted not so much by officials in the Home Office or outside as by the press, the television and the public, who will look to see whether the provisions have worked.
  336
  I shall not say that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, delivered an Exocet to his case, but he certainly had a bit of a shot at his foot when he said that if we had only a very short period, only one match might be affected, which would not be enough to tell whether the provisions were effective. We have had this extraordinary procedure of being up all night because he claimed that that one match was of such massive importance that it was vital that we got the Bill through in great haste, which could result in rather muddled legislation. He should reflect on which case he is making. He cannot make both.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I fear that I was not present at 5 o'clock this morning. I was in another place. The Opposition can have their cake and eat it. The three-year period that is being proposed can be abbreviated. There is nothing wrong with that. I have strong reservations about the Bill, but Ministers could make a judgment within three years or within two years. They would not be short of representations from organisations such as Liberty.
  It is as though Ministers are psychic. They are not. I was a Minister myself in the period of Wilson, Callaghan and Blair, so I know that Ministers are not psychic. They have their own views. It is not as though this evening the view has been expressed that Ministers take whatever is presented to them. They do not. That being the case, I believe that three years is a reasonable period of time. That does not mean that a period of three years will necessarily be applied.
  If Ministers believe that the Bill is worthless, they will come to that view. First, a period of three years will give Ministers an opportunity to hear about the merits of the Bill from outside. Secondly, it will give the public the opportunity to express their point of view, which is not an unimportant part of what the Government have to consider. Thirdly, it will give the Opposition the opportunity to consider the situation as it is.
  Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives should view this from the point of view of the efficacy of the proposal, and not from the point of view of party advantage. I do not see that there is any party advantage in this matter. We can best make it work by ensuring that the Government have a period within which they can come to a proper and a considered point of view. I believe that that is the only point of view that is important.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Borrie, although I do not much like the Bill, I believe that a longer period is preferable for the following reasons. If people's civil liberties are affected, lawyers being what they are, it will take a long time for us to find out that that is the case. The headline numbers of hooligans caught or not caught will not be an effective test of the Bill in relation to civil liberties. Only when such people have been prevented from travelling and they proceed through the civil courts will we see the result. Lawyers would be poor if they did not take a long time to decide such matters.

  337
  A longer period would also give us a larger sample of the rights and wrongs of the matter and not much will be lost by waiting. I hope that when we consider this matter again it will not be in the last week of July.
  Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I too do not like many aspects of this legislation. I want to address my remarks to the particular proposal for the one-plus-one-year period. The effect of that would be that the current legislation would end two years from now, as I expect these provisions to be triggered within days. That means that legislation will have to be provided in the Government's legislative programme commencing in the autumn of next year. Presumably, any review of the legislation would take at least two or three months.
  The kind of careful consideration that we would want to see for such legislation, as opposed to this unseemly rush, would take a number of months and not a number of weeks. Therefore, I would have expected that a review of the process would be completed by the end of next year and that the consideration of draft legislation, if any, would take place in the spring and summer of 2002. Effectively, that means that for the review to be completed by the end of December next year, it would have to commence by September next year. The one-plus-one period would mean that the decisions taken in two years' time would be based on not more than 12 months of football.
  Continually I have expressed the view—I am delighted that the Minister has accepted this—that the so-called short route will be only a modest contribution to the effect of this legislation. In my view, the legislation will have an effect of substance only if the longer route—that is the long process of identifying hooligans and bringing them before magistrates' courts in a proper manner—bears fruit. That will bear fruit only by consistently following hooligans, identifying them match after match, month after month, over two or three years.
  To noble Lords opposite and to those minded to go down the one-plus-one-year route I say that they will not give themselves or anyone else a fair opportunity to assess how this legislation works. I do not like the speed of this legislation, as those who have followed the debates on this Bill will know, but the next time it is reviewed, it must be reviewed properly, carefully and at length with a fair ability to assess whether or not it has worked. In my view it will be assessed on whether or not the long route has worked. I believe that the short route will not be used frequently because, if it is, it will rapidly fall into disrepute.
  I hope that, despite the agreement made in the early hours of this morning, noble Lords can reflect on whether the one-plus-one-year route really makes sense if we have the common objective of ensuring that next time the legislation is properly considered.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has made many valuable contributions during the passage of the Bill. The reality is that the word
  338
  "review" that he has used carries weight only if a review is an independent review. The Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, have not yet committed themselves. He has indicated some interesting ideas, but he has gone no further. When I put the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, he said that we would be in a strong position to complain and to criticise the Government if a review was not independent. That again is totally useless.
  We want a clear undertaking from the Minister that any review of this Bill will be conducted by an independent agency and not by civil servants who will be placed in a ludicrous position because they would be invited to say that all this effort that we have applied to this Bill had been proved totally worthless because we did not have the opportunity of insisting that the review should be carried out by an independent agency.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, during the course of the debates on the Bill the noble Lord put to me the use of what he describes now as an "independent agency". We had not given earlier consideration to that point, but I am prepared to consider it. Perhaps the noble Lord would share with us his thoughts on what that independent agency may be.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not believe that it is for me to name any particular organisation that would carry out the review.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I gave way to the Minister and now I am replying to the point that he made.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, this is Report stage.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was about to chide the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about exactly that.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord need trouble himself with that. I am well aware that we have reached Report stage. I have intervened only twice to ask a question. I am now addressing myself to the issue. This afternoon I made the point to the Minister and he has an opportunity to consult his advisers, who are not a thousand miles away from the Chamber, and to indicate to us whether the Government are prepared to accept this point. Without such an assurance the review is worthless. That point must be appreciated by everyone in the House. So far I have not heard any words of comfort from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam.
  Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I took that to be an intervention as I was sitting down. I say only that, if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is satisfied on that point, then an independent review would be of no value unless it was over a long enough period for it to have a chance of properly reflecting whether or not the

  339
  measures had had any effect. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to ask him in turn, if he had that reassurance, whether he would be willing to move from the position of one-plus-one to one-plus-three.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the tail end of that debate was more interesting than what preceeded it. I sensed we were almost getting into the process of negotiations. They would be welcome and perhaps they should continue. I am certainly more than prepared to take away the notion of an independent review. My noble friend Lord Woolmer made an important point. If the House were to accept the one-plus-one proposition, given that the legislation will in effect be in place for just two years and given that a review would have to take place during that time, it is likely that the period of time reviewed would be extremely short, much less than the two years which the sunset clause one-plus-one suggests.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. Is it within my noble friend's experience, as it was within mine and I am sure within the experience of others who have had the opportunity to be in office, that solid representations are made to Ministers—they can accept or reject them as they choose—by Liberty and similar organisations. It is therefore wrong in principle that Ministers should shut off their minds to the idea of listening carefully to a whole variety of propositions made to them and simply make up their own minds on the basis of A, B and C which seem to be substantive arguments for or against a renewal.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend helpfully reminds us about representations. Of course, we want to take careful account within any review period of representations that are made, particularly those made by the organisation to which my noble friend referred.
  Going back to the point of the independent review, of course we shall give it careful consideration. But it needs a decent period of time over which to be conducted. We may want to contract to an academic institution with experience in this area. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the question because I thought he had an agency in mind that might reputably be able to assist us. Clearly, he does not. But that is something to which both he and I can give further thought.
  We need a longer period of time to see whether or not this legislation is effective. I come back to a point I made during my earlier contribution. If the one-plus-one proposition succeeds in your Lordships' House this evening, this legislation will effectively run out at this stage of the year 2002. In 2002 we begin the European competition for Euro 2004. Given the unfortunate, unpleasant, disgraceful, shaming scenes that we saw on the streets of Charleroi, Brussels, Copenhagen and elsewhere during the concluding part of the last football season, what sort of message do we
  340
  honestly think we will be delivering in 2002 if at that point we cease this piece of legislation? What message will that send to the European football authorities?
  Before noble Lords make a decision on this question, they should think long and hard about that point. It is also worth taking into account the important words of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. After all, it was he who proposed to the Home Secretary during that historic meeting, the valuable consultation, that we should have a sunset clause. He was most impressed by the Home Secretary's response; he described it as "graceful". He said also that he thought that it was extremely important that there should be an annual report received by the House—something which we in the Home Office are happy to provide—on the operation of the Act.
  The noble Lord went further during the course of our Second Reading debate. He said:
  "I also feel that a sunset provision is very important. I personally would prefer to see a sunset provision of three years".—(Official Report, 20/7/00: col. 1216.)
  There we have it: the respected noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, the chairman of a powerful and important committee, offered his advice to your Lordships, not once, but twice. He proposed the sunset clause; we accepted it in good faith. He also suggested and made the powerful and important point that we needed to have an annual report and review. We accepted that point too. And during Second Reading he suggested a sunset provision of three years. That perfectly makes the case.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, that was three years in total: one plus two. Whereas what we are offered this afternoon is either four—one plus three—or two.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. But the point I return to and make most powerfully is this. We need a longer review period so that we can see just how effective these measures are. I insist that one plus one is not long enough.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, line 43, leave out ("four years") and insert ("one year")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Methuen): My Lords, the Question is on Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 43, leave out the words "three years", as just inserted, and insert "one year".
  6.56 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 174; Not-Contents, 136.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Addington, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Holderness, L.

  Arran, E.

  Howe, E.

  Astor, V.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Barker, B.

  Jacobs, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Boardman, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Lucas, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Ludford, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Byford, B.

  McConnell, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  McNally, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Mar, C.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Cox, B.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Monson, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Denham, L.

  Newby, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Northbrook, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Elton, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Ezra, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Onslow of Woking, L.

  Flather, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Peel, E.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Reay, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Rennard, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Renton, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Roper, L.

  342

  Rotherwick, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Russell, E.

  Tebbit, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Tope, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Tordoff, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Sharman, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Swinfen, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Alli, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Amos, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Bach, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Blease, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Bragg, L.

  Brett, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Brookman, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Judd, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Kirkhill, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Layard, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Longford, E.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  David, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  [Teller]

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Desai, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Donoughne, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Elder, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Orme, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Gale, B.

  Prashar, B.

  Gavron, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Rea, L.

  343

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Richard, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Simon, V.

  Whitaker, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Winston, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  7.6 p.m.
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 11 I must advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 12 to 21 due to pre-emption.
  Schedule 1 [Amendments of the Football Spectators Act 1989]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 5, leave out lines 27 to 43.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, a sunset clause may be very welcome, but the question about some parts of this Bill is whether the sun should ever rise upon them. If it does, I believe it should be greeted with the proverbial words:
  "Busy old fool, unruly sun".
  I seek by way of this amendment to apply those words to new Section 14B, which contains the "anti-social behaviour order", as the Home Secretary has described it.
  On these Benches, we have always had misgivings about the anti-social behaviour order. It is a curious mixture of the criminal and the civil. In fact, one might describe it as the "genetically modified" order. It has never been popular on these Benches, but, similarly, it has never been popular in many other places. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said last night— rather later than I care to remember—that he believed that 500 such orders had been granted nationwide. I trust that the Minister is in a position now to confirm or deny that figure. In any case, it is agreed not to be very much; indeed, the Home Secretary admitted as much on 10th July when he addressed a meeting in Committee Room 5.
  The Home Secretary explained then why he had made the provision of the anti-social behaviour order in new Section 14B mandatory. He has done so because the courts do not like it and because they do not think that it is satisfactory. Therefore, with all the authority vested in him—and with all the authority vested in us, if he can get it—the Home Secretary is insisting that the courts must do it. The word "must" in legislation is always put in where we do not want it, but never put in where we do want it.
  I am allergic to mandatory sentences. If they should happen to be just for the particular crime to which they are applied, they can only be so by coincidence. A good sentence should take into consideration the following: the type of crime; the aggravating or mitigating features of the particular offence—and there may be many of them; the likelihood of re-offending, or previous convictions; and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances affecting the criminal.
  I shall give your Lordships one example of the sort of case where such mitigation may be necessary. A parenting order was imposed a couple of weeks ago on a mother whose son was persistently truanting from school. She said that it was particularly difficult for her to supervise his departure for school because her job began at 4.30 in the morning. I should have thought that might be a considerable mitigating circumstance. However, where you face a mandatory sentence, there can be no such thing as a mitigating circumstance.
  Isolating one of those things which should make up a sentence is always unjust. Also I foresee particular difficulties with a mandatory sentence as it may affect those, whom we have mentioned many times from these Benches, who live or work outside the United Kingdom. With freedom of movement and freedom to work anywhere in the European Union, that may become steadily more common. I asked the Minister last night—and I ask him again today—to consider what happens if these provisions are applied to an employee of the European Court of Justice. I am not sure that they would like that.
  The grounds in new Section 14B on which the order can be imposed are, I think, not particularly clearly worked out. The first one in subsection (2) looks all right at a glance; namely, those who have been involved in violence or disorder. At least that appears to be recognisable, which is a start. However, it is extremely rigid and it allows no room for mercy. Even there, the clarity disappears with the words,
  "caused or contributed to any violence or disorder".
  The Minister will remember that I pressed him hard last night on the meaning of the words "contributed to". I believe that he did his level best to be helpful, but I do not think that the advice available to him enabled him to be nearly as specific as we need to ask him to be. I wonder whether he is in a position to do any better today.
  The Minister appeared to be saying—I think that I have him right and I am sure that he will put me right if I have not—that "contributing to" meant being part of the crowd which had caused the disorder. Of course, it is awfully hard to be certain in a crowd exactly who is doing what. Can the Minister be just that little bit more specific? To be held to be contributing to violence or disorder, must one perform a criminal action, or incite others to perform a criminal action, or be an accessory before or after the fact? With those provisions, the measure should be specific enough to use. Without them, it could be extremely vague and could be applied to people whom others might consider not to have done anything wrong except be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is an important point though it is a fine distinction. I want to know the answer rather badly.
  We get into greater difficulties with regard to subsection (3) where the court has to find,
  "that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches".
  An awful lot of people—I think of some of my former pupils now in distinguished and responsible positions—have been at some time in their lives in a position where they might be held to have contributed to violence or disorder. In not all of those cases would it be just, reasonable or helpful to impose a banning order on them under the Bill, especially if they wished to travel during one of the many periods of football matches for some completely different purpose. What will single out those who are likely to contribute to violence or disorder from all the rest in the opinion of the court? I have asked the Minister that question a great many times. I think that I asked him last in an intervention in his speech today in reply to Amendment No. 3. The Minister said that he would come to that in due course. Due course did not come in the course of that amendment. I think that it is time for due course to come now. This is a question that the Minister must be able to answer if he is to convince us of the case for the Bill.
  The Minister has perfectly properly pinned his case on the argument that prevention is better than cure. So it is, if it is possible. What the Minister needs to convince us of is that there is some way in which we can differentiate those people who are likely to cause disorder from all the many thousands in a similar statistical category who are not. Many individual cases were discussed last night. I refer to that of Mr John Gummer, for example, who wondered whether when he had been an undergraduate he had taken part in activity which might make the provision apply to him. We did not get a clear answer. In many of these cases the spent conviction amendment introduced last night—which we welcome warmly—will remove the pressure. But, of course, it takes time for a conviction to become spent, and during the years before it becomes spent the principle is the same.
  We discussed, for example, the case of Mr Peter Hain sprinkling tin tacks on the pitch at Twickenham. That, I imagine, is disorder within the meaning of the Bill. If the Minister tells me that it is not, I shall be interested to hear that. Clearly in Mr Hain's case the conviction is spent, and rightly so. However, if this legislation had been introduced in 1975, when his conviction was not spent, whether it would have assisted Mr Hain's rehabilitation into a respectable citizen to be caught and be subject to a banning order and reminded of past misdeeds which had faded in everyone else's memory is a question that I leave to your Lordships' consideration.
  The key question is that which was asked by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury; namely, is it possible to recognise those who are likely to contribute to such disorder, or are they, in his words, "beyond prediction"? If they are beyond prediction, the measure cannot succeed. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, we cannot support the noble Earl in his amendment to remove new Section 14B. However, he has asked a number of extremely important questions which deserve an answer as they will certainly affect our thinking on further amendments to new Section 14B in the next group of amendments.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, unlike my noble friend on the Front Bench, I enthusiastically support the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The new section can be interpreted and read in the following manner: we suspect but cannot prove that someone might do something we do not like and so we are going to lock him up—"internment" is the word for it.
  The whole of Irish history has been full of internment. Every single time that internment was used there were cries of, "They have the wrong chap". A feeling of injustice welled up and it was regarded as a great failure. Every time that a new Northern Ireland Minister came to office it was reputed that he used to ask his security advisers, "We know all the IRA men, why cannot we just lock them up?". The answer was always given that that could not be done without proof. All Northern Ireland Ministers failed to change the correct existing law. We are now proposing exactly the same procedure. This procedure is so abhorrent that it is difficult for me to dislike it more.
  We can get away with this because there is not a great green swathe of football hooligan supporters living in Boston, Massachusetts, or in Dublin. If there were, the political damage would be seen to be great. This is why at Second Reading I said that it is easy to protect the civil liberties of the rich and the powerful; that it is easy to protect the civil liberties of those who have great friends and influence overseas. It is not easy to protect the civil liberties of the majority of these people who, as the noble Earl said, come from the disaffected, white, not very well paid, not very well educated working classes.
  Their civil liberties need defending more than most because they are unpopular. It is ironic that this should be done by Liberals and old-fashioned high Tories—but that is the difference between new Labour and old Labour.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I have not participated in the debate on the Bill up until now because, I confess, I did not particularly like it. However, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Onslow, has convinced me that I should vote for the Government on the amendment.
  The noble Lord spoke of internment. I looked at the Bill to see where is the Maze; when do the doors open; for how long will someone be locked up—but I find that it seeks to stop someone going to a football match.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, a person can be locked up under proposed new Section 21B and he can be banned under this proposed new section. The noble Lord is a lawyer.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the proposed new Sect ion 14B is a banning order. In my ignorance, I looked to

