Sitting of 27 July 2000

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Arable Farmers (Compensation)
    Mr. David Drew: How much agrimonetary compensation has been provided for arable farmers this year. [131261]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Because this is the last Question Time over which you are expecting to preside, Madam Speaker, may I say on behalf of us all that we will miss you very much indeed?
    Before you call me to order, Madam Speaker, I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that arable farmers have so far received £170 million in agrimonetary compensation: £18 million last year and £152 million this year, with a further £57 million to be paid later this year. That is in addition to the £1 billion that the sector receives every year in direct aid.
    Mr. Drew: I wish to associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks about you, Madam Speaker.
    I welcome the amount given to farmers to help them in this time of crisis, but would it not be sensible for us to consider the rigidity of the mechanism for automatic payments related to currency? In particular, is it not perverse that better-off farmers seem to receive the lion's share of agrimonetary compensation?
    Mr. Brown: It is true that 20 per cent, of farmers receive 80 per cent, of the support payments under the current structure of the common agricultural policy. That is one reason why we press for reform.
    Mr. James Gray: I know that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues who will be lucky enough
    1222
    to catch your eye during Question Time, Madam Speaker, when I say that no one will miss you more than Conservative Members.
    Madam Speaker: I will miss you too.
    Mr. Gray: Not if you aim, Madam Speaker.
    Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, whose well-publicised memo in The Times this morning advised the country that he hopes that we will join the single currency as soon as possible, for political reasons? What benefit would farmers derive from that? At what level does he believe that it would benefit farmers for Britain to join the euro? Does he think that we should join as soon as possible, or when the level is correct?
    Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me such easy questions. I readily identify with the tribute that he paid to you, Madam Speaker; and, yes, I agree with the Prime Minister.

    Operation Gangmaster
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on Operation Gangmaster. [131262]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): May I also whole-heartedly endorse the tributes that have been paid to you, Madam Speaker?
    Operation Gangmaster is a good example of joint action by several Government agencies to tackle agricultural gangmasters who act illegally. Since June 1998, Operation Gangmaster has undertaken a number of raids in the pilot area of Lincolnshire and is following up leads on many illegal activities including VAT fraud, income tax fraud and employment law. During the summer, Operation Gangmaster will be extended to other parts of the UK.
    Mr. Dobbin: During this Parliament, workers' rights have been defended, protected and strengthened, whereas during the 18 years of Conservative Government, workers' rights were massively attacked. Will Operation Gangmaster be targeted at agricultural gangmasters who exploit illegal immigrants? According to a recent "Panorama" programme, forced labour camps have been set up. Will the Government tackle those problems?
    Ms Quin: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are tackling those issues. Just as he rightly says that we have improved employment rights here at home, so we have to be equally vigilant in ensuring that there is no exploitation of immigrant workers, some of whom have made a bona fide entry to this country to do seasonal work on our farms and in our horticulture industry.
    I am pleased to be able to tell the House that some gangmasters who were operating illegally were fined in the Peterborough court this week.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: On behalf of all my Front-Bench colleagues, may I also say how much we will miss you, Madam Speaker? It has been a positive pleasure occasionally to receive your rebukes when we have mildly transgressed the rules of order, and I hope that I will be rebuked again.

    1223
    Does the Minister understand that fruit and vegetable farmers face a problem in finding enough workers to pick their crop? A farmer in Kent whom I visited last week, who produces high-quality soft fruit, could substantially increase his production and even begin exporting if he had more pickers available. Will the Minister therefore support my call for a raise in the ceiling on the number of seasonal agricultural workers from abroad who are allowed into Britain for a limited period to work on specific farms, for the mutual benefit of the worker and the farmer? Does the Minister agree that that would help to reduce demand for illegal immigrants, who may otherwise occasionally find work in that area?
    Ms Quin: Once again, the hon. Gentleman calls for action which the Government have already undertaken. We have already approached colleagues in the Home Office about this matter, and they are looking sympathetically at the needs of the horticultural sector and at increasing the number of people who can take advantage of that scheme, which can benefit students from eastern European countries and help build good relationships between our countries.
    The hon. Gentleman's comments sit somewhat uneasily with some of the comments that his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench have made on immigration.

    Farm Diversification and Innovation Subsidies
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What assessment he has made of the effect of subsidies for farm diversification and innovation. [131263]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): This is an important question. Evaluation of the farm diversification grant scheme—which closed in 1993—and objective 5b suggests that well-targeted aid can provide good value for money. It is on the basis of the evaluation of previous schemes that we intend to operate the new rural enterprise scheme in England—I have responsibility only for schemes in England.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister seen the comments by the Federated Farmers of New Zealand? It says that the removal of farm subsidies there
    has given birth to a vibrant, diversified and growing rural economy. New Zealand's experience over the past 15 years of reform has thoroughly debunked the myth that the farming sector and the environment cannot remain healthy and prosperous without government subsidies.
    After 60 years of generous Government subsidies, the farming industry has been in almost permanent crisis. It has become a dependent industry that is not inclined to innovate or diversify. Is it not true that, in many cases, subsidies are not the answer to farming crises, but the cause of them?
    Mr. Brown: I have paid careful attention to the New Zealand experience. My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot carry on supporting agriculture's over-reliance on the supply side support mechanisms under the common agricultural policy. I attach proportionate importance to the diversification element of the new rural development regulation, which is why we have planned expenditure of some £152 million pver the next seven years in England
    1224
    alone. The purpose of that expenditure is to get farm businesses away from an over-reliance on supply side subsidies and closer to the marketplace.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister recognise that in his plans to reorganise the regional structures of MAFF, he is making some heroic assumptions about farmers' ability to use advanced technology in applying for subsidies and other applications? Knowing that many farmers are not confident in this area and are elderly, will he ensure that the facilities are available to give practical help to those who cannot master the technology, so that those who depend most on aid are not denied it?
    Mr. Brown: The link is a bit tenuous, but it is an important point. I would be making some even more heroic assumptions if we did not take action in that area. I intend to ensure that there is a presence in each of the MAFF regions so that farmers can continue, during the changeover period, to have direct contact with officials in the Ministry to discuss their concerns face to face, not necessarily via new technology or even by telephone. We have conducted successful experiments in East Anglia on the electronic transmission of data, and I am aware of similar experiments carried out in Scotland by the Department with devolved responsibility for administering those schemes. Those give grounds for optimism.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that belching cows are responsible for 25 per cent, of the methane released into the atmosphere, which is a powerful greenhouse gas? Is he also aware that a UK-invented feed additive can cut down that dreadful belching?
    Mr. Flynn: From both ends.
    Mr. Prentice: Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, is it not the case that, to encourage farmers to get that innovative product into the market, we should look at a small kick-start subsidy?
    Mr. Brown: A lot of regimes started with small kick-start subsidies. We are looking at non-food crops and some experimental work is under way. We shall provide some funding under the rural development regulation and I am always willing to consider new and innovative ways to enhance farm incomes.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: My mother has asked me to tell you, Madam Speaker, that she will miss you very much on the Parliamentary Channel. [Interruption.] It is true!
    Given the Government's commitment to diversification into organic conversion, will they set specific targets for that conversion over time and will those targets be supported by a stable financial package for the long term?
    Mr. Brown: I wish that the hon. Gentleman's mother would choose the questions that he asks me as well as the remarks that he makes to Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: His mother gives him the answers.
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps she does.
    We have put aside £140 million to spend on organic farm conversion during the seven-year lifetime of the English rural development regulation. We expect that the outcome of that expenditure will be a tripling of the area that is farmed organically. We are not setting specific targets. Clearly, the organic farmers need to win their places in the market, but we are providing substantially enhanced financial support for organic farming because that it what consumers want.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Minister accept that innovation in e-commerce in farm diversification will be hampered by the lack of advanced telecommunication systems in constituencies such as Congleton? What action will he take to ensure equitable access to the super-highway and, indeed, to increase competition in rural areas, where British Telecom currently has the monopoly of provision?
    Mr. Brown: I do not want to stray outside the matters for which I have ministerial responsibility, but I want to ensure that everyone has equal access to the services that the Ministry provides. We are considering making use of the network of rural post offices, for example, as service providers to those running farm businesses, but I assure the hon. Lady that we shall keep a front-line service for farmers in place during the transitional period, with travel distances no greater than they are now.

    Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
    Mr. David Watts: What representations he has received concerning the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. [131265]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): On your last Question Time, Madam Speaker, may I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks? We shall miss your shepherding of MAFF questions.
    In excess of 3,000 representations have been received about the Bill, all but a few of which have been from members of the public and animal welfare organisations supporting the banning of fur farming.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the fact that the Bill was included in Labour's manifesto and that it has the overwhelming support of the British people, will he assure me that he will not allow Opposition Members to frustrate the Bill and stop it passing all its stages in the House and the other place?
    Mr. Morley: The House passed the Bill without a vote against it. It has had its Second Reading in the other place, and it will, of course, receive proper debate and scrutiny. It is clear that the measure is widely supported in
    1226
    this country; and, indeed, given some of the problems in the fur farming sector, it has certain advantages to that sector as well.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: In the light of the recent report of the Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which points up an important human rights implication for the inclusion of income losses in any compensation scheme for fur farmers, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which is currently in the other place, guarantees that mink farmers will be compensated for losses of income by the compensation scheme?
    Mr. Morley: I am aware of the Scrutiny Committee recommendations in the other place and my colleague, Baroness Hayman, will of course consider that issue carefully. We take the opinions of such Committees seriously. The Bill will be debated in Committee, which is the appropriate place to consider all those aspects.

    Farming (Small Business Enterprise)
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: What measures his Department is taking to promote small business enterprise in the farming industry. [131266]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We are promoting small business enterprise in a number of ways through both the action plan for farming and the England rural development plan, including a free farm business advice service open to all farmers, an increase in the budget for the rural development agencies redundant building grant, new expenditure on training, a new rural enterprise scheme and a new processing and marketing grant scheme.
    Mr. Pollard: I welcome the Government's decision to provide a free business advice service to any farmer who wants it. What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that those who have to provide that free service are properly trained and fully aware of all the opportunities available under the England rural development plan?
    Ms Quin: We are looking closely at the qualifications and eligibility criteria for those who will administer the scheme, so that they will be in a position to give informed, worthy and worthwhile advice to the farmers who apply for it.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What guidance has the Minister's Department issued to national parks on farm diversification?
    Ms Quin: National parks, as well as other organisations, have been involved in the discussions on planning issues that are taking place across government. The hon. Gentleman will know that the action plan for farming, which was announced on 30 March, included examination of the importance of ensuring that there were

    1227
    as few obstacles to farm diversification as possible. In all parts of the country, there needs to be involvement with that programme. We are determined to take it forward.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Far from promoting enterprise, the Government's policies in the two years since the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took up his job have led to an unprecedented collapse in farm incomes, a massive loss of jobs in the countryside, the closure of dozens of slaughterhouses and the destruction of many family farms after generations of hard work. Does the Minister of State agree that only a genuine attack on red tape, the introduction of honesty in labelling and firmer action against substandard imports—the three keynote policies of the Conservative party's fair deal for farmers—will effectively promote enterprise in agriculture?
    Ms Quin: I have looked at the Conservative proposals for agriculture. They are in three parts: first, action that the Government are already taking; secondly, action that would be declared illegal and would therefore incur heavy fines in the European Court; and thirdly, vague spending commitments that seem to be at odds with what the Conservative financial spokespeople are offering the electorate.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Phil Hope: When he expects to open the pig industry restructuring scheme to applicants. [131268]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The outgoers element of the pig industry restructuring scheme will be opened to applicants immediately following European Commission clearance of the scheme. The ongoers element for those who wish to remain in pig production will involve preparing a commercially acceptable business plan. We are pressing the Commission to provide overall clearance as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for recently meeting farmers—and pig farmers in particular—from my constituency. It was helpful. We are pursuing some of the concerns, but she will be aware that the Tory legacy of BSE has imposed production costs on the pig industry of more than £5 per pig, which has made it far harder for the industry to compete.
    The pig industry restructuring scheme has come as welcome news to the pig industry in my constituency. As she said, it is in two parts: the outgoers element and the ongoers element. The key question for my local farmers is how quickly we can get on with it. They want to be assured that when applicants have made their applications for the grant element, those applications will be processed quickly—decisions should be made quickly—so that they can plan their futures. Can she assure me that decisions will be made in all possible haste once the scheme starts?
    Ms Quin: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I welcome the interest that he has taken in the industry and in putting forward the views of his constituents. We have sought to help the industry in a number of ways. I am glad that, in terms of the pig industry restructuring
    1228
    scheme, we are talking not just about the £26 million available this year, but the additional £40 million in the two following years.
    We believe that we have sought to help the industry in all possible ways. Indeed, the House might be interested to know that the Ministry won its case in the judicial review that the pig industry initiated against us. We believe that we have acted correctly. We want to help—and believe that we are helping—the industry through the very bad times that it has experienced. We want a successful British pig industry for the future.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: May I say a special thank you to you, Madam Speaker? You have been a brilliant role model for the ladies in the House, and you will be sorely missed.
    Given that we have had the results of the judicial review, can the Minister tell us when she thinks pig fanners will know the result of the decisions referred to by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope)?
    Ms Quin: The period concerned is likely to begin at the end of August, which marks the end of the period of consultation and clearance with the European Commission.
    Mr. David Taylor: I shall not take up the House's time by referring to your warm, witty and wise time in the Chair, Madam Speaker.
    Although the rise in pigmeat prices from less than 60p a kilogram in September 1998 to more than £1 a kilogram is welcome, there have been extensive losses in the last two years. The National Pig Association estimates that it will take seven years to recover those losses, even given the current price.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the import ban suggested by the Conservative party constitutes an illegal cul-de-sac? Does she also agree that there should be major reform of the European labelling regime, which is not just inadequate but misleading and counter-productive?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right: the suggested ban would be an illegal and, indeed, dangerous cul-de-sac, given that we export pigmeat products and would risk retaliation if we took the Opposition's advice.
    My ministerial colleagues have been actively dealing with the labelling issue. As a result of verification work in the Ministry, a number of misleading labels have been withdrawn and replaced by accurate descriptions. We have been active, and I believe that marketing, advertising and the practical help that we have given the pig industry are producing results. I welcome the recent firming of prices to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. James Pake: I associate myself with all that has been said about you, Madam Speaker, and about your stewardship in the Chair. I add my thanks.
    Rumours abound that the Government might cut and run in October. If they are accurate, we may also be witnessing the last Question Time presided over by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Lest that should prove to be the case, I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his future career.

    1229
    As we know, the pig outgoers scheme was the subject of debate between Ministers and the Commission throughout the early part of the year. It was announced at the end of March as part of the action plan. Now, four months on, the scheme has still not been agreed with Europe. No applications have been made, and until and unless the outgoers element is completed there will be no information for those remaining in the industry, and no opportunity for them to obtain any money. Can the Minister tell us when she expects outgoers to receive cheques, and when she expects there to be a scheme involving a sum for which those remaining in the industry can apply, and which will help them to continue?
    Ms Quin: I look forward to the Government helping agriculture and, indeed, other industries, both before and after the election, whenever it occurs.
    We have been pursuing the matter speedily in Brussels. The hon. Gentleman knows what is involved in the procedures and the consultations. We have also done a great deal of preparatory work to ensure that, when clearance is received, we can start processing the outgoers bids as quickly as possible. We do not intend to be idle during the summer recess.

    Dairy Regime
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: What his priorities are for the next reform of the common agricultural policy dairy regime. [131270]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government's priorities for reform of the dairy regime are clear and well known. We want an orderly removal of milk quotas in combination with a reduction in the European Union support prices to world levels. We will press the European Commission and our EU partners for that in the run-up to the review of the regime in 2003.
    Mr. Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the provision of free school milk is a valuable service? May I take this opportunity to congratulate him on seeing off a European Commission proposal to abolish the subsidy of free school milk? May I also ask him whether he will take the action necessary to ensure the continued provision of free school milk?
    Mr. Brown: I was very pleased that, working with partners on the Council of Ministers, I was able to persuade the Commission to change its mind on the school milk proposal. Rather than abolishing the measure entirely, which was the Commission's original proposal, or moving to co-financing on a 50:50 basis, which was the Commission's next proposal, we were able to negotiate that upwards to the proposal that was agreed on Monday at the Council of Ministers.
    I am very pleased that that was a successful outcome for the United Kingdom. It just goes to show the value of working with our partners in the European Union and putting a measured case before the Commission, rather than adopting the alternative approach, which is to fall out with everyone else and try to thwart everything that happens, even if it is to our national advantage.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the reform deal was described by the Select Committee on Agriculture as a bad deal, that the right hon. Gentleman himself declared that it was disappointing, and that fraud is pervasive throughout the system, why does not the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledge that the CAP no longer stands for common agricultural policy, but for charter for amoral pilfering?
    Mr. Brown: There is actually a good point beneath all that eurosceptic nonsense. The fact is that there is a sound case for a common agricultural policy across the EU. The important thing to do is to secure reform of the current structures so that they are not so oriented towards the supply side. The point to which I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention is that, despite our many differences in this place, there is near unanimity around the Government's proposals for reform of the dairy sector.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If milk quotas went, would there be over-production of milk?
    Mr. Brown: I think that the market would quickly deal with that question, although we are in a relatively strong position compared with our European Union partners.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the Minister agree that the only ones who seem to make money out of the current quota system are the quota brokers?
    Mr. Brown: One of the unattractive features of the current quota regime is that the quota itself—the permit to produce—has an economic value. That is an inevitable outcome of the current structure and a part of the underpinning of the case for reform.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is absolutely essential that we reform the current milk quota system before admitting other countries to the European Union? Will he also confirm that, at times, the current milk quota system has led to our importing too many added-value milk products which we could have produced in this country had there not been a milk quota system?
    Mr. Brown: Those are very important points. There are enormous advantages for the industry domestically in reform of the dairy regime. Although I do understand why some diary producers are nervous about it, it is the right way forward. I also think that it is the most intellectually appropriate way of dealing with the problems that are posed by the agricultural component of enlargement of the European Union. The two big questions seem to me to be the digressivity of direct payments and reform of the dairy regime.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I come from one of the prime dairy counties of the United Kingdom—Cheshire, which is in the north-west. Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole of the United Kingdom has the perfect climate to produce good grass, and that good grass is the basis of good milk? Does he agree that any reform should take account of the fact that the United Kingdom as a whole is the right area for milk to be produced? Will he assure me, the House and

    1231
    my constituents that any reform will take that into account—so that the countries which can produce good milk because of their climate and grassland are able to do so, and no system is put in place that will discriminate against us?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with absolutely everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest effects on the profitability of dairy farming has been the disastrous drop of the price of milk by a third in the past two years? Does not the fact that there is a 20 per cent, advantage to supermarkets in importing milk, because of the euro, mean that the quickest way to get dairy farming back into profitability would be for Britain to join the euro?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the price per litre that the food chain pays the producer is at the heart of the present difficulties in the dairy sector. I have done everything that I properly can to alleviate the burdens on the industry, such as the hygiene charges. We have used agrimonetary compensation to its fullest extent as a countervailing measure. I know that the industry has welcomed cattle passports as well. Further, I have made representations to the retailers and processors—important players in the chain—to try to get them to understand that every component of the supply chain has a vested interest in the well-being and commercial returns of other elements in the chain. Further than that, as a Minister, I cannot go. I have certainly gone as far as I can.

    Farmers' Co-operatives
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about Government support for fanners co-operatives. [131271]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Co-operatives and other forms of collaborative activity can provide a significant boost to the competitiveness of our farmers and growers. Government and industry are working together in a number of ways to facilitate and promote such working together.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Farmers First co-operative has done a great deal to help the industry, especially with the opening of a new abattoir in Kenilworth, which is used by many of the farmers in my constituency? Does he agree that the objective 1 funding that the Government have secured for Wales provides great opportunities for further co-operative work in investing in abattoirs and other new infrastructure that is needed to support the industry?
    Mr. Morley: I strongly support my hon. Friend. The Government have been supporting the development of collaborative marketing and co-ops through the agricultural development scheme, and further funds will be available through the rural development programme. Match funding has been provided for objective 1 programmes. The nature of the programmes is a matter for local people to determine, but there is no doubt whatever that there are great advantages for farmers and
    1232
    growers in coming together to try to add value and market their produce so as to get a greater share of the market. Objective 1 funds are certainly one way of helping them to do that.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: The great dairy processors of the world, such as Parmalat, Danone and, recently, MD and Aria in Scandinavia, all began as farmers' co-operatives. What is the Ministry's view of co-operatives and farmers' groups attempting to buy Unigate?
    Mr. Morley: One of our views is that the previous Government should have thought a little more carefully about the effect on the dairy sector before they destroyed the Milk Marketing Board. There are, however, issues to be considered here. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Competition Commission conducted an investigation that was responded to by allowing the development of three co-ops with the freedom to invest downstream in processing. There is no doubt that that brings advantages for dairy producers.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement about his policy towards small and medium-sized abattoirs. [131273]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized abattoirs to the rural economy and have therefore put in place a number of measures to help, including the deferment of charges for specified risk material removal; freezing of Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges last year and maintaining them at no more than the rate of inflation this year; promoting with the European Union Commission a risk-based approach to meat hygiene legislation; reviewing the level of inspection in low-throughput abattoirs; and setting up a taskforce to explore a capping approach to meat hygiene charges for small abattoirs.
    The taskforce report—the Maclean report—has just been presented to the Government. Together with colleagues in other Departments, we are now considering its recommendations on the way forward for this sector of the abattoir industry.
    Mr. Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the urgency of the Government and the Food Standards Agency responding to the Maclean report on veterinary inspection charges, which recommended a change from hourly payments to headage fees? Given that such a change would benefit small and medium-sized abattoirs and give them a real bonus for their future, will she give the matter some real priority?
    Ms Quin: I assure my hon. Friend that we will do so. Obviously, that involves different agencies and Departments considering the Maclean report recommendations, but we are very conscious of the importance of those recommendations to a vital sector of the industry.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: I am aware that Agriculture Ministers are looking at alternative approaches to charging for meat inspection in small and medium-sized abattoirs, and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said. For many abattoirs, the sands of time are running out. According to figures recently provided to me by Health Ministers, there has been a pronounced acceleration in abattoir closures during the past six months. I am also told by Health Ministers that, ironically, at a time when abattoirs are being forced out of business, the number of veterinary officers employed in the veterinary service has increased from an average of 486 in the first six months of 1999 to an average of 516 in the last six months. In other words, there are 30 extra vets at a time when operators are being driven out of business by the imposition of charges that they simply cannot sustain.
    Ms Quin: I recognise the personal interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in the issue and I welcome the number of times that he has raised it. Perhaps he should have raised it with his right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in government and presided over a huge number of abattoir closures—far more than the present Government. I hope that he welcomes the recent statements by Commissioner Byrne on moving towards risk-based assessment and being sensitive to some of the cost implications of the European system. We can help to solve some of the problems and redress the balance in terms of future costs by working with the Commission and responding to the recommendations in the Maclean report.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The growth of organic farming, particularly in my constituency, means that there is a real need for locally based abattoirs selling directly to the market and producing the added value that we want in Wales. Will the Minister seriously consider the move towards headage payments and bear in mind the lack of clarity in respect of other European countries? If I can put it this way, it seems that other European countries are getting away with it in respect of the hygiene standards that we apply and that there is no level playing field in respect of abattoirs in other countries.
    Ms Quin: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I know that Commissioner Byrne is very much focused on the need for a level playing field, and that approach partly lies behind some of the initiatives that he has announced. Obviously, there is an important responsibility for the devolved Administration in Wales. The hon. Gentleman and others will want to know that we are supporting the development of mobile abattoirs, particularly in remote rural areas, and that we are working with the Humane Slaughter Association to help bring about that service.

    Exeter Office
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What recent discussions he has had with staff at his Department's office in Exeter about reorganisation of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [131274]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on Monday 24 July, Official Report, columns 472–73W. As he knows, because he was present, I last met union officials in Exeter on Saturday 8 July and I have met and corresponded with other hon. Members who have a direct constituency interest in the reorganisation.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wise decision to keep the Exeter MAFF office open and convey on behalf of the staff in Exeter and the wider community their heartfelt thanks for his vote of confidence in their work. Will he say something about the reports that we might get even more jobs in Exeter as a result of the restructuring? That would be extremely welcome in a city that suffered so grievously under Government job cuts under the Conservatives, particularly in respect of defence.
    Mr. Brown: The sites that will be the basis for the new—CAPPA—Common Agricultural Policy Payments Agency proposals can expect an inflow of employment, although the numbers are not yet finally decided. Clearly, however, all the jobs that are at present on the site are safe and there is a real prospect of new jobs being created.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of all farmers in Cornwall and Devon I also welcome the Minister's announcement. Will he take a step further in recommending to the Government generally that the way in which the regional service centres operate must be more closely aligned to the work of other Government agencies in the south-west as in other regions? I also congratulate the Minister's staff in the regional service centres on the work that they do. Does he recognise that they too have a problem in that they are often unable to use their own discretion and common sense in deciding on the issues that come before them? All too often they feel that they are too restricted by the regulations and prevented from using their intelligence.
    Mr. Brown: A number of things struck me in making this series of difficult decisions. First, all Members of Parliament with a legitimate constituency interest perfectly properly made representations on behalf of their area offices, as did hon. Members representing neighbouring constituencies. Secondly, I was deluged with representations from user groups speaking up for the services that they received from their regional offices. In part, that conditioned the Government's response to the representations received.
    I considered the question of closer working with Government offices alongside the proposals for changes in the administration of the common agricultural policy payments through the regional offices and the intervention board. I intend to move the regional directors and policy support staff into the Government offices of the regions. That reorganisation is now being discussed. In addition, I want to retain a regional presence in each region, although not necessarily in the Government offices of the regions. That presence will provide a face-to-face interface with the client groups—an element of the representation that came through very strongly. Also, that regional presence will carry out the all-important work on the rural development regulation, by which I set enormous store.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Football Hooligans
    Mr. John Bercow: What discussions he has had with representatives of the police on prosecution policy in respect of football hooligans. [131293]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes those accused of football-related offences whenever appropriate. It also plays a key role in seeking suitable bail conditions to prevent further offending and in reminding the courts of their powers and duties to make orders to prevent hooliganism, both at home and abroad. I have received no representations from the police on the subject.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, which was a triumph of diplomacy over candour. I hope that he will now answer the question that I posed instead of the one that I did not. What discussions has he had, or does he intend to have, with the police? What criticisms of Government policy does he expect to hear? Why, given that anti-social behaviour orders have become a non-event under this Government, should we take the Government's intentions on this matter remotely seriously?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman does not often allow facts to stand in the way of rhetoric, but the Government have pursued the matter since the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 came into force. The CPS has prosecuted cases involving ordinary offences arising from football hooliganism, such as assault, public disorder and criminal damage. The police refer cases to the CPS, which deals with them as the law requires—by looking at the evidence and taking into account the public interest.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many football clubs now have more police-free matches than ever before, because discussions with police have led to a reduction in violence? No one condones the actions of the minority hooligan element, but people want action to be taken where necessary to ensure that hooligans do not deter normal supporters from going to games and do not cause disturbances in town centres.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the Football (Disorder) Bill, which the House will consider again today, the Government have taken what we regard as the minimum steps needed to deal with the public order problem that has infuriated and shamed the nation. The Opposition have been playing games with the Bill, but I hope that it will be dealt with efficiently and effectively this afternoon.
    I should tell the House that, since the 1999 Act came into force, some 255 domestic football banning orders have been obtained, and 36 international orders.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the Solicitor-General agree that if the police and judges were
    1236
    half as tough in dealing with hooligans and miscreants as Madam Speaker has been in dealing with the parliamentary variety of the species, the world would be a better, safer and saner place?
    The Solicitor-General: On this, Madam Speaker's last Question Time, I have only words of commendation about her, especially as we both represent part of the Tipton area in the west midlands.
    The courts deal with these matters effectively. Sentencing is a matter for the courts; it is not a matter in which the Executive should have a role.