  347
  see what a banning order means. Inflamed by the oratory of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I looked to see what terrible fate would befall those people who were subject to a banning order. What did I find? I found that a banning order means,
  "an order made by the court … which … in relation to regulated football matches…prohibits the person who is subject to the order from entering any premises for the purpose of attending such matches".
  To talk of that type of penalty in the same breath as internment in Northern Ireland is frankly ludicrous.
  I make merely one other point to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I listened to his speech, as I always do, with great care and attention, and I had the Bill in front of me as he made it. He made a great point about the obligation of the courts to make a banning order; that he and his party do not like the fact that the word "must" is there and not the word "may". I should like to test that by inserting "may" where "must" appears in line 43.
  The Bill states:
  "The application is to be made by complaint to a magistrates' court … if"—
  the first condition—
  "it is proved on the application that the condition in subsection (2) above is met"—
  and the noble Earl made his points about causing or contributing to any violence or disorder. That is an entirely different point. I heard what he said about that and one could argue about it for a long time.
  The second condition that has to be satisfied is,
  "and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds"—
  there must be "reasonable grounds" and the court has to be satisfied, so there is an immense discretion there in the way in which the court approaches a particular defendant in particular circumstances—
  "to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder … the court must make a banning order in respect of the respondent".
  Perhaps the noble Earl can help me: can he envisage any set of normal circumstances in which, if the court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder, they should not make that banning order? If the two conditions are satisfied—particularly having regard to the fact that there is a discretion in proposed new Section 14B(4)(b) on the reasonable grounds argument—once a court had got to the stage of saying "Yes, there are reasonable grounds" and "Yes, we are satisfied that subsection (2) is met", I find it very hard to envisage circumstances in which it would not be right for the court to make the order. In which case, it seems to me, a large part of the noble Earl's argument goes.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for making his point so clearly. Perhaps I may say to him, first—and this is a preliminary to an answer—that I cannot imagine
  348
  grounds on which the court can be so satisfied. If the noble Lord could give me such grounds I could answer him more clearly.
  Secondly, supposing hypothetically that the court was so satisfied, imagine that the person was going to a European town in which his mother was dying; imagine that he was going to a European town which was the place of his regular employment. I do not say that in either case the person should go without penalty, but I do say that the court may wish to consider the possibility of an alternative penalty.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, if one looks at the definition of a banning order, it deals precisely with the point made by the noble Earl. A banning order prohibits the person not from going to a town where his father is dying but from entering any premises for the purpose of attending a football match. It seems a little fanciful to argue that someone is going to Charleroi or wherever for the purpose of seeing his father who is on his deathbed, if the person has a ticket for the west stand for the England v. Belgium game taking place in that city on that day. One has heard it often in the case of grandparents' funerals and the office boy, but the short answer to the noble Earl's point is that the person does not get banned from going to Charleroi; he gets banned from the ground.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I am going to be a spoilsport, I am afraid. This exchange is amusing the House, of course; but this is Report stage. The noble Earl will have the chance to reply to my noble friend in due course—no doubt he will do so extremely adequately—but I do not think we should allow the exchange to develop any further.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the amendment, I rise, very briefly, to support the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I do not see why the court should be regarded as a cipher any more than should civil servants. The whole burden of the argument adduced by certain members of the Opposition is that the court would have no option but to act in a certain way. I do not think that. The court will have a duty to listen carefully to what the officer has to say. The officer is defined as,
  "the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides or appears to reside".
  That being the case, why should the court have any obligation to listen only to that officer?
  That is not what proposed new Section 14B states. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help. That gives the court sufficient power to look at the whole situation described by the officer. I do not think that my noble friend would dissent from that. That is the burden of the argument properly adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a lively and entertaining debate. It has been a better debate this evening than the one yesterday. Certainly for our part it has been much easier to follow.

  349
  The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would delete proposed new Section 14B from the Bill altogether; it would take a fundamental part out of the Bill. I wish to demonstrate that that would be a very grave mistake. The section which has become proposed new Section 14B has a long and, some may say, controversial history. It has gestated rather well over its lifetime. It was first introduced by Sir Norman Fowler in the debates on the Crime and Disorder Bill in 1998; it certainly attracted a lively debate the following year when the Football (Offences and Disorder Bill) was going through its paces in the House with government support. The Government made clear that they were sympathetic to the principle that banning orders should be capable of being imposed otherwise than as a punishment for football-related offences. But in the light of opposition to the measure among some members of the other place, principally but not entirely on the Opposition side, it was decided not to proceed with the measure at that time, but to wait and see how effective the other measures contained in the 1999 Act would turn out to be.
  We now know the result of that wait-and-see strategy. Euro 2000 has demonstrated that we cannot rely on the measures contained in the 1999 Act to prevent further disgraceful outbreaks of the kind that many of us have described during the long course of our debates and deliberations. The frequently quoted statistics—just a handful of people subject to domestic banning orders, and no one subject to an international banning order, among those who came to notice in Belgium—show that we cannot rely on a strategy which confines its attention to those people on whom bans can currently be imposed. The police need to look at the much wider group of people who have been involved in violence or disorder. They need to make a judgment on whether a football banning order in respect of any such person would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with regulated football matches. The police will be able to make that judgment through their use of intelligence, their observation of the people concerned, video evidence, both from the UK and overseas, and no doubt many other sources of information.
  Noble Lords opposite have claimed that the procedure we envisage is in all its essentials criminal and that we are designating it as civil only in order to benefit from a lower standard of proof. That is incorrect. To be the recipient of a banning order on complaint does not create a criminal record. The procedure will be civil, and the burden of proof which applies will be the balance of probabilities. Because the procedure is civil, the use of evidence obtained before the Act came into force will not, we believe, be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The procedure, as we have emphasised, resembles that in force for anti-social behaviour orders. We make no apology for using the resources of the civil as well as the criminal law in appropriate cases to prevent people from behaving in loutish and disorderly ways.
  350
  The fact that we introduced a sunset clause must be of considerable reassurance to noble Lords who have concerns about aspects of new Section 14B. That power, like the powers in new Sections 21A and 21B, will not continue beyond year one if the House does not pass an affirmative resolution to that effect. In any event, the case will lapse when the sunset clauses come to a conclusion.
  Unless one takes the extreme view that the UK Government and criminal justice system should take no interest whatever in disorder committed by their citizens abroad, then I would suggest that one has some responsibility to look for proactive, protective ways of preventing such outbursts of hooliganism. New Section 14B offers a procedure which is both fair and likely to be effective, both in its own right and as the essential follow-up to the exercise of the summary powers in new Section 21B. To remove it from the Bill would emasculate the whole measure.
  I heard the interpretation of the measure from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. We had a bitingly effective analysis from the noble Lord, Lord Richard. There is now a widespread understanding in your Lordships' House of the measure and why it is needed. All the arguments during the debate point to the need for a measure which will be both effective and publicly welcomed.
  7.30 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and before I reply to him, perhaps he will answer my question. I asked whether he would give me an explanation of how the court will recognise the people whose presence would be likely to lead to violence and disorder?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl did indeed ask me the question. I shall do my best to answer. Contributing to violence or disorder requires something more than simply being in a place where violence or disorder is occurring. The noble Earl will probably agree with that. The individual must have done something concrete that contributes to the violence or disorder. Certainly, in our view, aiding or abetting would be caught and inciting would be caught. But I cannot give a full opinion of all the circumstances in which a court would find a person to have contributed to violence or disorder. At the final point it would obviously be a question of judgment. That judgment would depend on the facts of the case presented to the court at the time.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. He has not told me what I hoped to hear; that it would be confined to conduct which was itself criminal. The Minister is—if he reads the speech of Mr Peter Lilley in another place—impaled on what I now regard as "Lilley's fork". Mr Lilley says that either the conduct concerned is itself criminal, in which case it should have been charged, or it is not criminal, in which case it should not be the ground of a banning order. In response to my first question about "contributed to" in new Section 14B(2), the Minister

  351
  still did not answer my much more important question, which is about subsection (3). How will the court recognise among the throng of people who might possibly be suspected which ones are likely to cause violence and disorder if they go to a football match? If the Minister has an answer to that I am very willing to give way to him now.
  His silence on the matter is becoming deafening. His persistence in carrying on with the Bill without being able to answer it is beginning to worry me very much. I enjoyed the exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I think that he was perhaps a little harsh on the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Of course, a banning order itself does not amount to internment, but there are very severe penalties for breaches of a banning order. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has perhaps underestimated the passion—I can use no other word—with which some people follow their football. Some people will take very great risks indeed in order to attend a football match on which they have set their hearts.
  I know it is classic new Labour thinking that if there is a penalty, one will not need to impose it because people will comply anyway. We heard that in the course of the Child Support, Pensions and Welfare Reform Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, shakes his head.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I shake my head because the noble Earl has never heard that argument from me. He has never heard me suggest that you do not need to worry about penalties or the draconian nature of the penalties because they will never be imposed. I never used an argument like that. I would regard it frankly as totally illogical. I should have thought it was rather beneath the noble Earl to raise it.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not intend to imply otherwise. When I said "we", I referred to the House as a whole. I am sure many noble Lords remember the debates on Clause 63 of the Child Support, Pensions and Welfare Reform Bill. I did not intend to reflect on the noble Lord personally. If I gave any appearance of doing so, I withdraw unreservedly and with apologies.
  As to the matter of the ticket for the west stand at Charleroi, I do not see any impossibility in the idea that someone may have both a sick father in Charleroi and a ticket for the west stand. Such combinations have happened before, and I am sure will happen again.
  In deciding whether people who come before a court are liable to create violence or disorder, it still seems to me that a court is being asked to take a bet. I said last night that I know of a lot of rich bookies; I do not know of many rich punters. My noble friend Lord Goodhart, with his usual carefulness, says that there are a number of rich punters. The trouble is that most of them were a lot richer when they started. I accept my noble friend's correction, but I think that the point stands in spite of it.
  352
  The Minister recited the pedigree of the anti-social behaviour order. With respect, I am not convinced that an order is justifiable simply because it has a respectable pedigree. This is not the form book in that sense. I also accept his argument that relying on records of known convictions will not catch all those we would wish to catch if we can find a reasonable way to do so. I ask the Minister to accept that this is a matter of priorities. Either we risk not catching some people who should be caught or we catch people who should not be caught. I have a personal preference—call it prejudice, if you will—in favour of acquitting the innocent even if I sometimes have to let some guilty go as well. If the Minister's preference is the opposite, he should say so. Meanwhile, 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. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Business
  Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I suggest that we do not proceed with the Committee stage today as more time needs to be spent on the Football (Disorder) Bill after dinner.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before the House adjourns, perhaps I may express deep disappointment from the Liberal Democrat Benches. This important Bill has twice been scheduled behind the Football (Disorder) Bill. Probably more people walk in the countryside and take an interest in wildlife issues than play football. I am aware also of the deep disappointment on the government Benches. No matter what else happens in September, October and November, I hope the Government will ensure that this extremely important Bill is given due time.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the disappointment of the noble Baroness is exceeded only by the disappointment of the Chief Whip. As the House knows, we have to complete proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill by the end of the week. But the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will become law.

  Turkey: EU Membership
  7.41 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of Turkey's application for membership of the European Union,

  353
  what they and the European Union are doing to assist Turkey in its efforts to improve its internal human rights record.
  The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am aware that some noble Lords have been up all night—in a good cause perhaps—and so I shall not keep noble Lords here any longer than I have to. I am sorry that the Bishops' Benches are not as well populated today as they were yesterday. That only reinforces the impression that the Bishops are unduly interested in sex. But the matter before the House today is of as great importance as the matter yesterday.
  I have always been an advocate of Turkey's membership of the European Union. It has seemed to me that this would clarify the multi-faith and multicultural character of the Union and reduce the possibility of Europe being seen as a fortress of "Christendom". On the other hand, it would discourage obscurantist forces in Turkey and strengthen those working for a progressive society in that country. Last year, however, I received an unpleasant shock. I had been invited to Istanbul by a number of Churches to assist in the inauguration of their millennium celebrations. Quite innocent, you might think, but the press conference to launch the celebrations was brutally and without ceremony broken up by anti-terrorist police. I was threatened personally and the journalists were ordered not to publish any account of the incident. All but one complied. We had to retreat to the protection of some of the historic churches and were, thereafter, followed everywhere by plain-clothes police—even to the churches' camps for earthquake victims! All of this happened in spite of the fact that a presidential adviser had permitted these celebrations.
  Naturally, I reported the matter immediately to the British Embassy which said that, in Turkey, the right hand did not often know what the left was doing! Upon my return, l wrote to the Turkish Ambassador who, after checking my credentials with the Archbishop of Canterbury—I passed— was very gracious and promised to investigate the matter. He and his staff agreed that a great deal needed to be done both by way of legislation and administratively, through control of the police, to improve Turkey's human rights record. I am delighted that the embassy is represented here tonight.
  Under the Ottoman Empire, Christians, Jews and other minority communities experienced mixed fortunes. There were times when they were harassed, persecuted or neglected, and at other times, they enjoyed a degree of autonomy and even of prosperity. Although the presence of religious minorities in Turkey is severely attenuated, during the Ottoman period there were large numbers of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others living within the empire. It is generally allowed that the laws governing their lives were less severe in Turkey than in other parts of the Muslim world. There was sometimes persecution, often instigated by fanatics, and sometimes a culture of contempt was fostered.
  The neglect and poverty of the religious minorities in the 18th and 19th centuries has been recorded by various European travellers, diplomats and missionaries. Under pressure from European powers, particularly Great Britain, the Sultan Abdal-Majid promulgated, in 1839, the Hatt-l-Sharif of Gulhane, in which he announced his intention of enacting various regulations—or tanzimat—which would improve the condition of his subjects, irrespective of religion. That was followed, in 1856, again with the encouragement of Great Britain, by the Hatt-i-Humayun, which guaranteed equal rights for all, again, irrespective of religion. It had taken over 1,200 years for the Muslim world to move from the language of "tolerance" to one of "rights" for non-Muslims.
  The early promise of these two edicts and the constitution, or Mejelle, which followed was not fulfilled until the turn of this century when the so-called Young Turks attempted to set the empire in a progressive direction. This intention was, however, severely violated by the massacres of the Armenians and Assyrians during and after the First World War. In fact, a succession of removals, forced marches, exile and massacres have created the contemporary situation where the religious minorities form a tiny proportion of the present population.
  The establishment of modern Turkey on a secular basis in the 1920s provided fresh hope for the remaining minorities. In recent years, however, for political and security reasons, there has been a considerable tightening of religious freedom for both the majority and the minority communities. Deteriorating relations with Greece have meant greater restrictions for the Phanar, the centre of Greek Orthodoxy, indeed of all Eastern Orthodoxy. The requirement that the Ecumenical Patriarch must be of Turkish origin and have Turkish citizenship greatly restricts the choice available in the appointment to such an important office. While the seminary in Istanbul has been reopened recently, no training of clergy is allowed on Turkish soil. Anti-insurgency measures, coupled with encouragement to Islamic militants to deter Kurdish nationalism, has put increasing pressure on the Syrian—Syriac, as they prefer to call themselves in Turkey—Orthodox community in the south east of the country.
  William Dalrymple in his book From the Holy Mountain, records his harrowing visit to these Christians who still speak the language which Jesus himself spoke—Aramaic. He leaves as the soldiers surround the monastery of Mar Gabriel and the monk, Abuna Shamaoun, tells him to go quickly and to make sure that he tells the outside world what is happening to the Syriac Christians of Tur Abdin. Well, he has told his story, but what are we going to do about it?
  If the "ethnic" Greek, Syrian, Assyrian and Armenian Churches are under such pressure, the situation is much worse for the independent Protestant Churches. In recent months there have been several raids on such churches in Istanbul and Izmir. Worship has been disrupted, people arrested and interrogated and foreign Christians deported without due process of law. There are allegations of police brutality and the

  355
  confiscation of books, films and other material. An interesting aspect of these arrests has been that in nearly every case, the Christians have been acquitted by the judiciary. Is this really a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, or is there an understanding that the police will take the rap and the higher reaches of Turkish society will remain untouched by these incidents?
  While I have concentrated on the situation of minorities in Turkey, I am also concerned, of course, that those in the majority community should have their basic freedoms respected. Pressure on moderate Muslim opinion and petty regulations about the "secularisation of polity" in Turkey will be entirely counterproductive if they have the effect of encouraging extremist religious sentiment to emerge. I am quite perplexed, for example, by the prohibition on traditional Muslim dress in Parliament. Surely we would not want to encourage such pettiness in Westminster?
  The European Commission and Turkey are to sign an "accession partnership" in November 2000. Among other things, it will set out some of the conditions which Turkey will have to meet if it is to join the European Union. It is vitally important that this document should include the need for legislation which allows for the right to free assembly and of free speech. The relationship of the police to the justice and political systems also needs to be addressed. Churches ought to be allowed to train their clergy and lay people. Those removed from areas such as Tur Abdin should be allowed to return and confiscated property should be returned to the rightful owners.
  I am grateful, indeed, for the work of the Anglican chaplaincy in Turkey. It is my hope that improving relations with Greece will also ease the situation of the Ecumenical Patriarch. We cannot, however, ignore the plight of the other communities as we set about preparing for Turkish membership of the European Union.
  7.52 p.m.
  Lord Rea: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for tabling this Question and for his well-informed and thoughtful words.
  The Question suggests that Turkey is making efforts to improve its human rights record and implies that the Turkey with which we deal diplomatically has the power to do this. However, the reality is that there are forces within Turkey in very powerful positions who regard improvements in freedom of expression, for example, as threatening to the security and unity of the state. Those brave people in Turkey who are defending human rights are up against the self-selected National Security Council with its military power and control of the security apparatus. So, too, are the political parties and even government Ministers, whatever their claims and declared intentions to improve human rights.
  This "power behind the scenes" derives, I would suggest, from the persistent influence of Kemalism, referred to by the right reverend Prelate, the
  356
  nationalistic movement founded by Kemal Ataturk after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It believes that the minority nationalities within Turkey should be assimilated into a unitary Turkish state. Parallels have been drawn between Kemalism and the German national socialism of the 1930s.
  When I was one of an observer group in Ankara in 1998, at the trial of the Hadep leaders by a state security court, I was able to visit Akin Birdal, the courageous Turkish president of the Human Rights Association of Turkey. He was recovering at home after a failed assassination attempt. His parting words to me were, "Those who did this to me are those who are opposed to Turkey joining the European Union".
  What, I suggest, that the United Kingdom and the European Union need to do is, first, to expose and condemn human rights violations in Turkey as they occur. They should take note and publicise, for instance, the work of the Kurdish Human Rights Project, which is bringing numerous cases against Turkey to the European Court. For example, Turkey has recently been ordered to pay £250,000 to the families of two torture victims. There are many other cases of gross human rights abuse that, if there was sufficient time, I could cite. However, I believe that noble Lords may be relieved that there is no time, because some of those cases are extremely gruesome.
  The National Security Council, as Akin Birdal intimated, is not in a hurry to join Europe. It needs to be influenced in different ways from presenting evidence of Turkish human rights abuses to it. Those ways, I suggest, should threaten to reduce its influence and power. I think that my noble friend may guess what kind of measures I am going to suggest; they should bring to bear selected economic and military sanctions. That is the language which those with real power will understand. For example, to refuse ECGD support for the Ilisu dam project would be a small step in the right direction.
  The problem, however, does not have only a European dimension. The United States gives considerable military and economic support to Turkey, dating from the days of the Cold War when Turkey was NATO's southern flank. Even today, the US (and the UK) still use Turkey as a base for operations against Iraq.
  Democracy and human rights will make progress only when the balance of power within Turkey shifts away from the National Security Council to the elected national assembly.
  7.56 p.m.
  Baroness Cox: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the right reverend Prelate on this timely opportunity to discuss Turkey's application for membership of the European Union, and for his erudite introduction.
  Any measures which would help Turkey fully to meet the criteria for membership of the EU are to be welcomed. However, there is widespread concern that concessions may be made which fail to address

  357
  adequately Turkey's continuing repressive policies towards her ethnic and religious minorities. Time permits few examples.
  The continuing suffering of the Kurds in southeastern Turkey is well documented. Of course, terrorist violence by the PKK is as unacceptable as violence perpetrated against the Kurdish people by the Turkish authorities, but when I had the privilege of visiting the Kurds, driving through south-eastern Turkey, I obtained some idea of the conditions under which they are forced to live. Their plight remains a matter of grave concern.
  Also, while driving from Iraq to Diyarbakir, our Turkish driver remarked rather sadly, "Seven more Christian villages were burnt yesterday". His comment illustrated the fate of the Christian communities in south-eastern Turkey. Although the Turkish constitution guarantees the protection of religious minorities, the Syrian Orthodox Church is suffering systematic harassment, the destruction of villages and other forms of repression. For example, in 1998 the governor of Mardin province issued a circular forbidding any education, building work, including repair work and even visitors to Syrian Orthodox monasteries. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, William Dalrymple, in his book, From the Holy Mountain, poignantly documents the harsh reality in detail.
  The Syrian Orthodox Church, one of the most historic Churches in the world, is in danger of elimination from its own historic land, suffering a fate similar to that of the Armenian Church in eastern Turkey. Eastern Turkey was western Armenia until the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 and its annexation of western Armenia. Vast numbers of Armenian villages and churches were destroyed or are now being left to crumble into ruins. Turkey has been responsible for, and is still encouraging, the destruction of some of the most ancient Christian communities, cultures and buildings.
  Turkey still fails to recognise the Armenian genocide, despite all the historical evidence and the growing number of governments and bodies, including the EU Parliament, which do so. Furthermore, Turkey is still maintaining its blockade of Armenia—an entirely illegitimate act, as Turkey never should have been a participant in the hostilities between Azerbaijan and the historically Armenian enclave of Ngorno Karabakh.
  These are some of the issues which must be addressed in any application for EU membership. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that they are taken seriously and will not condone them in any way.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Roper: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this question. Like him, I speak as one who would welcome a fully democratic Turkey as a member of the European Union but who believes that there are structural problems inherent in Turkey's Kemalist political system which will require
  358
  profound transformation before it can fulfil the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the European Union.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I am particularly concerned about the role of the military, with their view that they are the guardians of the integrity of the state. That presents real challenges to the development of Turkey in the way that we would wish.
  I welcome the discussion on page 90 of the Annual Report on Human Rights of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and in particular the reference to the £500,000 that the Government are making available to aid and assist reform, and the work that they are doing with non-governmental organisations. I hope that in replying the Minister will give more details of what is being done, because it seems to respond directly to the right reverend Prelate's question.
  Reading that paragraph, I find that the treatment that the British Government give to Turkey in the report is rather gentle compared with the treatment that is to be found in the Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Turkey published by the United States State Department on 25th February, which is rather more robust in its treatment of the problems.
  I was also surprised to find no reference in the section of the Foreign Office report dealing with Turkey to the way in which it has been the workings of the European Court of Human Rights that have led to the withdrawal of military judges from the state security court tribunals. We should pay more attention to the work of the European Court of Human Rights in taking matters forward. Reference was made to compensation of a quarter of a million pounds, but last year Turkey lost 18 cases, and something approaching £2 million had to be paid in compensation. The European Court of Human Rights is working on the matter.
  There are other hopeful signs. Perhaps one of the most important is that the recently elected President of Turkey, Ahmet Sezer, when he was the president of the Turkish constitutional court last year, made a speech in which he said that the Turkish constitution imposed unacceptable restrictions on the basic freedoms of Turkish citizens—including limits on language rights—and called for harmonisation of Turkish domestic law with the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that in replying the Minister will confirm that, now that the United Kingdom has harmonised its domestic legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights, we shall be in a strong position to encourage the President to fulfil what he promised in that early remark.
  This is indeed a situation in which the various European institutions can work together. We should commend the work of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights in helping to prepare Turkey for its candidacy of the European Union.
  8.2 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, several years ago, I led a fact-finding mission to south-east Turkey on behalf of the Christian human rights group, the Jubilee Campaign. We subsequently published a report warning that the ancient Churches of that region faced systematic destruction, and we detailed examples of individual atrocities and what we described as cultural genocide.
  In the intervening period, I regret to tell your Lordships, little has changed. Turkey's tiny Christian minority—probably fewer than 100,000 people—has never been a fashionable cause. But as Turkey edges towards membership of the European Union, her attitude towards human rights will surely become more of a touchstone in our dealings with her.
  Almost all of the country's Christians belong to the ancient Churches: Armenians, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Greek and Syrian Catholic, Bulgarian Orthodox, and Assyrians. They are double minorities, as they are from ethnic minority groups as well as holding a different faith from the Muslim majority—double minorities, doubly vulnerable and doubly endangered.
  I travelled through the militarised Kurdish areas in south-east Turkey to visit the Tur Abdin region, the spiritual centre of the Syrian Orthodox Church; I stayed at the Mor Gabriel monastery referred to by the right reverend Prelate, which was established some 1,600 years ago. Around 80 years ago there were some 200,000 Syriannis living in Tur Abdin. Today, the figure is nearer 2,000.
  Many Syrian Orthodox and Chaldean Catholic villages—such as Hassana, Arbo, Habab, and Sedei—have been destroyed and emptied of people. Many Christians have been beaten, injured or even killed at the hands of both sides. The village of Kerburan had a population of some 1,500 Christians at one time, but even their graves have been desecrated. Between 1987 and 1997 there were nearly 40 unsolved murders involving Christians in south-east Turkey. One Syrianni said to me, "We are all in shock and wondering if we will be the next one".
  The rise of Turkish nationalism and Islamic extremism, which both seek to exclude ethnic and religious minorities has inflamed what was already a fragile situation. In some important respects Turkey has demonstrated more religious tolerance than other Islamic countries, but among friends it must surely be possible to offer constructive criticism and to urge a more proactive role in creating a climate of tolerance and respect. Among the practical measures that the Turkish Government might adopt is giving greater protection to the remaining Christians in the southeast. The authorities should stop casting suspicion on the Christians, whom they accuse of collaborating with the PKK; they should provide aid to those Christians who have been internally displaced by military operations.
  In addition, they should allow the re-opening of the seminaries; make it easier for Christian denominations to be recognised officially for the purpose of property
  360
  ownership; bring to justice those who have been responsible for intimidation and attacks; and, particularly, put an end to inappropriate and discriminatory acts, such as the forced circumcision of Christians who have been conscripted into the armed forces.
  Although this is of necessity a brief debate, it is an important one. I hope that the record of these proceedings will be studied with care by the Turkish authorities and by the Foreign Office. The whole House, and a much wider community of interest, will remain grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for initiating these proceedings.
  8.6 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate for affording us the opportunity for this debate in an otherwise hyperactive week.
  The fundamental question in relation to Turkey is: who is in charge and do they want to move towards full democracy and respect for all minorities? Are the civilian government in charge, or does power rest with the military-dominated National Security Council? On 16th June the council rejected the EU's Copenhagen criteria, even though the Foreign Ministry wanted to accept them and spoke of tolerating ethnic and religious differences. Why does martial law continue although the internal war is over and the PKK has asked to discuss political solutions? Why are the elected mayors from the constitutional HADEP party working under great difficulties?
  Has the mayor of Ozalp, for example, been removed from office? Was there any judicial process in this matter? Why has Professor Lok, chairman of the Izmir branch of the Human Rights Association, had to complain that torture of suspects and prisoners still continues? Why have the government's new, regrouped villages in eastern Turkey been described as "like open-air prisons"? When will the village guard system be disbanded and when will displaced villagers be allowed to return freely to their homes and land? It seems to me that without satisfactory answers to such questions, no amount of outside assistance will produce much change. There has to be a completely new commitment from whoever is really in control.
  I am sorry to have had to say some rather critical things. They are based on the experience of two unofficial observations of elections in Turkey and other travel to Istanbul, Ankara and south-east Turkey.
  However, the Turkish population is young. In time, I trust, it will come to want to change a dubious political system and to dispense with military predominance.
  8.9 p.m.
  Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing this debate. I speak not only as a Member of this House but as a London Member of the European Parliament with a large number of constituents originating in Turkey and as co-ordinator of the informal cross-party Kurdish

  361
  network in the European Parliament. In that capacity I visited the Kurdish region of Turkey eight weeks ago, including the site of the Ilisu dam which has been condemned by the International Development Committee of another place. Some EU governments—I fear that the UK Government are one—have failed to treat Turkey principally as a European political partner. Primarily, they have treated her as a military partner in NATO and excused human rights abuses by Turkey's geo-strategic position and the market that it offers for arms exports. This must change. It is not anti-Turkish to point out the huge gap between Turkey's human rights record and the EU's Copenhagen criteria.
  I am among those who want Turkey to join the EU, but as a critical friend I urge radical change. The key to improving Turkey's human rights is to end the distorting dominance of the military which it justifies by the fact that Turkey is at war with its own Kurdish citizens. That war might not have happened if Turkey could accept the concept of pluralism and compatibility between Turkish citizenship and Kurdish identity, like British citizenship and Welsh identity.
  The mayor of Hakkari, which is located close to the Iraqi border, said to me:
  "My people live between death and oppression".
  Atrocities have been committed by the PKK but are far outweighed by the killings, torture and forced evictions by the Turkish army. With the PKK ceasefire and imprisonment of Abdullah Ocalan, there is now a crucial window of opportunity to launch negotiations for a peaceful settlement. That must involve Ocalan, whose position with his people recalls that of Nelson Mandela. Peace with the Kurds would end the justification for the repressive constitution, the state of emergency and martial law and human rights abuses. It would be the key to normalisation and economic and social development which is hindered not least by the huge military spending that should go on education and health. All friends of Turkey should, therefore, make such peace with the Kurds a top priority to begin Turkey's path towards the European Union.
  8.11 p.m.
  The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the history of the persecution of minorities in Turkey is as shameful as it is in Germany. The Armenian massacres are another unbewältigte Vergangenheit—a past which is yet to be overcome. In the case of Turkey there is little sign of a national will to overcome it. But it would be a mistake to turn this debate into a simple crusade. The balance of power is slowly changing and there is a process of democratisation somewhere between the justice and defence ministries. The Atatürk spirit still prevails and there is a strong desire to join the European Union and reap its economic benefits. So, why should we hold up the banner of human rights? Because not only are they a condition of membership but a universal benchmark of the actions and attitudes of sovereign states that
  362
  apply them throughout the world. We have a duty to point them out and support those within Turkey who seek to apply them directly.
  We must, for example, take seriously the situation of writers who are in prison or facing charges, such as journalist Nadire Mater who has been unjustly charged with insulting the army under Article 159 of the penal code. Last year there were signs of improvement in human rights laws, including a new amnesty signed by the President in September. At that time several writers were released "on parole". However, at a hearing in July prosecutors called for a 12-year gaol sentence for Mater, blaming a "western tradition" of slandering Turkey. Another case which has already been mentioned is that of Akin Birdal, a former president of Turkey's Human Rights Association who was imprisoned for two years after surviving an assassination attempt. His crime was to call for a peaceful approach to the Kurdish issue.
  Another case concerns the lawyer and short story writer Esber Yagmurdereli whose case has been taken up by Pen International. Blind since the age of 10, he has been in and out of gaol for 21 years for speeches and articles that challenge the Government on the Kurdish question. I can think of no better way to help Turkey into the European fold than to quote these cases of human rights violations. There is a large body of intellectuals and professional people in Turkey who would like to see reform, and there is also a judicial system on which to build. The Turkish Government need to be reminded constantly of these violations if they are to respect Europe's institutions.
  Finally, I should like to put a question to the Minister about the European Charter. Does she believe that such a charter will foster dialogue with countries like Turkey, or is it drafted in such a way that it will serve only to reinforce the present Union and make enlargement almost impossible?
  8.14 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this has been a brief but very useful debate, and I also thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing it. I underline one extremely important comment of the right reverend Prelate. The sheer challenge of including within the European Union a very substantial Muslim state with many of the drawbacks of deep underdevelopment and poverty over many years—incidentally, it is a state which feels a great sense of grievance about the way that Christians treated Muslims in the past, just as the Christian communities feel aggrieved about the way they are treated today—is one that may fundamentally change the whole nature of our world.
  If common ground can be found between a major Muslim power and the Christian powers of Europe based on human rights and common institutions we may begin to build a world in which the dreadful future indicated in Samuel Huntington's article about a clash of civilisations may be averted.
  Without detracting in any way from the moving accounts of the way in which the Turkish Government and, more often, Turkish public servants take little

  363
  notice of the Turkish constitution, I believe that the single most encouraging factor is that, having been specifically told since its original application for membership of the EU that it would have to meet in full the Copenhagen criteria—even before accession negotiations—Turkey has nevertheless decided to maintain her candidature. That is very important for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, clearly identified; namely, in Turkey, as in Indonesia, we are witnessing a battle between, on the one hand, forces that seek to shape the country's future—the army, the police and public authorities—and the voices of academe, journalism, some part of the political structure and professional people on the other.
  One of the great problems about our relations with Turkey is that there is so little interchange between civic society, the Churches, leaders of Islam, NGOs, of which Turkey has far too few—many of them persecuted—women's organisations and organisations concerned with children and social problems. One of the most encouraging signs is that in its perception of the way to approach Turkey's candidature of the EU—Philippe Morillon, rapporteur of the European Parliament, said that it would take a very long time—there is now a new emphasis on civic society and the so-called discussion fora to start very shortly. I believe that in this way we can begin the process of a acculturation without which the candidature of Turkey can never be realised.
  8.18 p.m.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in warmly thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for the opportunity to hold this short debate. There is time for little more than a soundbite from the Dispatch Box in this short debate. All I express is the hope that the message which goes out from the debate, which may perhaps be picked up in Turkey and elsewhere, is that this is not an occasion for undiluted criticism and saying that everything in Turkey is wrong; rather, the message should be one of respect, understanding and encouraging of the positive forces which I believe exist in Turkey. We must avoid the slight streak of impatience, to put it no higher, that some have detected in pronouncements from the European institutions, for example in relation to Austria. Respect and understanding for a great nation is the right starting point, even though as friends we go on to be critical.
  It sounds like a tourist brochure to say that Turkey is a nation of extreme contrasts but that is really the position in every dimension. Turkey is in Asia but not in Asia; it is in Europe but not in Europe. There remain enormous causes of concern about human rights but there are positive steps which noble Lords have mentioned this evening. We know about human rights violations but reforms of current practice are under way in relation to detention, arrest and other activities of the police authorities.
  364
  The right reverend Prelate described the harassment of journalists. It has gone very far in some areas. But there are measures to ease the processes of prosecutions against the press and open up a free press at last, which is, of course, essential to a free society.
  There is inadequacy in dealing with the Kurdish question. Now that the PKK appears to be defeated, there should be an opportunity for huge new developments of a positive kind relating to integration of the Kurdish minority. In the mean time, the terrorist threat seems to have been curbed, often by ferocious means; and societies that are threatened with terrorism deserve understanding as well as caution about how violently they react, as we know in the case of Chechnya.
  There is unease in the European Union, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, described, about absorbing this huge, amazing country with all its light and shade and good and bad sides into the European Union. The Helsinki invitation said: let it be a candidate. I have to remind myself and your Lordships that there is considerable unease in Turkey as well about the EU membership issue. Enlargement will have to be treated with immense sensitivity and more flexibility on the acquis than has been seen so far if the whole project is to make any progress.
  My view is that Turkey will adjust, possibly faster than anyone thinks. It is surrounded by huge challenges—undemocratic neighbours; continuous elements of terrorism; and fundamentalist elements challenging its whole society and balance. Nevertheless, it is a modern and potentially great nation and I believe that we must continue to respect and befriend it even while we point out some constructive criticism of the way it operates.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that autonomy might be more acceptable to the Kurdish people compared with integration?
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I hesitate before answering that definitively. Autonomy has many aspects. It can mean a lot or a little. It can be abused or made a positive force. Autonomy just written in and allowed to proceed on its way can lead to more dreadful rather than more friendly results.
  8.20 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for raising this timely question and for his highly informative description of the problems faced by religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey. This debate has demonstrated that the promotion and development of human rights in Turkey is an important issue for the UK, the European Union, and above all Turkey itself.
  The right reverend Prelate began by asking what the Government and the European Union are doing to assist Turkey in its efforts to improve its internal human rights record. I shall move on to the role of the