    Sentencing Referrals
    Shona McIsaac: What criteria the Law Officers apply when determining whether or not to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal. [131294]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Attorney-General and I have the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal if we consider them to be unduly lenient. An unduly lenient sentence is one which is not merely lenient but falls outside the range of sentences that a judge, applying his or her mind to all the relevant circumstances of the case, could reasonably consider appropriate. The appropriate range must be determined by consideration of the principles of sentencing and other guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal.
    Shona McIsaac: I have been prompted to ask the question by unduly lenient sentences for sex offences, and sex offences involving children. No doubt many right hon. and hon. Members have received representations from families and victims who rarely believe that a sentence is appropriate. Are families and victims consulted in these distressing cases, and are there any plans to extend powers in relation to sex offences and sex offences against children?
    The Solicitor-General: Unduly lenient sentences come to us for referral from the Crown Prosecution Service or, in some cases, from victims and relatives of victims who write asking for the sentence to be considered. We act at the prompting of victims and relatives and of the CPS.
    On sex offences, an order was laid the other day that will come into force by October. It extends the range of sentences that can be considered by us to be unduly lenient and can therefore be referred to the Court of Appeal. The range includes sentences for drug trafficking, illegal importation of pornographic material involving children and for offences specifically against children, such as unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, inciting a girl under 16 to have incestuous intercourse and gross indecency with a child.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Can the Law Officers take any steps in respect of judges who persistently pass inappropriate sentences, whether too lenient or too harsh? I have in mind the recent case of a headmistress who slapped a pupil who was attacking her in the classroom and was threatened with jail. Does that

    1237
    not show that some judges are almost as out of touch with public opinion as this Government are increasingly seen as being?
    The Solicitor-General: If anyone is out of touch with public opinion it is Conservative Members.
    As I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has since disappeared, we cannot interfere with the judiciary. The independent judiciary is a very valued feature of our system but, in particular cases, unduly lenient sentences can be referred. I do not think that the figures would show that the sentences passed by particular judges are being referred more than once.
    Dr. George Turner: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that it is rare to be able to talk to the victims of crime or to those who apprehend the criminals. However, they raise the problem, as they perceive it, of overly lenient sentences. I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that action was taken only if the judge strayed outside the prescribed range of sentences. That must cover a multitude of possible degrees of guilt. Is there not a case for allowing the questioning of a sentence, even when it is within the prescribed range, if it is not appropriate?
    The Solicitor-General: Sentencing depends on particular circumstances. A whole range of circumstances applies to manslaughter, for example—a death might be akin to murder, or it might follow from fortuitous circumstances. The range of circumstances in any particular case is quite wide. Therefore, the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal are similarly broad, giving a range of sentences. It is only when the sentence falls outside that range, given the particular circumstances, that we refer the matter. My hon. Friend is right that the courts sometimes do not seem to take into account the facts of the case. However, the facts are often mediated through the press and we do not get a full report.
    Mr. Edward Gamier: At the risk of giving you praise, thanks and congratulation fatigue, Madam Speaker, may I add my own heartfelt and sincere thanks, praise and congratulations on your long and successful period in office and wish you a very long and happy retirement from your duties in this House?
    Is the Solicitor-General considering yet further widening the range of offences for which unduly lenient sentence applications may be made by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to the Court of Appeal, beyond the order that he has just announced?
    The Solicitor-General: In our manifesto, we said that we would look at the matter. We considered it, and the three areas that I identified came immediately to mind for extension. There are problems in terms of resources and work load, in that the Attorney-General and I have to consider each application. The number of cases coming to us from victims, relatives and the CPS is tending to increase every year. However, we certainly have not excluded a further extension of the offences that can be referred.
    Mr. David Taylor: As a member of the Magistrates Association, I am concerned
    1238
    about judicial inconsistency. Is there not a strong case for more use to be made of fixed penalties, whether they are applied through an administrative mechanism or through the courts themselves?
    The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend knows, there are a certain number of mandatory sentences. Fixed penalties have been effective in terms of a number of less serious offences. There is no reason why other offences should not come within the net.

    Prosecutions (Staffordshire)
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the CPS's success rate in prosecutions in south Staffordshire. [131295]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): In the year ending March 2000, the south Staffordshire branch of the Crown Prosecution Service secured 11,228 convictions in magistrates courts, representing 98.7 per cent, of all cases proceeding to a hearing. A further 596 convictions were recorded in the Crown court, amounting to 87.8 per cent, of hearings. These figures indicate that the service is making a strong and effective contribution to criminal justice in that part of the country.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Government are becoming renowned not only for their contempt for Parliament, but for their contempt for traditions. The Solicitor-General will be aware that the magistrates court in Lichfield closed a few months ago, after 600 years of progress. When will he meet the witness service in Staffordshire, which tells me that it is becoming increasingly difficulty to get witnesses to travel from Lichfield to Tamworth and other parts of Staffordshire and the west midlands to give evidence? When will he accept that his Government's decision to close Lichfield magistrates court was the wrong decision?
    The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned strongly on this matter, although the strength of the argument does not increase with repetition. There is a tension between efficiency and effectiveness in the processing of cases through the courts on the one hand and local justice on the other. A balance has to be struck and, in the case of Lichfield, the balance was struck by a decision to close the court. That was only after a careful evaluation of the need for witnesses to travel distances to other courts. I believe that the decision was a right one.
    Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend recall the times that I have pressed him to increase the funding for Staffordshire's CPS? Will he say how last week's magnificent settlement in the spending review will help the CPS to employ more prosecutors and be more effective in prosecuting offenders?
    The Solicitor-General: I cannot disagree that the settlement was magnificent, and the result is a 12 per cent, real-terms increase for 2001–02, which will continue over the three years of the comprehensive spending review. The result for front-line services in Staffordshire, and elsewhere, is that the CPS will now be able to prosecute

    1239
    more cases. When the CPS was established by the previous Government, it was underfunded. We have redressed that problem.
    Mr. John Burnett: Presumably the success rate of the CPS in south Staffordshire is among the matters considered by the chief inspector of the CPS, will
    1240
    the Solicitor-Given arrange for the chief inspector to make an urgent report into CPS efficiency and morale, publish it as soon as possible?
    The Solicitor-General: As a result spending on the CPS, morale has risen enormously. The CPS is now in a position to play its role in the criminal system.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the first week after the recess?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the first week after the summer recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 OCTOBER—The House will meet to elect a Speaker.
TUESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Insolvency Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 25 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 27 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 30 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on the Rural White Paper and the Eleventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on the Urban White Paper, followed by a debate on the Ninth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee on the proposed public-private partnership for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Both debates will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks after the summer recess will be:
THURSDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate on the Third Report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the double jeopardy rule.
THURSDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Third Report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the business for the first week back, and for the hint of the business for the following week.
I welcome the debate on defence procurement. Can the Leader of the House confirm that we will also have the normal two-day defence debate during the spill-over session? Will that take place on a defence White Paper?
May we have a debate on early-day motion 1027, which has been has been signed by two former Home Secretaries and a former Attorney-General?
[That this House condemns the Home Secretary for his statement during the second reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill that the bill enjoyed "the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham" (Official Report, Volume 345, No. 58, column 886), when correspondence between the Noble and Learned Lord and the Home Secretary now shows that this was not the case; and calls on the Home Secretary to apologise to the Noble and Learned Lord, and to the House.]
1242
Before we rise, may we also have a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on his decision to recommend a royal prerogative of mercy for James McArdle, who was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in 1998 following the docklands bombing in which two civilians were killed? That decision has aroused the deepest concern, and the House expects a full explanation.
Today sees the publication of the Government's response to the Sutherland commission on long-term care, which is of great interest to the House and our constituents. Can the right hon. Lady find time for an early debate on it?
Can the Leader of the House shed any light on the likely date of the state opening of Parliament?
Finally, today's Order Paper contains two written questions about the future of the dome. It would be quite wrong for a decision to be slipped out by written answer as the House rises for the summer. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister will make a full statement to the House tomorrow to explain how much or how little the taxpayer will receive from its disposal?
Mrs. Beckett: I can confirm that there will be a two-day debate on defence, but cannot say on what document it will be taken.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on an early-day motion calling on the Home Secretary to make an apology. My right hon. Friend has already dealt extensively with that matter in debate in the House, and I see no need for a further debate.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I cannot anticipate granting that request. The right hon. Gentleman will probably know that, had it not been for the action taken by my right hon. Friend, Mr. McArdle would have spent longer in prison than those who were convicted at the same time as he was—the co-defendants who were convicted at the same time, two of whom were given longer sentences.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the royal commission on long-term care. I am aware that the House takes an on-going interest in that matter. I cannot promise an early debate on it, however, nor indeed can I give him more illumination on the state opening, although that will no doubt be addressed in the overspill period.
On the dome, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions anticipates answering the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) later today. I am surprised at the suggestion that the House would want a statement tomorrow, particularly as it comes from those on the Conservative Benches, who normally resist statements on a Friday.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that many of us believe strongly in the principle of rotation of the speakership, which means that we will support only a Conservative or Liberal candidate as Speaker—that will mean saying no to some good friends. With that in mind, would my right hon. Friend invite the Procedure Committee to meet during the recess, which I understand is possible, to consider a revision of the rules and make a recommendation so that the House can convene during the recess to agree that?

1243
Then, when we return after the recess, we can deal with the speakership under the new rules. Some of us feel strongly and are most unhappy about the way in which matters may proceed.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that for about 35 years the speakership has alternated across the House. I was not aware of the large number of Labour Members who believe that that is an important principle because it is not a matter for the Government; it is very much a matter for the House. Therefore, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, as I am sure the House will be.
My hon. Friend makes an important suggestion about inviting the Procedure Committee to meet during the recess. I will properly consider it, as he would expect. However, the Committee met after the election of the present Speaker and considered these matters very carefully. It concluded that it ought not to recommend a change. While I understand my hon. Friend's wish for the matter to be considered again, my immediate off-the-cuff reaction is that just before a further election—I realise that he will see the irony of this—is not the time to do it. It is a matter that ought to be considered carefully and thoroughly.
I am mindful of advice that I received some time ago as to the errors that one should avoid in government. I learned that what drove the Conservative party into the poll tax was the assumption that there must be a better system than the rates. The assumption that lies behind my hon. Friend's question is that there must be a better system of electing the Speaker and I am not sure that he is right.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I believe that there will be widespread support for the views expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on both sides of the House.
In the meantime, Madam Speaker, after the great and good had their opportunity yesterday, may I say how much I regret the fact that this will be the last occasion on which I have the opportunity to address you in that way?
Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read very carefully Madam Speaker's wise words to the House about the proper scrutiny of legislation? Is the right hon. Lady really satisfied that this week, and indeed in October, the House will have a proper opportunity to scrutinise some extremely important legislation, which raises important issues of great principle about which many hon. Members have considerable concerns? For example, in the crowded legislative timetable that is still ahead of us and the other place, has she considered which Bills may be eligible for carry-over? As Chair of the Modernisation Select Committee, she will be aware that if there is cross-party agreement, Bills can be carried over to a subsequent Session. Will she give a firm undertaking that she and the Government recognise that it is more important to get it right than to get it quick?
Mrs. Beckett: I did indeed take note—as, I hope, did the House—of Madam Speaker's remarks about the scrutiny of legislation, and that it is one of our key functions and it is important that we get it right. I agree too that it raises important principles for the way in which
1244
we structure and make the most efficient use of our time. I anticipate that the House will have an opportunity to address that matter.
I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman repeating the Conservative party propaganda that this is a crowded Session. During the parallel year under the previous Parliament, there were 37 Bills; there were 43 in the subsequent year. Of course, it is important that we give legislation proper and full consideration, but the notion that the number of Bills before the House is unusually great is not borne out by examination of the figures.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about carry-over, but he will be aware that the Government expressed the view that that could be done only by consent. He will also be aware that such consent is not always forthcoming.
Mr. Eric Forth: Correct.
Mrs. Beckett: I note the right hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention confirming that point. I simply remind Conservative Members of the recommendation of Professor Lord Norton, to whose report they said they attached much importance.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House suggest when a decision is likely to be made on compensation for former prisoners of war of the Japanese? That is an important issue.
As speculation and excitement will inevitably grow about the election of a Speaker—the first item of business when we return—and touching on my right hon. Friend's earlier comment, does she agree that the best advice for those on both—I emphasise both—Front Benches is not to try to influence the outcome? Members should be allowed—as I hope that we will be—to make our own decision. On the two previous occasions, the House came to a wise and sensible decision and I am sure that we shall do the same when we return.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has constantly pressed the issue of compensation for Japanese prisoners of war. I shall again draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I understand that, as yet, no decision has been made, although, as my hon. Friend is aware, the matter is under active consideration.
On the election of a Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed in the strongest possible terms the view that it is certainly not a matter for the Government, but for the House. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be unwise for parties to try to intervene officially. I share entirely his view that on the previous two occasions we made wise decisions. I am confident that we shall do so again.
Mr. Michael Howard: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer that she gave my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on early-day motion 1027? May I remind the right hon. Lady that, during the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, the Home Secretary told the House that the measure had the active endorsement of the then Lord Chief Justice? However, correspondence

1245
subsequently made public showed beyond any doubt whatever that that was not the case. In view of her responsibilities to the House, will she ensure that the Home Secretary comes to the House to apologise for giving us such completely inaccurate information?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my function here is to discuss what business ought to be before the House. Although I know that he attaches importance to the matter that he raises, the House has had an opportunity to air and consider it.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House set aside the business scheduled for tomorrow in order to discuss the urgent matter raised in early-day motion 1033?
[That this House welcomes the measures taken by the Government to raise pensioners' incomes, but notes that for five out of six pensioners, who do not receive income support, the additional basic pension payable in 2000–01 if the link with earnings had been restored in 1998 would be more than the combined value of the £150 winter fuel payment and free television licence for that year—£119 more for a couple aged 75 or over and £162 more for a couple under 75; notes the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th July that next year's pension increase is a matter for further consultation; and urges the Government to undertake that consultation without delay.]
The motion notes the generosity of the Government in granting pensioners a winter fuel payment of £150, plus the free television licences. However, it notes the surprising fact that, had those payments not been made and, instead, the link between earnings and pensions been restored from 1998, five out of six pensioners would have been better off. There is a need for urgency, because there is widespread dismay among pensioners that, although—as a result of the Government's good economic policies—the Government have been generous in giving major sums to many causes, pensioners seem to have been neglected. That is surprising because it has been made clear that the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings is overdue and easily affordable.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend is aware that, over the course of this Parliament, the Government will have made available to pensioners more resources than would have been case had we simply restored the earnings link. He will also be aware that those resources have been made available disproportionately to the least well-off among the pensioner community, because the Government felt that the plight of those pensioners was so severe that they deserved urgent help. However, my hon. Friend will also know that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed, the Government will publish further plans for a new pensioner credit in the autumn.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the House said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire that the matter had been very adequately aired. I have to say, however, that the Home Secretary considered the matter
1246
in his first speech—some of us thought that a little odd, given that it was on the timetable motion—and had limited time to reply at the end of that debate. One should also note that after answering the first intervention from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), he did not give way to him again. Therefore I think that, to be fair to the Home Secretary, he has not actually had an adequate opportunity to respond to the views of the House on this matter.
Mrs. Beckett: I say with the greatest possible respect to the right hon. Gentleman that he has identified that the Home Secretary has already dealt with the matter in the House on two occasions. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO.] He may not have dealt with it to the satisfaction of Opposition Members, but that is not the point.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Is the Leader of the House aware that an excellent report was produced yesterday, entitled "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences"? Will she undertake to provide some time when that report can be adequately debated in the House?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I admit that I have not had the opportunity to study the report, which, as she knows, is a report to the Government which we have issued for consultation, but I agree that it is important. She will know that the Government are anxious to strengthen the law that protects children in particular, and I am confident that people will consider the report in that light.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give the House an assurance that when we return, there will be an opportunity to debate both on a substantive motion and a free vote the reports of the Liaison Committee and the Modernisation Committee?
Mrs. Beckett: I anticipate that the House will be able to discuss both those reports at some point.
Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are pushing through a policy of transferring council house stocks into the private sector, and that many of us on the Labour Benches are extremely unhappy about what we see as a massive privatisation, which means that that stock will not be subject to any kind of democratic accountability. May we have a debate about that when we come back, so that those on the Labour Benches who are disappointed with that decision can argue that we should be investing massive sums directly into public housing, instead of hiving it off to the private sector?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that we have invested an extra £5 billion in housing and made resources available to refurbish a further 300,000 homes. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the overspill for an early debate on that issue, but he will know that, fairly early on, there will be questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Paddy Ashdown: I have no wish to introduce a note of gloom into the prospect of our summer holidays, but may I please draw the attention of the Leader of the

1247
House to the fact that, following President Milosevic's illegal attempts to seek to change the constitution of Montenegro, tension in that country is now rising alarmingly? That is causing widespread concern. I fear that, unless real restraint is shown by both sides, over the next few months we shall see conflict—very possibly war—in Montenegro. In view of the proximity of British troops and of the implications that such a conflict would have for western policy in the Balkans, may we have the right hon. Lady's assurance that if, God help us, that conflict breaks out, serious consideration will be given to recalling the House?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concern that the right hon. Gentleman expresses. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. We must all hope that such an eventuality does not require our return.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Mr. Brian Souter spent almost £500,000 on a referendum on section 28 in Scotland, but is she aware that the conclusions of recent inquiries in Mansfield and Chesterfield into the operation of his Stagecoach buses were highly critical? When I tabled a question asking for a transcript of the decision made by the traffic commissioner as a result of the Chesterfield inquiry to be placed in the Library, I was informed that it could not be done because there was a need to minimise public expenditure. As it would cost only £200, should not fresh consideration be given to that request and will my right hon. Friend pursue it?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has been exercised by the problems that have arisen in his constituency, and I sympathise with his concerns. I share his unexpressed view that Mr. Souter would be better advised to devote his attention to running his company better. I fear that I cannot undertake to grant my hon. Friend's request at this time, but I shall look into the matter and take it up with the relevant authorities.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The Leader of the House may not realise it, but she is being unfair to the Home Secretary. On Tuesday night, he was put through the forensic mincing machine by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and, owing to the limited time available, to which my right hon. Friends have referred, he was unable to give an adequate explanation to do himself justice. It appears that he compounded rather than mitigated whatever offence he was guilty of in the eyes of that hon. and learned Gentleman. Surely she would be doing a service not only to the House but to the reputation of the Home Secretary if she permitted him to return to the House before Friday to give a full and candid explanation of what is recorded in Hansard at column 886 of his Second Reading speech.
Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that the Home Secretary dealt extensively with the matter. Irrespective of the concern expressed by Opposition Members, it is my job, as the hon. and learned Gentleman perfectly well
1248
knows, to deal with the issue of whether a subject has been raised and dealt with in the House, not how adequately that has been done.
Shona McIsaac: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on pensions, especially pensions for war widows in the light of this week's announcement that those widows who cohabit and marry will be able to retain their service pension for life? As a sailor's daughter, I feel passionately about the matter, especially as the Conservative party did nothing for war widows in spite of years of being pressured to sort the matter out.
Mrs. Beckett: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. She is right that in a better world it would be possible for us to spend time drawing attention to the fact that, despite the warm words from the Conservative party, a Labour, not a Conservative Government have taken steps to assist war widows. Attractive though the prospect is, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an early opportunity for a prolonged debate on the increasing discrepancies between the written word and the spoken word, especially from Ministers? I have in mind a couple of examples, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members can think of many more. One is the memorandums now spewing from No. 10, which give a written version of events—not least the Prime Minister's thoughts, which seem to be at odds with what he says in public. Another is the matter referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—the apparent discrepancies between the written word of the Lord Chief Justice and the spoken word of the Home Secretary. Surely a debate on those matters, allowing many more examples to be aired and explained, and if necessary, the appropriate resignations to be made, would be beneficial to everyone.
Mrs. Beckett: There is no discrepancy between what is emerging on issues such as the euro and what the Government have been saying in public for many months. The British people will be much more interested in the sharp discrepancy between the continued complaint of the Conservative party that only spin and not substance come from the Government and its determination to talk about spin and not issues of substance, such as the investment that the Government are making in the health service, education and transport and the jobs that have been created as a result of the Government's economic policy.
Ann Clwyd: May we have a clear statement from the Government on their approach to war crimes? We are signed up to the Geneva conventions and we are obliged under the convention on torture to arrest and prosecute anyone on our soil who is accused of torture. Recently, two alleged war criminals have come to Britain. The first is a Rwandan colonel and there had to be a request for his extradition from this country by the Rwandan war crimes tribunal. The second is an Afghan colonel, who is also alleged to have committed serious war crimes. Instead of being vague about this issue,

1249
we need a clear statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Attorney-General and the Home Office on how they approach such matters.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that the Government take these issues very seriously. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early statement—let alone time for one from three Ministers—but she might seek a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall during the overspill period.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Early after the House's return in October, will the Leader of the House call the Home Secretary to ask for a debate on the consequences of the European convention on human rights and its application to road traffic cases? Will she also ask him to reply to a request from a constituent—her son was the victim of death by dangerous driving—that anyone prosecuted for such an offence will face a lifetime ban from driving?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for an early statement, but I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary, who will, I know, respond to them.
Mr. John Grogan: Given the increase of £64 million for the funding of the BBC World Service that was announced in the comprehensive spending review, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future priorities of the World Service?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have long believed that the World Service is one of the jewels in Britain's crown and that it gives us considerable prestige overseas. I was delighted to see the extra funding made available to it by the comprehensive spending review. This issue was not pursued by the Conservative party in government, and that funding would be at risk from the cuts that it intends to make.
My hon. Friend also makes an important point about a debate on the future priorities of the World Service. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House, but he, too, might explore the possibilities of holding such a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. John Redwood: Can the Leader of the House find an early opportunity when the House returns for Ministers to explain when they think that they must answer questions and when they think that they do not need to bother with any answer at all? We have heard today about the case of the Home Secretary, in which the Government do not reflect the mood of the House, and I have just had a series of six questions on trunk roads in London blocked. They received no answer even though they related to the Government's conduct. Will the right hon. Lady promise a debate on why Ministers will not answer questions and will not even attempt to answer questions? Does that not show contempt for Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: Having had experience of some of the right hon. Gentleman's more arcane and bizarre questions, it has always seemed to me that there is a duty on both sides of the House—a duty to ask sensible questions and, I accept, a duty to provide proper replies. However, as it
1250
became clear to me in the early days of this Parliament that it had not dawned on him that the Opposition get a Question Time for each Department only once a month, I do not take his track record on such matters all that seriously.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: May I press my right hon. Friend on her earlier answer about the timing of a debate in the overspill session on the Modernisation Committee's report—a Committee on which we both sit? The Committee's understanding is that the House needs the opportunity to vote on the report so that, if it chooses to support the Committee's proposals, they can take effect in the new parliamentary Session after the Queen's Speech.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I pay tribute to her for the worthwhile work that she does on the Committee. I anticipate that the House will have an opportunity to come to a judgment on those matters before the end of the Session.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Government expressed their continuing commitment to the repeal of section 28, following the disgraceful blocking of that measure in the House of Lords. However, in debate and in the Prime Minister's reply to the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the Government have said that they have not decided how to tackle the issue of using further votes in the remainder of the Parliament to make clear the will of the House of Commons.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady will let me know when the Government have decided what they will do, but I offer her the use of a ten-minute Bill that I have on 31 October, which could be used to repeal section 28 in a single clause, and to get the House of Lords to think again and to submit to the will of the elected Chamber on this critical human rights issue.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As he knows, I have great sympathy with his stance on the matter. All I can say to him is that while a ten-minute Bill may be an opportunity usefully to air these issues—
Dr. Harris: The right hon. Lady could give it Government time.
Mrs. Beckett: It is not as simple as that when we are dealing with private Member's Bills. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that thought is being given to how we can deal with the matter.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I ask my right hon. Friend to do something unconventional? In all the centuries that we have had a Parliament here, only two candidates for Speaker have ever been proposed at one time, but this time there could be a multiplicity of candidates—perhaps as many as 12. Could my right hon. Friend act as an honest broker and go-between to organise hustings in Westminster Hall on the morning of Monday 23 October? [Interruption.] This is a serious point. Will she, on behalf of all hon. Members, invite all the candidates to declare themselves this week so that we