  365
  Government shortly. But, first, I shall say something about the role of the European Union in the process of reform.
  Noble Lords will be aware that each year the European Commission issues a regular report on the progress of candidates towards fulfilling the membership criteria. In its 1999 report, the Commission highlighted serious shortcomings in Turkey's performance on human rights, minorities and the role of the military in civilian life. Although I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said, I assure him that Her Majesty's Government are robust when they consider those issues and give them due importance. Turkey's task now is to address the European Union's concerns in these areas. The European Union, as well as individual member states like the UK, will continue to offer assistance and advice to Turkey in these areas. But ultimately it is for Turkey to implement its own reforms. There is a lively debate on these issues in Turkey, and the government have publicly committed themselves to meeting the EU accession criteria. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It certainly appears that the government are in control and addressing themselves to these issues.
  The Copenhagen criteria have been rightly highlighted, most powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. As your Lordships know, all of the candidate countries will have to meet strict membership criteria. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that no exception will be made for Turkey. At its meeting in Copenhagen in June 1993, the European Council agreed that,
  "Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities".
  At its meeting in Luxembourg in December 1997, the Council also made clear that,
  "Compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of any accession negotiations".
  The confirmation of Turkey's candidate status agreed at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 has given Turkey a clear incentive to bring its laws and practices into line with those of the European Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was right to highlight the importance of those criteria and the importance of Turkey's acceptance of that challenge.
  Your Lordships have identified many of the issues which Turkey will need to address in order to comply with those criteria and become eligible for EU accession. Examples have been given by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all speaking from personal experience and knowledge. They spoke with passion. And they were right, if I may say so, to raise proper concerns.
  I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and other noble Lords that we regularly raise our concerns with the Turkish authorities about torture, prison conditions, treatment of religious minorities and Kurds, restrictions on freedom of expression and the death penalty—an issue which perhaps was not
  366
  highlighted today. These are key areas where we wish to see an improvement in Turkey's record. Our approach is one of constructive engagement at both bilateral and EU level. We believe that this is the most effective way of working to improve the human rights of the Turkish population as a whole.
  The noble Lord, Lord Roper, raised the annual human rights report and the US State Department report. Many of the problems identified in the State Department report on Turkey are identified also in Her Majesty's Government's annual report on human rights, and the incidence of torture and restrictions on freedom of expression. I have already highlighted that these are matters of genuine concern.
  To help Turkey address these issues, the European Union and its member states engage in regular dialogue with Turkey and provide financial assistance targeted among other areas at human rights reforms and the development of civil society. As a result of the decisions made at Helsinki, the EU has been able to resume a constructive dialogue across a wide range of issues. Thus in March of this year the European Union resumed political dialogue with Turkey, concentrating on human rights; and in April this year the EC-Turkey Association Council met for the first time in almost three years. At that meeting, both Turkey and the EU highlighted the importance of adopting reforms sufficient to meet the Copenhagen political criteria. This autumn the EU will draw up an accession partnership setting out reforms to be implemented by Turkey in the run-up to membership. And it agreed to establish a single framework for co-ordinating all sources of European Union pre-accession financial assistance. These developments are important in the context of Turkey's efforts to reform its human rights record. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that the EU and the UK are vigorous in making sure that the reforms are a reality and not a piece of fiction.
  Action on human rights issues will be an import ant part of the accession partnership's requirements. The funding which the European Union provides is also an important part of the effort to improve standards of human rights in Turkey. The European Union's latest funding proposal, for example, is currently awaiting approval by the European Parliament. It will provide 45 million euro per year for three years. Any projects that it funds will have to promote economic and social development in Turkey and help to promote the defence of human rights and respect for, and protection of, minorities. I welcome this positive and constructive engagement with reform in Turkey.
  The noble Lord, Lord Roper, rightly raised the action being taken by the UK. I can assure noble Lords that we are actively engaged on a bilateral level with Turkey's reform process. Last July the then Minister of State for Europe, the right honourable Joyce Quin, announced a human rights package for Turkey worth £500,000. That is funded from the Human Rights Project Fund of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Seven projects have been implemented and are completed or nearing completion. Our focus reflects the concerns raised today. The projects include advice

  367
  on prison management; training workshops; policing methods in line with international human rights law; an inter-agency approach to torture in order to increase awareness of legal rights; and a conference on the rule of law and training for non-governmental organisations and criminal justice lawyers in Turkey.
  We have a number of issues of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised another. I say to him that there is already an active debate in Turkey on reform of the National Security Council, including greater civilian representation. We have been encouraged by the recent removal of the military judge from the state security court. So change is occurring.
  In response to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and his comment in relation to the charter of rights, it is hoped that highlighting and showcasing the existing rights in the European Union will highlight the common values of EU members. We hope that such a charter can make it more rather than less clear to Turkey the standards we wish her to uphold. As the noble Earl is aware, the charter is still at a very early drafting stage. It is important that these issues are clearly set out, debated and that our processes are transparent so that when Turkey seeks to join the EU she fully understands the challenges she has and must meet if she is to satisfy the Copenhagen criteria.
  I warmly welcome the unity of vision expressed this evening from all Benches and the fact that all Benches have welcomed Turkey's application. Sensitivity has been shown by all noble Lords in relation to the challenges she faces. That was echoed poignantly by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
  We know the challenges that Turkey faces. She will need a great deal of help to meet them. But she is a partner. She has already demonstrated that she can be an important partner in many different fora. She is an important partner for the reasons precisely set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, making an important contribution as a large state addressed to the Islamic community.
  Turkey is also a NATO ally which provided vital support in the Gulf and in the Kosovo crisis. She is a force for regional stability. She is a major market for EU exports. I do not accept the slant that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, applied in relation to that issue. Turkey has some importance in that regard.
  Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I was not saying that it was not important that Turkey was a NATO ally. I was saying that it was a mistake to see Turkey purely through the prism of membership of NATO. We need to see that country primarily as a political partner in Europe. I was not diminishing the NATO aspect at all.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very glad for that clarification. I endorse what the noble Baroness said. It is extremely important that Turkey should be a full and proper EU partner. That is why it is of fundamental importance that she meets the criteria that every EU partner must meet in order to join the EU family. We expect the prospect of EU
  368
  accession to encourage the development of stable and democratic institutions; greater freedom of expression; an improvement in the human rights record; and the protection of minorities and peaceful resolution to the conflict in the south east.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes to nine.
  Moved according, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The sitting was suspended from 8.35 p.m. to 8.40 p.m.]

Football (Disorder) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 1.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 31, leave out ("caused or contributed to any violence or disorder") and insert ("been convicted of an offence involving violence or any other relevant offence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments and perhaps at this time of night on the second day of Joycean continuous experience it is a mercy. However it is difficult to unravel this set of amendments with clarity and brevity, both of which are deeply desired at this time of night, but I shall do my best. Before the break, the Minister referred to the solace that we should take from the sunset clause and I understand what he means. However, a sunset clause in a bad Bill is still bad news and enough has been said for the purpose of the amendments to be well understood.
There are new and potentially dangerous powers in the banning order structure under the Bill. New Sections 14B and 21A are totally interlinked. After all, new Section 21A, relating to a "sus" offence, harks back to the conditions of new Section 14B(2) and we heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, say last night that suspicion is not on grounds of actual or imminent breach of the peace or suspected illegality but in respect of future conduct. What is more, and worse, it is based on long past conduct; up to 10 years. That is in dramatic contrast with the Crime and Disorder Bill and the anti-social behaviour orders on which the Minister has relied throughout.
Furthermore, a banning order under new Section 14B need not necessarily be related to football, unlike the provisions of new Section 14A and the existing legislation. Nor need it be in relation to a conviction, a point emphasised from many quarters. According to what tests are the Government or the police able to apply for a banning order? Is it a criminal test? No, we know that it is a civil test although it has criminal penalties and it is certainly in a criminal context. Does it involve mens rea or intent? No, it does not. Will there be any defence of self defence, provocation or other reasonable conduct, as is present in the Public Order Act? No, there will not.
The Government tell us not to worry too much because new Section 14B(4)(b) saves the day. Under that provision the justice of the peace must believe that there are "reasonable grounds" before a banning order is made. We are not happy with that.
What about the conditions for the banning order? Must there be violence? Yes, but of a very particular and limited kind. It can even be violence against property. It could be graffiti or smashing a couple of glasses in a pub intentionally when drunk.
What about disorder? It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is not here because his somewhat cavalier approach to all this would have been a good deal less so had he pondered on the definitions of "violence" and "disorder". Let us not forget that "disorder" is stirring up hatred against a group of persons. We have no problem with that but the use of abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, embraces a multitude of sins and minor sins. Thinking back to my student days I remember that the boat club of Trinity Hall was perpetually abusive and insulting during its more elaborate celebrations, as were sporting organisations of all kinds.
Although the Minister has consistently said that that is not the kind of behaviour on which people will base applications for banning orders, I beg to differ. There is not much difference between the high spirits of a sporting institution of a university and the high spirits of students when demonstrating whether at a university or outside or whether in respect of genetic engineering problems, animal problems or visits of undesirable potentates as with the President of China. Such matters give rise to occasions when precisely abusive and insulting behaviour is a concern. We do not like a Bill which ultimately relies for its scope and implementation on the perpetual good sense of police and magistrates. That is not good legislation.
What about the violence? Must it be direct, actual or serious? No, it must be merely enough to contribute to "it" or to disorder. What is meant by "contribution to"? The Minister gave—if I may say without being offensive—a banal explanation to my noble friend Lord Russell. It will of course include cheering on when someone is, for example, destroying crops in a field. If you are standing on the side lines cheering on, that will be a contribution to disorder and to violence in property terms.
It need not be violence or disorder such that banning will prevent its repetition. It has not yet been pointed out that the magistrates need be satisfied only that the banning order will "help" prevent violence or disorder. "Help" is a little word and it can mean a little or a lot. It does not say "help significantly", it merely says "help". That is the weakest link in a very weak chain of protection for those against whom banning orders are sought. I regret not having woken up to the importance of that small word hitherto because no one has tabled a related amendment.
This group of amendments provides two broad approaches. We like both and believe that both would improve the Bill but we must have one or the other.
370
The first provides that a banning order cannot be based on conduct which is not the subject of a criminal conviction. Although the Minister may say that that shoots a torpedo under the waterline of the Bill we would not agree. New Section 14A allows for a banning order on the back of a criminal conviction which is football related. We believe that it is perfectly satisfactory for new Section 14B to allow a banning order based on a conviction which is not for football; it provides the kind of safeguards for which everyone has been asking.
The other approach would be to work with a scalpel, so to speak, on the provisions of the Bill and seek to tighten up the requirements. That is where Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself, where Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 in the names of my noble friend Lord McNally and myself, and where Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, all come in.
I shall sit down in a moment but I believe that it would help the House if I were to read out what is perhaps the key section in the Bill—new Section 14B(2)—with the amendments included in this group written into it. It would then read as follows:
"That condition"—
that is, the condition on the basis of which a banning application can be granted—
"is that the respondent has at any time caused or significantly contributed with intent to any serious violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere".
I believe that the amendments—one a deletion and three single word insertions—do not disable the Bill at all. Rather, we would say that they give the Bill a force, a balance and—to use the Minister's favourite word—a proportionality that help the credibility and justice of the measure. When we become excited about the minutiae of the wording, it is often forgotten that, without a just Bill, one has a bad Bill. That may not become apparent very quickly, but in our history there are too many examples of Bills which are full of good intentions but ultimately are bad and counterproductive. Like the Minister, we want a Bill that will work.
I hope that my remarks have not been either too diffuse or too long. I shall now sit down and leave others to add to the group. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Countess of Mar): My Lords, I should tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 because of pre-emption.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to my amendments in this group. This is a part of the Bill which, on the face of it, is quite reasonable. It states that where someone has a known predisposition to violence or disorderly conduct and is going to a football match or in some other way seems likely to be associated with a football match that we are concerned to protect, a banning order can be issued. I do riot believe that I have a problem with that as a basic

371
proposition from which to work. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said eloquently how that had been applied successfully by the Germans in keeping their troublemakers out of France.
The difficulties that we encounter here is that the details of the approach taken are quite disproportionate either to the likely consequences of allowing someone to go abroad or to the nature of what they must have done in order to qualify for a banning order. As the provision stands at present, you can be subject to a banning order if you have ever been convicted of careless driving, because you might have been said to have endangered life; if you have ever insulted a policeman or a traffic warden; or, if you have ever been involved in a demonstration which has turned violent at the fringes. All types of ordinary actions which do not indicate a predisposition towards causing violence at football matches are allowed as criteria under new Section 14B(2).
I turn to new Section 14C and the definition of disorder:
"using threatening, abusive or insulting words".
There is no qualification in that. Anything considered to be insulting will qualify a person under that definition. Given those loose words and the fact that 30 per cent of the population have convictions and clearly fall within such a rubric, we must look at a filter in new Section 14B(2) which will encompass most of the population. I imagine that 60 or 70 per cent of the population would fall within new Section 14B(2) if the police were to look hard enough for the evidence that they required to prove it. Therefore, very little filtering occurs in new Section 14B(2).
The filtering takes place in new Section 14B(4), where the magistrates must decide whether a person, who, it has been "proved", has a violent disposition because he once told a traffic warden to get lost, constitutes a danger to a football match because he has a ticket to it. The magistrates must decide whether, because we are worried about violence, they must therefore prevent that particular person from attending. The proof appears to be that they must be satisfied on reasonable grounds.
It is a difficult and unusual formulation of wording. I know that it has been used in the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act, but it is not standard. If it means "the balance of probabilities", perhaps that should be said. However, the Government have said that it means something stronger than that. I should certainly be happy if it meant something stronger and we could tighten the definition. Then the court would decide not only whether there was a possibility that the fellow might do something nasty when he arrived in France but would say, "No, we are pretty sure that if we let him go to France there will be a real danger that he will do something undesirable".
Those points form the substance of the intention of my amendments. They look at different aspects of the problem. I am not suggesting that the Government need take them all on board, but I believe that if they
372
take none of them on board they will leave this section of the Bill as an open goal for anyone who cares to kick the Human Rights Act football at it.
In this section as it stands, we are imposing what amounts to a criminal penalty. It provides for a two to three-year banning order, imposing severe restrictions on a person's movement and ability to move around the Community, and imposing a stigma on people equivalent to a criminal conviction. In addition, we are imposing it on a civil standard of proof. I believe that clearly that will be attacked under the human rights legislation.
I believe that if the Government were to give way to some of those suggestions and allow the wording in this section to be tightened a little, they would not allow anyone significant through the net. A person whom they are worried about will have carried out a significant act of violence or disorder. It will be fairly obvious to a magistrate that such a person is likely to do something undesirable abroad and it will not be a so-so decision. Therefore, I believe that if the Government would allow the wording of this provision to be tightened, they would make it more effective and harder to attack under the Human Rights Act. At the same time, they would make it a more just provision so far as concerns the majority of our citizens.
So far as concerns the individual amendments, Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 are addressed at new Section 14B(2). Given that that does not contain the important test, I am not too concerned about how we tighten up that wording. I believe it is desirable that we make it clear that we are not looking to pick up anyone who has ever been involved in an act of a relatively minor nature. I believe that we could do that equally in Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which tighten up the definition of disorder. That, again, would help to make it clear that we are talking about a person who has an established history of serious violence or disorder.
Through Amendment No. 14 we could add the concept of intent. I believe that it is important that someone should have intended to contribute to violence or disorder rather than having been simply caught up in it. That is a point which the noble Lord said last night that he would consider. I have not yet found anything in my in-tray and I do not know the results of the noble Lord's considerations. However, I believe that at the top of my personal list is Amendment No. 19, which replaces the word "reasonable" in new Section 14B(4) with the word "strong".
Section 14B(4) is the crucial provision, because it contains the real test that magistrates will apply. The amendment would make that subsection closer to what the Government say that they want. The current wording seems to imply only a civil balance of proof requirement—or even something less. The amendment would strengthen that, although it would not go as far as requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Given that the amendment would make what the Government say that they want clear to the average magistrate, I very much hope that they will accept it. I

373
shall happily table it again at Third Reading if the Government feel that they need a little longer to consider it.
This group was introduced by the Liberal Democrats, so it will be concluded by the Liberal Democrats. I shall pay close attention to what they say, as well as to what my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley on the Front Bench says about the relative desirability of the amendments.
If the Government resist the amendments, it may be right to take one or two of them to the vote now rather than waste time at Third Reading. I shall listen very carefully to the rest of the debate.
9 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 sets out the basic position of my party: we would prefer action on the basis of a conviction. However, as we have been told that, if it is agreed, subsequent amendments will fall, it may help the structure of the debate, to which the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Lucas, have contributed constructively, if I say that we shall not move Amendment No. 12. I hope that that will allow Ministers to ponder the wisdom of the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Lucas. Whereas Amendment No. 12 would fundamentally change the Bill, their amendments would fundamentally improve it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said, because I broadly support Amendment No. 12, as I supported an equivalent amendment that he moved at about 3 o'clock this morning, if my befuddled brain remembers correctly. He says that he is not going to move it, but I understood that it had already been moved. Perhaps I am wrong, but what have we been speaking about for the past few minutes if the amendment has not been moved? If Amendment No. 12 were agreed to today or tomorrow, it would remove many of the objections to Section 14B, although not all of them.
I also accept the less ambitious following amendments, which have been rather curiously grouped with Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 19, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just referred, is slightly preferable to Amendment No. 18, which is the alternative Liberal Democrat amendment. They are both pretty good and it would be better to have one than none at all, but I think that the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is slightly better. No doubt we shall come to that in due course.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am marginally less concerned about the detailed wording here as a result of our earlier vote on the sunset provision. My reaction to the amendments will be conditioned to an extent by whether the Government intend to leave Amendment No. 10 in the Bill, or they will seek to reverse it. I would find any indication on that helpful, as might some other noble Lords.
374
Section 14B has two sets of conditions. The first set, in Subsection (2), refers to the past and the second set, in Subsection (4)(b), refers to the future. In each case, the aim of the amendments is to increase the hurdles by adding words such as "seriously". As we discussed at some length last night, the hurdles are quite low, particularly the first one, relating to past conduct.
It is excellent that such a polite and well behaved House as this should worry about a hurdle that refers to people contributing to insulting behaviour. Because of Standing Order No. 38, we would never do that in this House, although it has emerged in some of our discussions that one or two Members of your Lordships' House seem to have had interesting experiences in their youth that might expose them in that way. The Minister and I had blameless young lives—or at least neither of us has admitted to anything that might cause us to fall at that hurdle.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that the actions of many noble Lords in their youth would fall within the 10 years specified.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that there have been some memorable incidents, including one of my noble friends who took a spot shot at a hot air balloon and one of the Minister's noble friends who took a spanner to his wife. These things happen even in this House.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lords whom I was hinting at were concerned not about their personal cases, but about younger people who might behave in that way. No one assumes that any Member of your Lordships' House will fall foul of any of the provisions. However, that is as may be. We have to address the precise wording.
If one is to pick out one amendment, which is a hit invidious—a little like trying to judge a fancy dress competition, which no elected politician would let himself in for—Amendment No. 14, referring to intent, seems to me to have more significance and more importance.
Primarily I am concerned with the future. It seems to me that the future hurdle is the one that will govern most cases. The court must be satisfied that there are grounds to believe that the banning order will help to prevent violence. The court will have to look at the individual concerned and say, "If we ban him"—or her, but primarily him—"from going to a particular football match there is less likely to be violence at the match". Almost everybody has somewhere in their past, and probably in the past 10 years, fallen foul of the past conditions. Nevertheless, if I have to put my finger on any one amendment, I am more attracted to Amendment No. 14.
I believe that the second hurdle is vital, so, if the Government are considering accepting any of these amendments, perhaps we should look more carefully at the amendments relating to that point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, tempted as I am by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to make a

375
pronouncement about the amendment that we lost earlier, perhaps I had better address the issues in front of us. I shall address all of them, although Amendment No. 12 has been moved. I shall do so as carefully as I can.
Amendment No. 12 would alter fundamentally the condition in Section 14B(2) which must be satisfied before a banning order on complaint may be made against any person. That condition, as the Bill now says, is that the respondent has at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
I began to get a little worried when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, earlier, as I have a long-spent driving conviction. I was worried that I may fall within the remit of this legislation. However, it was more than 10 years ago and I am probably now a citizen pretty much above suspicion, although not entirely. I was momentarily and fleetingly concerned.
The arguments on both sides have been aired on a number of occasions, and I do not believe that we shall see eye-to-eye on this occasion any more than we have done during previous discussions. None the less, let me briefly restate the Government's case. That is simply that, if we want to solve this problem, it is not enough to restrict the condition, as the noble Lords opposite would, to people who have been convicted of offences involving violence or any other relevant offence. That would potentially leave out larger numbers of people who can be identified from video evidence as having participated in violence or disorder, precisely the group of people whom we would want most to see subjected to banning orders.
On an earlier group of amendments I gave a fairly clear exposition of how the police would seek to use those orders. I believe that the more paranoid ramblings of our deliberations here can be clearly set on one side when one considers the way in which the police seek to exercise their powers.
I do not see that any injustice to those people at all would accrue from their being made subject to banning orders. I believe that the point has been well made. We are talking about football matches; we are not talking about the wholesale restriction of people's freedom to move. I would invite noble Lords to bear in mind that we have accepted that spent convictions will not be taken into account for the purposes of the test in Section 14B(2), nor will behaviour which did not lead to a conviction and which took place more than 10 years previously. Those two concessions were widely welcomed. I believe that, as a result, we have a test which combines fairness with effectiveness, which is what we are trying to achieve. I must, therefore, invite the House not to accept Amendment No. 12.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. These amendments introduce the concepts of "significant" violence, of "intent", and of "serious violence" to the test in Section 14B(2) which underlies the banning order by complaint. We have spent much time discussing the nature of that test, and I have explained
376
the Government's view that in order for the new powers to be fully effective, we cannot introduce new requirements. It is not that we are anxious to include, for instance, violence which is not serious, but we are anxious to avoid introducing new uncertainties into the law. Similarly, the element of intent introduces serious difficulties into the procedure envisaged in Section 14B(2).
I said that I would look at this matter again and, on doing so, I am not convinced that it would add anything or provide us with a simple and effective procedure. Therefore I cannot invite your Lordships to agree to those amendments.
Amendment No. 18 is not acceptable because it creates a requirement which could only be satisfied if the court had complete foreknowledge. The court cannot know if a banning order will have the desired effect; it can only have "reasonable grounds to believe" that it will. For that reason the amendment does not appear to us to be logical and we cannot advise that it be accepted.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are also interesting in that they try to qualify the power that we are after. Amendment No. 19 would require the courts to have "strong" grounds to believe that a banning order would help to prevent violence and disorder before it made such an order. "Strong" grounds is not a phrase with which I am familiar. As I have said on many occasions, I am not a lawyer, though I live with one. It is not, to my knowledge, a familiar legal concept, at least it is not as familiar as "reasonable".
9.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The fact that a word is not familiar or precedented is not an argument for it not being deployed. On that basis a great deal of this Bill would not have been brought forward.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are talking about a term which is common argot within the legal trade. The court would not recognise it as being a familiar tool for judgment, for exercising a discretion or coming to a view. That is the important point. The existing safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to ensure that this additional hurdle is not necessary.
Amendment No. 20 would give the court discretion as to whether or not to impose a banning order, even when there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will help to prevent violence and disorder. It is important that banning orders shall be imposed whenever that condition is met. I cannot see any objection in principle to placing such a requirement on the court. All we are saying is that, if it is right to impose a banning order, then the court shall do so. I cannot suggest that the House accepts that amendment and I therefore invite your Lordships to reject it.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would insert important qualifications into the test of causing or contributing to violence in Section 14B(2). Amendment No. 22 requires that the words used shall

377
be "seriously" abusive or insulting, or the behaviour "seriously" disorderly and threatening, while Amendment No. 23 requires that any writing displayed shall be "seriously" threatening, abusive or insulting.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is on familiar territory; this is a familiar theme. He has regaled us with his litany of less-than-serious insults. My concern, as ever, is for the effectiveness of this measure. I have no wish for banning orders to be imposed for trivial behaviour. I have great confidence in the courts. Of course, they have to be satisfied that the banning order will help to prevent violence or disorder in the future. Trivial behaviour will not provide a valid basis for that judgment. I do not believe it should and I do not believe the courts will use it in that way.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He says he thinks there should not be trivial grounds and that the court would not use trivial grounds. My worry is that the court may use trivial grounds, and therefore trivial grounds should be kept out. If there is a chance of things going wrong, as night follows day they will.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the threshold to which the noble Earl seeks to raise the judgment here is one which will fundamentally undermine the value of what we are seeking to achieve. By and large in my experience, and no doubt the noble Earl will have similar experience on which to form a judgment, the courts are not prepared to accept trivial behaviour to form the basis of a conviction in criminal cases. In the context of a banning order, the courts would take a serious view of matters in front of them and form a balanced judgment as to the likelihood of someone's behaviour on the evidence they receive. We must place our trust in the law. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may comment on something said in relation to Amendment No. 23.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but it would be preferable for the noble Lord to ask a question of my noble friend the Minister at this stage, rather than make comments.
Lord Monson: Of course, my Lords. I wonder whether the Minister read a recent press report, or heard from other sources, about a man who applied to join the Metropolitan Police. Although he was otherwise well qualified, he was rejected because he had a Union flag tattooed on his forearm. Presumably that was considered to be, if not abusive, possibly threatening or insulting. Are we to take it that someone might be caught by this provision if he had such a flag tattooed somewhere on his body?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we shall drift into making bad law if we start quoting obscure but, nevertheless, noteworthy instances and examples as a
378
way to try to prove a point. Clearly it will depend on the behaviour of the person, his background, his general demeanour, and so on. Whether or not someone has a Union flag emblazoned across his shoulder or torso, or wherever, is not really a material consideration as far as concerns these amendments.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I hear rumblings from behind me indicating that that was as disappointing a response as the Minister has given during the whole of this debate. It meets none of the anxieties felt on this side of the House and, in particular, leaves the provisions of new Section 14B wholly unamended. The Minister places much reliance on the status quo; for example, he said that the police can be relied upon and that he bases his trust in the law. That is all very well. The police can usually be relied upon, as can the law. However, the point of these amendments is to make the law such that less than competent police officers—and worse than that—will be inhibited from potentially using this law in an improper way. The discretion that is given to both the police and the courts here can only be described as "arbitrary".
I should remind the Minister and the House that the powers given under this Bill are unprecedented in our entire legal history. That is not an exaggeration; indeed, it is not, as I believe the Minister said, "paranoid rambling". It is the truth. That point was succinctly made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on new Section 21A. The fact is that new Section 14B allows the police, as the Minister explicitly said, to bring a banning order application against someone who has committed no criminal offence in respect of long-past conduct, which will have future effects.
I shall not rehearse the arguments. I am just profoundly disappointed. The Minister is relying upon the fact that, at this time of night and after such a day, there is no Division that we can call with any hope of winning, given the Government's whipped ranks. Before I sit down I shall just say that I believe that the Minister is making a mistake by offering no concessions on this issue. I do not think that it will help the Bill or, indeed, its implementation. I believe that he will rue the day that he has used the power that he knows he has. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert-
("(^) The application shall state the date, place and substance of any conviction or order to be relied upon in support of the application.
(^) A copy of the application shall be served on the respondent at least 14 days before the hearing of the application, subject to an order for substitute service.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has, unfortunately, had to go home because of the indisposition of one of his relatives. He has asked me to move these amendments on his behalf. I turn, first, to Amendment No. 16. When comparable amendments were moved last night, I explained to the noble Lord that the Minister gave the assurance that the details of the date, place and substance of any conviction or order would be part of the standard form that the Government are seeking to devise and make mandatory. On that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was very happy for Amendment No. 16 to be withdrawn.
As regards Amendment No. 17A—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but he is, presumably, speaking to Amendment No. 16 and the amendments grouped with it. Therefore he should not say that he will withdraw Amendment No. 16; otherwise, he will get us in a muddle.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the last thing in the world that I want to do is to get anyone in a muddle. That just shows that I am in a muddle, but these are not my amendments.
Amendment No. 17A seeks to amend new Section 14B(4)(a)—which concerns banning orders made on a complaint—to read,
"If it is proved on the application by the applicant beyond all reasonable doubt".
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wants to be quite sure that the burden of proof is on the applicant and not on the respondent. I cannot imagine that that is a contentious issue. I am confident that the Government intend that the proof required is proof on the part of the applicant. The amendment contains the words, "beyond all reasonable doubt". On the basis of what has been said recently, I anticipate that the requirement for the application to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt will not be accepted by the Government, but none the less I move the amendment as I was asked to do. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am attracted by Amendment No. 17A. We have here both the low standard of proof and the low standard of certainty as to what it is that has to be proved. We have met firm resistance to raising the definition of what has to be proved to greater clarity. If we cannot do that, we should raise the standard of certainty to which the proof has to be offered. As I said, this amendment attracts me.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall not speak to Amendment No. 16, which the noble Lord has said he will withdraw in due course, nor to Amendment No. 17, because I believe that Amendment No. 17A takes its place.
The noble Lord is right to say that the Government are not prepared to accept Amendment No. 17A. However, the burden of proof will clearly be on the
380
applicant. I think that is written in. I hope that gives some comfort to the noble Lord. The amendment would provide for the criminal standard of proof—I am not saying anything that has not been said from this Dispatch Box in the course of the past 24 hours—and is not appropriate for what we argue is a civil order.
It is well established in case law that the standard of proof in civil proceedings is a flexible one. I quote again a judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the case that was mentioned yesterday, and last Thursday at Second Reading, which states:
"The flexibility of the civil standard of proof suffices to ensure that the court will require the high degree of probability which is appropriate to what is at stake" .—[Official Report, 20/7/00; col. 1260.]
We have every confidence—we believe that the noble Lord should have every confidence—in the courts' ability to judge these matters fairly. They will not make banning orders unless they are satisfied that the two conditions set out in new Section 14B are met; namely, that it is proved that the person before them has caused or contributed to violence and disorder, and—not or—that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would help prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches. The breach of an order will be a criminal offence. In a trial of that offence, the criminal standard of proof would, of course, apply.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged for that response. Might it therefore be appropriate to accept Amendment No. 17, as that confines itself to the insertion of the words, "application by the applicant"? As that is what the Minister said is intended, would it not make sense for that to be proposed and accepted?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary. It is quite clear from what I have said and from the whole sense of the Bill—unsatisfactory as it is to some noble Lords—that it will not be for the respondent to prove; it will be for the applicant to prove in this case. The words are not necessary.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17, 17A and 18 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("reasonable") and insert ("strong")
9.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Alderdice, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Barker, B.

Monson, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Montrose, D.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ezra, L.

Onslow, E.

Goodhart, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Greaves, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roper, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Russell, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lucas, L. [Teller]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ludford, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McNally, L.

Waddington, L.

Maddock, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Amos, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L. [Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord chancellor)

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Borrie, L.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

[Teller]

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Orme, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Fitt, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale, B.

Sewel, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Thornton, B.

Haskel, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hayman, B.

Turnberg, L.

382

Uddin, B.