1251
know who is intending to stand for the speakership? When it comes to that historic vote on the afternoon of 23 October, we will then have a clear idea about who we can vote for.
Mrs. Beckett: I accept that this is a matter of great interest. If my hon. Friend looks back, he will find that although there were not many candidates when the votes took place, there had often been a much wider field earlier in the proceedings. I am flattered by his suggestion that I might act as an honest broker, but I have every intention of resisting, as I have from the beginning, any attempt to put me in the middle of this.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is able to come to the Dispatch Box today to explain whether the press reports about the docklands bomber being released are correct, given that it is alleged that it took the Secretary of State's personal intervention to about bring his release? Is the right hon. Lady aware of the disgust that will be felt throughout the country at the release of that man? Is she aware that however honourable the Government's intentions, they give a signal to the country and to terrorists that there are no depths to which they will not sink to appease the men of terror?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will be able to come to the House today. As I said before, Mr. McArdle had co-defendants in the crime of which he was found guilty; they were convicted at the same time, and two who were given longer sentences than him have already been released. I believe that to have been the understanding behind my right hon. Friend's decision. [Interruption.] I am well aware that there are Conservative Members who continue to express outrage at the release of any of those who have been convicted of such crimes. However, I believe that the majority of the British people wish to see the peace process succeed, and that is their priority.
Mr. Peter Bradley: May I take issue with my right hon. Friend's earlier comments about the reform of Standing Orders and the urgency of the need to amend them as they relate to the election of the Speaker? The choice of Speaker that we will make in a few months will largely define the character of the House and the pace of change here for many years to come; it is an extremely serious election. She must be aware that there is widespread concern among all hon. Members about the need to reform Standing Orders, and that many Members want amendments to be made.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Procedure Committee meets in the summer and has the opportunity to prepare proposals for amending the Standing Orders? Will she further ensure that we have an opportunity, before we assemble to elect a new Speaker, to debate and possibly to enact those amendments? If necessary, will she prevail upon the current Speaker to preside over those proceedings so that we can have a seemly election of the next Speaker?
Mrs. Beckett: On a variety of accounts, I am well aware that a number of people have sought to persuade
1252
the present Speaker to change her decision on the timing of her departure and she has resolutely resisted that. Today is the first time that the notion has been put to me that the Procedure Committee should meet and change the rules. I have undertaken to consider that, and will do so. I simply reiterate what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours): I am not at all sure that this is the right time to rush through changes to those rules. The existing procedures have been used by previous generations and have worked perfectly well in getting the desired results. They were thoroughly examined after the election of the present Speaker. Although I will consider the matter, I have great reservations about the course of action that my hon. Friend proposes.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Leader of the House make time, during one of the Prime Minister's occasional visits to the Chamber—perhaps this afternoon following his statement—for him to make a clear statement on his determination to force the country to scrap the pound? He has made it clear in his memo that he regards the politics of the matter as overwhelmingly in favour of Britain joining the euro. Will he explain to the House how that can possibly be the case, given that the European Union itself has found that 70 per cent, of the British public oppose British membership of the euro? Will he explain to whom the policy is favourable and why he wants it introduced so quickly?
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answers more parliamentary questions than did his predecessor and, as a consequence, is in this House more often. The issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been aired frequently and ad nauseam, and we certainly will not debate it when we return after the recess.
Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend announced today that we shall debate the Rural White Paper in the context of a report from the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. Although my constituents welcome much of what the Government have done, they are impatient for further action. After 18 years of Conservative Government, with the closure of schools, post offices and shops and the reduction in bus services, they want this Government to spend every penny that the Chancellor has made available. When will we debate the White Paper itself, so that the Government can turn promises into action for rural areas? We are all fed up with the Tories, who just want cuts—the same old cuts, the same old Tories.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the impatience in the countryside to see the Government's further proposals and to know what would be put in jeopardy if the Conservative party were elected. I anticipate a debate on this matter, perhaps during the autumn.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: When we return, may we have a debate on the Northern Ireland peace process? The Leader of the House will be aware that not a single bullet nor ounce of Semtex has been handed over, and that punishment beatings continue. Does she think it

1253
right that James McArdle should be released after serving just two years for killing two people in docklands? Is one year per person just?
Mrs. Beckett: I have nothing to add to what I said before: the British people's priority is the peace process.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, last Friday, the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill (Lords) was blocked by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), causing widespread anger and disappointment among my Jewish constituents and the wider Jewish community? That modest measure would have brought great comfort to a relatively small number of Jewish women who are chained in marriage by their husbands, who refuse to grant them a divorce. Can my right hon. Friend give them any hope that somehow this measure can be reintroduced at a later stage?
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are sympathetic to the view that he has expressed and are concerned about that matter. I can undertake that we will consider it, but he will know that there are difficulties. However, we did not object to the Bill.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Having waited seven months for the Government's response to the reforms proposed by the Neill committee and noting that, in the Government's spin, they say that they will curb the burgeoning hordes of special advisers but make no promise about the date for introducing the necessary legislation before the general election, can we hold an urgent and early debate on the reason why the Government seek to reject a raft of the reforms proposed by the Neill committee?
Mrs. Beckett: Lord Neill has welcomed the degree to which the Government have accepted his recommendations. It is yet again typical that the Conservative party prefers to talk about special advisers, memos and leaks than about the health service, education and jobs, as I am sure the British people have noticed.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Can my right hon. Friend find time to debate the potential use of objective 1 funds, which have been greatly welcomed by industry and agriculture in Wales, so that we can compare this Government's record for Wales in securing objective 1 funding and matching it with £421 million over three years with the record of the previous Government, who did not apply for one penny?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I hope that there will be opportunities to air that important issue in the overspill session. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it, but he might like to seek one in Westminster Hall, and he might remind people who was the last Secretary of State for Wales under the Conservative Government.
Mr. John Bercow: May we please have a full day's debate in Government time on early-day motions 1042 and 1044, which relate to the possible amendment of the Local Government Act 1988?
1254
[That this House commends the constitutional propriety of the 24 Labour, three Liberal Democrat, six Scottish Nationalist and two other Right honourable and honourable Members from Scottish constituencies, namely the Right honourable and honourable members for Banff and Buchan, Angus, Tayside North, Argyll and Bute, Dumbarton, Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley, Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Ochil, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Coatbridge and Chryston, East Lothian, Edinburgh East and Mussleburgh, Eastwood, Edinburgh Central, Dunfermline East, Dunfermline West, File Central, Anniesland, Baillieston, Kelvin, Pollok, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Ross Skye and Inverness West, Renfrewshire West, Midlothian, Moray, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, Perth, Paisley South, Clydesdale, Hamilton South, Livingston and Linlithgow, who abstained on the vote on 25th July to preserve section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 in England and Wales, an issue which is devolved to the Scottish Parliament in relation to their own constituencies.]
Does the right hon. Lady accept that such a debate would provide an excellent opportunity for 28 Labour Members who represent Scottish constituencies to explain why they supported the retention of section 28 in England and Wales, but its abolition for their own constituents?
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say is that I have nothing to add to what I said before. The Government will return to the discussion of such issues in time.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister had frequently outlined the overwhelming political case for the euro in public—a case to which he apparently adheres to in secret. Is not it a fact, however, that all that has ever been said in public is that there is no constitutional bar to Britain joining the euro, which is a very different matter? Will she seek to secure from the Prime Minister an honest statement of the reason why he secretly thinks that there is an overwhelming political case for signing up to the single European currency?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend has repeatedly made the Government's position clear. The Conservative party should not encourage debate on that matter because the more we hear about its pledge to keep the pound for one Parliament, but not necessarily for ever, the sillier it sounds.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The Leader of the House grossly underestimates the strength of feeling, as expressed in early-day motion 1027, which was mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
The Home Secretary escaped two days ago only by a slippery and semantic use of the word "it". If he came to the House, we could talk about police numbers because, in April, my police authority was 101 police officers down on April 1997. We could also analyse his use of the words "more", "extra" and "new" when he discusses police officers.
Mrs. Beckett: These matters have been extensively aired and, no doubt, they will be again. I have nothing to add to what I have said already.

1255
Finally, Madam Speaker, on behalf all those who regularly attend business questions, may I say that we shall miss you?
Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

NHS Plan
1.14 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the national health service plan.
The NHS was the greatest achievement of the post-war Labour Government. It was based on one solid founding principle: health care should be given on the basis of people's needs, not their wealth. Some objected to that principle then, some would like us to abandon it today, but this side of the House will never abandon what was one of the greatest civilising acts of emancipation this country has ever known. Our task is instead to provide both the money and the reform to make the health service and its founding principle live on and prosper in the 21st century.
As to investment, in March we took a profound decision as a Government. We had sorted out the public finances. Debt service payments were down. Spending on unemployment benefits was down. It was the tough decisions that we took on the economy that gave us the opportunity to make this historic commitment to the national health service—an average real terms increase in spending of 6 per cent. Over five years, the NHS will grow by a third in real terms, the largest ever sustained increase in its funding.
The plan shows how that money will make up for years of underinvestment. Over the next four years, it will provide 7,500 more consultants, a rise of 30 per cent.; 2,000 extra general practitioners; 450 more GP trainees and more to come after that; in time, 1,000 more medical training places each year—on top of the 1,000 already announced—a 40 per cent, increase since 1997; and more than 20,000 extra qualified nurses, to add to the 10,000 extra already in post, making 30,000 extra in total.
For decades, the NHS has failed to invest sufficiently in modern building and equipment. The plan will mean 3,000 GP premises modernised and 500 new one-stop primary care centres; 250 new scanners for cancer and other illnesses; modern information technology systems in every hospital and GP surgery; 100 new hospital schemes in the next 10 years; and 7,000 more hospital beds in hospitals and intermediate care, including the first increase in general and acute hospital beds in 30 years. That is only possible because we are making this historic investment in our NHS.
Caring better for NHS staff will mean better care for NHS patients. That is why the plan sets out new facilities for staff, starting with 100 on-site nurseries and money for individual training for all staff—not just the professions, but the support staff as well. Our task is to tackle not simply years of underfunding, but years of low morale.
We know that money alone, however, is not the solution. Over the past few months, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—to whose work in drawing up the plan I pay tribute today—have had scores of meetings with NHS staff and professionals, visited hospitals and GPs, and spoken to providers and users of the NHS. Because the issue of funding has been alleviated, at long last, people have been able to lift their heads and look at the system in which they operate.
The NHS staff are magnificent. They are the greatest asset that the health service has. They are indeed the basis of the trust that the British people put in the NHS, but,

1257
in truth, they have been, and often still are, working flat out in a system that is still organised as it was in the 1940s. Today, patients and staff alike expect and demand a wholly different type of service for the new age in which we live.
What is extraordinary is that this is the first time that any Government have looked long and hard at all aspects of the NHS: the absurd demarcations between staff that keep patients waiting; the splits between social services and the NHS that make life misery for many elderly people; the consultants' contracts, largely unchanged since 1948, the issue of private practice and NHS work left unresolved; GPs' contracts being based too much on quantity, not quality; and a standoff between the private sector and the health service that is not in the interests of NHS patients—all difficult issues, all a relic from 1948, all addressed in this plan today.
Each of those issues is faced up to and fundamental reform proposed. The aim is clear: to redesign the health service system around the needs of the individual patient.
First, the role of nurses will be radically enlarged and old barriers to modern working removed. A qualified nurse has had at least three years training. It is wrong that, in many places, nurses are unable to make and to receive referrals, to admit and to discharge patients, to order tests, to run clinics and to prescribe drugs. Those old rules will be swept aside and nurses in every hospital will have that opportunity.
Secondly, let me say something about general practitioners. The vast majority do a superb job, as we all know. They are highly respected, and rightly so. We should never allow the publicity given to the few exceptions to undermine the excellence of GPs' reputation. Butagain—their contract is outdated and inflexible. GPs can do more—they could even do some of the work that is currently undertaken by consultants—and they should have far more freedom in respect of how they use the money that they have.
We aim over time, without compulsion but with clear incentives, to move GPs to a new system of contractual arrangements. The personal medical service contract will reward doctors on the basis of quality of care as well as on the basis of patient numbers, and will give doctors far more flexibility to innovate and change. [Interruption.] This will not be the old two-tier system.
There will also be more salaried doctors. Taken together, the changes I have announced will be the most significant changes in the way in which GPs operate since 1948, and will literally be able to transform primary health care in this country.
Consultants do an extraordinary job for the national health service. Their expertise and immense skill are key to its future. That is why we are increasing consultant numbers by a third, and giving leading clinicians a greater role in the setting of national standards. Again, however, the consultant contract has remained largely unchanged since 1948, and, although most consultants work extremely hard for the health service beyond their contractual commitments, there is no proper management of their time. We will ensure that all consultants have proper job plans setting out their key objectives, tasks and responsibilities; that has never happened before. Moreover, consultants' performance will be regularly reviewed.
1258
Above all, however, we want to reward most those who make the most commitment to the national health service. First, to encourage high standards of performance and use of the new national service frameworks, we are giving consultants, along with others, access to part of the new £500 million performance fund, which will give extra money to those who meet the highest standards of service. Secondly, we will merge the existing distinction awards and discretionary points schemes, and increase their funding. By 2004 we will increase the number of consultants receiving superannuable bonus from less than 50 per cent.—the present number—to about two thirds, and will double the proportion of consultants who receive annual bonuses of £5,000 or more.
Thirdly, we are offering a deal to new consultants. From now on, once a person is newly qualified, that person will be contracted to work exclusively for the NHS for the first few years of his or her service.
Again, those will be the most substantial changes to consultant contracts since 1948.
The next major reform is to remedy the extraordinary situation that means that at any one time thousands of older people are in the wrong place for their needs. They are stuck in hospital, when they could be cared for better in their own homes. For the first time, social services and the NHS will, in every area, use pooled budgets and new arrangements that will ensure that they work together for the good of the patient. When local councils and primary care trusts want to go further and merge into a single organisation, we will enable them to do so by creating new care trusts delivering one-stop care with a unified budget. When partnerships persistently fail to deliver, we will require local health and social services to join in a new care trust.
I thank Sir Stewart Sutherland, who chaired the royal commission on long-term care, and the other members of the commission. A full response is published alongside the health plan.
Today, we are correcting a major injustice in the system. The NHS provides nursing care free of charge for people living in their own home or in hospital. Until now, however, nursing provided in a nursing home has been charged for. That will now change. From October 2001, subject to parliamentary approval, nursing care in nursing homes will be treated as nursing care elsewhere in the NHS—free at the point of use.
Additionally, we are investing in a major expansion of intermediate care prevention and rehabilitation services for the elderly: by 2004, spending on those new facilities will increase to £900 million per year. We shall also, as the commission proposed, expand respite care, benefiting 75,000 carers and those for whom they care.
Taken together, the package amounts to an extra £1.4 billion per year for older people. That is more investment than the royal commission itself called for.
Next, there is a series of reforms aimed at preventing ill health and improving the nation's health, including measures to reduce smoking and improve diet. Central to that are measures to reduce health inequalities. The truth is that the gaps between the health of the poorest and the health of the better off in our society are completely unacceptable in modern Britain. Moreover, it is children who pay the biggest price for those gaps. That is why programmes such as sure start, enhanced maternity grants,

1259
increased child benefit and the new deal for communities are so vital, and why we should fight so hard to protect them against those who would abolish them.
Next, we shall reform treatment of the most serious illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease. Until now, there have been no national standards for treatment of those illnesses, and the availability of treatment has often been patchy—some people get drugs, others do not; some people are seen quickly, others are not. For each of the main conditions, therefore, there will be a national framework of standards specifying minimum standards of access and the care to which patients are entitled.
The framework for cancer, for example, will entail maximum waiting times that cover not only referral to diagnosis, but diagnosis to treatment; a big expansion in cancer screening and cancer specialists; and an end to the postcode lottery in prescribing cancer drugs. Additionally, 400,000 patients will benefit every year from new equipment for diagnosing and treating cancer. The framework for coronary heart disease will entail an extra £230 million per year by 2004; a 50 per cent, increase in cardiologists; and shorter waits for heart operations.
The national service frameworks will reflect a fundamental change in the relationship between central Government and the local NHS. The centre will do what it must do: set standards, monitor performance, support modernisation, put in place a proper system of inspection, and, when necessary, correct failure. The new Commission for Health Improvement will inspect and report on hospitals, primary care groups and primary care trusts. That information—like information on schools from the Office for Standards in Education—will be available to the public.
If necessary, the worst performing trusts will have new management put in. In future, the 3,000 non-executive board members of trusts and health authorities will be appointed not by the Secretary of State, but by an independent appointments commission. There will also be a new independent panel to advise the Secretary of State on proposed reorganisations of local hospitals and health services.
There will be maximum devolution of power to local health professionals. Over time, primary care groups will move to being primary care trusts, offering minor surgery, physiotherapy, diagnostic tests, and even minor operations in the local primary care centre. For all PCTs, health authorities and hospital trusts, there will be a new system of what is called "earned autonomy" that will radically reduce the amount of central intervention where performance is high. Patients put their trust in front-line doctors, and so do we.
The best performers will be given greater freedom and flexibility, and all will have access to additional funds tied to clear outcomes in performance. That will include a new framework—a concordat—with the private sector. There should be, and will be, no barrier to partnership with the private sector where appropriate—as the private finance initiative hospital building programme has shown. Where the facilities of the private sector can improve care or help to fill gaps in capacity, we should use it, but let me make one thing clear: we will never permit people to be forced out of the health service for non-urgent care. That would destroy the national health service. Where the private sector is used, it will be fully within the national health service, free at the point of use to the patient.
1260
We also examined in detail alternative methods of funding the health service. We concluded that the proposals of some to expand health care through tax incentives for private health insurance were massively inefficient and would take vital resources out of front-line national health service care; and that moving entirely to a continental European type of social insurance system, while less inequitable than many other suggested alternatives, would cost an extra £1,000 to £1,500 per employee per annum. We also estimated that, through the health service, administrative costs are hugely reduced compared with other systems. We were therefore confirmed in our view that what the national health service required was not dismantling but modernisation.
At the heart of the reforms is the idea of redesigning the system round the patient. Too often, whatever the quality of actual care, the patient is catered for in dirty wards on rundown premises, with standards of food and basic amenities far below what would be tolerable in other services. Part of the reforms is designed to remedy that. Clean wards and better hospital food will become central to trusts' work, with new resources to back it up.
That will get under way now. By 2002, 95 per cent, of mixed sex wards will have gone. NHS Direct will be available in all parts of the country. In time, we aim to have the ability to link all parts of the system through technology, so that one call will put the patient immediately through to the right place.
By 2005, booked appointments will have taken the place of the old waiting lists. As a first step, by April 2001, all hospitals will be using booking for two of their major conditions. By 2003–04, two thirds of all appointments must be pre-booked.
By 2004, there will have been an end to long waits in accident and emergency; people will get an appointment with a GP within a maximum of 48 hours; and, if an operation is cancelled on the day it is due to take place, other than for medical reasons, patients will get another one within 28 days or have their treatment funded somewhere else. Patients will also have more say and more choice, with a patient advocate and forum in every hospital to give them immediate help with sorting out their complaints, and a voice in how the hospital is run.
Over time, these changes, plus the money and the staff, will allow waiting times to come down substantially. By 2005, the maximum waiting time for an out-patient appointment will be three months, and for an in-patient appointment six months rather than the present 18, with urgent cases being seen the most rapidly.
Average waiting times will, as a result, also come down: from seven to five weeks for out-patients and from three months to seven weeks for operations. There will be reduced waiting times for all conditions—not just some—and our eventual objective, provided that we recruit the staff and make these reforms, is to get the maximum waiting time for any stage of treatment down to three months by the end of 2008.
There are many other proposals for change set out in the plan. It will mean, over time, radical change in the health service, but I emphasise to the country that it will take time. Some changes will be fast, but others are crucially dependent on new investment in staff and facilities coming through. Staff are crucial to this process. Uniquely, the principles that underpin this plan command

1261
the wide support of professions and staff across the NHS, as will be seen from the signatures to the principles at the start of the plan.
There is another cause for optimism: at every level of the health service, there are examples already of where change and reform have made a difference. We know that the plan is achievable because somewhere in the health service it is already being achieved. The challenge has been to remove the outdated practices and perverse incentives that have prevented the best from becoming the norm. I make it clear to all NHS staff: we will carry on with the same system of co-operative working and partnership that has characterised the past four months. This is the beginning, not the end, of that process.
The challenge is to make the NHS once again the health care system that the world most envies. Now, with the money going in, the reforms can follow so that we can proclaim loud and clear that the idea of decent health care based not on wealth or position, but on need and suffering, is not an old-fashioned principle that has had its day; it is, rather, a timeless principle that this generation has found the courage to reinvigorate for the modern world. That is what we set out in the plan, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but warn Labour Members that in announcements from this Government, there is always a huge difference between the announcement and the facts—[Interruption.] I shall say what some of them are in a minute. There is also a vast gulf between the announcement and what really happens.
We agree with the Prime Minister that the staff of the NHS are indeed its greatest asset. We welcome what he said about changes to the role of nurses and his apparent acceptance of the need to use the private sector when it is of benefit to patients—which comes after years of hypocritical attacks on us for advocating the same idea. However, the importance of looking at the fine print is shown on even a cursory reading of the Prime Minister's statement. Will he confirm that when he refers to 7,000 extra beds, he is including beds in the private nursing sector? He talks about funding nursing care. Will he confirm that the Press Association has been briefed that it will not include dressings and catheters, which will be counted as personal care and not as nursing care? When he says that he will not have a two-tier system of GPs, will he confirm that what he has just advocated involves some of them being salaried and some not, and some providing personal medical services and some not; so how can he lecture others about a two-tier provision? Will he confirm that an extraordinary number of the targets in his four-year plan will not be met for eight or 10 years, if at all?
Will he confirm that, in the fourth summer of his premiership, he has now made a long statement on health to the House without a single mention of the waiting list initiative that has been the centrepiece of his policy for the past three years? Is that not a stark admission of his total failure on health for the past three years?
We all remember that before the general election the Prime Minister said that we had 24 hours to save the NHS—now it is 10 years and a four-year plan. Three years on, the waiting lists to see a consultant are up by 154,000; 80 per cent, of health authorities have more
1262
patients waiting more than a year for operations; the number of cardiac bypass operations has fallen for the first time in a quarter of a century; one fifth of people diagnosed with curable lung cancer are inoperable by the time the treatment begins; the nursing profession is facing its most severe shortages for a generation, and 140,000 NHS patients were forced to pay for private care in the last calendar year.
As the Prime Minister's own adviser summed it up so well:
TB has not delivered. He said that he would improve the NHS but instead things have got worse.
People will judge today's plan against that background of mismanagement and failure.
Of course, selective extracts of the plan were leaked to the newspapers in advance. How extraordinary it is that the Government complain about leaks, when most of the leaking is authorised by the Prime Minister himself. It was therefore already known that the plan would contain more targets even though the current targets have not been met, and more pledges even though the current pledges have not been met. The only difference between the contents of this statement and the pledges in the Labour manifesto of four years ago is that the Prime Minister has set the targets so far in the future that he will not be held to account for whether or not they are met.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister conceded that the next Conservative Government would spend the same as this Government on health. The real debate is about how that money is spent. That is the debate about this plan. We will judge the national plan on whether it really extends patient choice, on whether it really puts clinical priorities ahead of political priorities, on whether it really breaks down barriers with the private sector and on whether—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much shouting in the Chamber. Hon. Members should calm down.
Mr. Hague: We will judge the national plan on whether it really devolves power away from Whitehall to doctors, nurses and other health professionals. The Prime Minister has a tendency to use words such as "choice" and phrases such as "putting the patient at the centre", but not to deliver in reality. People will naturally be sceptical.
Will the Prime Minister say whether the Government have at last abandoned their disastrous waiting list initiative, of which he made no mention in his statement? Will he assure the House that the plan means that the sickest patients, such as those with cancer or cardiac problems, will be treated first, as we have long proposed?
Secondly, for all his talk—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not good for the Deputy Speaker to interfere, but I appeal to the House. We must be quiet. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a hearing. Hon. Members do not have to agree with what he says, but he is entitled to a hearing.
Mr. Hague: Secondly, for all the Prime Minister's brave talk, the plan appears to create a medical apartheid between the private and public health sectors, by prohibiting NHS consultants from working in the private sector. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not

1263
general practice for people to do that in the first five years that they work as consultants? Will he say whether the period of a "few years" to which he referred amounts to fewer than five years? If the period is less than five years, the provision will make no difference. If it is more than five years, it will surely risk reducing the number of consultants working in the national health service. Will not that risk adding to the waiting list?
How does that square with the Prime Minister's stated aim of working with the private sector on problems such as cancelled operations? Should not maximum waiting times include a commitment to use the private sector if the NHS cannot deliver?
The Prime Minister talks about patient power, and says that he will set up a lot of new patient advocacy quangos. However, what is he actually going to do to give patients a real choice about which hospital they are treated in? The director of the College of Health has said:
Patients have less choice now than ever in the National Health Service's history.
Would not the best way to drive up standards be to restore the right of GPs to refer patients to the hospital of their choice—a right abolished by this Government last year?
The Prime Minister said that the Government would pay for nursing care but not for personal care. Will the right hon. Gentleman define those terms, and say how they differ from one another? How much of the care needed by an Alzheimer's patient is the former, and how much the latter?
As well as the rhetoric, the reality of reforming the NHS has to be about patient choice, trusting the NHS professionals, partnership with the private sector, and getting rid of political interference. Instead, is not today's statement the final admission by the Prime Minister that he has broken every promise that he made on health in the past three years? Three years into his Government he has had to start from scratch. Given that absolute failure in the past three years, should he not be assured that the British people will judge him not on what he promises that his plan will achieve, but on what it is likely to deliver?
The Prime Minister: I think we saw that the moment he got on to policy, the right hon. Gentleman did not have a great deal to say. When he is making his jokes and his witty remarks, he can just about do it, but when it comes to serious policy, he really does not have a clue.
First, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that his party was in power for 18 years when many of these things were being done. Let me also deal with a few of the facts. He was rather coy about mentioning some of them at the Dispatch Box, such as his extraordinary remark the other day that there are 14,000 fewer nurses in the health service under this Government. He did not mention that today, perhaps because he knows that there are 10,000 more today.
Another thing that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention—as I have the answer, I will give it to him anyway—was the nonsense about spending £200 million on the euro. Madam—Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] We are back to that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the costs on the euro are negligible in the national health service. No money is being spent on the euro in the national health service—the money is being spent on the patients in the national health service.
1264
The right hon. Gentleman says that waiting lists have gone up under this Government. Let me again give him the figures. It is true that waiting lists—in-patient and out-patient—had been rising for years when we came to office. We have brought down the in-patient list by more than we promised at the election. It is correct that out-patient lists have gone up; it is correct that they are coming down now. But they were rising year after year after year when the previous Government were in office.
We do not have to argue about the theory—let us argue about the facts. The right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the health service in Wales under the previous Government. What did he do then? The number of general practitioners was cut, he cut 1,200 hospital beds, the in-patient waiting lists went up by 6,000, and he cut by 300 the number of nurses, midwives and health visitors.
Since we came to office, let me tell the House what we have done in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. There is the £3.3 million scheme for the conversion of the Friary in Richmond to a community hospital and primary care centre, operational since 23 March 1999. Northallerton health services accident and emergency department has received £600,000. Some £500,000 has been spent on intensive care beds and £180,000 on out-patient modernisation. Shall I tell the right hon. Gentleman what those improvements have in common? They were delivered by us and they would never have been delivered by him. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have some calm in the Chamber. [Interruption.] Order. We are talking about the health service, so we should all watch our blood pressure.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that I conceded yesterday that the Conservatives would match us on health spending. They will not match us on health spending. The right hon. Gentleman has £16 billion worth of cuts to find. He has £1 billion more to find for private medical insurance. He has to find the extra money on tobacco duty, which he refused to support, which makes a £300 million hole in his funds straight away.
What is clear from everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said today, and from what his health spokesman has said, is that on the NHS, the Conservatives are more extreme than ever. They do not believe in the health service—they never did. They would not invest in the health service—they never did. They do not understand the health service—they never did. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen should not be shouting. [Interruption.] Order. I am not responsible for the answers of the Prime Minister. Hon. Gentlemen must be quiet.
The Prime Minister: I will repeat what I said. Conservatives do not believe in the health service—they never did. They would not invest in the health service—they never did. They do not understand the health service—they never did. [Interruption.] The problem with the service is that, for 35 of its 52 years, it was run by a