Wilkins, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Whitty, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.40 p.m.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Carlile of Berriew Lord Carlile of Berriew moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 43, at end insert-
("(^) When granting or refusing the application the court shall deliver a reasoned judgment in open court.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who, as we have already heard, is indisposed. I shall do so briefly.
For a banning order to be made by the court, the court has to go through a ratiocinatory process. It has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds. That means that the court has to know what the reasons are, develop them and decide what they are. It means, presumably, that the court is capable of stating what the reasons are. It has to be satisfied that those reasonable grounds are such as to make it believe that a banning order would help to prevent football violence. That means that the court has gone through the thinking process of not only deciding that it would help to prevent football violence, but also why.
As many noble Lords have said, the Bill represents a significant invasion not only of civil liberties in general but also of well understood tenets of criminal law. Indeed, the rejection of the previous amendment, on which we have just voted, contains a decision that the normal criminal standard of proof should not be used in relation to a provision which may have a significant effect on the liberty of the subject. It is the generally accepted wisdom in relation to the Human Rights Act that all courts will have to give reasons—albeit sometimes very brief reasons—for all decisions. The House will be aware that a considerable amount of training is being carried out in the magistrates' courts up and down the country to explain to justices, who no doubt will do it very well, how they should formulate their reasons and how they should be set out. It is to be presumed that magistrates' chief executives, as they are now called, will devise pro formas similar to those used currently in relation to the Bail Act, which will enable magistrates very simply to set out their reasons.
It is thought by many engaged in human rights law that a court's failure to give reasons to a citizen whose ordinary rights are invaded—for example, his right to hold a passport—will be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is obviously scope for a challenge to the Act on the grounds of incompatibility with the convention. It would seem

383
reasonable to require as part of the legislative provision that the court must—the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says "shall"—deliver a reasoned judgment in open court. I would expect the Government, in the spirit of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, this afternoon and this evening, to be open to that suggestion. I hope that he will be prepared to see it included in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, throughout our long debates on the Bill—although it has been only 48 hours, it now feels like an eternity—it appears that the Government that introduced into English law the concept of the European Court of Human Rights will look quite extraordinarily silly if, through this Bill and especially as regards this provision, they are found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As I said on Second Reading, I do not much like the European Convention on Human Rights. I wish that Parliament itself would protect the liberties of Englishmen so that we would have no need of the convention. However, what the noble Lord has pointed out, rather like Pershing arriving on the Somme in 1917—we may all be tired and shell-shocked but he is still fresh; I apologise, not the Somme, Le Chemin des Dames—is new and devastating evidence that this will breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
All I can say to the Government is that Members of this House will have failed in their duty if they do not persuade the Government of this danger. However, the Government are being so obstinate on this point that when—it is not a question of "if" but "when"—they are found to be in default, I believe that it will follow that ministerial resignations must arise out of it. They have been warned time and time again about the dangers of breaching the ECHR with the Bill. They have resisted all advice. Later, someone will have to say, "Oops, I made a mistake and therefore I must go".
At the very least, if the Government accepted the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and very ably moved by, I shall call him my noble and learned friend, Lord Pershing, at least that will provide one excuse not to resign.
Earl Russell: My Lords, back in the 1960s, in the University of London, a certain professor became known as the "Ancien Régime". He was once engaged in a tremendous battle with the board of studies about a proposed change in the syllabus. The argument was in danger of getting out of hand. The chairman proposed to postpone the discussion until the following week and asked both sides to submit their reasons in writing. The professor replied, "Reasons? I cannot see that we need to submit reasons. We are defending established practice". That was not a judicial approach to the discovery of the truth.
384
There are two vital reasons why a court must submit reasons. The first is that that is what separates a judgment based on known and understood rules from a judgment based on prejudice or the mood of the moment. The second is that, unless reasons are produced with which one can join issue, there is no ground on which to base an appeal.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have suffered a little trepidation about replying to this debate. I sighed with some relief when I heard that the eminent QC, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would not move the amendment, only to find that it would be the equally eminent noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who would move it. Now, I am even more frightened, because the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, started talking about ministerial resignations! This looked on the face of it not to be the most major of the amendments in the Bill, but we shall have to see how we go.
The amendment is one on which we had a valuable discussion only some 24 hours ago. Its effect would be to impose an explicit requirement on the court to deliver a reasoned judgment in open court whenever it grants or refuses an application for a banning order under the new civil complaints procedure.
The Government would not dream of opposing this amendment if we had any doubt whatever that the effects sought would be achieved anyway. The common law has evolved, as the noble Lord knows much better than I, in such a way that it is now accepted as good practice that courts should indeed deliver such reasoned judgments without any explicit obligation to do so being imposed upon them. That expectation can only be strengthened, as the noble Lord said in moving the amendment, by the implementation of the Human Rights Act, with which the noble Earl seems to have such a love-hate relationship. Implementation of the Act is now just a few weeks away. Indeed, we shall be back here before it is implemented, but only because the House is returning before the end of September.
There is argument that says that there would perhaps be some mischief in creating a statutory requirement here to give a reasoned judgment which applied only to this one procedure. It could have the effect of weakening by implication the need to produce reasoned judgments in other types of case where no such explicit requirement exists in legislation. It is on that basis, with considerable sympathy for the idea behind the amendment, that I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, one is bound to reflect that this Government and indeed their predecessor have been far from reluctant to impose explicit requirements on the courts when the courts neither want nor need them. I refer, for example, to the imposition of minimum sentences some of which have led to manifest injustices.
As to the noble Lord's point on the danger of including an explicit requirement in the Bill, I simply do not agree with him. There is a clear requirement that courts will give reasons in future. There is no

385
harm, and there can be no mischief, in the inclusion of a specific requirement for a new procedure. Indeed, it might be a good precedent that ought to be followed in the spirit of the European convention in future legislation.
However, the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will he carefully noted, copied, transmitted, circulated and disseminated around the land. The principle, the doctrine of Pepper v Hart, will be invoked wherever there is thought to be any ambiguity and courts around England and Wales will know, for his Lordship has said so, that they must give reasons when they make banning orders under this legislation. Reassured by that—I am reassured by it, and I mean that—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 not moved.]
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("or shorter than the minimum")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said of the introduction of minimum sentences that they have produced manifest injustices on a few occasions.
I apologise to the noble Lord for not attempting to deal with this matter earlier, but we have taken this Bill, not at a hand gallop but at a rushed gallop. It struck me only in the early hours of this morning that it seemed unnecessary to have minimum sentences—they are sentences, and there is no other word for it.
Noble Lords opposite have argued consistently that the courts should have discretion on the basis that they can be trusted. I suggest that the courts should have the discretion set out in my amendments, because there are bound to be cases in which it is manifestly unfair to make the minimum banning order when a shorter one will do. I believe that this is a perfectly reasonable amendment. Every amendment that I have regarded as reasonable others have considered to be unreasonable. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl is aware that I support these amendments. He will forgive me if I do not repeat the reasons. I should like to pick up the reference to the European Convention on Human Rights. The mere fact that the noble Earl needs to table these amendments shows why that convention is necessary. It would be much nicer if Parliament protected our liberties. Surely, the noble Earl agrees that if this Bill reaches the statute book Parliament has failed.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl has no reason to apologise for tabling the amendments this evening. He raised the issue when it struck him yesterday and, quite properly, tabled these amendments for debate this evening. However, I cannot accept them, and I shall try to explain why. The amendments remove the minimum periods for which football banning orders may be imposed. The concept of minimum sentences is not in any way unknown to English law. I refer noble
386
Lords to minimum disqualification for drink driving or totting-up offences. We believe that the concept of minimum periods, which follow precedents set in previous legislation on banning orders—they go back some 11 years—is entirely right and proper. Banning orders are serious measures and should be imposed for periods which are sufficiently substantial to have a deterrent effect.
While it is perhaps often a good thing—the word written here is "efficacious"—to impose a short prison sentence of a month or less, frankly, to prevent somebody from attending football matches for such a short period would not make a great deal of difference. We believe that the provisions as they stand send the right message to the courts and, through them, to football hooligans. If a banning order is made in their case they will not be able to go to football matches for some time. We are reluctant to invite noble Lords to change these times. There is nothing in the provision of minimum sentences or measures that is in any way against the English common law or the protection of the individual. I am aware that in this Bill the noble Earl believes that there are matters which offend his sense of liberty, but this is not one of them.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for taking considerable trouble, at fairly short notice, to deal with this matter. Having listened to the noble Lord, I suppose that I must accept his reasons. At one stage the minimum sentence for murder was death. One of my forbears forgot to hand in a reprieve to Oxford gaol and the individual was hanged by mistake. I suppose that that is not a very good precedent for cherishing English liberties as much as I do. I thank the noble Lord for the care that he took in his response, although I regret it. I also thank my noble kinsman, or former co-pupil, Lord Russell, for saying exactly what I feel about ECHR. Unfortunately, that convention has become necessary because Parliament has failed to do its job. With that low whinge, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("or (2C)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment—it is merely a paving amendment—I speak also to Amendment No. 32, the substantive amendment. Amendment No. 32 proposes to leave out new subsections (2C) and (2D) of Section 19. For completeness, the amendment should also leave out the last two lines of new subsection (2B) and the whole of new Section 14G. As has happened all too often owing to the extreme speed with which amendments had to be put down and then put down again, those parts were omitted.
These are amendments of considerable importance. Perhaps I may be allowed to make the virtual speech in favour of my virtual amendment as well as the actual

387
speech in favour of the actual amendment. New Section 14G authorises a court when making a banning order to impose additional requirements on the subject of the order. The end of new subsection (2B) and new subsections (2C) and (2D) authorise the enforcing authority to make additional requirements when serving a notice to comply with the banning order.
The problem is this. These are powers of the court on the one hand or of the enforcing authority on the other to impose additional requirements; and breach of those requirements will be a criminal offence which can attract a criminal penalty. But there are no guidelines as to what those additional requirements may be: there is no limit to them; and there is no parliamentary procedure.
In Committee the Minister suggested that, for instance, in the case of a home match there might be an additional requirement on the subject of the banning order to stay away not only from the football ground but also from a station which was used by visiting fans. I understand the justification for that and I should be entirely happy for that kind of additional requirement to be imposed. However, there are no criteria in the statute, no limits and no parliamentary procedures. It would be perfectly possible to impose the kind of additional requirements that one might find a great deal less attractive. For instance, the additional requirement could in effect impose house arrest by requiring the subject of the order to stay at home throughout the 24 hours of the day of the match except for reporting to the police station and going straight home again.
It is conceivable that there could be a requirement to wear an electronic tag. It seems to me that these matters go far beyond the sort of thing that ought to be done without the authority of Parliament. Not only does the Act lay down no criteria itself, it does not even provide for these matters to be dealt with by regulation. As I made clear yesterday, these matters were not dealt with by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Because of the very great speed in which we acted, we did not realise that these powers were tucked away in the schedule. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, because he said the same a few days ago, the Committee might well have decided that these were matters which needed at the very least additional requirements to be authorised by secondary legislation and probably by an affirmative order.
In effect, these provisions are the power to create new criminal legislation. Traditionally, that is something that cannot be done except by Parliament and parliamentary procedure. I believe that these provisions are seriously wrong and defective. They do not provide for any kind of parliamentary procedure. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister wished to satisfy us on this amendment, he could do so perfectly easily either by specifying the additional requirements which might be required, or by taking a power to make
388
regulation to set out in future any additional requirements that the Government might think of in future. It would not cost the Minister very much to do one or other of those things. In terms of legal certainty the value of doing so would be considerable. Why should he not, and will he?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 would have the effect of ensuring that if a person subject to a banning order failed to comply under Section 19(2C), which provides for additional requirements to the banning order, nevertheless, he would not be guilty of an offence. If there is to be a power to impose additional requirements in a banning order, it follows that there must be some sanction against anyone who chooses to breach it. I am sure that I need not detain your Lordships long on this amendment because I do not believe that anyone would dispute that particular proposition. I believe that the power—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am puzzled by this reaction. I made it clear that Amendment No. 30, which leaves out the words, ("or(2C)"), was purely a paving amendment and was consequential on Amendment No. 32, which removes (2C) itself so that there is no (2C) to which the new Section 40J refers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I recognise that it is a paving amendment and I shall address most of my comments to Amendment No. 32. I had almost finished with Amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 32 would deprive the enforcing authority of the power to require people subject to banning orders to comply with any additional requirements and to establish associated criteria.
I am not clear why objection is being taken to the concept of additional requirements. They can only be ancillary to the main purpose of the banning order. If they were oppressive or capricious, they could be immediately annulled by a court. I do not have a long list of examples of such additional conditions. They are likely to cover only minor administrative matters as well as restrictions on behaviour ancillary to a banning order. For instance, there may be a requirement not to frequent the immediate area of the stadium or, as I said yesterday, a bus or train station where football fans might gather and from which the person concerned is banned on match days.
I see nothing sinister about the powers and they seem to be entirely necessary to make the banning orders effective. I cannot recommend that these amendments, actual or paving, should be accepted.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. I find his answer unsatisfactory but at this stage of the proceedings I do not intend to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("his reasons for detaining him in writing") and insert ("full particulars of the facts and matters relied upon in support of his suspicion and of his belief").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I attended the meeting called by the Home Secretary in order to launch the Bill. I read through the clauses which seemed to me the most likely to be contentious. I made the somewhat diffident suggestion that the allegations made in what has become new Section 21A—that the officer had reasonable grounds for suspicion that the respondent had at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder and,
"had reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order in his case would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches"—
told the respondent nothing about the case which he had to meet. He would therefore appear before a court 24 hours later still unaware of exactly what were the alleged grounds for suspecting and what were the reasonable grounds for belief; suspicion and belief contrasted. I made the mild suggestion that since these were looked upon as civil proceedings one should follow the generally accepted situation in such proceedings; that if you make an unparticularised allegation you will be met with a request for further and better particulars of that allegation. That is stock and simple and straightforward.
I was gratified to hear it announced that the Minister had thought that was right and would make provision. According, at the Second Reading debate the noble Lord the Minister paid me a nice compliment at the outset. When I had made my criticism, to which I shall refer in a moment, he, at the end of the debate, was kind enough to say:
"The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made a number of helpful detailed points about drafting, particularly on new Sections 21A and 21B. We are of course going to pay very close attention to his advice, and I should like to place on record our thanks to him for the advice and encouragement that he gave us during the open session with my right honourable friend Jack Straw" .—[Official Report, 20/7/00; col. 1258.]
Therefore I put down in some detail the amendments which I thought were appropriate. They do no more than exactly what one would have done in a simple civil case. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. If the particulars of a claim in a county court allege that the defendant had, by reason of his negligent driving, caused damage to the plaintiff's car, unparticularised, immediately there would follow a request for further and better particulars of the negligence alleged, identifying the facts and matters relied upon in support of that allegation. That is simple and straightforward and is exactly what I put in my amendment.
The Minister said, under new Section 21 A as drafted in the Bill, which deals with detention, that the officer,
"shall give the person his reasons for detaining him in writing".
But, quite simply, his reasons are: "I believe or suspect that at some time you have caused or contributed to violence or disorder, and I have a belief on reasonable grounds that it would help to prevent violence or
390
disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches that you are detained for me to make further inquiries". We gain nothing from that at all.
Basically, the Minister has done the same under new Section 21B, which deals with the notice which causes the person to appear before a magistrates' court within 24 hours. According to new Section 21B(2), the grounds must be stated. Why in one case it is "reasons" and in another "grounds" has never been explained.
What saddens me is that the Minister has provided absolutely no justification for the attitude which he adopted in the early hours of this morning when the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was kind enough to move on my behalf the amendments which I have just indicated. The Minister said—this comes within the missing part of Hansard, to which I drew attention earlier today—that,
"the amendment goes beyond the kind of requirement which we see in analogous provisions of PACE"—
I do not know what he is referring to—
"and the requirements of the common law".
What does he mean by,
"the requirements of the common law"?
The common law requires that in civil proceedings one must particularise one's allegations. If this were a criminal case, one would be even more obliged to specify the nature of the crime which it is alleged has been committed. That was his answer with regard to my first amendment.
With regard to my second amendment, he said:
"Lord Ackner … makes the same point in relation to the issue of a notice as was made in relation to the power to detain under [new] Section 21A".
Of course I make the same point because the wording is the same. I read on:
"The amendment is based on the premise, which we accept, that people issued with notices commencing a banning order by the complaint [process] need to know the case against them so that they can prepare for their hearing".
That is conceding the very basis of my amendment. In those circumstances, simply reciting the wording of the criteria in new Section 21A would not be appropriate. The Minister also said:
"We are not clear that the full particulars formulation is the right one either. If the requirement is too onerous, that may lead to an extension of the detention period while a substantial notice is prepared, thus adding to the bureaucracy of it all".
Those are not answers. That is a species of forensic waffle that does not meet my point. How is the respondent to know the full nature of the case against him—of the foundation of his detention or of the notice—unless it is properly particularised?
I do not wish to be over-critical, because those comments were made in the early hours of the morning. I do not suppose that the Minister has yet got his beauty sleep back, but I hope that he has had a little time to reflect on his answers so that he can tell us clearly why the ordinary particularity that any court would order in a civil case should not apply here to what he has emphasised over and over are civil proceedings.
Amendment No. 39 would fill a lacuna in Section 21B. Section 21A says that there are two hurdles, but that is missing from Section 21B. A specific reference back to Section 21 A is needed, because it provides the foundation for Section 21B. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have listened with great attention and respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who has a great deal of experience of the legal system. He has made some important points.
Rather than following his comments, I shall take a slightly different line. If detailed particulars are not served on the prospective subject of a banning order, he does not know the case that he has to face and will be unable to defend himself properly before the magistrates or to call the necessary evidence.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that it is a little unrealistic to expect the constable who detains the suspect to provide him with a lengthy written statement of particulars unless he already has it in his pocket at the moment of detention.
That is yet another illustration of the fact that Sections 21A, B and C cannot work or do justice to the parties involved, particularly the suspect. I very much welcome the amendments.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said. If the Government cannot accept the amendments, will they make it clear that constables who deal with such matters will prepare statements at the first reasonable opportunity after their return to the police station and that pre-hearing disclosure will be given to the person against whom the order is sought, so that he and his lawyers may know what case he has to meet before they step into the courtroom? It is the sort of procedure that is followed fairly commonly in the magistrates' court in relation to summary offences and it would go some of the way to meet the real and understandable objections put forward by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I intervene to support these amendments, having supported them rather feebly in the small hours of this morning. It seems to me that Amendment No. 41, requiring proper particulars to be given to someone who defends himself in the magistrates' court is of the first importance. I do not wish to downgrade Amendment No. 36, but it seems to me that these provisions are required particularly in the court.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister cannot accept this amendment, he will strengthen my rapidly growing suspicion that he simply does not know what may be reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order will help to prevent violence or disorder and therefore has no idea what type of information any further particulars would contain.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall try to deal with the amendments briefly but nevertheless
392
accord them the seriousness they rightly deserve. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has, as ever, tried to be helpful. I shall look at Amendment No. 36 first. We believe that it would create real difficulties for the police in attempting to implement Section 21A. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put his finger on the point. This is a matter of practicalities in sometimes difficult situations.
The reality is that a person detained will be held for only a relatively short time and then either will be issued with a notice or released to continue his journey. Of course, the police will not pick on people to check out indiscriminately. It is right that they do so only when there are reasonable grounds, as the Bill now provides.
The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord goes beyond the kind of requirements which we believe are—I use the term again—analogous to provisions of PACE and the requirements of the common law. I have said that again for the record as he was puzzled. We believe that "full particulars" suggests a rather more substantial document, adding to the bureaucracy with which the police would probably have to comply without the document being of much value to the person detained.
However, by the same token, I recognise that as the noble and learned Lord warned us at Second Reading, there may be a temptation simply to issue a note to the individual explaining that the detention is in order to make further inquiries. I believe that the content of the notice and the detail that ought to be placed there is something that can best be dealt with in guidance to the police. That is our intended course of action here. Much as we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for his suggestion, we believe that the matter can best be dealt with by offering guidance to the police so that the notice contains fuller information.
Amendment No. 39 applies to Section 21A(1)(b). Here the constable is already required to state his reasons in writing for detaining the person. So that requirement is already in place. As we have argued previously, for a variety of reasons we do not consider it advisable to give full particulars in support of a decision to refer a person to the magistrates' court.
The effect of the amendment would simply be to require the constable to repeat to the person the general reason for detaining him without providing further details. That seems to us a rather unnecessary administrative step which may lead to some delays and possibly to a degree of puzzlement on the detainee's part.
In Amendment No. 41 the noble and learned Lord makes the same point in relation to the issue of a notice that he made in relation to the issue of the power to detain under Section 21A. The amendment is based on the premise, which we accept, that people issued with notices commencing a banning order by complaint process need to know the case against them so that they can prepare for their hearing. In those circumstances, simply reciting the wording of the

393
criteria in Section 21A would not be appropriate. But we are not clear that the full particulars formulation is the right one either.
If the requirement is too onerous, that could lead to an extension of the detention period while a substantial notice is prepared. We would not want to forestall evidence which came to light subsequent to the issue of the notice and it being presented in court. If the police are unable to make their case at the first hearing, the person concerned should, in our view, be free to travel immediately. Where there are substantial issues of fact between the parties, we imagine that the court would probably adjourn the hearing to a later date.
In the light of my assurances that there is no intention that the police should regard it as sufficient merely to state the criteria in Section 21A, and that guidance on this point will be provided to the police, the noble and learned Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he would be kind enough to tell me what he envisages will be put under the "reasons" referred to in Section 21A(2). Also, what does he envisage will feature in the "grounds" referred to in Section 21B(2)(c)? What goes in there? Something must go in there. What does the Minister have in mind?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may want to return to this point. I am not in a position to answer his question this evening. If he wants to raise the point again tomorrow, I shall endeavour at Third Reading to give him a more full explanation.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the noble Lord also indicate tomorrow the substance of the guidance he is going to give to the police officers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am more reluctant to follow that second course of action. I am not fully aware of the stage our consultations have reached on formulating guidance. However, if I can give an assurance, clearly I shall. I shall give the noble and learned Lord some idea of what may be contained within the guidance. It may be that the guidance reflects other forms of guidance given in similar situations. We will endeavour to keep the noble and learned Lord advised as to how the guidance is progressing.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister also indicate what his objection is to Amendment No. 39, which fills in the lacuna which I suggest exists in relation to Section 21B? I suggest that in Section 21 B(2), after the words, "The constable may", there should he inserted,
"on grounds set out in section 21A".
394
Without those words we do not have the essential foundation for the exercise of the powers that we purport to give.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are not sure that we accept the noble and learned Lord's reasoning. However, I undertake to look further at the point. Again, if the noble and learned Lord tables these amendments tomorrow, we will endeavour to respond to this point.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on the understanding that I can bring forward these matters without objection on Third Reading tomorrow, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 43, leave out from ("so") to end of line 44 and insert—
("(a) where the notice is to be served at a port or airport, by an officer of at least the rank of inspector; or
(b) where the notice is to be served other than at a port or airport, by a magistrate's warrant.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 has been grouped with this amendment. It is a somewhat cruder version of this amendment and I do not, therefore, intend to press it. Amendment No. 37 is a suggestion for the Government. If someone is stopped at an airport, we appreciate that it may often be necessary for the police to act by themselves in view of the nature of the situation, the speed involved, the location, and so on. Therefore, the provision that a police inspector should approve the constable's action seems adequate.
However, the Government have told us that, in most cases, the notices will be served on the individuals concerned before they leave home and set out on their journey to the football match where it is likely that they will cause violence. In such circumstances, it seemed to us that a magistrate's warrant could readily be obtained and served on the person at home. This would mean that the necessity for it to be done urgently by a policeman on the say so of his inspector would not exist. That is why we have put forward these two alternative procedures, as set out in Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments would make modifications to the procedure for authorising the issue of a notice by a constable under new Section 21B of the 1989 Act. As the Bill stands, the issue of such a notice must be authorised by an inspector. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 37 is a rather more sophisticated version of Amendment No. 38, which requires that all such notices be authorised by a magistrate's warrant.
Amendment No. 37 would require the latter to happen only where the notice is not served at a port or airport. I am not convinced that the suggested distinction is necessarily a helpful one. In the

395
Government's view, the decision to issue such a notice is an appropriate one for the police to take. The effect of the notice is to require a speedy appearance before a magistrate. I am afraid that I do not see that it would add greatly to the integrity of the process to require a magistrate's warrant to authorise an appearance before the magistrate within 24 hours.
I have dealt with these amendments very simply. I cannot recommend either of them—that is, neither the sophisticated nor the less sophisticated version—to your Lordships' House. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, disappointed as I am at not having convinced the Minister of the validity of our suggestion, I do not propose at this hour, and after the history of our consideration of all these matters, to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 48, at end insert ("and if the notice is served at a port or airport the notice shall specify a magistrates' court sitting at that port or airport").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as will be obvious, this amendment provides that when a notice is served at a port or airport it,
"shall specify a magistrates' court sitting at that port or airport".
The intention is to speed up the process when it takes place at a port or airport. We have discussed on numerous occasions the problems of delaying a passenger who is on his way to a match—or, for that matter, not to a match—because it may seem that he might cause trouble at that match. That applies particularly these days when the cheaper air fares do not allow someone to transfer to another flight. If the process delays one even by half an hour or an hour, even if the police do not pursue the matter, one is likely to have missed one's flight and lost one's money.
In those circumstances it seems to us that if a magistrate can be persuaded to sit at a port or airport during busy times—we have in mind stipendiary magistrates—that would speed up the process. Towards the end of our deliberations last night the Minister made some slightly sympathetic remarks on the idea that a magistrates' court might, at least at busy times, sit at ports. My noble friend Lord Astor borrowed a copy of that part of Hansard which was not printed last night from the Library for me to verify precisely what the Minister had said. Unfortunately, it turned out to be the only copy and he had to return it rather smartly. Therefore, I have been unable to verify the precise terms used. However, the Minister appeared to be slightly sympathetic to the idea of
396
magistrates sitting at ports and airports. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are sympathetic but we cannot accept the amendment. Amendment No. 40 would require that the hearing which follows within 24 hours of the issue of a new Section 21 B notice shall take place at the port or airport where the notice was issued, if it was issued at a port or airport. We are not clear that this is either necessary or even particularly helpful.
We have taken steps to ensure that court hearings will be facilitated within the demanding time-scale set by the Bill. But to require on the face of the statute that they be held at an airport seems a recipe for administrative difficulty, if not chaos. There are perfectly good magistrates' court premises within easy striking distance of most major ports or airports. It would be no significant added burden on the person who has received the notice to ask him to attend there. He will not in most cases choose to spend the period of up to 24 hours between being stopped and the hearing within the confines of the airport or seaport.
Rejecting the amendment would certainly not preclude the possibility of holding hearings at seaports or airports if that seemed appropriate. Surely it is the test of appropriateness that matters here. However, we do not think that it would be wise or particularly helpful for us to provide that this should happen on every occasion. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I hope that when people are stopped at an airport it will, generally speaking, be much less than 24 hours before they appear before a magistrate. Twenty-four hours is not the desirable length of time, it is the maximum. The whole point of having a stipendiary magistrate at an airport is to allow the process to take place within a few minutes, or certainly half an hour or an hour. Far from causing an added burden, that would relieve the burden on the individual concerned, particularly if the magistrate decided against making a banning order and the person was able to continue his journey having been subjected to a delay of only an hour or two. However, I appreciate that the amendment seeks an automatic provision which may be overdoing things a little. In view of the slightly sympathetic way in which the Minister referred to the possibility of magistrates sitting at ports and airports on some occasions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 41A not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 10, line 29, at end insert—
("(ô) The court must offer bail to any person remanded by virtue of subsection (3)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we encountered this particular amendment in the late hours of this morning, when I was kind enough not to divide the House in spite of a gathering outrage at the attitude of the Government towards the problem that underlies the amendment—my love for the Government Chief Whip is boundless and without reason on occasions—but we have now returned to the matter.
Here we have a procedure which is said by the Government to be civil. They have said over and over again that this is not a criminal matter, although it can impose a severe penalty on someone. They intend taking powers under proposed new Sections 21A and 21 B to stop someone at a port or airport and to confine that person, if necessary, for up to 24 hours before bringing him before a magistrates' court. The magistrates' court will then have the power to remand that person in custody, presumably, until sufficient evidence has been gathered to allow the magistrates' court to proceed on the basis of proposed new Section 14B. There can be no other basis on which they can be kept in custody; either there can be proceedings under proposed new Section 14B or, if there is not sufficient evidence, then the person can be remanded in custody. There is no time limit to the remand in custody. One imagines that a matter of several weeks is in contemplation. If a person is to be remanded in custody at all, it is likely to be for a period of a week or two.
What concerns me is that we are here taking away someone's liberty—someone who is not only not accused of anything but is never going to be accused of anything. The Government know that this is an innocent person; they know that this is someone who has not committed a crime; there is nothing to charge him with. They have a suspicion that he may be going to do something abroad—which is not a crime in the United Kingdom—and in order to prevent the possibility that the person may do something undesirable abroad they are going to deprive of him of his liberty on no evidence whatever.
If there was evidence, a banning order could be made under proposed new Section 14B. It is only when there is no evidence that the person has committed a crime that they can be held in prison pending further trial. This is not the right way to construe the basic principles of English justice. This person has been detained on the basis that the police have some kind of evidence and he has to meet some very gentle tests in order to come before the magistrates; there merely has to be proof under proposed new Section 14B(2) that he has in some way been involved in violence or disorder. If the police do not have that proof, they have no business detaining him under proposed new Section 21 anyway, and presumably that is that.
There has to be sufficient evidence to show that the magistrates have reasonable grounds for belief that it may be helpful to the maintenance of order at this foreign football match that the person is not permitted to go there—but not much evidence is required to do that. Either the police have that evidence, in which event the case should proceed and the banning order should be made, or they do not have that evidence and
398
the person should be allowed to go free. There is no excuse whatever for the concept of allowing a person to be held in custody because the police have not got sufficient evidence.
It may be all right in the case of a crime, but here, as the Government have said, there is absolutely no crime. We should not treat any citizen in that way. Whatever suspicions the Government may have about a person, unless they can produce the modicum of evidence required under proposed new Section 14B(4), they should not retain the person in custody. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on this occasion, as on many other occasions during the passage of the Bill, we owe a considerable debt to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for putting his finger on a point of importance. If the banning order is, as the Government continue to firmly insist that it is, a civil order, it is inconceivable that there should be the remotest possibility of ordering a remand in custody pending the determination of whether or not a banning order should be made. It is wholly and completely inconsistent with the idea that this is a civil order. I can see no possible justification for refusing to accept the amendment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, there is an answer to the amendment. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has appreciated that what is being given here is a power of remand in custody. It is no more than that; a power of remand in custody. In the vast majority of cases of this kind the magistrates will bail the person who has been detained and asked to appear before the magistrates. All the amendment does is allow for the odd, peculiar situation which—as anyone who has any experience of courts at all knows—arises from time to time.
What happens if Mr A has been detained by the police and brought before the magistrates because at some time in the past he has caused or contributed to violence or disorder? He is brought before the magistrates. They may not be satisfied without more evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder. They may not be satisfied of that on his first appearance. But he says, "Once you let me go, I am going to the match. I have a ticket for that match. I have bought my ticket for that match and I am going". That would not necessarily mean that the magistrates would find that there were reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder. They might want more evidence. They would then adjourn his hearing so that they could get more evidence. They would not adjourn it for long.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he seriously saying to the House that the Labour Government approves a provision whereby, when the police bring a man before a court, if they cannot produce the evidence to justify the order they are seeking, it can ever he right to

399
remand him in custody? If that is what the Minister is suggesting, I am astounded to hear it coming from as experienced a lawyer as he and from any Labour Government.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord had heard me out. Perhaps if he had he would not have been so astounded. What I am saying in the example I am giving is that Mr A has been brought before the court. He is in a position where the magistrates cannot make up their minds whether the provisions of new Section 14B(4)(b) apply. They give the police another day to get any evidence they can. Meanwhile, the policeman says, "Mr A has told us that if he is let out he will go to Germany straight away and see the match because he does not see any reason why he should not". Is it being said that the courts should not have the power to remand him in custody in those circumstances, with the danger that he would then go abroad and cause trouble? Let me give another example if that one does not satisfy your Lordships completely. I have the feeling that it does not.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, one of the facts may be that he was required to surrender his passport. Under new Section 21B(6), that passport is returned to him only in accordance with directions given by the court. If the court says, "We are not going to give directions to return your passport", then he cannot go.
Lord Bach: He cannot go? Is the noble Lord saying that it would be impossible to leave the country without a passport?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what is the point of ever requiring the surrender of the passport?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord was arguing last night, into the small hours, that the fact of a passport meant very little in terms of anyone going abroad these days.
Lord Goodhart: No, my Lords, I did not say that.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I give another example. The police think that the person the magistrates have before them is wanted on warrant but the police do not have the information at that time. Would the magistrates then have to let the man go on bail, or would they be entitled to keep him for a short period of time in order to see whether the warrant arrives?
All kinds of different circumstances and events occur. It is impossible to identify each and every one. All the power does is give the magistrates the ability to hold on to someone—of course it cannot be for a long period of time—for a short period of time until the matter is resolved. It is a power that magistrates have in every other instance. Why should they not have it
400
here? Of course the provisions of the Bail Act 1976 would apply. In 99 cases out of 100 such a detainee would be freed.
We had a useful discussion of this issue when a similar amendment was put forward last night. We are not saying that the court must, or will normally, or will often, remand people in custody pending a hearing relating to the issue of a banning order. But we believe that the court must have the power to deal with a case where a person has made it absolutely clear that, if released, he will proceed to attend the football match from which he was originally banned. This power will not be used frequently. But to forbid the magistrates to remand someone in custody in this way would be a completely unnecessary gesture. The magistrates will not misuse the power. But that they should have the right to remand someone in custody for a short period of time has never been doubted in any other context. Magistrates have before them not just people charged with criminal offences; they have people who are brought before them in order to hear other proceedings which are not criminal in nature at all.
The Government are saying that there is a great deal of fuss here about precisely nothing. Noble Lords have worked themselves up into a lather about this issue. It is not a great issue of liberty or civil rights. This is a commonsense way of dealing with this problem. There is nothing unusual about it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he aware that his arguments that the power will not be used often and that it will not be abused have been used many hundreds of times before and nine times out of ten they have been wrong?
Lord Bach: My Lords, is that a question?
Earl Russell: Yes.
Lord Bach: My Lords, for centuries magistrates' courts in this country have had the power to remand someone who is before them.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: For offences!
Lord Bach: No, not just for offences. They have the power to remand someone in custody if they choose to do so. If they act illegally or wrongly, that person can claim that it was illegal and wrong and be released. But this is not giving the magistrates any greater power than they would otherwise have in similar circumstances.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am a simple soul and no lawyer. My view of the matter is that in 1628 we gained the freedom from arbitrary imprisonment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, 1628?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord will know better than I. My knowledge of dates is not very good, but it was a decent long time ago. But this week it appears that we are about to lose it. The noble Lord is

401
saying that I may be brought before Folkestone magistrates for wanting to go to a football match overseas. A policeman says, "We know some murky secret in your past". The police say, "So you did insult the policeman?", and I say "yes". The police say, "We think that you are going to cause mayhem at the football match", and I say "no". They bring me before the magistrates and they produce no evidence that can pass even the gentle test in new Section 14B(4)(b). Surely it is right that the magistrates should let me go. If the police cannot prove their case, if they have no evidence and if they no reason for detaining me because they could not meet the basis for the test in Section 14(4)(b), then I should be let go.
11 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, could the magistrates not adjourn the matter for a short period of time? If the evidence is not available on the spot, the proceedings could be adjourned for a day or so to see whether that evidence could be brought.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the evidence was not available, I should not have been stopped. There is no basis for stopping people under Section 21A without having sufficient evidence to take a case to the magistrates' court at the end of the day.
The purpose of Section 21A is to allow the police to collar people at the airport or in the port, trot them off to the magistrates' court and say, "Give this one a banning order". The police should not do that unless they have evidence. They cannot be allowed to say, "We haven't got any evidence against him yet, but give us 24 hours and we'll run around and see if there is anything". If, at the end of 24 hours, the police still have nothing, they will return to the court and say, "We did not manage to get anything. We need another 24 hours". That is ridiculous.
The noble Lord has himself said that there is no question here of the person having committed a criminal act or any question of the person being suspected of being about to commit a criminal act. It is quite inappropriate to imprison someone when no evidence is available to justify that imprisonment or, indeed, there is no suspicion of the person having committed a crime. Basic principles of law and justice must be applied here. It is no good to say that administrative convenience may be called in aid to allow the police to stop people from leaving the country when they have no evidence against them. Furthermore, the police should not be allowed an ever-extendable period of time in which to gather such evidence.
If the police have evidence, then, yes, Sections 21A and 21B will allow them to bring them in front of magistrates to secure a banning order. I may not like it, but that is a simple, straightforward and reasonably justifiable way in which the police can stop criminals from going abroad. However, if someone is collared at the airport and the police do not have the evidence necessary to satisfy Sections 14B(4)(b), why has that person been collared? If the conditions of 14B(2)— someone has a past conviction—are all that are met,
402
are the police to be allowed to stop someone on that basis only and then be given time to try to gather evidence to satisfy 14B(4)(b)? That is an entirely wrong way of proceeding. Some justice must be brought into this.
If the police have evidence, that is fine. In front of the court, they may succeed in a conviction or they may not. However, if they do not have any evidence, then the person should go free. That should be the end of it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
11.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 84.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Maddock, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Monson, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Montrose, D.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Glentoran, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Lucas, L. [Teller]

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harrison, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Amos, B.