1265
party that did not care enough about the national health service. Well, this party does, and it will be our pleasure to rebuild it. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that it is the end of term, but the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) must behave. If he cannot calm himself, he will have to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: There is great symbolism in the fact of this prime ministerial statement today, and the House of Commons, as a whole, should welcome that fact. Is it fair, therefore, to acknowledge that, in the carefully crafted words of the Prime Minister today early in his statement—when he said that the plan shows how the money will make up for years of underinvestment—those years of underinvestment included the first three years of his Administration?
Secondly, when the Prime Minister says—[Interruption.] I hope that Labour Back Benchers will give me the courtesy of attention, because I am attempting to question the Prime Minister on what he said, as opposed to coming up with a pile of pre-prepared, jingoist and simplistic soundbites, paying no attention to the detail involved.
When the Prime Minister says that, for decades, the NHS has failed to invest sufficiently in modern building and equipment, he should say not that the NHS has failed to invest, but that we have failed to invest. It is the responsibility of the public in terms of the decisions taken at the ballot box, as well as of the Government of the day. Having listened to the Leader of the Conservative party, I am sure that we will have our legitimate differences across the Floor of the House when it comes to public services generally and the health service in particular, but none of us wants to return to the 18 years that preceded the development that we are acknowledging today.
Can the Prime Minister properly clarify whether the national plan includes the provision of personal care for those in long-term care, as was recommended by the royal commission? If it does not, let us be clear what that means in human terms. It means, for example, that a person suffering from dementia would be expected to pay for being bathed, fed and clothed. That is an issue of basic dignity that should be of concern to us all. It is vital that the Prime Minister should be able to confirm that.
In passing, could the Prime Minister confirm how many of those groups—including, for example, those concerned with Alzheimer's—who put their names to the NHS plan have not put their names to the Government's response to the royal commission on long-term care? That is a significant consideration, and one that the House needs to hear about. Will every mental health patient be given an absolute right to an assessment of their needs and treatment?
The Prime Minister was silent today on the issue of dentistry. What, if anything, are the Government proposing later this year with regard to that? All of us know, at a constituency level, the real difficulties people are having in even getting registered with a dentist, never mind getting or affording the treatment that follows.
1266
Finally, Madam Speaker—I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker: you are not in danger of calling me "love", I hope—
Dr. Evan Harris: Nothing wrong with that, Charles.
Mr. Kennedy: Following what he said during Business questions, my hon. Friend says that there would be nothing wrong with that.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the report and confirm the commitment of my party—and our whole political and philosophical tradition—to the thinking that led to the formation of the national health service. We want the national plan to succeed: that is in all our interests. If the promises it contains are delivered, there will be better to come for the health service. I share the Prime Minister's hope that better is to come. The whole nation wants that.
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's point about underinvestment, I accept that we did not get as much money into the health service as we should have liked during our first two years. However, that happened for the simple, clear reason that we had to make sure that we reduced the enormous deficit in the public finances. If we had not done that, we would not have stabilised the economy, achieved growth and avoided the recession that many predicted. We would not, in fact, have been in a position now to achieve sustainable increases. The right hon. Gentleman is also, of course, right to refer to a failure by Government to invest.
On personal care, the right hon. Gentleman is right. We have committed ourselves to nursing care; but have decided that it is better to spend £900 million on intermediate care rather than making all personal care free. It will be up to the nurse on the ground to decide the difference between nursing and personal care. I am informed—but will get the precise details for the right hon. Gentleman—that seven out of 10 of those who receive personal care will also receive some support.
I will also check the details on mental health, but think it correct to say that people will have the right to have their needs assessed. On dentistry, the position is as I set it out last year. By the end of September 2001, everyone will have access to an NHS dentist.
There are many elements in the plan, and to list them all would detain the House even longer than I have done. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general support, and for the constructive way in which he has approached the issue. To Conservative Members, particularly those who object to what I have said, I say that it would have been easier if we had had something of the same constructive approach from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obvious that I cannot call every hon. Member who wants to speak. The briefer the questions are, however, the more I will be able to call.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement. The strategy that he has outlined is in marked contrast with the ragbag of a fragmented internal market that we were left by the

1267
previous Government. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for his efforts. He deserves much credit for the imagination that went into the plan. I welcome the proposals about consultants' contracts and private practice.
I have one or two detailed questions about the statement. My right hon. Friend will understand that there is some unease on the Labour Benches about the proposed relationship with a private health care sector that has consistently undermined the NHS's basic principles since 1948. Will he say a little more about the proposed concordat? Is it a temporary arrangement, and will it last as long as some of the mental health arrangements with the private sector? If the NHS is short of capacity, why do we not buy capacity on a long-term basis from the private market?
Finally, on long-term care, I warmly welcome the proposals about the relationship between health and social services, which has concerned me for many years.
Picking up on the point made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend answered the question about the definitions of social care and nursing care by saying that the decision would be left to the individual nurse. Does the plan offer a clear definition of those two areas, one of which is means-tested and one of which is free? Otherwise, will there not be some inconsistency in the interpretation of that division?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, I will write to my hon. Friend as I do not want to mislead him in any answer I might give about some of the distinctions, which are complicated. Essentially, we had to choose whether we would fund all personal care in the way that the Sutherland commission anticipated, or whether it was better to use the same amount of money for a range of intermediate care projects. We decided that it was better to do it in the latter way.
I have no doubt that the debate and discussion will continue on the matter, but the commitment of £1.4 billion overall is significant. Of course, the commitment to free nursing care is intended to remove what otherwise has been a basic anomaly in the way in which we have dealt with the long-term care system.
As for the private health care sector, for me the key distinction is between that sector developing or delivering a service within the national health service and people being forced out of the NHS altogether. It would probably be prohibitively expensive to buy out all the private care as my hon. Friend suggests. However, it is also clear that if hospitals can buy in some capacity for the treatment of particular patients—obviously, this happens now to an extent—it is important to have that flexibility for the patient.
On consultants' contracts, the important thing is that, obviously, consultants will carry on with their private practice, but it is right that we contract new consultants to the national health service for the early stages of their careers, provided that we ensure that they are properly and adequately rewarded—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW long?"] As to the number of years, that is precisely what we can now sit down and discuss with them. [Interruption.]
1268
People would complain if we imposed that on them, therefore it is sensible to discuss it with them. In the plan, we say that about seven years is a sensible time.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement about the NHS for the future and the plan that he has put to the House. I am sure that he would accept from me—my credentials in support of the health service are, I think, well known—that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Clearly, people will want to see how the reforms and the plan unwind. Will he assure me and the House that doctors and consultants will have total clinical freedom and that the pressures of bureaucracy put on them by central Government in respect of waiting lists will be removed?
I warmly welcome the additional responsibilities that the right hon. Gentleman is giving to the nursing profession, which could save the health service a great deal of money. Please will he be a little more forthcoming, however, about what is nursing and what is social care when dealing with long-term care for the elderly? To my mind, that matter is critical. Does he not feel that he is putting a great deal of pressure on the nurses who have to make that decision?
The Prime Minister: Probably, it is best that nurses make that decision, as they will be able to assess what care they, as nurses, need to provide. It is probably better to leave that decision to them, obviously with some flexibility, rather than to draw up such tight rules that they would cause more trouble rather than help.
As for consultants, of course they will have the power to determine priority cases. I make no apology for saying, however, that we are trying to get as many consultants as possible to consider new and different ways of working. Every stage of the health service that I have seen in my visits of the past few months convinces me that, by fairly simple changes that are not rocket science, the way in which patients are treated—from the time they first see their GP to the time that they have their operation—could be hugely simplified. Basic protocols and frameworks can be drawn up to allow that to happen.
Obviously, it must be for individual consultants to decide these matters, but it is frustrating when one sees that some practices in the health service have literally abolished waiting lists and times, but that those practices are not universal within the service. That is what we will try to do through the new performance fund. Certainly, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's own commitment to the health service.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that while he, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and others have been touring hospitals to devise this plan, many people have been attending hospital because they had to? During the past 15 months, I have been on a steep learning curve in the NHS. Most of those with whom I sat in queues during those months would give my right hon. Friend seven or even eight out of 10 for today's announcement. By any stretch of the imagination, this is a big day not only for the NHS but, more important, for all those people who have had to use it over the years. People left hospital searching for the blue in the sky—sometimes they never saw it. Today's announcement means that a lot more

1269
people will leave with a smile on their faces, in the knowledge that the health service has been improved—not perfection, but made one hell of a sight better.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he is right. It will take time, but I am sure that we can do it.
Mr. Tim Boswell: As one TB to another, perhaps we can agree to overlook the adviser's memo that suggested that the Prime Minister had failed on the health service.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to my constituents how his announcement today will bring them a better health service when, during the past three years, successive announcements made by various Ministers have achieved a local situation in which waiting lists are at best static, the waiting list to get on the waiting list has doubled and the district general hospital is full at the height of the summer?
The Prime Minister: I can explain how it can become better. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman needs in his constituency more hospital staff and better facilities. That is precisely what this investment gives us. If we achieve better working between social services, primary care services and the hospital service, that too will improve the situation. I have not come to the House today to say that everything in the health service is perfect; of course it is not—otherwise we would not need this plan. I hope that we can work to achieve the changes.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman—although I am not sure whether he is too much in agreement with much that is said by Opposition Front-Bench Members—that if he considers—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I may have dealt the hon. Gentleman a career blow. I did not mean to do that; I am sure that he is wholly in agreement with Opposition Front-Bench Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a Front-Bench Member."] That is even better—I am afraid I missed that.
If the hon. Gentleman analyses what the Conservatives have promised financially, there is a big division—that is a real issue for Opposition Members. With the strength of the economy, we can either put more money into our essential public services or not. His party have chosen not to do so. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced additional spending of 3.3 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor said that it should be less than 2.25 per cent. That is a fact. On my arithmetic, that means that one third comes off the spending figure. If the Conservatives are going to take a third off health spending, heaven help the law and order, transport and education services.
Ms Joan Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the health team for all their hard work and leadership in dealing with the legacy of underfunding from the Tory years. In Staffordshire, we have already shown that, with modernisation, we can improve ambulance services. With the extra 6 per cent., we can deal with the existing underfunding.
My constituents are right behind my right hon. Friend in wanting something to be done about long-term care beds and community care for the elderly. Will he
1270
personally take an interest in the Edwards report and ensure that there is a pilot project in north Staffordshire to address funding in long-stay beds and social services with the new pooled budgets?
The Prime Minister: On the point about long-stay beds and community care, the additional money that we have announced today should help in part.
As for what has happened already in the health service, it is important to recognise that the position in the health service varies in different parts of the country; however, by the end of this year, for example, all the accident and emergency departments that need modernising will have been modernised, and that will make a significant difference. Therefore, I think that the money is already slowly beginning to have an effect, but obviously the additional funds cannot come in over a period of years.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: First, everyone would agree that improvements in the use of social services are desirable, but is the Prime Minister comfortable with the proposition that, inevitably, under his plans social services will revert to the kind of medical model that was deserted nearly 50 years ago? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman comfortable with the emasculation of the local authorities, which is happening so fast under his Government?
The Prime Minister: That is a new tune from the Conservative party. I do not accept the proposition on the social services and medical model, but certainly, judging by the work that I saw and the people to whom I spoke in the health service, one of the main problems is the lack of proper co-ordination between social services and local hospitals and primary care groups. As a result, very often large numbers of people—particularly elderly people—end up in the wrong place in the system. Having a pooled budget enables those bodies to look at these things together, and obviously it is then up to them to decide whether they want to go for a local care trust, which would mean a unified budget.
In some parts of the country people already have a pooled budget, and that has had a significantly better impact. Indeed, I think that in different parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, that has been a tradition over many years. The absence of proper co-ordination between the two parts of the service has caused distress to a great many patients over the past few years.
Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the pilots for testing the system of pre-booked appointments was actually at Basildon hospital in my constituency? Is he further aware that through the efforts of the staff at the hospital, who were pleased to change the way in which they worked, and who, through their effort and commitment, have really made the system succeed, patients all over the country have reaped the rewards of that? The response that I am getting is excellent. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those members of staff?
The Prime Minister: A former chief executive of the hospital is playing a leading role in that project. The importance of the booked appointments system and the fact that it is already in use in certain parts of the country

1271
show again how things can be done. The importance of that system is that it literally ends the whole concept of waiting. In order to get there, of course, there must be a sufficiently low maximum waiting time—the system of booked appointments cannot work if waiting times are very extended. However, the system is working in certain parts of the country and the plan sets out a detailed list of ways in which it can be improved.
Mr. John Maples: One of the things that I believe bothers all our constituents is the length of time that they sometimes have to wait to get an out-patient appointment with a consultant. The Prime Minister announced that he wanted that maximum wait to be reduced to three months. That would be a welcome, although not desperately ambitious, target. Can he explain why it will take him until 2008 to achieve it?
The Prime Minister: Waiting times will start to come down a long time before that, and three months will be the maximum wait; the average will be far less. The explanation for which the hon. Gentleman asked is a perfectly simple one. For years, there have been insufficient staff and consultants in the health service. We have to expand the numbers, but that will take time. However, the other thing that we can do in the meantime is to change the system.
Consultants to whom I spoke over the past few months said that up to 40 per cent, of their time was spent unnecessarily seeing patients, because some of that work could be done by either GPs or nurses, or, in the case of back injuries and so on, patients could be seen by other qualified professionals. So, lots of changes in the system are necessary, but it will take time to get there. The changes will be seen almost immediately, but it will take some years to get the system fully sorted out.
Mr. Win Griffiths: This is a very welcome statement and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was absolutely right in everything that he said. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he gave on consultants and other NHS staff were related specifically to England? If that is the case, can he confirm that it means that in Wales there will be between 375 and 400 extra consultants, to bring the health service up to a standard of which the Welsh people can be very proud?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps I should have pointed out that the Joint Ministerial Committee has met with people from the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom, and it is of course for them to decide how they make progress, but I understand that they will all be publishing, in the not-too-distant future, their own version of how this money can be used and what they can get for it.
Dr. Evan Harris: Is the Prime Minister aware that early this week, the chief executive of the Oxford Radcliffe said that he was ashamed of the severe bed crisis at the Radcliffe? Of course, the chief executive has not had the opportunity to put in early extra resources. Will the right hon. Gentleman
1272
apologise for his Government's decision to opt for tax cuts in the first two years rather than investment in the health service?
Until that money, which is much welcomed, comes through, there will be a need to recruit nurses and doctors. Will the right hon. Gentleman promise not to pillage developing countries for their trained doctors and nurses?
The Prime Minister: First, we are putting in more beds. Secondly, the criticism of us in our first two years, especially from the Conservative party, has often been that we were too hard with people in clearing the financial deficit and so on, but we had to achieve a balance and I think that we got it right.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last point—an important point—we do not intend to try to take doctors from developing countries where they are urgently needed, but we will, where necessary for short-term reasons, recruit doctors from developed countries.
Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I welcome the statement. In all plans, the devil is always in the detail. However, I think that, for the very first time, we have a Government who are committed to a holistic approach to health. Allied to other policies, that will make a fantastic difference to those people who are unable to afford health care of any other kind.
Can my right hon. Friend say how this will be dealt with in the devolved Administrations, and Scotland in particular, and will it be discussed in the Joint Ministerial Committee?
The Prime Minister: It will be discussed in the Joint Ministerial Committee. Obviously, it is for the devolved Administrations to decide how best to make progress. There will be changes; they will want to do it in their own way, but I think that they broadly accept the basic outlines of what we are doing.
Mr. David Curry: The Prime Minister's statement raises the prospect of really large consortiums spanning health and social services. Where does he expect the management to come from for those? How will he maintain accountability for those services if social services then effectively become managed from the health side of that equation? Is he aware that when elderly people put themselves in residential care but run out of money to pay for it, they become the responsibility of the local authority, which is not funded for those people? That is a cause of bed blocking, and if the Prime Minister does not address it he will not tackle one of the big dislocations between health and social services.
The Prime Minister: It is for that reason that we are putting more money into social services as well. I agree that we need to deal with that problem.
In relation to the consortiums that will run health services locally, we have to develop a cadre of managers to do that, but the primary health care trusts that I have seen in action so far give us significant cause for optimism. They have far greater flexibility; they are able to span across primary care groups; they are able, for example, to have their own physiotherapists; they are able to make far better use of practice nurses; and they get economies of scale. That will mean that we have to

1273
develop, over time—a specific centre is being established as part of the plan—a cadre of leaders, managers and executives who can do that. That gives us the best of maximum devolution without the difficulty of the old internal market system, namely, that there was too much competition between local bodies.
Mr. Kevin Barron: The announcement today that the national health service will be more patient focused should be warmly welcomed by everyone in the House and outside. My right hon. Friend has just made an announcement about the next five years' investment in the national health service. Will he confirm that that will be invested in the national health service and not elsewhere within health care in this country?
The Prime Minister: Yes, that is indeed an investment in the national health service.
Mr. Peter Brooke: In the light of today's announcement, when that notable health care authority Brian Abel-Smith advised the Labour party that individual GP fundholding was a good initiative that should be made universal, why did the Government interpret and implement that advice by making fundholding collective rather than individual?
The Prime Minister: We received advice from many other people that it was not such a good idea. That brings me back to what was said earlier about patient choice. For doctors who were not fundholders, there was a huge restriction of choice. The benefit of an internal market was the devolution of power downwards, but the problem was the competition and the two-tier system that arose. Through primary care groups and trusts, we have tried to extend the notion of local devolution, but on a co-operative rather than a competitive basis.
Dr. Howard Stoate: Does my right hon. Friend believe that public funds should be used only for the benefit of NHS patients? If so, is that view shared by the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges of Nursing, of Physicians, of Surgeons and of General Practitioners, the NHS Confederation and others?
The Prime Minister: It is, indeed, one of the principles that all the bodies to which my hon. Friend refers have signed up. It is an important principle. People are perfectly free to take out private medical insurance, but it should not be subsidised by the taxpayer.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The Prime Minister talked about alternative funding, but said nothing about alternative and complementary medicine. Given that a quarter of the population have used some form of complementary medicine such as homeopathy, herbal medicine or channelled energy, what is he doing to make sure that such treatments are available in the NHS? Can he confirm that he and his immediate family have at some stage used some forms of complementary and alternative medicine?
The Prime Minister: I am not going to go into the latter point. On the former point, certain forms of complementary medicine are already available on the NHS. The plan does not specifically deal with the issue.
Ann Clwyd: I am the only Member who was a member of the royal commission on the NHS,
1274
which was set up by a Labour Government, but unfortunately reported to a Tory Government. Its recommendations were ignored until this day. For those members who worked hard during those three years, it will certainly be a vindication of our efforts to find so many of our recommendations implemented in the plan.
My right hon. Friend was right to criticise the Leader of the Opposition, who left the health service in Wales in a total mess. In constituencies such as mine, we have a third-world health service as a result. I am certain that if Nye Bevan were alive, he would be standing up and cheering on this day.
The Prime Minister: There could be no better compliment than that.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I warmly welcome the principles behind this plan for England and I hope that we shall see similar principles reflected in a short time in Wales. May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister and his hon. Friends to early-day motion 885, which deplores the lack of treatment for eating disorders in some areas of England and all of Wales? About 60,000 people a year, especially young women, suffer from eating disorders at any one time. There is a lack of specialist treatment throughout England. It is a postcode lottery. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the plan will end discrimination in England so that we can look forward to a similar thing happening in Wales?
The Prime Minister: Child and adolescent mental health is dealt with in the plan, and that will obviously have an impact on the issue of eating disorders.
Ms Julia Drown: I welcome the new NHS plan. It is a brave and radical plan. The reason why the Opposition respond with talk of leaks is that they were practised in that in government whereas they were not practised in understanding the NHS.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that primary care groups would move into primary care trusts. If a primary care group feels that it is best for patients that the PCG remains a group, will it be allowed to do so? He also talked about the importance of breaking down demarcations in the health service. Does the plan address the need to break down demarcations between health and social services so that all the people in the teams can meet people's needs as quickly and efficiently as possible, and so that we avoid the farce that many of our constituents face of being assessed once, twice or three times to obtain the basic care that they know they need?
The Prime Minister: On the first point, we want primary care groups over time to become trusts, as I think that many of them will want to do. I have detected in the groups to which I have spoken in the past few months an increasing enthusiasm for the idea of PCTs. They have seen in neighbouring areas that trusts have worked well, but obviously we have to work in consultation with the doctors.
As for budgets for social services, the important thing is that many of the matters to which my hon. Friend rightly refers and which greatly inconvenience people will disappear as a result of the new measures that we have

1275
announced, the pooled budgets that are available and, in time, if that is what people want, the creation of local care trusts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that hon. Members will be disappointed not to be called, but this is a matter to which we shall return, and we must move on to the main business.

Points of Order
2.26 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All hon. Members have received a letter this morning which sought to be helpful with regard to the election of a new Speaker on 23 October. The letter was helpful as far as it went. May I make a final plea that you, your colleagues and Madam Speaker to think again about whether the House may not, even at this late hour, be given guidance on the sequence of events and the basis on which that sequence will be decided?
I ask that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you will appreciate, as will all right hon. and hon. Members, that a knowledge by the electorate—namely, the Members of this House—of the sequence in which votes are likely to be held could have a crucial bearing not only on the candidatures but on Members' dispositions during the voting. If we do not have that knowledge, there is a great risk that the House will do itself a disservice by voting blindly without knowing the basis on which the sequence of events will be determined. May I make a plea that now, or certainly before 23 October, Members are given a great deal more information than they have been given today?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I can add nothing to what has already been said in the statement, but I am sure that the authorities of the House have heard what he had to say.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The scenes that we saw when the Prime Minister was not answering questions on his statement were a disgrace to the House. Is it in order for a Minister to come to the House, have the privilege of making a statement and fail to answer the questions put to him?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he is entitled to his opinion.
Mr. Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me? Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to rely on items retrieved from rubbish bins in order to have anything to say from the Dispatch Box? Does it not degrade the House that Opposition Members have to rely on such tactics in order to have anything to say? Does it not confirm something that Labour Members have known for some time—that Conservative Members talk rubbish and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to stop the hon. Gentleman. He is not raising a point of order.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were all heartened by Madam Speaker's statement about the historic rights of the House to cross-examine the Executive. Yet we had the spectacle today of the Prime Minister coming to the House to make an important statement and being cross-examined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) with specific questions,

1277
which the Prime Minister did not have the courtesy to answer. How are we to enforce our rights if the Prime Minister will not answer our questions?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is expressing an opinion. Those matters are nothing to do with the Chair.

Football Disorder Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
2.29 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 17th July be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.
2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in
their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.
(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
5.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which 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 provision of this Order.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments and on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
8.—(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.
I will move this guillotine motion briefly, as I am sure that the House will want to debate the substance of the Lords amendments more than the guillotine motion. It will ensure that we get the legislation that the Government need and that the community wants. It will contribute to the orderly conduct of business and it was set out in the original guillotine motion that the House passed. Incidentally, the Opposition amendment to that motion, which was tabled last week, did not seek to amend this aspect of the guillotine in any respect.
From the outset, we have made it clear that we shall address from the beginning of the new season—
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of concern that, apart from the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary
1280
and the Whip, there is only one Labour Member in the Chamber. That is an extraordinary state of affairs when a guillotine motion is being introduced.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Gentleman is here, the Minister is here and I am here. That is all we need to get on with the business.
Mr. Clarke: I could not express it as well as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The guillotine motion that we are debating was envisaged, set out and agreed in the motion introduced last week. The amendment tabled by the Opposition did not seek to remove this aspect of the procedure.
The Government are convinced that the approach that we have set out in the Bill has to be clear and must be understood widely from the beginning of the next football season. We are determined to have the Bill agreed by the end of this month, so that it will have full effect from that date.
The Bill has been debated substantially and it has been improved through discussion. It may help hon. Members to learn that the Government intend to recommend that the House accepts all the amendments passed in the other place. We have sought to move by consensus and to seek agreement. We acknowledge that important suggestions and amendments have been made by both sides of the House. For those reasons, I hope that the guillotine motion will be agreed and that we can move as rapidly as possible on to substantive debate on the issues covered by the Lords amendments.
2.32 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: This guillotine motion is silly and it is unnecessary. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have co-operated with the Government in making sure that the Bill makes due progress. Indeed, in the debate on the procedural motion in another place, Lord Williams of Mostyn said that the Opposition in the House of Commons
gave us an assurance, and delivered on the promise, that we would have their support.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 294.]
During the debate in Committee, Lord Bassam said:
There has been support across the parties, more particularly from the official Opposition, to bring the legislation forward.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 270.]
On Third Reading, he said:
I particularly want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his constructive approach.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 480.]
Even Lord Bassam feels that the procedure used is outrageous. He said:
I, too, am less than happy with the circumstances in which we have to deliberate on the legislation. I do not think that anybody can be happy. No one wants to be here at ten past five in the morning talking about complex matters like these.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 270.]
Nobody is happy with the procedure—except, possibly, Ministers. They have received the fullest possible cross-party support, but that support did not envisage them rushing the Bill through without due debate. We have had due debate on some, but not all, the matters of considerable concern to which the Bill gives rise. The Minister now says that he accepts all the amendments

1281
made in another place, so why on earth is it necessary to have a guillotine if it is not yet another example of the Government's absolute compulsion to be control freaks at every stage of the way?
The motion is not necessary. Frankly, it is an insult given all the co-operation that the Minister has had. The Government have shown that they are not taking the Bill as seriously they would have done if they had allowed adequate time for debate and had given it a sensible passage through the House. Instead, the process has been characterised by one guillotine motion after another, all of which have been unnecessary.
2.34 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I share completely the view that we should not have this guillotine motion. The Bill was introduced late in the Session entirely at the Government's instigation—it could have been introduced at any time after the Queen's Speech or been scheduled in the Queen's Speech—and this motion is the latest in their attempt to bounce the Bill through all its stages. It is the last unhappy event in a series of unhappy events about a fundamentally worrying Bill.
I wish to consider the procedure that has been used. The Bill received its Second Reading the week before last and it came back before the House on the next but one working day. We went through all the remaining stages under a guillotine without any separation between the Committee and Report stages or between Report and Third Reading. As colleagues pointed out to the House, we were required to anticipate what we might want to debate after the Committee stage before the end of the Committee stage. There was just a matter of moments before the debate on Report began when other amendments could be considered. We discussed Report and Third Reading under a guillotine motion and that debate ended at 2.56 am on Tuesday last week.
There was just one working day before the Bill went to the Lords on Thursday last week. On Second Reading, the Lords expressed their unhappiness. However, they do not traditionally vote on Second Readings, so the Bill was not opposed at that stage. The Bill returned to the Lords on the first available working day—on Monday this week. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) suggested, the Lords Committee sat until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning to deal with the amendments. I pay tribute to Lord McNally and my other Liberal Democrat colleagues, and to the colleagues of the right hon. Lady. They carried out assiduously until the early hours of the morning what Madam Speaker reminded us we are all here to do—holding the Government to account. Incidentally, if Parliament decided that it did not want to sit at anti-social hours, we would never be able to introduce such Bills. It is not possible to scrutinise them other than in the early hours, because no other time is available.
The Government decided that they wanted the Bill's remaining stages—Report and Third Reading—to take place in the Lords on Tuesday. In their wisdom, the Lords said, "No thank you. Up with this we will not put!" and rightly defeated the Government's proposal to carry straight on with the debate. That gave the Lords at least a day in which to consider the matter. It allowed them 18 hours—instead of the Government's anticipated nine—to read the relevant Hansard, which was not available until Wednesday, and to table amendments.
1282
The Lords held the Report and Third Reading debates yesterday, and the debate on Third Reading ended early yesterday evening. The Bill, with the amendments made by the Lords, was published for the first time for us to see this morning, and the earliest that anyone could get hold of a copy was at 7 o'clock this morning when the Vote Office opened. We now have to debate four groups of Lords amendments, some of which raise controversial matters. Although they improve the Bill, they do not improve it nearly as much as some of us would have wished, and some of the improvements need to be explained and justified.
My colleagues and I considered what we wanted to do this morning and we tabled our amendments then—the only time available. Madam Speaker has selected my amendments, which I discussed with colleagues, in three of the four groups and we are likely to want to vote on at least one of those groups, if not more.
I have outlined the Bill's history, but we shall certainly vote against the guillotine motion for two other reasons. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald rightly suggested, this is a Government Bill which was introduced at their instigation. It returns to us on what is scheduled to be the last but one sitting day, with two relatively uncontroversial matters behind it on the Order Paper, and tomorrow we shall debate a completely uncontroversial item of business. There is absolutely no reason why we should not deal with the Bill in our own time. We have plenty of time; the House does not have to rise at a particular time today, which is a working day, and we are able to sit in the evening. We could deal properly with the four groups of Lords amendments and the amendments in my name.
It is unlikely that the Government will be defeated, given their majority, but if they are, the Lords will have the opportunity to do their work again. There is no reason for the guillotine. It comes down to the sad admission—I do not blame the Minister of State for this—that the Government have become obsessed with limiting debate. They want to ensure that their legislation is passed, but they do not want it to be debated. In the other place, thank goodness, there is no power to guillotine proceedings. The Government tried to pull a fast one by attempting to concertina the times between the different stages, but they failed in that.
I was amused to hear that the Government almost failed again in the middle of Monday night when a Conservative Member of the Lords insisted on a vote on his amendment, because the Lords had generally assumed that they were not going to vote on the Committee stage, and almost all the Government had gone home. That was a good amendment, and my noble Friends who were around in the early hours of the morning voted for it.
We should vote against the motion because it is not necessary and because the Government have to be told that Parliament will not just give in to an Executive which keep on piling guillotine motions on to the House. The Government have remaining legislation that they have not, for some reason, brought back from the other place, but have kept in the sidings. That legislation went to the Lords weeks or months ago. I refer to the Freedom of Information Bill, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and sex equality legislation. None of those have been dealt with. I give the Government warning that if, when we

1283
return from the recess, they try to argue that they need a guillotine on those measures, we will oppose each and every motion.
The Home Office is entitled to bring legislation to the Cabinet Committee; the Cabinet Committee is entitled to bring legislation to the Government, and the Government are entitled to introduce it to the House, but they are not entitled, without opposition and strong argument, to disfranchise Members by preventing them from taking part in reasonable debates on important issues. I hope that they will learn that they do themselves no credit by seeming to curb debate. The Prime Minister has a new desire to be tough, but limiting debate is not a tough measure that does him credit. We have accepted that there is a case for amending the law before the summer holidays, but there is no case for a guillotine to limit debate on the motion and Lords amendments to a total of two hours.
2.43 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for not being here for his opening speech, but apparently it was very brief. It was so brief that by the time I had crossed the road by Big Ben and arrived here, it was over. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I read his speech in Hansard on another occasion.
I am not sure whether the House is entirely focused on the Bill, judging by the acres of empty green Benches around and opposite me.
Ms Claire Ward: It is quality, not quantity.
Mr. Corbyn: Well, there is still not much of it.
I am genuinely sorry that the Government have introduced a timetable motion to try to get the Bill through the House this afternoon because I had assumed that we could have a thorough debate about the Lords amendments tomorrow. Discussing why the Government want to rush the Bill through the House would be an ideal way to spend the last Friday before the recess. I am slightly nervous of guillotine motions at the best of times. They underline the problem of complacency in British parliamentary democracy in that the Executive, for good or for ill, effectively controls what Parliament does because it controls the timetable. In a more mature democracy, which we will one day reach, Parliament may be more independent of the Executive, and may be able to decide on its programme and timetable.
The Bill is born out of appalling events in Brussels and Charleroi during the European cup tournament. Nobody condones what went on there, but the criminal law that applies in Belgium, France, Germany and this country can deal with such disorder. It is important that we understand and accept the principle of the separation of police powers from those of the court. The general thrust of the Bill is to give an excessive power to the police to prevent people from travelling on the assumption that they may cause trouble in future. That assumption is based on their past behaviour, if there is knowledge of that behaviour. That sets a dangerous precedent.
The Bill is being rushed through because the Home Office believes that legislation automatically solves a problem. I am not convinced that the Bill will make a
1284
hap'orth of difference to what happens at the England versus France game at the beginning of September. There is no need for the legislation because there is criminal law to deal with these matters. Football violence has been dealt with in previous legislation.
Legislating in haste, which we have done several times in this and previous Parliaments, means either that the legislation is simply never used or that it is challenged in the courts in this country or, ultimately, in the European Court of Human Rights, and we end up having to amend it. I realise that the Minister has invested a great deal of time and energy in the Bill, but we should ask whether it is necessary, whether it creates a dangerous legal precedent and whether we would be better off abandoning the whole thing, rather than trying to pass it this afternoon in less than two hours.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reminded me that we finished last Monday night at 2.56 am. I went home on my bicycle and saw a great deal of anti-social behaviour on Charing Cross road. I had no idea that there were so many people out on Charing Cross road at that time. There is criminal law to deal with those who behave anti-socially, or not, as the case may be, but the police have no powers to deport people or stop them travelling just because of their absurd behaviour; they would have to go through a legal process.
I am concerned that the Bill will set a precedent that could be applied in other cases. What if the measures were to apply to other sports, such as golf or cricket, for which people choose to travel? What if they applied to people going to France for a demonstration?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the timetable motion, because that is what we are debating.
Mr. Corbyn: I conclude by saying that if we legislate in haste, by rushing the Bill through today, we will set a precedent that could easily affect other walks of life, thus damaging our civil liberties. The Bill should be dropped.
2.48 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said. I find it slightly disconcerting that he and I, who stand at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, should agree so often on matters of civil liberties.
I am against the timetable motion, and I will vote against it. It is unnecessary and wrong in principle. The hon. Gentleman said that one reason why the House is not as respected as we would wish is that the Government control the proceedings. He referred to their control of the timetable. The hon. Gentleman is right, but the point goes further because the Government also control the votes through their Whips Office, and we are certain of the outcome of any discussion in this place. It is therefore essential that we should have full discussion because although we cannot determine the outcome, we can certainly set out the arguments, which may affect the argument outside the House. It is therefore wrong in principle that the Government should not only control the votes, but curtail the discussion.
That takes me to a point that I made earlier this week. This is the fifth timetable motion that we have had in four weeks. The essence of a democracy is that the discussion

1285
in Parliament signifies consent to legislation going through, and consent must mean, if it means anything, informed consent. We can have informed consent only if the House hears the arguments on all sides of the debate. Given that the effect of timetable motions is that whole groups of amendments are never discussed or voted on, how can we have informed consent? People will increasingly realise that this House is simply driving through legislation that has never been discussed or voted on. That undermines the legitimacy of what we are about.
The Minister of State argued that we should get through this timetable motion rapidly so that we can get on to the substantive motion. That is an attractive notion so far as it goes, but it is a form of blackmail.
Mr. Corbyn: Aside from the concern about timetables, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the problems with this timetable motion and one or two others that we have had is that, because they do not timetable by groups of amendments, many amendments are automatically not mentioned in debate and therefore, legally, they cannot be mentioned in the courts in the future because Ministers' intentions on the subject are not known?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right. We saw this happen last Tuesday, when important amendments were not just not voted on, but were never discussed. That means that the process of informed consent does not take place. If legislation that passes out of this House has not been the subject of rational or informed discussion, what legitimacy does the legislation have? It brings the process of law making into contempt.
Mr. Roger Gale: To some extent, my right hon. and learned Friend missed the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), which was about legal challenges. If something is referred to, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, it can be raised as an argument in the courts. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that better than I do. If an issue is not mentioned, it cannot be referred to.
Mr. Hogg: That is not absolutely correct, although I know what my hon. Friend is getting at. Certainly, statements by a Minister can be taken into account when interpreting the meaning of statute, but my views or those of my hon. Friend would not have that desirable effect. My hon. Friend is therefore only partially right.
As I was saying, the Minister of State said that we should hurry through the timetable motion so that we can get on to the substantive debate. Although that is an attractive notion, it is wrong. It is a form of blackmail, because those of us who think that the timetable is wrong in principle and unnecessary in this case owe the House a duty to say so. Otherwise, the public will not know about the abuses going on and our silence will be treated as acquiescence in the process. I think that what is going on is wholly wrong.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said: there is no need for us to hurry today. We know, because we have been told—I welcome this fact—that the Government will accept the Lords amendments. That makes a rotten Bill slightly less bad. However, we should not be discussing
1286
Lords amendments today because this Bill came out of the other place only yesterday and one had to be remarkably nimble-footed to table any amendments by today. We have ample time to consider the Bill tomorrow—or, indeed, next week, if the House would so order its business. We are being pushed in an unnecessary way to do something that we should not do. Those of us who value parliamentary government and who agreed with Madam Speaker when she stressed the need for proper scrutiny owe it to the House to say that enough is enough. I, for one, will seek to divide the House on this motion, and I hope that others will do the same.
2.54 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) makes a point that all of us have argued from time to time, depending on which side of the House we have been sitting on and what view we have taken of a particular piece of legislation.
Mr. Corbyn: Some of us have made that argument on both sides.
Mr. Banks: I always defer to my hon. Friend, who is a man of great principle. I cannot lay claim to such a reputation, and neither can the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, whom I have heard and seen strongly supporting guillotine motions when he occupied a Front-Bench position as a Minister in the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, he and I have been on both sides of the argument, so no one can lay claim to being totally consistent throughout their parliamentary life.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government were controlling both the timetabling of legislation and the votes through the Whips. Has anything changed? Did that arise only in 1997? It clearly did not, so he is just telling us something that is self-evident. There are times when all of us, whether our party is in government or not, have felt the need to speak out, either in this Chamber or outside, because we do not agree with something that our Government have been doing. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has far more experience in that area than I have.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this guillotine motion prevents informed discussion and therefore challenges the legitimacy of the Bill, but that does not apply in this case. We have already discussed this issue at length. As I said on Second Reading and at other stages of the Bill, there is a continuum here. Governments of both persuasions have been trying to solve the problem of football hooliganism for many years and, so far, we have failed. This Bill is the latest attempt.
Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman is missing the whole point of this debate. Whatever discussions may have gone on prior to this, inside or outside the House, or even in another place, this is supposed to be an opportunity for Members of the House of Commons to discuss the Lords amendments. It simply is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that, because we have had all sorts of prior

1287
discussions, we need not bother now. This timetable motion denies us the opportunity properly to consider what the other place has sent us.
Mr. Banks: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman because it depends on what he means by proper discussion. Once we have moved off this guillotine motion, which naturally eats into the time available for discussion of the substantive issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down, then.] I know that I do not need to make this speech, but I am damned if I will sit down yet.
We have an opportunity to discuss the Lords amendments, albeit not as much time as Opposition Members would like. Let me put a question to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who I trust will answer it honestly. If we were to discuss this Bill from now until Domesday, would he agree with it? That is the whole point: he would not agree with it. It is a matter of principle.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is throwing down a challenge. The truthful answer is that I would not agree with this Bill even if we discussed it until Domesday, but I will not filibuster it out. That is the key point.
Mr. Banks: I accept that. One could therefore say, as with many decisions made in this House, that we do not have to sit here listening to our colleagues on either side of the House opining at great length. Most of us have made up our minds about most matters beforehand. It would be nice to think that this was genuinely a debating Chamber, but it is not; it is a decision-making Chamber with an element of debate attached to it. We tend to know our own minds. If we did not, we could be challenged on what we were doing here in the first place.
That does not mean that we cannot improve legislation by discussion, amendments and votes, which are all part of the procedure, but we should not make too much of the idea that matters must be discussed endlessly if we are to make better legislation.
Mr. Corbyn: May I help my old friend? Mr. Banks: Dear old friend.
Mr. Corbyn: Yes, dear old friend. My hon. Friend was once my employer. Does he agree that the lack of a detailed timetable motion means that the Government can introduce important amendments in the latter stages of a Bill—or someone else can introduce them and they can be accepted by the Government—without discussion or a ministerial reply? Therefore, when the courts test a particular section of the legislation, they have no ministerial statement in Hansard to which to refer. That is an important part of the legal process of setting precedents.
Mr. Banks: I understand what my hon. Friend says in that Ministers could give a better steer. I have always been led to believe that the courts do not take into account in any great detail statements made during the passage of legislation. They interpret the wording of Acts; they do not consider the sentiment behind them. That is the point of the process.
Mr. Charles Clarke: To help my hon. Friend in his powerful case, I confirm that the Government do not
1288
intend to table any amendment to the Bill, as he suggests, and we do not propose to accept the other amendments that have been tabled, except those selected by Madam Speaker. We shall simply argue that the Lords amendments should be accepted. The concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) may arise in other cases, but not in this one.
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend the Minister is an honest man, and we can have total confidence in the Bill, but I cannot say that for all the legislation that the Government have proposed. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I want to mention that my very good, old and hon. Friend the hon. Member for Islington, North asked how we should gauge people's opinions. He answered his own question—we need only look about ourselves. If the Bill is so controversial, why are not more hon. Members here? Attendance must, at times, be used as an indicator of hon. Members' concern.
Mr. Forth: I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman outright. When Members read that such limited time would be allowed under the guillotine motion, they realised first, that there was no point in attending because they could not all speak, and secondly, that the Government are trampling all over the House as usual. They are two effective deterrents to hon. Members attending.
Mr. Banks: What the hell are we doing here then? We were not deterred by the motion, and we are not anoraks.
Mr. Corbyn: We are all anoraks.
Mr. Banks: I speak for myself because my hon. Friend is clearly an anorak. He said that we should come here tomorrow; it is a perfectly good day for us to do so. I take the point, but he is a notorious non-holiday taker. He is the man who, when pushed to have a day off, took his partner to Highgate cemetery to study the grave of Karl Marx. That is why I love the guy, but he is a notorious non-relaxation Member, who would have us all working like Stakhanovites 24 hours a day. Decent and hard working as he is, we should not use him as our bell-wether for what is good or bad attendance.
We have gone over such matters enough. The timetable motion is perfectly adequate to allow us to deal with the amendments and to continue to discuss the Bill, which I still maintain is necessary. It is the latest measure in a line of legislation that Governments have introduced to try to curb the cancer of football hooliganism. As I have said, I am not certain that the Bill will work, but I am prepared to have a go and to see whether it does. We have plenty of ways in which to keep it under review. If the Bill does not work, or if it works in a way in which we do not believe it should, it is up to us to change it. That is our right, and we are exercising our rights this afternoon.
3.4 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I, too, apologise for the fact that I missed the Minister's opening comments, but, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, they were remarkably brief and I missed them even in the time that it took to cross the road.
This is a curious Bill; these are curious circumstances; and this curious guillotine motion brings together the opinions of the hon. Members for Islington, North

1289
(Mr. Corbyn) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and myself. We do not normally agree on many issues, but we clearly agree on this one. The House, especially those on the Front Benches, should pay attention, if only for the future, to the fact that there is no need to railroad through such legislation. It is interesting that the hon. Members in the Chamber today broadly reflect those who were present in the small hours of another morning not so long ago. Clearly, several hon. Members on both sides of the House share the view that this is an appallingly bad Bill. It is badly drafted and it is likely to be badly implemented, and anything that we can do to help their lordships to improve it must be for the good.
Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the blackmail element of the motion. The fact of the matter is that every moment that I speak now will truncate debates on the amendments that we wish to discuss. That must be wrong. Although it seems a long time ago, it was only yesterday that Madam Speaker said in her valedictory speech that the job of the House
is to hold the Executive to account—[Official Report, 26 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1114.]
to challenge bad legislation at any and every opportunity and, if necessary, to do so in depth.
As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, as a result of the timetable motion, we are faced with the prospect that, after two hours, all the provisions will be passed whether or not we have debated them. We cannot even debate the first and second groups of amendments for three quarters of an hour each. Groups of amendments will go through, legally, on the nod. That cannot be right.
I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who helped me out of my confusion. It is not correct, as I and the hon. Member for Islington, North said, to suggest that if something is not said on the Floor of the House, it cannot be quoted in court. However, if the groups of amendments are not debated, the Minister will not be given the opportunity to reply and therefore his reply cannot be quoted in court.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in each case, my colleague Lord Bassam—the Minister in the other place—clearly stated the Government's position on the amendments?
Mr. Gale: I accept that the Minister has stated several times that the Government agree with the Lords amendments, but that is not the case with other amendments, which will almost certainly not be debated. This is not the first time that that point of principle has arisen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned four occasions when guillotine motions have been introduced recently. Whole tranches of legislation are going through on the nod, with no ministerial response. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, who would welcome the chance to respond to all such debates.
In earlier incarnations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you spent many hours chairing Committees. In the past three years, I have been privileged to spend several hundred hours chairing Committees, but I have never been faced with a guillotine motion. By and large, hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the need to be broadly
1290
reasonable and they recognise that the Government have a right, with a democratic majority, to pass their legislation. However, they also recognise the right and duty, to which Madam Speaker referred yesterday, to challenge legislation if we believe it to be bad.
Nothing that has happened today or in another place alters the fact that this is a bad Bill, which has been introduced in haste and which we shall repent at leisure. The only fundamental difference between the Bill and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 is that, sadly, the Act did not contain the sunset clause that the Minister has now said the Government intend to accept. The Bill is about tokenism; it is a bad Bill.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman and myself are at one on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, but it ended up with dogs being killed, and the magistrates had no discretion whatever. Nothing in the Bill will terminate the lives of football hooligans. I know that that was not the comparison that he was making, but that Act was a bit terminal, was not it?
Mr. Gale: I have to concede that nothing in the Bill terminates the lives of football hooligans, but the arguments against the Bill are not about the effect that it may or may not have on football hooligans—it probably will not have an effect on them—but about the effect that it may or may not have on all sorts of people who are innocently travelling and who have nothing to do with football. That has been the prime argument against the Bill, but I do not want to go too far down that road because you would rightly declare me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The fundamental fact is that the Bill has been introduced in a hurry to deal with a particular football match. It must be the first time in history that the House of Commons and the House of Lords have devoted—have wasted—so much time on one aspect, on one event, on one date. By October, when the human rights legislation that the House of Commons and the other House have passed comes into force, almost certainly the Bill will be out of court anyway, so we are talking about something that is transitory.
The best that can be said is that the Bill and the Government's acceptance of the Lords sunset clause have truncated the misery and the bad legislation—the duration of a bad Bill. The worst that can be said—it really is the worst—is that the Government are again using a guillotine to curtail debate on groups of clauses that should have the opportunity—there is no reason why they should not have the opportunity—to be properly debated, so that the Minister can put clearly on the record and, therefore, if necessary, into law, the Government's view.
3.11 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: We have had a rather frightening insight from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) into new Labour's genuine attitude to the House of Commons and to Parliament. He said, with typical candour and great honesty, that he did not regard debate as of any import or substance, that all

1291
votes should be whipped, that the Government must have their way, and what on earth were we all doing here anyway.
Mr. Banks rose—
Mr. Forth: I only slightly paraphrase but I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
Mr. Banks: If that is a slight paraphrase of what I said, all I can say is that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not start telling untruths about me. I did not say that. I said just that this was not a debating Chamber in quite that sense. Debate can alter things, but the fact is that most hon. Members come in here with their minds made up, and none more so than the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: What I think that the hon. Gentleman said—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is pointing out from a sedentary position—is that the Whips make up the hon. Gentleman's mind for him. That is, in effect, what he said. Let us not fall out over it. I and the hon. Gentleman will read Hansard assiduously tomorrow—as we do—probably on the beach, and we will see what was actually said.
This is another rare event. I put on the record that, on this occasion, I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said and almost everything—no, I think everything—that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said. They reflected a widespread unease, which we are now seeing all too frequently in the House, about the use of the guillotine by the Government.
I have never accepted the need for the Bill. I have never accepted the justification that, because of a damned football match, of all things, we are going to legislate and to change the law of the land. That must be the ultimate absurdity. Nor have I accepted the responsibility that the Government say we should accept for the conduct of our citizens abroad. It is for the Belgian authorities to apply their laws properly to people in their country.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Given the right hon. Gentleman's absolute clarity about his opposition to the Bill, about which he has been clear all the way through, are there any circumstances in which, without a guillotine, he would consider filibustering for ever to stop the Bill becoming law?
Mr. Forth: The Minister, although he has not been in the House very long, should know that what he has said is impossible. Apart from the fact that you would not allow me to do something called filibustering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we all know that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have never known the right hon. Gentleman to get involved in any filibustering.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Not only that, but the Minister knows that, in the case of a Government Bill, even without a guillotine, closure motions are possible from time to time and have been
1292
used, so what he said is impossible. Even if I wanted to stop the Bill getting on to the statute book, as I would like to, it is not within my power to do so, so that is not even to be considered.
We are told that we have at the most two hours—and now, in effect, only one hour—to consider four groups of important amendments; 22 amendments of substance from another place. It is not good enough to suggest that the Government accept the amendments. That is a matter for the Government. I am not a member of the Government; I am an Opposition Back Bencher. To suggest that we do not need much time because the Government have accepted their lordships' amendments does not wash with me.
Potentially, 500 Members of the House of Commons may wish to discuss the matter—up to 500 of them. [Interruption.] Potentially, I said, before Labour Members get too excited. As I said earlier, I strongly suspect that most responsible hon. Members with an interest in the matter studied the Order Paper this morning, saw to their horror that the Government were yet again curtailing debate unnecessarily on the matter and drew the conclusion that it was most unlikely that 500 responsible, interested Members of Parliament would be able to make a meaningful contribution on four groups and 22 amendments in one hour flat. I suspect that, for that reason, they decided not to turn up on this occasion—until they come in to vote against the guillotine.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I add one other, I hope linked, point. By definition, the amendments that the rest of us have tabled were not able to be tabled—let alone published and circulated—until about the time that we began the debate, so, to know what was on the agenda, to decide whether they thought that it was important and to come here was probably for many hon. Members either technically or actually impossible.
Mr. Forth: I agree. I hope that many people both inside the House and outside will read the hon. Gentleman's speech. He analysed for our benefit the absurdity of the timetable of the Bill hitherto, which has made proper connection between Second Reading, Committee, the Report stage, the House of Lords and here effectively impossible, thus undermining the process to which we are all supposed to be so committed and attached—parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary law-making. On this occasion, we have been able to do none of that.
Although we are told that their lordships have deliberated and that the Government, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to accept the amendments, that is still not good enough. The House of Commons has not had an opportunity properly to consider the matter and to determine whether a law that affects people's rights fundamentally should be changed. Nor will we be given any opportunity properly to have Divisions in the House—for the House to vote properly on the four groups, on the 22 amendments or, indeed, on the hon. Gentleman's amendments and those in the name of his hon. Friends.
Therefore, all in all, the entire episode has been shabby and disgraceful. I do not accept the approach that the Government have taken. I do not accept that we should legislate to deal with football, football matches, one particular football match or, indeed, football matches in other countries. None of that is legitimate, so this is a blot on our parliamentary history.