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ash ton of Upholland, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Blackstone, B.

Bragg, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Burlison, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Lea of Crondall, L.

Chandos, V.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Crawley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mar, C.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Filkin, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gilbert, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Simon, V.

403

Smith of Leigh, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitaker, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitty, L.

Thornton R

Wilkins, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Winston, L.

Turnberg, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.12 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 10, line 43, after ("him,") insert ("or where such a person has not been required to appear before the court to respond to such an application,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 43 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 46. All of these amendments address themselves to the last major government amendment tabled this morning which sets out to allow a magistrates' court to grant compensation to someone who is not made subject to a banning order but none the less has incurred costs.
There are four amendments in the group, the first of which addresses the question of what happens when the police produce no evidence in the magistrates' court. In that event the person has been prevented from travelling and so has lost his ticket and the right to attend the match. At the moment, if the police fail to produce evidence they are not liable to pay compensation. If, however, they produce inadequate evidence and the case is lost they may be required to pay compensation. I believe that that is inequitable. Amendment No. 44 provides that compensation should be paid out of the funds of the appropriate chief officer of police who, after all, is the person in charge of bringing the prosecution. If the chief officer is conscious of the fact that his budget will be hit if he brings lots of inappropriate prosecutions he will be less inclined to do so. It is right that responsibility should rest with the person who takes the decisions.
The first of the two subsequent amendments removes the subsection which places a limit on the amount of compensation. Amendment No. 44 is merely consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these four amendments which would modify the clause dealing with compensation were tabled early this morning.
Amendment No. 43 would extend the compensation provisions to cases where a person has been detained by a police officer under new Section 21A but not had a notice issued against him under new Section 21 B. We had not included such a provision because the maximum period for which a person may be detained by a police officer is now six hours. It is in any case quite usual for people to be detained for such a period without there being any specific provisions for compensation. We think that this is a reasonable analysis and we are not, therefore, persuaded or convinced that any additional provision is required to cover a period of detention of that length.
404
Amendment No. 44 would provide that compensation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explained, be paid out of police funds rather than central funds. Again, we are not persuaded that this is the right route. We think that it would be better for it to be a call on central funds, otherwise it might begin to interfere with the judgment perhaps of the police in seeking to detain someone.
Amendment No. 45 would abolish the £5,000 ceiling on compensation which subsection (3) currently provides for. The sum of £5,000 seems to me to be an entirely appropriate figure. It is the same figure which magistrates' courts are able to award currently as compensation for crime. I cannot think of many circumstances where someone who has been held, ultimately wrongly, and prevented from enjoying the benefit of watching England play another disastrous game away somewhere in middle Europe, would run up a bill which might come to more than £5,000. It might be argued in view of some recent performances by England that the compensation could be larger, I suppose—I am not so sure about that!
Amendment No. 46 is consequential upon Amendment No. 44. We believe that the amendment we have brought forward on compensation is generous and appropriate, going well beyond the common law position. Therefore we cannot recommend that Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 be accepted.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if I understand the Minister aright, he says that once the notice has been issued under new Section 21B the right to compensation exists whatever the police do about it. They cannot in some way avoid the right to compensation by failing to appear or failing to press a charge at the magistrates' court. The trigger has been pulled by the issuing of the new Section 21 B notice. That will necessarily trigger an appearance before and a decision by the magistrates. If I have misunderstood, I hope that the Minister will tell me. Otherwise, there is a loophole.
I agree that on the Minister's interpretation, which I accept, there is not the problem I sought to resolve. There is only a holding for six hours rather than the possibility of someone being detained for 24 hours and at the end of the day not appearing before a magistrate in a way which would trigger the compensation provision.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's understanding is right. It that is not so, I shall endeavour to advise the noble Lord further.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, under those circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 14, line 18, at end insert—

Football (Disorder) Bill

  Legal Aid Act 1988 (c. 34.)
  —(1) The Legal Aid Act 1988 is to have effect in relation to proceedings under—

  (a) sections 14B and 14D of the Football Spectators Act 1989,

  (b) sections 14G and 14H of that Act (so far as relating to banning orders made under section 14B), and

  (c) sections 21B(2) and 21D of that Act, as if those proceedings had been included in the definition of "criminal proceedings" in article 1(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Commencement No. 3, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2000.

  (2) Sub-paragraph (1) is to have effect subject to any provision made by an order under section 3 of this Act or under section 108(1) of, or paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 14 to, the Access to Justice Act 1999.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, together with consequential modifications to legal advice and assistance regulations, which will be affected by secondary legislation, will ensure that legal advice and assistance are available for a person who appears in court following an application by the police for a banning order.
  The Government take the view that these proceedings are sufficiently serious that in appropriate cases publicly funded legal help should be available. A person will be able to apply through their solicitor for assistance and the application will be subject to approval by the Legal Services Commission. The form of help that will be available is termed assistance by way of representation (ABWA). Although requests for approval will be dealt with as quickly as possible, it will not be possible to make this form of help available in circumstances where the police have given notice to a person to appear before a court within 24 hours. In these circumstances and other cases where a person appears in court unrepresented, the court duty solicitor will be able to provide help. I hope that it is generally agreed in the House that it is important that there should be these provisions for those detained in that way. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, although it appears that the House will rise relatively early this evening as regards this Bill, those of us who were here later yesterday are fully seized of the enormous legal complexities of this Bill. We are also fully seized of the fact that it is highly likely that there will be some very important test cases arising from some of the matters which have been raised and not resolved in the course of our deliberations. In those circumstances legal aid is entirely correct. I am glad to welcome this amendment.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I make take this opportunity to hope that before we finish our proceedings this evening the Chief Whip will enlighten us as to when we three shall meet again for further proceedings on this Bill to which I look forward with enormous pleasure.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, Third Reading will be tomorrow. I am relying on my memory here, but I
  406
  believe that we are dealing with two small sets of Commons amendments as regards the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill and the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. Then, I believe, we shall come to the Third Reading of this Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew Lord Carlile of Berriew moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 16, line 6, after ("means") insert (", subject to subsection (5) below,")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the permission of the House, I shall speak to Amendment No. 49. Amendment. No. 48 is a paving amendment to the following amendment.
  As the darkness deepens late on the second night of this Bill, I see that the Ministers on the Front Bench are looking tired. Therefore, I seek to soothe them into submission on these amendments. I do so in this way. I assure the Ministers that if they accept this amendment they will be able to dream in their beds tonight as they lay their pillows to rest, of the welcome which will await them in Wales, the land of heaven.
  Because of the lateness of the hour I will not challenge either Minister by asking them who was the champion of the League of Wales in the 1999–2000 season although they are welcome to tell me, if they know.
  A Noble Lord: Barry Town.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: No, it was not Barry Town, but TNS Llansanffraid in the old county of Montgomeryshire where I live. It is a small and reasonably attractive village with a population of a few hundred. Its village football team, with the support of a computer company, has achieved great things. Indeed, TNS Llansanffraid has played in Europe this season and in the previous one. The danger caused by the fans of TNS Llansanffraid was probably half of that caused by the emissions of the coach which took them there. I take my little grandson aged seven, Jimi Cullen, to Latham Park sometimes, the home of Newtown Football Club. It is a fine team, but recently not as successful as little Jimi and I would have wished.
  Newtown's football ground has good support. Many of us go there and enjoy the matches enthusiastically. It is beautifully situated. You can see many sheep on the hills around it; indeed, there are far more sheep than supporters and always the danger of the sheep making a little more noise. The Newtown supporters present no danger.
  I used to be a season ticket holder at Wrexham Football Club on the Racecourse Ground in Wrexham. In those days I practised at the Bar in that part of the world so when I went into the ground I would often be invited by police officers whom I knew to sit with them in the police area by the side of the pitch. It was a great pleasure to be with those fine officers not because of the protection from danger which was afforded but because one was able to put

  407
  one's feet up with them, vigilant though, of course, they always were, and enjoy the match from a position of particular vantage.
  There are bigger clubs in Wales. Unfortunately, Cardiff City has a long way to go before any hooligan from Cardiff will have the remotest chance of going to a club match in Europe. Swansea City, though it has done well, is unlikely to achieve that either. When its fans are tired and emotional they are more likely to raise the key of "Bread of Heaven" by a semitone than to act in a hooligan manner.
  As for our national team, it would be much improved if Ryan Giggs was to play more often, but even the spark of Mark Hughes has yet to ignite it. Indeed, according to the evidence Welsh football fans present no danger to anyone.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord in full flow but perhaps he can tell us to which of the two amendments all of this extraneous information is directed.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the second one, as the Minister will recognise. I said that the first one was a paving amendment.
  Welsh football fans present not a scintilla of danger, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that they do. The Members of the National Assembly for Wales, an organisation for which, I must admit—I have said so in the House previously—I have less than total enthusiasm, at least have an intimate knowledge of what is going on in Wales. They know the communities and can judge far better than any other organisation whether it is necessary for the provisions of the Bill to apply to Wales.
  I say to the Minister most seriously that it would be a mark of recognition for the meaning of devolution to Wales, and it would be a mark of respect for the people of Wales, if Amendment No. 49 were carried and the Government were prepared to recognise—it would do them no harm in Wales or anywhere else—that the consent of the National Assembly should be needed in the circumstances described in the amendment.
  The Bill has a limited duration; less than the Government had wanted. It is inconceivable that any harm would come to pass if Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 were allowed to become part of the law. I invite Ministers to face the perils and dangers of this night by generously recognising that this is a meritorious amendment and one respectful to the people of Wales.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend with somewhat unbecoming levity and mindful as ever of his previous constituency interests. In my view, the Bill is an insult to the people of Wales. I warn Her Majesty's Government that if the amendment is not passed there will be a great sweeping out of Labour Members of Parliament in the next election. As my noble friend said, it is absolutely true that Welsh football fans present no problems whatever, wherever they go. They are more inclined to sing than to drink—
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That may be true about teams which play in the Welsh league, but is he not aware that matches between Cardiff City and Swansea City have given rise to some of the worst scenes of violence that we have seen anywhere in the United Kingdom in the past 10 years?
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I concede that in the past there has been a certain amount of trouble between Cardiff and Swansea, but I am not responsible for what happens in that part of the world. However, my noble friend referred to Wrexham—my home town. As I recall, there has never been any trouble in Wrexham arising from visits from South Wales teams, probably because not enough spectators come up with them. Indeed, when Scotland played at Wrexham in an international against Wales, I remember that everything, even with regard to the Scottish spectators, was in extremely good humour and well received. I recall that after the match the duck pond in my home village of Gresford was full of Scotsmen in kilts availing themselves of a bath. They went from there to the local public houses and were warmly received.
  There are no problems in Wales. At an earlier stage of the Bill, the Minister said that he envisaged that there would be approximately 20 prescribed matches in the year, with a period of five days for each match. By Dan Quayle mathematics, I believe that he said that that would amount to 50 days in the year. When he estimated that there would be 20 matches, I wonder whether he included the Welsh international fixtures and matches that would take place, for example, between Cardiff and Swansea. Are they part of the prescribed matches envisaged in the Minister's plans? If they are not within those 20 matches, why does he not accept this amendment? I support my noble friend.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister heard the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, point out that in Scotland the problem of football violence has been solved without the use of legislation such as we are now considering. I understand that he argues that that is the result of leaving the problem to the Scottish football authorities—in fact, an effective devolution of power.
  One might use that and what my noble friends have just said, together with a good deal said by the Minister, to argue that we are dealing with a specifically English problem—what the Scots call the problem of the "awkward neighbour". Therefore, if we are dealing with a specifically English problem, it might be appropriate to consider a specifically English solution so that the Minister can accept the amendment without detriment to his objectives, both those that we accept and those that we do not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had not realised that this amendment would excite such great interest from the Liberal Democrat Benches at this hour. However, clearly this is a matter of which they speak in the valleys of Wales as they speak of nothing else, and we are all most grateful for that, are we not?

  409
  My speaking note says "Resist" and I am afraid that that is what I shall have to do, but I shall resist with a little good conscience. I believe that one noble Lord began to undermine his case by saying that there was no problem with hooliganism in Wales. I suppose that logically he could extend that point and say that, for that reason, perhaps we do not need to consult the Welsh on these matters. However, that would be unfair.
  I fully recognise that the Welsh Assembly may have views on these matters, and I can assure your Lordships that any representations made to us by the Assembly will of course be listened to with the greatest respect. However, I do not believe that we need to have on the face of the Bill an amendment of this kind. Therefore, I am not minded to accept it. But we shall of course consult carefully with our colleagues in Wales so that potential problems can be dealt with.
  I do not believe that it is quite the case that hooliganism is not present within Wales. There are, of course, the celebrated annual punch-ups between Cardiff City and Millwall. Unfortunately they are a regular feature in the hooligan fixture list. Obviously, we need to be diligent wherever the legislation is in force.
  The amendment is not necessary and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept my thanks for the courtesy with which he has responded to our debates today and yesterday? We have not always agreed with him, but we have always appreciated his courtesy and that of his noble friend and the way in which they have attempted to answer our points.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister stands up, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in replying to the debate, first, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that his point about hooliganism after a match between Cardiff and Swansea is absurd in the context of the Bill, which has no more application to a Cardiff Swansea football match than to a Worcester-Hereford hymn singing competition. He ought to have produced something more worthy if he wanted to present a serious argument.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I was responding to the noble Lord's noble friend, who said that there was not a scintilla—I believe that that was
  410
  the word—of football hooliganism in Wales. Cardiff and Swansea are in Wales and they have a very well known problem.
  Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the noble Lord's point does not improve on repetition.
  Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, the Government are viewed in Wales as increasingly bossy, increasingly untrusting of the public and increasingly authoritarian. Above all, they are viewed as increasingly London-centred. The Bill will be seen as a symbol of that bossiness. It is a matter for the Government whether they care about the sensibilities of the people of Wales.
  Thirdly, the Minister asserted that the Government will listen very carefully and sympathetically to all points made by the National Assembly for Wales. The problem is that unless the issue is devolved by Act of Parliament to the National Assembly for Wales, it will not be a devolution issue. When a Back-Bencher in the National Assembly seeks to debate it on the Floor of the Assembly, they will be told that they are out of order, because this is not a devolution issue. That happens day after day in the National Assembly. I fear that the only representation that the Government will receive from the National Assembly for Wales will be anecdotal rather than from the Assembly's proceedings.
  I am very disappointed in the Government's reply. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment, because it seems undesirable to vote on it at this late hour. I close by warning Ministers that, rather than dreaming tonight of the land of Heaven and the welcome that will await them, they are more likely to suffer nightmares of dragons breathing fire in their ears as a result of their attitude to the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the reasons ordered to be printed.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, with an amendment disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof, and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before midnight.

  Disease Reduction: G8 Commitment
  Disease Reduction: G8 Commitment
  Folic Acid Added to Flour
  Folic Acid Added to Flour
  Meat Hygiene Service: Performance Targets
  Meat Hygiene Service: Performance Targets
  Prime Minister's Family: Security Provision
  Prime Minister's Family: Security Provision
  Asylum Seekers: NI Numbers and Access to Benefits
  Asylum Seekers: NI Numbers and Access to Benefits
  Special Needs Children with Behavioural Disorder: Disability Living Allowance
  Special Needs Children with Behavioural Disorder: Disability Living Allowance
  Jobseekers on Benefit Disallowance: Crisis Loans
  Jobseekers on Benefit Disallowance: Crisis Loans
  School Curriculum: Global Dimension
  School Curriculum: Global Dimension
  Sex and Relationship Education Guidance: Circulation to Ethnic and Religious Groups
  Sex and Relationship Education Guidance: Circulation to Ethnic and Religious Groups
  Monetary Policy Committee: Interest Rate Determinants
  Monetary Policy Committee: Interest Rate Determinants
  Tobacco-related Tax Revenue
  Tobacco-related Tax Revenue
  Asylum Law: Solicitors' Expertise
  Asylum Law: Solicitors' Expertise
  Public Trust Office Executive Agency Key Performance Targets
  Public Trust Office Executive Agency Key Performance Targets
  Access to Justice Act 1999, s. 78: Unified Bench
  Access to Justice Act 1999, s. 78: Unified Bench
  House of Lords Reform: Compromise Negotiations
  House of Lords Reform: Compromise Negotiations
  Northern Ireland Executive Committee: Memorandum of Understanding
  Northern Ireland Executive Committee: Memorandum of Understanding
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Sudan Foreign Minister's Visit
  Sudan Foreign Minister's Visit
  Plan Colombia
  Plan Colombia
  Israel: Alleged Cruise Missile Capacity
  Israel: Alleged Cruise Missile Capacity
  Bahrain
  Bahrain
  Services Separation Bonuses
  Services Separation Bonuses
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Armed Forces Equipment: Improvement
  Armed Forces Equipment: Improvement
  Bowman Tactical Combat Radio
  Bowman Tactical Combat Radio
  Veterinary Laboratory Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Veterinary Laboratory Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  MAFF: Development of Regional Structure
  MAFF: Development of Regional Structure
  IACS Inspections, Penalties and Recoveries
  IACS Inspections, Penalties and Recoveries