1293
However, my real worry is that the comments of the hon. Member for West Ham and the attitude of the Minister, courteous as ever though he has been, reveal the Government's general approach. They are prepared more and more to resort to such a tactic to ram through an inordinate amount of legislation, usually rather badly drafted, invariably misdirected and ultimately harmful both to the country and to the individual citizenry.
I hope that I have an opportunity to vote against the guillotine. Unless I hear a much more powerful argument, I am minded to vote against the Bill itself if I have an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to detain the House, but can you please clarify what the situation is on amendments? As I understand it, there are the printed amendments from the Lords, some manuscript or urgently tabled amendments from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—and, I understand, no one else—and a printed list of selected amendments. I am unclear about what time the printed list of selected amendments was placed and whether any of the hon. Gentleman's amendments have or will be selected by the Chair for debate after the timetable motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A revised list has been circulated and it is also available. I will make a statement regarding manuscript amendments.
3.20 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Let me make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not raising a point of order. I believe that I still have time to speak on the motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman took me by surprise. He has only just entered the Chamber, but he is certainly entitled to speak.
Mr. Shepherd: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate what you have said. I want to make just one small point.
Until the early 1980s, the tradition of the House—I regret the change in that tradition—was that debates on Lords amendments were not guillotined. Parliament is composed of two Houses, and it is necessary to carry business in both those Houses. I recall the palpable sense of shock among those who were then Government Back Benchers when we started this practice. It is a profound discourtesy to an equal other Chamber.
Mr. Mike Hall: Rubbish.
Mr. Shepherd: The Government Whip may say it that it is rubbish, but it is not. The fact is that we require the passage of legislation in both Houses of Parliament, and it used to be considered appropriate—indeed, the only thing to do—to weigh amendments made by those who had taken time to try to change that legislation. In this guillotine motion, the House of Commons is manifestly rejecting that.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I make a factual point? The hon. Gentleman may not know that, because of the
1294
timetable in the House of Lords, it was impossible for amendments to be tabled by Opposition parties in time following Third Reading there. Both the hon. Gentleman's party and mine protested about that. As a consequence, we have fewer amendments than we would have had if proper procedures had obtained in the other place.
Mr. Shepherd: What the hon. Gentleman says emphasises the importance of the process of examining legislation.
That is the only point that I wanted to make, but I think it is important.
Mr. Hawkins: When my hon. Friend rightly suggested that ours was a bicameral legislature containing two Chambers of equal worth, there was a sedentary suggestion from the Labour Benches that the Chambers were not equal. Does my hon. Friend agree that that constitutes a serious revelation about the attitude of the Labour party—which is precisely what concerned Madam Speaker in her wise words yesterday?
Mr. Shepherd: I do not think I heard the intervention that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but such a suggestion would be misjudged. My concern, however, is deeper. I fear that there will come a time when the House of Lords will say, "There is no point in our considering legislation that has returned from the Commons if the Commons does not do us the courtesy of examining what we have deliberated and decided on."
I am merely saying that this puts our own proceedings at risk. It must be in the Government's interest to weigh that factor against others. I am aware of the crisis that forced the Government to table the original guillotine motion and, today, a supplemental allocation of time motion; but there will come a day when the House of Lords says, "This is not appropriate." We are in dire trouble when we have a legislative programme as weighty and lengthy as this.
Mr. Hughes: May I make one final point?
I hope the hon. Gentleman will support what will certainly be said by Members of the other place, including Lord Ackner. He was assured that the Government would consider amendments tabled by him, but the timetable prevented those amendments from being considered or, indeed, tabled. Because of the timetable imposed over the past two days, the Bill could not even come to the House of Commons having been amended in the way agreed by the Government.
Mr. Shepherd: As is so often the case in these matters, the hon. Gentleman is right. Our cry from the Conservative Benches is this: such action makes legislation ridiculous and absurd, and diminishes authority. The Government should therefore consider the matter carefully.
Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to extend the debate, but the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has made an important point. If we had been able to consider Lords amendments tomorrow, say, we could have tabled our own amendments to those amendments, reflecting, for example, the intentions of Lord Ackner.
Mr. Shepherd: I apologise for arriving late. I assumed that the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend had already been established. I regret that, as it had not, I cannot comment.

1295
That is all that I wished to say. I did not wish to delay the House for long.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 141.

Division No. 295]

[3.25 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cox, Tom

Ainger, Nick

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Allen, Graham

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Darvill, Keith

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Atkins, Charlotte

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Banks, Tony

Dawson, Hilton

Barnes, Harry

Dean, Mrs Janet

Barron, Kevin

Denham, John

Beard, Nigel

Dismore, Andrew

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dobbin, Jim

Begg, Miss Anne

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Doran, Frank

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Dowd, Jim

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Drew, David

Bennett, Andrew F

Drown, Ms Julia

Benton, Joe

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Best, Harold

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Betts, Clive

Edwards, Huw

Blackman, Liz

Efford, Clive

Blears, Ms Hazel

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Blizzard, Bob

Ennis, Jeff

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fisher, Mark

Bradshaw, Ben

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Flint, Caroline

Buck, Ms Karen

Follett, Barbara

Burden, Richard

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Fyfe, Maria

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gibson, Dr Ian

Cann, Jamie

Godsiff, Roger

Caplin, Ivor

Goggins, Paul

Casale, Roger

Golding, Mrs Llin

Caton, Martin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Cawsey, Ian

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Chapman, Ben (Wirml S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grogan, John

Clapham, Michael

Gunnell, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Dr Lynda

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Healey, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hesford, Stephen

Clwyd, Ann

Hill, Keith

Coaker, Vemon

Hinchliffe, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Hope, Phil

Coleman, lain

Hopkins, Kelvin

Colman, Tony

Howells, Dr Kim

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

Cooper, Yvette

Humble, Mrs Joan

Corbett, Robin

Hurst, Alan

Corston, Jean

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cousins, Jim

Illsley, Eric

1296

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pike, Peter L

Jamieson, David

Plaskitt, James

Jenkins, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

Pond, Chris

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Pope, Greg

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jones, Ms Jenny

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Rammell, Bill

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rapson, Syd

Keeble, Ms Sally

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Rogers, Allan

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Rooney, Terry

Khabra, Piara S

Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

Kidney, David

Roy, Frank

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ruddock, Joan

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Ryan, Ms Joan

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Salter, Martin

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Sarwar, Mohammad

Laxton, Bob

Savidge, Malcolm

Leslie, Christopher

Sawford, Phil

Levitt, Tom

Sedgemore, Brian

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Shaw, Jonathan

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Shipley, Ms Debra

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

McCabe, Steve

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Smith, Miss Geraldine

(Makerfield)

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McDonnell, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McIsaac, Shona

Snape, Peter

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Soley, Clive

Mackinlay, Andrew

Southworth, Ms Helen

McWalter, Tony

Spellar, John

McWilliam, John

Squire, Ms Rachel

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mallaber, Judy

Steinberg, Gerry

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Marshall, David (SheWeston)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Martlew, Eric

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Maxton, John

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Meale, Alan

(Dewsbury)

Merron, Gillian

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Miller, Andrew

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mitchell, Austin

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Moffatt, Laura

Tipping, Paddy

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Touhig, Don

Moran, Ms Margaret

Trickett, Jon

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Moriey, Elliot

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

(B'ham Yardley)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Mountford, Kali

Tynan, Bill

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Walley, Ms Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Ward, Ms Claire

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Watts, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Olner, Bill

Wicks, Malcolm

Organ, Mrs Diana

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Osbome, Ms Sandra

(Swansea W)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Pearson, Ian

Wills, Michael

Perham, Ms Linda

Winnick, David

Pickthall, Colin

Wood, Mike

1297

Woodward, Shaun

Tellers for the Ayes:

Worthington, Tony

Mr. David Clelland and

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Wyatt, Derek

Mr. Mike Hall.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Key, Robert

Allan, Richard

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Amess, David

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Lansley, Andrew

Baldry, Tony

Letwin, Oliver

Ballard, Jackie

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Lidington, David

Bercow, John

Livsey, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Blunt, Crispin

Loughton, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Luff, Peter

Brady, Graham

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Brake, Tom

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Brand, Dr Peter

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Brazier, Julian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Madel, Sir David

Maples, John

Browning, Mrs Angela

May, Mrs Theresa

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Moore, Michael

Burnett, John

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Burstow, Paul

Nicholls, Patrick

Butterfill, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cash, William

Öpik, Lembit

Clappison, James

Ottaway, Richard

Collins, Tim

Paice, James

Corbyn, Jeremy

Paterson, Owen

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Pickles, Eric

Cotter, Brian

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

Prior, David

Curry, Rt Hon David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Rendel, David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Robathan, Andrew

Day, Stephen

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

Fabricant, Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fallon, Michael

Ruffley, David

Flynn, Paul

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

St Aubyn, Nick

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Salmond, Alex

Fox, Dr Liam

Sanders, Adrian

Fraser, Christopher

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gale, Roger

Shepherd, Richard

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gibb, Nick

Soames, Nicholas

Gidley, Sandra

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gill, Christopher

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spring, Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gray, James

Streeter, Gary

Green, Damian

Stunell, Andrew Swayne, Desmond

Greenway, John

Syms, Robert

Grieve, Dominic

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hammond, Philip

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hancock, Mike

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Hawkins, Nick

Tredinnick, David

Heald, Oliver

Trend, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Tyler, Paul

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Tyrie, Andrew

Horam, John

Viggers, Peter

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Webb, Steve

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Wells, Bowen

Jenkin, Bernard

Welsh, Andrew

Johnson Smith,

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Whitbngdale, John

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

1298

Willetts, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilshire, David

Mr. John Randall and

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House of 17th July be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.
2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.
(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

1299
Reasons Committee
4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
5.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which 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 provision of this Order.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments and on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
8.—(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.

Orders of the Day

  Football (Disorder) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The House should know that a number of manuscript amendments have been tabled to the Lords amendments to the Football (Disorder) Bill. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
  I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17. If the House agrees to either of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
  We come to Lords amendment No. 1.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the Minister speaks to Lords amendment No. 1, could he explain what the Government propose to do about the matter that we discussed in the previous debate? The Government gave an undertaking that if Lord Ackner, the Cross-Bench peer, withdrew amendments that he had tabled, they would ensure that the issues would be addressed before the Bill completed its passage. The issues were not addressed in the Lords because of the timetable, and today they do not seem to be the subject of Government amendments to the Lords amendments. It therefore seems that Ministers have not yet honoured the undertaking given in the other place by Lord Bassam.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair. However, the Minister will undoubtedly have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will perhaps respond to them in the debate.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said, absolutely correctly, that the manuscript amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) are available. All of those amendments are effectively amendments to amendments. However, have any of them been selected?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have been grouped with other amendments for debate. They are listed on the new selection list.
  Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may assist the House and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) if I point out that there is a new selection list. The hon. Gentleman will find my amendments on that list.

  Football (Disorder) Bill
    Clause 2

      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY NCIS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
      ("(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3A) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 18 to 21 and amendment in lieu thereof, and 22.
      Mr. Clarke: It may be for the convenience of the House if I point out that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in lieu tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for inclusion in this group of amendments, and amendments tabled by him for inclusion in the third and fourth groups. We shall be able to consider those amendments when we reach those groups.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 3 and 18 to 21 were made by the Government in the other place to give effect to trie recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Government accepted all the Committee's recommendations, and I commend them to the House, as I said earlier that I would.
      Amendment No. 1 has the effect that regulations prescribing persons to whom the National Criminal Intelligence Service can disclose information for the purposes of the Football Spectators Act 1989 will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The amendment gives effect to the first recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 give effect to the Select Committee's second recommendation, that amendments made under the Bill to orders subject to affirmative resolution should themselves be subject to that procedure.
      Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 give effect to the Select Committee's third recommendation, that the power to extend the control period under the Bill—the period during which passports may be required to be surrendered and the summary powers in sections 21A and B may be exercised—should be limited. The amendments ensure that a control period can begin a maximum of 10 days before the beginning of a match or tournament, if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary for the purposes of enforcement of the Act.
      Amendment No. 22 is a minor drafting amendment.
      The amendment in lieu relates to amendments Nos. 18 to 21, and it might help the House if I explain our attitude to it before the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey speaks. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee saw no difficulty in principle with the power to extend the control period, but it recommended that it should not be open-ended. The Government have accepted that fully. The power can be used to extend the period to a maximum of 10 days before a match or tournament, and only on the ground that it will assist in enforcing the law. Any order is subject to the
      1302
      negative resolution procedure. We believe that that is perfectly reasonable, and I urge the House to reject the amendment in lieu.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked me to comment on the exchanges in another place between my noble Friend Lord Bassam and Lord Ackner. I am studying the details of those exchanges, and I will comment later in the debate.
      I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Let me make it clear, on behalf of the official Opposition, that although, as was said earlier on the guillotine motion, we have been very unhappy with the way in which matters have been handled procedurally—in what we would call indecent haste and with inappropriate guillotines—we are none the less grateful that the Government have made certain concessions, having recognised the quality of the arguments advanced by my noble Friend Lord Cope and others. I certainly accept what the Minister, and Ministers in another place, have said: that the Government have sought, where they felt it possible, to accommodate points made in both Houses by the official Opposition and by Liberal Democrats.
      That should not in any way be taken as reducing our continuing concern about the way in which this matter has been handled and about the fact that, even this afternoon, there has been quite a lot of confusion. The point just made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) shows once again how the House can get into a muddle and even experienced Members of Parliament such as he can be confused by the rush in which manuscript amendments have had to be tabled. I am pleased that the amendment in lieu was at least selected, but the problem is that, because of the guillotine, some important matters may never be reached, so the Minister may not be able to say anything about them.
      Given that we are dealing with a Bill that, quintessentially, may result in court proceedings, the rule in Pepper v. Hart that ministerial statements can be relied on in court is especially important. If important amendments are not debated, by definition the Minister will make no statement and no reference will be able to be made to the Government's view in interpreting what will be the result of this rushed legislation.
      There are no amendments tabled by the official Opposition in this group. Because of the rush, we have sought to consider, at short notice, the manuscript amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I hear what the Minister says about delegated powers and the amendment in lieu, relating to line 18 of the second schedule. There is certainly a continuing concern about the broad reach of the provisions, but I recognise that the Government have wisely taken on board a number of points made in debate by Lord Cope and others in another place.
      The Government did well to accept those points, but they should recognise that the way in which they have proceeded is not a recipe for good legislation. We hope that they will learn lessons from the peculiar procedural

      1303
      complications that they have imposed on the House, and we very much hope that they will never again put us in such a position.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Minister said, the amendment in lieu relates to Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21.
      I shall deal briefly with Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which improve the Bill by providing more parliamentary control in respect of policy changes and any additional measures that the Government may seek to introduce under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, and we support the amendments.
      Let me pause for a second to say that all the Lords amendments improve the Bill. My hon. Friends here and in another place—and many other right hon. and hon. Members—share the view that the Bill is fundamentally bad. We continue to disagree with provisions in respect of banning orders and summary detention. Had we the opportunity, we would disagree with the Bill or remove those provisions. However, procedure prevents us from doing so.
      Those sentiments were reflected in speeches in another place, such as those by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and by Lord Ackner, who is non-party political and a senior and respected lawyer. My noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury compared the Bill with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which we dealt with yesterday, saying:
      It is a striking contrast with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, on which the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, laboured, as did my noble Friend Lord McNally and I, together with the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Lucas. That Bill came to this House in a tawdry and inadequate state and left it much improved. This Bill came to us in a tawdry and inadequate state and leaves us in that condition. There has not been a single major concession to the fears expressed not just by the Opposition, but from the Government Benches.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 475.]
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: So there have been some.
      Mr. Hughes: I was quoting Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is certainly our view that, of the major matters involved, the only significant concession has been in respect of the life of the Bill, which was originally five years. It was conceded in this House to four years and is now down to two years—the so-called sunset clause. My noble Friend Lord Phillips said that although it may be good that the sun sets on this Bill sooner rather than later, the sun should never have risen on this Bill. That encapsulates our view.
      So what have we left to do? We have tried to table appropriate amendments in the time available. Our amendment, which would replace Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to extend the control period. Of course it is better to have a control period of 10 days rather than an unlimited one. However, my hon. Friends and I would rather that the Secretary of State did not have the power to extend the control period as everyone is concerned that the Bill already gives too much power to the authorities.
      Mr. Corbyn: The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to extend the control period. What will happen if
      1304
      an emergency arises during the parliamentary recess? Can the Secretary of State simply do whatever he wishes—and we will have to scrutinise that long after the event—or is he denied the right to take action?
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on another important reason why the Bill is nonsense. I understand that the control period can be extended only by the Secretary of State coming to Parliament and seeking an extension. Many powers in the Bill require affirmative resolutions of both Houses. I stand to be corrected, but if that is the case, it can happen only when the House is sitting. I find it unlikely that the House would be recalled for that sort of job.
      Mr. Corbyn: Who knows?
      Mr. Hughes: Nowadays who knows, but it is unlikely. Some of the urgent issues for this year relate to matches in August, September and October—before the House of Commons returns. Therefore, a power to take urgent action could not be applied if the House was not sitting. That also applies to Christmas and Easter holidays.
      I hope that the House will agree that it would be better not to give Ministers the additional power. I realise that we will not be able to vote on my proposal until we have discussed the remaining groups of amendments, but hon. Members should bear in mind that we will seek to divide the House after the next three debates.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I want to deal with the point about Lord Ackner. I have studied the Hansard of the debate in another place, which started at 4.48 pm yesterday and can be found at columns 450–65. There was substantial controversy over the matter, and as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I was careful to read the entire debate.
      I believe that no undertaking was given to Lord Ackner that the amendments that he wanted to table could be tabled for today. Indeed, at column 462, the Government Chief Whip made it clear that amendments along the lines of those proposed by Lord Ackner could not be tabled today because they were not variations of or consequential on amendments made in another place. I wanted to make those points to set out my position as clearly as possible.
      Mr. Hughes: Like the Minister, I have read the Hansard of yesterday's debate in another place. Does he agree that the reason why there has been a problem is that there was no opportunity for peers such as Lord Ackner to table their amendments as they were working to a timetable that was then changed at short notice?
      Mr. Clarke: As is set out clearly in the Hansard of the debate, there was clearly a misunderstanding on Report as to whether or not Lord Ackner could table amendments the following day for Third Reading. The full account of that is set out in the Lords Hansard of the debate yesterday afternoon. Apparently, Lord Bassam said that Lord Ackner could table the amendments "tomorrow" instead of "for tomorrow". That miswording was specifically addressed in yesterday's debate. It is elaborated in the Hansard of that debate, which is

      1305
      available to all right hon. and hon. Members who would like to study it. I do not believe that a commitment of the type that the hon. Gentleman was referring to was given.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has finished his speech.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    Clause 5

      COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 40, leave out ("four years") and insert ("one year")
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment gave rise to the most discussion in another place. I will not hide from the House that the Government are disappointed by the amendment, which reflects the desire of another place to reduce significantly the proposed life span of what are widely known as measures 3 and 4. We were not against a sunset clause in principle and we were quite happy to discuss it, but we feel that the time periods that were agreed in another place are too short for good legislation.
      When we proposed one and four-year sunset periods, we believed that the right amount of time had been allocated properly to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the measures in sections 14B, 21A and 2IB of the Football Spectators Act 1989. We were especially conscious that a five-year period would incorporate Euro 2004 in Portugal—a high-risk tournament comparable with Euro 2000—and that that would provide an excellent test for the Bill. That is why we opposed the amendment in another place and that is why we regret it now. However, we recognise that the concerns that were expressed in another place that led to the amendment were perfectly genuine and were not facetious in any way. Although we do not share those views, we think that in the interests of the consensual approach that we have tried to follow, we should accept the amendment and for that reason I commend it to the House.
      Miss Widdecombe: While I am grateful to the Minister for not resisting the proposal that there should be a fairly stringent sunset clause, I am also slightly disappointed as we proposed an original renewal period of six months rather than the one year which has now come from another place. On the other hand, the final date by which the legislation falls, which is two years away, is exactly what we proposed.
      Although I hear what the Minister says about the matches that the Bill will not cover, it will cover the whole of the qualifying period for the World cup and should therefore provide a sensible opportunity to assess its effectiveness.
      4 pm
      However, I feel strongly that, without the amendment, it would have been hard for Conservative Members to maintain our support for the Bill. We have always
      1306
      supported the taking of immediate measures to deal with football hooligans, and the use of an accelerated timetable. When the Bill was published, part IV especially included provisions that we had never sought. They had never been proposed previously, and so had not been discussed. As a result, all subsequent discussion has been completely new, and the timetable has been extremely rushed.
      We have made it clear throughout that we would not oppose the due process of the Bill's progress through the House, although it has not had much of that due process. However, the measure's flaws and dangers have become clearer with debate, and it has become increasingly necessary to provide that the Bill has a clause to ensure their short, sharp life.
      At various stages of the debate on the Bill, hon. Members have drawn parallels with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. The hon. Member for Newham—
      Mr. Tony Banks: My constituency is now called West Ham.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry, I cannot keep up with these changes.
      Mr. Banks: At least I have not changed my constituency.
      Miss Widdecombe: Neither have I. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that he had a specific opposition to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. He and I share many interests when it comes to animal welfare. I was not happy either with the outcome of deliberations on that legislation, although at the time I was obliged to pretend that I was.
      Therefore, I feel strongly that we must always ensure that legislation introduced at a fast pace can be reviewed. Such a review should take place at an early stage, not after a long period of possible injustices, failures and undesirable effects. In that way, hon. Members would be able to assess whether the legislation was better or worse than they believed it to be when it left the House, or exactly as they expected.
      I welcome the amendment. It is close to what we asked for in the first place, and I am grateful to the Minister for accepting it. I hope that it will meet with no serious opposition from other hon. Members.
      Mr. Corbyn: Like other hon. Members, I am pleased that the Bill's review period will be shorter than originally planned—as long as my hon. Friend the Minister does not come back to the House for a renewal clause within a year. I hope that my hon. Friend will say whether there is a serious intention of extending the provisions beyond a year.
      More importantly, what assessments will be made of the Bill's effects and operation? How will those assessments be reported to the House, and what opportunity will hon. Members have to debate them? This Bill seriously and fundamentally reduces the civil liberties of British citizens. It has to be monitored, as the prevention of terrorism Acts and other legislation are.
      My hon. Friend the Minister did not see me when I tried to intervene before he sat down at the end of the short discussion of the previous group of amendments.

      1307
      I wanted to ask him what would happen if he sought to make an order during a parliamentary recess: would there be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in such an eventuality? The Bill has been rushed through both Houses of Parliament, and is inadequate in many ways. I think that it poses a danger to civil liberties in our society. At the very least, we need a process by which Parliament can examine its effects. We need to know what reports about its operation will be received up to and during the initial match to which it is intended to apply—the international between England and France in September.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: It was a bit rich of the Minister to complain about the amount of time for assessment of the Bill's effects being reduced to two years, as he was an enthusiastic supporter of denying either House of Parliament the chance to debate properly what the Bill was meant to achieve. No doubt his lack of enthusiasm for the amendment is tempered by his enthusiasm to get the Bill through the House today.
      There has been widespread concern about the Bill in the House. That was evident on Third Reading and at other stages of its progress. It left this House in pretty bad shape, and has returned slightly improved, but the acceptance by the Government of the amendments tabled in another place shows that there was real room for improvement. The reduction of the assessment period is one element of that, but it would have been better if this House had had at least one more day for deliberation on the amendments. We were denied that opportunity. It would also have been better if the House of Lords had had the opportunity to discuss the amendments more fully.
      Everyone who wants legislation to curb football hooliganism to succeed will be disappointed with the lack of time for debate. The problem for those who object to aspects of the Bill is that it will return to the House before two years are up. There is no doubt that the provisions will be challenged in the courts, and the Home Secretary will have to come to the House to amend the legislation accordingly.
      The Bill may solve this summer's problem, but it will not help in the long term. I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who said that we have to stamp out hooliganism and make football worth going to see, so that people can be proud of the national team. The Bill will not achieve that. I hope that the Minister will say what he would add to the Bill to improve it.
      Mr. Banks: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I also said that the Bill might not work. That is because the beast that we are dealing with changes shape according to the legislation that arrives on the statute book. I do not want to create a hostage to fortune, but I am fairly certain that we will have to revisit this territory again and again, until we get the matter right. We must exercise judgment and, although hon. Members from all parties have pointed out the potential problems, that is what we are doing in introducing the Bill.
      I am reasonably agnostic about the amendment. I preferred the original proposal in the Bill for a four-year review period, but I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify one point. I understand that the legislation will come into
      1308
      effect by the end of August. That means that we will be looking at it again this time next year. Probably the most crucial game to be played by the England team in the course of the next year will take place on 1 September 2001. It is a World cup qualifying match against Germany—in Munich, of all places. I can imagine the sort of loonies who might turn up for that match.
      Will my hon. Friend the Minister say to what extent we can be certain that the Bill will still be in place at that time? Will it be adequate to handle problems that might arise in the run-up to the match against Germany on 1 September 2001?
      Mr. David Davis: I shall be brief, in the hope that the House will be able to vote on the Liberal Democrat amendment at the end of this short debate. For me and a number of other hon. Members, it is the only way in which the Bill can be rendered remotely acceptable.
      Many hon. Members were worried about the use of civil standards of proof and civil process to exercise the criminal sanction of a banning order. After the sunset clause is triggered, it is inevitable that the Bill will return to the House to be recreated. I hope that the Minister will look then at the option of using criminal process rather than civil process, and in that way ensure that the legislation properly respects civil liberties.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: We must remember that the Bill is very rushed. It is inaccurate to say that there has been real opportunity for proper scrutiny. Consequently, I think that one year is quite long enough before the measure is reconsidered. It is thoroughly undesirable that we should legislate in this way. To restrict the Bill's time limit to one year—six months would have been better—is the only ameliorating factor. I am very glad that the other place has proposed this amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As colleagues have said, this is where the Government were defeated in the other place, by a majority of 38. The amendment is the attempt of the other place, given the rush, to do something.
      I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). We do not make the removal of civil liberties acceptable by saying that they are removed only for the next two years. My hon. Friends and I take the view that there should be a criminal pre-condition for a banning order, which is not in the Bill, and that there should not be summary detention without judicial authority. However, those views apply whether the measure is for one year or two.
      No Government would put so much effort into a measure if they did not intend to use its powers. It is not as if the Government want these powers to remain in the locker—they want to apply them. We will be able to judge how effective those powers are.
      The sunset provision clearly improves the Bill. The Minister undertook that annual reports would be made, although there is a question about their independence. Before we agree to the amendment, will the Minister confirm that we will have an independent report on the working of the Bill before the renewal orders—which

      1309
      must be made before next summer's recess—and before the end of the life of the Bill, which must be before the end of summer 2002?
      Mr. Charles Clarke: A number of points have been raised in this short debate. Let me say first to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that we believe that the Bill is well constructed, but we do not yet have a view as to what to do at the end of the period. We genuinely want to look at the situation, see what has happened and decide whether the legislation should be improved or whether further legislation is necessary. To that end, my hon. Friend is right to say that it will be necessary for a report to be made on the legislation so that the situation can be fully discussed. That report will be made. I cannot give the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) the commitment—I could not give it to him on Second or Third Readings, either—that the report will be "independent". However, I can give the commitment that we will make a report.
      As for a debate in the House, that is a matter for the normal process. Of course, all the normal processes of the House, including Select Committees, will be able to stimulate debate on those matters.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is there any possibility of ensuring that an independent report is done on the operation of the legislation, perhaps through surveillance of the matches taking place in September and this autumn? Could someone appointed by the Home Office report independently on the Bill so that we do not have to rely only on statistics and police reports?
      Mr. Clarke: I am not ruling that out. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, we will consider how to report in a way that will maximise confidence in what we are doing among all those in the House. A variety of reports are produced—police reports and others have been mentioned—which we look at. We will decide exactly how to report in due course. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot give an absolute commitment that the report will be independent in the way that he wishes.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the recess. The order referred to under proposed section 22A(2) is subject to the negative resolution procedure. It can therefore be laid and can come into force during the recess in the event that such circumstances arise.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) mentioned the Germany/England game in 2001. The process being considered today is that proposed sections 14B, 21A and 21B will be subject to a one-year initial review period which will take us to the end of August 2001, subject to an order extending it for a further year—to August 2002—which will be subject to affirmative resolution.
      In the event that the Bill is agreed to today, the match in September 2001 will be covered, provided that the House agrees an affirmative order before August 2001, which would extend the Bill for another year. That takes us to the period in which the report must be made, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to be clear about this. In the event that the Government decide to extend the life of the measure beyond August 2001, can the Minister assure us that that would be done by an affirmative vote of the House rather than an instrument ordered by a Minister, as that would be ordered during a recess and would therefore have to be voted on retrospectively? That would obviously be too late, because the Bill would already have come into effect.
      Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The extension of the legislation by a further year after the first year would be by affirmative, not negative order. So the Government would need to table—presumably before 31 July 2001—an order to extend the measure for a year to August 2002.1 cannot commit myself to the exact date, but that is the framework. That is the meaning of the process that we are discussing.
      Mr. Hughes: Does not the report, whether or not it is as independent as we would like, also have to be laid before we have the affirmative resolution votes, not just at the end of the two years of the Bill's life?
      Mr. Clarke: The report will be about the first two-year period, assuming that an affirmative order were passed, to consider whether further legislation will be necessary to extend the measure beyond the period that we have discussed. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should have the report before the affirmative order to extend the measure for a further year is made, I understand his point, and so will those who read our proceedings. We will consider what is the appropriate reporting mechanism to the House at that point.
      Obviously, in any debate on the affirmative order, right hon. and hon. Members will be able to make any points that they want about the basis of information that is being considered. A report on the content of the legislation has to be laid beforehand, as clause 5 clearly provides. However, I am more ambiguous in my response to the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the report, because that will be important to the House in considering the situation.
      With that, I commend the Lords amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 1

    AMENDMENTS OF THE FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT 1999
    Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 5, line 14, leave out ("absolutely or").
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10, 12, 15 and 17.
    Mr. Clarke: This group of amendments contains a number of Government amendments brought forward in response to points made here and in the other place. Amendment No. 5 responds to criticisms made in another

    1311
    place that a banning order could be made following a conviction for which the offender received an absolute discharge. The amendment removes that provision.
    Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 9 meet the points made in this House by the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). Their effect is that conduct more than 10 years old cannot be taken into account in considering an order under proposed section 14B unless it relates to an unspent conviction. The amendments also make it clear that the powers under that section do not affect the position under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974—that spent convictions cannot be taken into account in civil proceedings.
    Amendment No. 7 removes from proposed section 14C the reference to decisions of a public authority. The potential breadth of that position was commented on widely by several right hon. and hon. Members throughout our debates, and the Government have therefore removed it from the Bill, to remove any uncertainty about the meaning of the phrase.
    Amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 15 are drafting amendments to make it clear that people cannot be required to surrender their passport in relation to a match to be held in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
    Amendment No. 17 is an important amendment, ensuring that legal advice and assistance, including advice by way of representation, may be made available for proceedings for a banning order by complaint under proposed section 14B, and for proceedings arising from the issue of a notice under proposed section 21B and all subsequent appeals and abdications. For those reasons, I commend the amendments passed in the other place to the House.
    It may be of convenience to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment, which we believe would prevent a court from taking into account circumstances ancillary to a conviction where they occurred more than 10 years previously. That is unnecessary, as the amendments in the Lords have already set up safeguards which we believe ensure that spent convictions will not be taken into account where a conviction remains, even if it is more than 10 years old. It will have been of some gravity and I can see no reason why either it or circumstances ancillary to it should not be taken into account in the making of a banning order.
    It might be of help to the House if I make it clear that the phrase "circumstances ancillary to a conviction" which the amendment seeks to delete is defined in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as including conduct leading to the conviction and the offences which were the subject of that conviction. Only circumstances ancillary to an unspent conviction will be admissible. Any other result would not be sensible. We cannot commend the amendment, but we do commend those passed in another place.
    Mr. Hawkins: A number of the amendments from the other place respond to concerns expressed by the Opposition; in particular, the serious concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
    1312
    North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) in relation to spent convictions. These concerns were shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    On amendment No. 5, the Government have taken up a Liberal Democrat amendment which we supported in another place. I have dealt with amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 9, which would give effect to the Government's recognition of the importance of the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I accept that amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 15 are drafting amendments. However, do the Government recognise that the question of matches in Scotland and Northern Ireland must be kept under review? The Minister will be aware that there has been serious violence at matches in Ireland in the not-too-distant past.
    Mr. Banks: In the Republic.
    Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right, but it included those who claim to be England fans. He will recall, as I do, the disgraceful scenes of seats being torn out and thrown on to the pitch, and the ensuing violence. The Minister must keep under review the issue of sectarianism can spill over into football-related violence.
    On amendment No. 17, my noble Friend Lord Cope welcomed the fact that legal advice and assistance will be available for those who will appear in court to answer a complaint in relation to a banning order. Will the Minister confirm that appropriate indications will be given to the chairman of the Government's new Legal Services Commission, the replacement for the Legal Aid Board, in light of the fact that the Government are accepting the amendment from another place?
    Does the Minister recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord Ackner in another place in relation to proceedings being called civil when they were criminal proceedings, or certainly more of a criminal kind than civil? That concern is shared in all parts of this House and another place. I ask the Minister to confirm that that will be recognised in any instructions given to the chairman of the Legal Services Commission and his staff.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a ridiculous race against the clock, but here goes. Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 17 are good. Amendments Nos. 12 and 15, which are drafting amendments, are also good. Amendment No. 10 is good as far as it goes, but I would be grateful if the Minister indicated where somebody can get their passport back, if it has been surrendered under the Bill, in the event of a family funeral or other urgent business. We were given an undertaking that that would be possible, but I see it nowhere in the Bill.
    Unless the Minister can adequately satisfy me, I will seek to gain the House's support for amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 8. I support the point of view of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) on amendment No. 8, which would make sure that spent convictions are not brought into play. I have spent as much time as I could on drafting the amendment, which refers to "circumstances ancillary to a conviction". That appears to bring back into play things that should have been excluded.
    This is not a draft from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire; the Government produced it in response to his point. However, the

    1313
    amendment does not protect against previous history, pre-dating the control order by 10 years. That worries me. I do not pretend to have a perfect knowledge, but I am advised that it is not necessary. I know it relates to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which I have checked. I have seen the definition, which does not appear to deal with the concern that this undermines the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am always doubtful whether Pepper v. Hart has any real function. However, if the Minister were to make it clear that the use of this portion of the Act was specifically not to permit circumstances ancillary to spent convictions over 10 years old, that might go far to repair the possible damage that worries the hon. Gentleman and myself.
    Mr. Hughes: I would rather have such an admission than nothing, even though it would be of limited value. I would be happy not to push the amendment, although I would like us to vote on something. If the Minister cannot give that admission, I am afraid that it will not be possible.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to Scotland and Northern Ireland and we will keep the situation under review. It is worth emphasising that someone subject to a banning order can be ordered to report to a police station when a match is being played in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments make it clear that passport surrender is not required for those matches.
    In terms of the Legal Services Commission, I can give a commitment that we will ensure that all the contents of the Bill—including the amendments—are passed to the Lord Chancellor and through him to the Legal Services Commission. I will study the points made by Lord Ackner. I agree that it is always important to get clarity as between civil and criminal activities.
    In terms of getting one's passport back—referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—section 20 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 contains that provision. Circumstances ancillary to a conviction are admissible only in relation to convictions which are themselves admissible. Spent convictions will not be admissible, nor will circumstances ancillary to them. That is the effect of section 4(1) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act—
    It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Order [17 July] and Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that you can do nothing about it now, but may we have a mechanism to deal with cases in which the Government, at no notice, guillotine a Bill, effectively meaning that no Opposition amendment can
    1314
    be voted on? The Government produced a guillotine this morning and that has been the effect. We have moved as quickly as possible and hon. Members on both sides have declined to speak, although they wanted to. Even so, we have been unable to test the opinion of the House on any Opposition amendment, and that must be a parliamentary disgrace.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take a further point of order.
    Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that we would have an opportunity to vote on the manuscript amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to one of the Lords amendments. Have we had no vote because we went past 4.29 pm, or do the Government amendments supersede anything said during the previous debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The procedure that we have followed was set out in the motion. The House votes on the amendment immediately before it, and then decides on all other Government amendments.
    Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made it clear that he wished to call a vote on his amendment. As there was no dissent from the Chair, I understood that there would be a vote on his manuscript amendment. I find it very distressing that, on a Bill as serious as this one, we cannot vote on an amendment to a Lords amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that we simply ran out of time.
    Miss Widdecombe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that the timetable for the Bill was decided by the House in a series of guillotine motions. However, bearing in mind Madam Speaker's comments yesterday about the need for the House to hold the Executive to account, may I ask, in the best possible spirit, that Madam Speaker should examine what has happened during the Bill's passage? There has been a long series of events—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Bearing in mind what is being said, and given Madam Speaker's comments yesterday, the least that the House can do is to listen in silence to the right hon. Lady.
    Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Might Madam Speaker consider the procedures used for the Bill? At various points, we have moved from one stage to another—particularly from Committee to Report to Third Reading—under a series of draconian guillotines. The Opposition supported the Bill, despite which—and although our support meant that there was no need for such measures—proper parliamentary scrutiny has been prevented.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see another point of order coming.
    Mr. David Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can make a practical point in support

    1315
    of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In order to reach his amendment, we should have had to vote down amendments Nos. 18,19,20 and 21, and still had time remaining. That would have been impossible in today's debate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will appreciate that these are not matters on which the Chair can rule now. I have no doubt that the House and others outside it will have heard the points made.

Utilities Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 203. If the House agrees to any of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Utilities Bill
  Clause 3

    TRANSFER TO AUTHORITY AND COUNCIL OF FUNCTIONS, PROPERTY ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, leave out from ("Directors")") to ("are") in line 4
    4.34 pm
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 36 to 50, 52 to 54, 150 to 158, 174, 187, 206 to 212, 221, 225, 226 and 245.
    Dr. Howells: The amendments are concerned with the consumer council, and, in a few cases, the authority. There are three sub-sets within the group. The first set make arrangements for independent adjudication of disputes about the council's rights of access to information from the authority or from companies. The second group affect the council's powers to report on its investigations. Finally, a set of miscellaneous, minor amendments improves and corrects the drafting of the Bill.
    Mr. Eric Forth: We are obviously in for a long evening because there is much important material in the Lords amendments. Fortunately, the House has a lot of time in which to deal with the Bill, in contrast with the last matter before us on which important changes to the rights of individual citizens were disgracefully railroaded through the House under a guillotine.
    The Utilities Bill is not in the same category as the Football (Disorder) Bill, but it introduces important measures that require our mature consideration. I will not detain the House unduly on this group, nor will I linger on each amendment. It would be far from my mind to do that.
    My eye has lit, however, upon amendment No. 38, the wording of which could give rise to worries under some interpretations. The Minister will wish to leaf through his notes to consider the amendment. Of course, he will already have done so, because he is doubtless well acquainted with every one of the amendments before us. We shall wish, over the next few hours, to tease out just how well he has read them. For now, however, I wish to ask only about amendment No. 38.

    1317
    The amendment states:
    Information relating to a particular individual or body may be included in a report to be published under section (5)(b) if—

    (a) that individual or body has consented to the publication;

    (b) it is information that is available to the public from some other source; or

    (c) it is not information the publication of which would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual or body.

    It may well be thought that paragraph (a) is relatively uncontroversial, and one cannot argue with the proposition that if an individual or body has consented, it is perfectly proper for publication to proceed. We can dispose of that provision without further ado.
    Paragraph (b) is more problematic, however. Real questions arise about "some other source". Wording so loose and general must give rise to some concern. There is no further definition, and no restriction is proposed. What if the other source were to be one normally bound by confidentiality?
    Dr. Howells: If it were commercially confidential, it would not be available to the public. We are discussing information already available to the public from other sources.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful. We are discussing a duplication of effort, then. Information already available elsewhere will simply be rearranged and represented. That being so, one wonders how worthwhile the amendment is.
    Dr. Howells: Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman. On this Bill, I have been constantly accused of including all sorts of Henry VIII powers and so on. With this amendment, I am trying to include the briefest provision possible, and am finding myself criticised for it by the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a fount of common sense in these matters.
    Mr. Forth: I am glad to hear that—as I would have expected of him—the Minister has paid close attention to the matter, exercised his judgment and decided that, on balance, the amendment is acceptable if not actually beneficial.
    The most worrying of the three paragraphs in amendment No. 38 is (c), which states:
    it is not information the publication of which would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual or body.
    Here, we enter a judgmental area. It would appear that the council is being given the power to take the decision. That is a serious judgment in any case, but we will have to be more than usually satisfied to give it explicitly to the council.
    As hon. Members well know, making available information, in particular about an individual or body, can be extremely prejudicial in many ways. If the body is a commercial business, it could seriously affect its share value, for example. In some circumstances, it could prejudice the degree of confidence that the public have in a public body. In the case of an individual, I do not need to tell hon. Members about the damaging or deleterious effect that publication of information about them might have. Almost daily, there are cases where the publication of information can be damaging to an individual.
    1318
    I wonder what safeguards might exist. Paragraph (c) simply states, baldly that
    in the opinion of the Council
    the information should not be judged seriously or prejudicially to affect interests. There is nothing to say what recourse an individual or body might have if the council judged that publication was not prejudicial, but the individual felt that it was.
    Dr. Howells: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, other parts of the Bill contain stringent provisions to ensure opportunities for appeal about the demand for information, in which case the decision would go to an adjudicator. In this case, the adjudicator will, temporarily, be the authority or regulator, who is paid a great deal of money to make such decisions.
    Mr. Forth: I am only partly reassured by that intervention. The timing of these events is crucial. If the information is already in the public domain—about me, for example—and I then tell that highly paid adjudicator that I do not believe that it is right and he agrees, the damage has already been done. If the information is already in the public domain, what is the point of that highly paid adjudicator coming to my rescue?
    Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman has a good point, but as he said, it is all to do with timing. The adjudicator would adjudicate on the initial offering up of the information, not subsequent to it being offered up. If the information was delivered on request, the adjudicator would prevent it from being put in the public domain if he felt that it would be harmful to the company involved.
    Mr. Forth: If the Minister is telling me that he is satisfied that there is a mechanism whereby, before the information is in the public domain, the individual or body would be apprised of the fact, that is sufficient.
    Dr. Howells indicated assent.
    Mr. Forth: I gather that that is what the Minister is telling me. If he is satisfied that mechanisms exist properly to protect individuals and bodies from potential damage, of course I accept his word. He has studied the matter and given it his mature consideration, and that is his view. Therefore, on that basis, I am prepared to accept what he says.
    That brief exchange shows—I am sure that I do not need to persuade you of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the value and necessity of the scrutiny that we are undertaking. It is one thing for a Bill to go through all its stages in this House and to go to another place, it is another for the Lords to have amended it. It is equally essential, is it not, for us to have the opportunity to consider what has been suggested and to determine how appropriate it is?
    I pay the Minister yet another tribute—he stands high in my regard anyway. At least with this Bill we are not being constrained by the usual jackboot of a guillotine motion. The Football (Disorder) Bill, which we have just considered, was a disgrace. However, the Minister is content for us to debate this Bill properly and to consider it. I pay tribute to him and, indeed, to the Whip on duty, who is also generously allowing the House proper time to consider the matter appropriately.

    1319
    Having obtained the assurances that I had hoped for, I am satisfied that I need not challenge the Government on this matter any further.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

  Clause 6

    PUBLICATION OF ADVICE AND INFORMATION ABOUT CONSUMER MATTERS
    Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 17, leave out from ("matter") to end of line 20 and insert
    ("which relates to the affairs of a particular individual or body of persons (corporate or unincorporate), where publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Authority, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual or body.")
    4.45 pm
    Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7, 18 to 35, 51, 97, 107, 132 to 137, 141, 143, 168, 178, 180, 197, 227 and 239.
    Dr. Howells: The amendments to clause 6 in this group are designed to tidy things up, if you do not mind my saying so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are concerned with the provision of information to consumers and others. Therefore, I commend them to the House
    Mr. Forth: Amendment No. 143 caught my eye in this group. Interestingly, it would insert after clause 102 a new clause entitled, "General restrictions on the disclosure of information", which follows somewhat in the spirit of our previous debate, and it runs to two and a half pages. One would have thought that under normal circumstances, an item of such gravity, substance and scope would have encouraged the Minister to say a little more about his views, given that it covers important and wide areas.
    Even right at the beginning, the new clause states:
    Information which…has been obtained … by virtue of the provisions and…relates to the affairs of any individual or to any particular business—
    we are in the same territory as for the previous group of amendments about which we had a brief exchange—
    shall not be disclosed during the lifetime of the individual or so long as the business continues to be carried on, except as provided below.
    That could raise several questions—although not about the lifetime of the individual, which is a fairly open-and-shut and definitive matter. The phrase
    so long as the business continues to be carried on
    requires a little more exploration. I shall assume that, for these purposes, the word "business" is used in the generic sense and that it covers public and private companies, and presumably even partnerships and so on.
    Might the business be brought to an end voluntarily—wound up or put into liquidation? The business might be temporarily suspended. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and the Minister are far more expert in such matters than I could
    1320
    ever be. There are several different ways in which the business might cease to trade. The new clause uses—unusually—the more colloquial phrase
    as long as the business continues to be carried on.
    Does that form of words hold water? Its accuracy and usefulness bear examination. The question requires a brief response from the Minister.
    The question of consent arises under subsection (2), which states that:
    Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure made with the consent of the individual or the person for the time being carrying on the business.
    Does that imply that only one person is involved in carrying on the business? Surely it cannot do so. Does it imply that only the consent of one of the people carrying on the business is needed? In normal circumstances, more than one person would be involved in carrying on a business and thus consent should be required from all or a majority of them, or from someone who has been given legal power to give such consent. The provision does not make that clear, although I am sure that real substance and meaning lie behind it. It would be useful if the Minister would clarify the matter before the Bill makes much more progress.
    The new clause notes that subsection (1) does not apply to disclosure in a large number of circumstances; for example, if
    it is made for the purpose of facilitating the performance— or—
    is required by a notice under section 38(1 A).
    Matters become complicated when we reach paragraph (d) which states that the subsection does not apply to disclosure if
    it is made by one licence holder to another and is required by that other licence holder for purposes connected with the carrying on of relevant activities.
    By the time one reaches that stage, matters seem to be at arm's length and second hand. I assume that the provision is watertight, although the details make me wonder about that.
    Subsection (4) gives a detailed list of provisions under which subsection (1) will not apply. The most worrying is paragraph (h). Knowing me as he does, the Minister will not be surprised that I mention that paragraph in passing—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton might also be worried about it. It states that disclosure of information under subsection (1) will not apply
    in pursuance of a Community obligation.
    I assume that that means a European Union obligation.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wash his mouth out.
    Mr. Forth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to provoke me; he is much too nice for that. I am merely wondering about the wording. Is it legally watertight? I was elected to the European Parliament in the good old days when it was an institution of the European Economic Community. I was relaxed about that. I became more worried when it passed through various ghastly transformations into, first, the European Community—dropping the word "Economic", which worried me as much as it worried many others—and then

    1321
    the European Union. Where does this Community thing come in? Is it "the Community"? The word begins with a capital, which makes it rather grand and important. Why is the body not described as the European Union? Is the Minister trying to hide something? Is there a sinister plot?
    The serious point is that I need to know whether the word "Community" is being used correctly. If so, what does it mean in this new clause? What does it cover? Is it the European Union in all its manifestations? Is it all the arms, branches and bodies of the EU? What exactly is a "Community obligation"? Is it only a directive or could it be something else? It certainly cannot be anything to do with the European convention on human rights. Many people get confused about that, but I know it cannot be the convention because that is a matter for the Council of Europe.
    Will the Minister give us some help to interpret this seemingly innocent provision? It may be inaccurate, useless or even misleading. I want to know the extent of the obligations that arise from that, albeit rather loose, wording of "Community". We need to know much more about that.
    Subsection (5) contains a long list of some very important people. It talks about
    The persons and bodies specified for the purposes of subsection (4)(a)
    and about
    a Minister of the Crown.
    Presumably, that means any and all Ministers of the Crown—we know that they are omniscient, omnipotent and ubiquitous. I want clarification on whether that does indeed cover, as a generic term, Parliamentary Undersecretaries of State as well as Ministers proper—Ministers of State and Secretaries of State.
    The subsection then lists the Competition Commission and all sorts of directors of very important things. Then, rather oddly, it says:
    a local weights and measures authority in Great Britain.
    Out of that seemingly innocent element, a couple of intriguing questions arise as to whether the local weights and measures authority is suddenly thrust to the same level of prominence and competence as Ministers of the Crown on one hand and the Civil Aviation Authority on the other.
    More intriguing is the inclusion of the term "in Great Britain." I assume that it was included advisedly, and I just want to ask in passing what happens outside Great Britain and why those who are not blessed to be in Great Britain are not to be given the benefits of the provision. It would help me to know, before I give my approval to the amendment, whether people outside Great Britain have some other means of being satisfied by these provisions.
    I do not want to delay the House unduly. I could have picked up many more of what I consider to be anomalies and slacknesses. We shall go into a lot of other things in more detail as required—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, on the Front Bench, is itching to get his teeth into all this nonsense—but I think that I am really asking, given the extent to which the Government are prepared to accept these amendments from another place, whether they are really satisfied that the amendments are tightly drafted,
    1322
    that they are viable in terms of the law, that this whole thing holds water and that we shall not be creating even more trouble for ourselves than might already exist.
    That is the general thrust of my remarks. I just wanted to take a few detailed examples to give what I said a slightly sharper edge, but I have probably cited enough to give a flavour. I am asking the Minister, in his usual charming but competent way, to put our minds at rest, to take us through the matter, and to display his mastery of the material, as he usually does. If he did, I would find that very satisfying.
    Dr. Howells: Flattery will get the right hon. Gentleman everywhere. I thank him. I think that I referred to him as the hon. Gentleman earlier; it must have been because I had dashed into the Chamber, and was clearly the result of a rush of blood to the brain.
    Lords amendment No. 143, which the right hon. Gentleman is very concerned about, is, as he knows, part of a larger group of amendments which carry forward the well-established convention that it should be a criminal offence to make an unauthorised disclosure of information obtained under legislation that empowers public authorities to require information from individuals and businesses. That is already the case under the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989, but the sections in those Acts differ slightly from each other. The amendments repeal both those sections and substitute a single regime which will apply to both Acts, as is appropriate where a single licensing authority operates aligned licensing regimes.
    The new clause which, essentially is Lords amendment No. 143—the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it is a long amendment—prohibits disclosures and then defines certain exceptions where disclosure is permitted. That is a complicated process, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight it. As a rule, the exceptions are for disclosures between regulatory authorities to facilitate the performance of the receiving authority's statutory functions.
    The publication powers conferred on the authority and the council elsewhere in the Bill are generally exceptions to the prohibition on disclosure as well. Each is usually subject to its own harm test, limiting, in other words, what may be disclosed without the consent of those to whom the information in question relates. The new clause will also apply to information obtained under the Bill, for example, by the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council under clause 24, with which I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar.
    5 pm
    The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question about the definition of a business that has ceased to trade and what happens if a business is in suspension. Business has either been wound up or it has not. If it has been suspended temporarily, but not wound up, business continues. That is a difficult one, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised it because it gives me a chance to clarify it for the House.
    I was fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's search for the definition of "Community". He almost had me believing that we could substitute "Commonwealth" or something else for it. I have to remind him that he was a member of a Government who signed the country up to

    1323
    Maastricht. It is awful to have to say that this late in the term, but they did. The phrase "Community obligations" refers to the obligations of the European Union as it exists now and the European Community as it existed previously in timeless legislation. That is defined in schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978, with which I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is as familiar as I am.
    The right hon. Gentleman properly asked about the areas of this great country that are not included. Northern Ireland is the missing element. That is because the Weights and Measures Act 1986 does not extend to Northern Ireland.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 agreed to.

  Clause 8

    PAYMENTS BY LICENCE HOLDERS RELATING TO NEW ARRANGEMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 5, line 21, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11.
    Mrs. Liddell: Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 relate to clause 8. This gives the authority powers to modify payment conditions in licences to reflect the establishment of the authority and the council. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 make it clear that the authority can modify payment conditions to recover expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in establishing both the authority and the council, and that any preparatory costs incurred by the Secretary of State can be recovered.
    Amendment No. 10 will facilitate the transition from the old to the new payment conditions by permitting the directors general, the Secretary of State, or both, to carry out the required consultation on the new conditions prior to the establishment of the authority. The new conditions can then be in place from the date that the new bodies are established.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: While waiting for us to reach this group, I have been trying to understand what amendment No. 8 means. We are told that it relates to line 21 of page 5. Clause 8(3)(2) refers to
    the expenses of the Secretary of State in relation to the establishment of the Authority or the Council.
    The amendment replaces the word "or" with "and". I am not sure why the other place felt that that was necessary. Will the Minister explain that to me, please?
    Mrs. Liddell: I think that the other place believed that it was a tidying up and a clarification. There has been lengthy debate in both Houses and this is an opportunity for us to ensure the clarity of the legislation wherever the two new authorities come into play. It is a common-sense provision. I do not feel particularly strongly about it, but
    1324
    it tidies up the legislation and makes it much more coherent. The hon. Gentleman will know that I am always willing to accept good suggestions.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: I should like to help the Minister in answering my hon. Friend's question. This is one of many tidying-up and redrafting amendments. The Bill was incompetently drafted. The clause is an example of bad drafting. It is clear when one takes the word "and" out and puts "or" back in that the clause will not be satisfactory. There have been more than 600 Government amendments to the Bill. It is a classic example—it is just one of many—of a poorly drafted Bill being brought to the House in a rush. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for raising this issue.
    Mrs. Liddell: I shall not get involved in questions of grammar with the hon. Gentleman. However, I merely point out that, when we started to consider the Bill, he said that he supported its broad thrust, but claimed that there would be 1,000 amendments. With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that it is not often that he is right—and he is wrong again.
    Labour Members are anxious for the Bill to reach the statute book. It will ensure that consumers of energy get the full benefits to which they are entitled. It should lead to a reduction of 10 per cent, in wholesale electricity prices. I am not surprised that some Conservative Members wish to delay it.
    Amendment No. 10 will facilitate the transition from the old to the new payment conditions by permitting the directors general and the Secretary of State—or both—to carry out consultation on the new conditions prior to the establishment of the authority. The new conditions can then be in place from the date that the new bodies are established
    Amendment No. 11 deals with concerns expressed in Committee that the Secretary of State's powers in clause 8(8) to direct the inclusion of payment conditions were too widely drawn. The amendment ensures that the powers of direction can be used only in relation to the expenses of the council, and the expenses of the Secretary of State in relation to the establishment of the authority and the council.
    Mr. Forth: As the House knows, this matter relates to payments by licence holders relating to new arrangements generally. It also refers to the arrangements that are to be made under the Bill whereby the authority can modify the condition of licences. More specifically, before modifying the conditions of a licence, the authority is required to consult the licence holders. These are important provisions, so it is important that we understand them properly.
    I want to pause for a moment to consider amendment No. 10, which would insert the words:
    Any consultation undertaken by the Director General of Gas Supply, the Director General of Electricity Supply or the Secretary of State before the commencement of subsection (6)—

    1325
    the subsection that refers to the modification of the conditions of a licence and the requirement for consultation—
    shall be as effective for the purposes of that subsection as if undertaken by the Authority after that time.
    In effect, it says that if something happens before something, it will be as effective as if something had happened after something. I am slightly confused by that provision. I have no doubt that there is an elegant explanation for it and that the Minister will provide it shortly. However, for the time being, the meaning of it defeats me. I am not sure what the purpose of those words is and whether they will achieve it.
    Like other hon. Members, I understand the point behind the original words in subsection (6), which states that, before the conditions of the licence are modified,
    the Authority shall consult the licence holder.
    It may be my fault for not spotting this point earlier, but it might not have been a bad idea for the obligation to consult to be somewhat wider. I can imagine circumstances in which the modifications of the conditions of one licence could—and almost certainly would—affect people other than the licence holder, especially if the conditions were eased or payments were reduced.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) pointed out, more than 600 amendments have already been made to this rather imperfect Bill. I am not at all surprised by that, but I shall not dwell on the point—you would not want me to, Mr. Deputy Speaker—about whether the consultation should go wider. However, I want to dwell for a moment longer on amendment No. 10. We need much more clarity about the amendment's purpose in referring to consultation being as effective if it is undertaken before the commencement of subsection (6) as it would be if it were undertaken afterwards. We need to know why those words should be included and what they add to the Bill.
    More pertinently, we should ask whether such wording risks confusing licence holders. Indeed, it may even confuse the authority and the director general more than it will help them. Before we agree to the amendment, we must be satisfied that it adds value and clarity. My fear—subject to the Minister explaining the amendment fully, as I am sure that she will—is that the amendment may serve to confuse, and not to clarify. The last thing that we want at this stage, and that the Government would want, is for words to be added to the Bill that would confuse people and undermine its purpose.
    Mrs. Liddell: It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was unable to join us in Committee, where we had considerable discussion on these matters. If he had had the time to refer to the Official Report, he might not be questioning these issues. The measures concern the arrangements for the transition from having two authorities to having a single authority. They also aim to guarantee that there will be maximum consultation to ensure that everyone is content, and comfortable with the legislation.
    A similar provision appears in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The right hon. Gentleman is probably more familiar with that than I am because it was introduced by the Administration of which he was a member. It is important that we have the correct
    1326
    transitional arrangements and, without this provision, we would find ourselves unable to consult until after the establishment of the authority and the council, which would mean that consultation would be curtailed and would cause delay.
    Given that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in this House and the other place have welcomed the measures, I do not expect him to be too discommoded by the amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].
    Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 agreed to [Some with Special Entry].

  Clause 9

    OBJECTIVES AND DUTIES UNDER 1986 ACT
    Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 6, line 24, at end insert
    ("or the Utilities Act 2000")
    Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following: amendment in lieu thereof, Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 14, 15 and amendment in lieu thereof, and 16, 17, 228, 234, 235 and 241.
    Mrs. Liddell: I do not want to delay the House unduly. Amendment No. 12, together with amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 17, clarify what is meant by the functions of the authority and the Secretary of State for the purposes of clauses 9 to 11 and 13 to 15. They also clarify what is meant by activities subject to obligations for the purposes of the finance duty in sub-paragraph (2)(b) of clauses 9 and 13.
    Clauses 9 to 11 and 13 to 15 contain obligations that relate to the functions of the authority and Secretary of State. Clauses 9 and 13 set out their principal objective and general duties; clauses 10 and 14 oblige the authority to have regard to social and environmental guidance, and clauses 11 and 15 contain important obligations concerned with health and safety.
    Following Royal Assent, the functions of the authority and the Secretary of State will be largely contained in the amended Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989, but both will also have functions under stand-alone provisions of the Utilities Bill—that is, provisions that do not simply amend the existing Gas and Electricity Acts. For example, clause 4 requires the authority to prepare, consult on and publish a forward work programme, and clause 26 empowers the authority to publish a notice issued by the consumer council setting out its reasons for refusing to supply information.
    5.15 pm
    The amendments make it clear that references to the functions of the authority or the Secretary of State in clauses 9 to 11 and 13 to 15 relate to their functions under the provisions of the Bill, as well as to their functions under the amended Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989.
    Similarly, the amendments make it clear that, for the purposes of the finance duty in subsection (2)(b) of clauses 9 and 13, the reference to the activities of licence

    1327
    holders that are subject to "obligations" extend to stand-alone obligations under this Bill, as well as to obligations under the amended Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989.
    Amendments Nos. 13 and 16, which were divided on in another place, would place the authority and the Secretary of State under a duty to exercise their functions in the manner that they consider best calculated to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy strategy. The authority and the Secretary of State must, as part of their primary duty, consider the needs of future, as well as existing, consumers. That requirement necessarily imports longer-term thinking about security of supply into their processes.
    We accept that many people think that it would be desirable to make this even clearer in the Bill, and the Government are therefore prepared to accept the amendments.
    Let me deal briefly with amendments Nos. 228 and 235, to assist the House. Each of those repeal provisions of the Gas Act 1986, which are replaced by equivalent provisions contained in the Bill. Amendment No. 228 repeals the latter half of section 47(7) of the Gas Act, which is the equivalent of paragraph 10 of schedule 1 to the Bill. Amendment No. 235 repeals paragraph 15(2) of schedule 7 of the Gas Act, which is the equivalent of clause 5(9) of the Bill.
    Finally, amendments Nos. 234 and 241 repeal spent provisions of the Gas Act and the Electricity Act respectively, which are concerned with the compulsory purchase of land in Scotland.
    Mr. Gibb: The Bill started life as the Department of Trade and Industry's great flagship Bill, with 134 clauses and a new regulatory regime for all four utilities—gas, electricity, telecommunications and water. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State introduced the Bill in glowing, almost adulatory terms. He said:
    The Bill is forward-looking. It sets out a new framework for utilities regulation that is fit and appropriate for the 21st century.
    The Bill puts utilities regulation on a sure footing for the 21st century, and is good for consumers, good for competition and good for the utilities.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 795.]
    That was on 31 January but, by 2 March, it was clear that, for the telecommunications industry and the water utilities, the Bill was bad for consumers, bad for competition and bad for the utilities. That is why both water and telecommunications were withdrawn from the Bill in a humiliating admission of incompetence by the Government, especially the Secretary of State.
    I warned the Minister in Committee that there would be 900 amendments, not 1,000, as she said. In the event, there were more than 600. If I exaggerated, I did so only slightly. The Government made strenuous efforts to reduce the number of amendments by merging some of them to get the number down to 600.
    Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps I should be delighted that the hon. Gentleman has joined us, because I understand that
    1328
    he was an accountant in a previous life. If he thinks that the difference between 600 and 900 is slight, I am glad that he never did my tax returns.
    Mr. Gibb: It is slight in this context. Huge efforts were made by civil servants to redraft amendments to ensure that they conformed with that figure.
    Mr. Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whether the discrepancy in his accounting is large or small, it is not as great as chopping the Bill in half and adding back 600 bits?
    Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, especially as those 600-odd amendments were to a Bill of 134 clauses. The Government could almost have started again with more efficiency than just accepting 600 amendments, the vast majority of which dealt with poor drafting and poor policy analysis. I do not wish to be unkind, but it became abundantly clear in Committee that the Ministers were not up to speed with what was going on; they were certainly not driving the policy forward.
    This flagship Bill, which was part and parcel of the Government's so-called modernisation programme, has become a huge embarrassment to them, and the House even considered referring it back to Committee. It started as one of those eye-catching initiatives with which the Prime Minister likes to be personally associated, but it has finished up as an example of how not to legislate. Even the Secretary of State, who is absent today, is trying to avoid being associated with it.
    The essence of the Bill is to change the role of the regulator from that of an economic regulator to one of regulating for the sake of it. The gas and electricity regulators were put in place when the industries were privatised in 1986 and 1989 to deal with the fact that they were effectively monopolies and to ensure that those monopolies did not exploit their position. They were also charged with promoting competition—a role that they have carried out in an exemplary fashion during the past 11 or 14 years. The retail prices index minus X formula applied by the regulators has given the industries huge incentives to cut costs, increase efficiency and become more customer focused. Electricity and gas prices have fallen by 30 per cent, in real terms since privatisation and huge competition exists in the gas and electricity industries.
    In 1988, when the Prime Minister led for the Opposition in opposing the privatisation of electricity industry, he said:
    outside of the Conservative party…it is barely in issue that prices will rise because of privatisation.
    The truth is that they have fallen. On competition, he said:
    I would have thought that it was…virtually impossible that anyone would build a power station and invest hundreds of millions of pounds, unless they received a guarantee covering the capital cost, the fuel cost and, probably … the operating costs, too … the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense.—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 681–84.]
    The truth is that there has been an influx of new power stations, all of which are in competition. There are 27 new power stations, and 50 new independent power producers have entered the generation market since privatisation with a total market share of 21 per cent.

    1329
    Under the Bill, the Government are changing the role and obligations of the regulators. That role would also be amended under the Lords amendments. It is important to understand the philosophy behind the Bill. It is set out in a pamphlet, entitled "Regulating in the Public Interest", written by Dan Corry in 1994. Some hon. Members might not be aware that Dan Corry is one of the Government's huge army of special advisers. He said that his pamphlet
    tries…to take us back to the reasons that we have regulation in order to see whether this leads us towards a different vision for the way forward.
    Interestingly, he continued:
    Once we accept that regulation is here to stay, we are into the world of how we should use it. This is a classic issue of interventionism in the workings of the economy.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I declare an interest as president of the Association of Electricity Producers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is even worse than he suggests because the concept of social regulation will replace that of economic regulation and because the system that will replace the existing markets system is largely contract based and anticompetitive in many respects?
    Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall deal with some of the comments in the newspapers and on Second Reading.
    That pamphlet is, in essence, a blueprint for the Bill. The key point is that the Government believe that, because the regulators exist for those industries, they should be used to deliver some of the Government's social and political programmes. If the Government had their way, we would also have a regulator for the supermarkets, for car retailers and for a number of other things.
    The interventionist instincts of the Labour party and of those who share its philosophy are alive and kicking and prevalent in the Bill. The amendments are the key to that philosophy. That is why the order of the objectives for the regulator has been changed. That is why the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the authority to take into account directives from the Secretary of State on social matters when regulating the utilities.
    That is the fundamental difference that the Bill brings to the role of the regulator. It begs the question: what happens when the market, the industry or a sector of the industry becomes fully competitive? If we believe that the regulator's role is to mimic competition, once a sector becomes competitive, the regulator's role is effectively redundant and should disappear. The Health and Safety Executive can deal with safety issues; the Competition Commission can deal with any anti-competitive forces or alliances; but the specific role for a regulator of that particular sector of that industry should go. The electricity supply industry is one such example. It is highly competitive, so now is the time to remove the regulator from that sector altogether.
    If one believes, as the Government seem to, that the regulator has a wider role even in a fully competitive market—even when competition has fully arrived—there can be no rolling back of the regulator's role. That point was put to the Secretary of State during the Second Reading debate. He was asked whether he believed that
    there is still a role for the regulator when the utility sector involved … is fully exposed to fierce competition.
    1330
    His answer was:
    As a general rule, my personal view is that regulators are not appropriate in those circumstances, and I should much rather have the discipline of an effective market.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 793.]
    That is his personal view, which contradicts the basis of the Bill that he has proposed. He tries to justify it by saying that, in many areas, the market is not perfect and thus a role for the regulator remains, but no market is absolutely perfect. However, most markets do not—apart from the utilities and financial services sectors—have a regulator. Provided that there is fierce competition, there is no need for a regulator to mimic competition. If, in those circumstances, the regulator remains, its role has become something else: a regulator for the sake of regulation, for the sake of intervening for policy purposes. Therefore, it is in essence a return to increased state control.
    It is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) referred when he wrote in The Daily Telegraph that the Utilities Bill and the Financial Services and Markets Bill
    will establish an entirely new form of government, the like of which this country has not experienced before: rule by regulator.
    Neil Bennett in The Sunday Telegraph called it
    the near renationalisation of the gas and power industries.
    It is why, during the Second Reading debate, my hon. Friend said:
    regulators are being given social and political objectives, which are antithetical to competition. We are witnessing a parallel system of government emerging.
    He went on to say:
    That is socialism by regulation; it is socialism on the sly and it is nationalisation by the back door. I hope that one of our first objectives when we return to government will be to dismantle all the regulatory apparatus, except for that which focuses on competition because competition is the true friend of the consumer.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 828.]
    I tell him here and now categorically that, when we return to power, we will significantly reduce the role of the utility regulators and confine their role to that of mimicking a competitive market and to promoting competition.
    I have tried to establish that the Bill creates a whole new type of industry regulator, with wide new objectives, obligations and powers. It is those extra duties that the Government have imposed on it that will involve Ofgem—or GEMA as it should now be called—in higher cost, all of which will be passed on to the industry and thence on to the consumer.
    In fact, industry will suffer three forms of increased costs as a result of the Bill. The first is higher licence payments to cover the increased costs faced by the regulator himself. The second relates to the higher cost incurred directly by industry as it implements the social and other obligations required of it. The third is the higher cost of capital that results from greater regulatory risk. That is why the Bill has been so poorly received by industry, despite all the alleged consultation. Indeed, Ian Byatt, the erstwhile water regulator, said of the Bill when it included water:
    The Bill's enlargement of the scope for discretionary intervention by regulators, politicians and advocates is likely to extract a high price from utility industries, and all consumers will pay it.

    1331
    Clauses 9 and 13 are two of the most important clauses in the Bill. They set out the objectives of both the Secretary of State and the regulator, and thus constitute the lodestone on which the whole direction of regulation of the utilities is based. Those "objective" clauses not only change the regulator's role, but change the order and priority of other objectives.
    5.30 pm
    The Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989, which privatised the industries concerned, are similarly worded, setting out the regulators' objectives as established at the time of privatisation. Three key objectives were specified. The first was to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity were satisfied. The second was to secure that licence holders were able to finance the carrying on of the activities involved. The third was to promote competition. There were three equal duties, relating to security of supply, financial viability and the promotion of competition.
    That is the current regulatory regime. Under the Bill, however, the primary objective is to promote consumers' interests. Issues such as security of supply and financial viability have been downgraded to second place.
    The great achievement of the current regulatory regime is this. The RPI minus X formula gave industry incentives to reduce costs while maintaining financial viability, at the same time as delivering lower prices to the consumer. Everyone knows—even Labour pretends to accept—that the private sector is more efficient than the state sector. The RPI minus X formula was established to ensure that a proportion of that saving was passed on to the consumer.
    Of course, once a fully competitive market has been established there is no need for a formula, because the market itself will deliver the price reduction. The RPI minus X formula is only a mechanism enabling the benefits derived from efficiency savings to be shared; it does not, in itself, deliver efficiencies. It is the effect of being in the private sector that delivers the forces leading to greater efficiency.
    The regulator needs to be aware—this is the point of the amendment—that he cannot simply pluck the "X" figure from the air, and expect efficiencies to be delivered. There comes a point at which diminishing returns start to kick in. After a number of years in the private sector, the huge efficiency savings resulting from release from the lethargy of the state sector will no longer be kept up. Efficiency will continue to increase, but not at the same dramatic rate. That is why, under the existing system, there was always a prime duty to maintain the financial viability of the companies. Demoting that objective means that the regulator is almost forced to put such concerns very low on his list of considerations—which leads to the real danger of over-prescriptive and draconian regimes.
    There is another real danger, of which we are beginning to see signs in the utilities even before the implementation of the Bill. In Yorkshire, for example, Kelda, which owns Yorkshire Water, has sought to transfer all the assets of its business to a mutual trading company. Ofwat has said no to that, but the proposal is significant.
    1332
    Because of what is now widely regarded as an excessively draconian regime, the returns—the income—that Ofwat is allowing the water companies to make are so low that the market value of shares in the companies is below the book value of the assets that they own. If they simply sold all their assets, such as buildings and pipelines, and deposited the money in a building society, they could generate a significantly higher income than they are making from the provision of water services.
    Yorkshire Water wanted to sell its assets, and to sell them to a mutual trading company. The assets would have been sold in exchange for debt, so the mutual trading company would have been 100 per cent, debt financed. There is no doubt that interest on debts must be paid, although there is an element of choice governing whether a company pays a dividend. In this case, the regulator would not be able to force the funders of the asset to take a lower return.
    The regime has therefore become so unattractive that equity capital—entrepreneurial, innovative, private-sector business—does not want to run the business. It wishes to withdraw and to leave the supply of water to a mutual trading company. The danger of large mutual companies is that they have reduced incentive to innovate and to provide improved services. Philosophically, they are in many ways akin to the state sector. As the Financial Times said yesterday in an editorial:
    mutual ownership…leaves big questions as to how the new managers could be kept sharp in pursuit of efficiency.
    The point that the Minister has to take into account is that, although Ofwat has refused to allow the restructuring, in the long run there is nothing that any regulator can do to stop equity owners from withdrawing their capital from businesses that are impossible to run at a profit because the regulatory regime is too harsh.
    Mutualisation is effectively the renationalisation of those industries by over-regulation. If the Bill results in over-burdensome regulation in electricity and gas, as there is in water, we could see—I am not sure, but we may already be seeing it in gas distribution—similar trends in those industries. The replacement of equity funding with debt is the first step in that process.
    The purpose of our amendment in lieu is to put financial viability higher up the regulator's consciousness. It is important that the regimes are carefully balanced. The Bank of England has a similar imperative. Anyone can cure inflation by raising interest rates to 100 per cent, and killing the economy totally. The truth is that, to get interest rate policy right, we have to keep inflation down and growth steady. That is the trick of economic policy. That is also why the Governor of the Bank of England has to write to the Chancellor explaining why inflation has fallen to below 1.5 per cent. Similar constraints have to be imposed on the utility regulator, to ensure that the regulator does not drive out equity capital in the provision of investment funds to electricity and gas. Our amendment would help to achieve that.
    Our amendment in lieu is important and could do much to save the gas and electricity industries from the problems being faced in water. Without it, we run the risks associated with mutualisation and the effective renationalisation of those industries. I hope that the

    1333
    Government will accept it at this late hour. However, I suspect that the words of the Prime Minister back in 1988, may prevail. He said:
    We are proud that we took the—
    electricity—
    industry into public ownership. When we come to power it will be reinstated as a public service for the people of this country, and will not be run for private profit.—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 681–84.]
    I trust that that is no longer the Government's policy, and that they will demonstrate their commitment to the private sector by accepting our amendment. However, if they are not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope very much that the House will vote to accept it.
    Mr. David Wilshire: It might benefit the House if I were to point out that—although it is not, strictly speaking, a declarable interest—many of my constituents earn their living by working for the successors to British Gas. I approach the debate from that direction.
    I also understand from listening to the speeches of other hon. Members that there is a general wish not to prolong matters too much. I shall attempt not to do that.
    The Minister rightly said that Lords amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15 and 17 were seeking simply to expand the statement that "so and so shall arise out of this part" to "so and so shall arise out of this part or the Act itself." I am not a lawyer or a parliamentary draftsman. However, I am puzzled about why, if the legislation provides that something shall arise out of the Act, it should also state that something shall arise out of one part of the Act. It seems to be an excessively belt-and-braces approach to say that something will arise from both the Act and a part of the Act. Surely to goodness we know that "this part" is a part of the Act itself. Why is the Minister so keen, at a very late stage in our consideration of the Bill, to urge us to support including repetition in the Bill? I should be grateful for some clarity on that point.
    I am also concerned about Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17. If I heard the Minister correctly, the Government have made a concession. They initially preferred to have no reference in this part of the Bill to the long-term supply of energy. In a debate in the other place, they tried to prevent Parliament from saying that the long-term provision of energy matters sufficiently to be mentioned in the Bill. I suppose we should be grateful for the concession, but it is worth making the point that they tried to exclude any such reference.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made it clear that, if we were the Government, we would not be starting from here, but the Government are starting from here and have decided to overturn the existing arrangements for the regulator and introduce new requirements. If they are determined to do that, they have the majority, and no doubt they will use it. It is extraordinary in those circumstances to resist any reference to the long-term supply of energy for the British people.
    In the absence of a realistic justification, that seems to reveal the Government's hidden agenda and to show that their real focus is not on the consumer's interests, as they claim. It suggests that, if they are not interested in the long-term supply, they are really only interested in control and regulation. That reveals their prejudice.
    1334
    The Government see that we have successful businesses, following the Conservative Government's privatisation of the industry. We are being asked to approve legislation that is aimed, as is always the case with the Labour party, at wrecking a successful business. The Government cannot tolerate financial success or bring themselves to understand that through such success comes prosperity and the underpinning of long-term viability for all sorts of enterprises.
    The Government are now conceding the point, presumably because they want to get away by 7 o'clock, and thereby conceding that they ought to consider other factors rather than wrecking successful businesses out of spite and prejudice. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how I am wrong.
    Mr. Stunell: The debate seems to be rather wide-ranging, but the amendments in this group and the clauses to which they relate go to the heart of some of the Bill's aims. I want to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) in support of the amendments in lieu. Neither the Lords amendments nor the amendments in lieu make any significant difference to the impact of the Bill, but it is legitimate to discuss them.
    I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's points about the construction and history of the Bill and the disappointing way in which it has proceeded. It was cut in half and had 600 amendments added in Committee, we now have the Lords amendments, and we can see further difficulties lying ahead. There are also some missed opportunities. Some of them are the result of an absence rather than an excess of regulation. In Committee and elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to try to give the regulating authorities greater power and influence, particularly in the area of environmental control.
    I want to tackle the central argument that the hon. Gentleman deployed. The energy supply industry in the United Kingdom has never been completely deregulated and left to the mercies of unregulated rampant market forces. The Conservative Government never thought that that was an option and it is certainly not one for the future. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be absolutely bonkers to lift all regulation except that relating to competition. It would be particularly bonkers for hon. Members representing rural constituencies. If one simply left competition to run unhindered, rural consumers would pay higher prices than urban consumers because the cost of supplying them would be greater.
    5.45 pm
    The hon. Gentleman may contradict me, but I do not believe for a moment that he has brought to the House a new Conservative policy on energy supply which is that rural consumers should pay the full price for the product and therefore pay more. Nor do I believe that he is in favour of dismantling the regulatory framework relating to the security or safety of supply. In some respects, it is absolutely transparent that the quick soundbite of getting rid of all regulation except that relating to competition is bonkers.
    Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstands my point. The regulator was put in place at

    1335
    the time of privatisation. There were rules about security of supply and so on before the regulator was appointed. I am talking about restoring the role of the regulator to that of an economic regulator in order to mimic competition. When competition is fully established, that role would be withdrawn from the regulator. However, all the other rules and regulations about safety and security of supply that existed before privatisation would continue.
    Mr. Stunell: What we have established from that intervention is that I am correct: the hon. Gentleman does not seek the dismantling of the regulatory regime. When an industry is privatised, the constraints provided by state ownership are withdrawn and if one does not substitute a regulatory framework rural consumers will pay more, safety corners will be cut, long-term investment will go out of the window and security of supply will become a redundant issue. Quite clearly, the Conservatives do not mean what the soundbite suggests.
    Let me take the argument a little further because the Utilities Bill addresses some of the issues of social welfare. I give the Minister credit for those provisions, but the Bill is still slack on environmental control. The Minister has missed some opportunities and this group of Lords amendments does not restore the regulatory framework to the extent that I would like. I do not know whether the Conservatives will press the matter to a vote, but the view of the Liberal Democrats is not that we should have excessive regulation, but that we should have regulation which benefits and protects the consumer. That is why we need regulations on safety and supply and the social provision of energy, and that is why we believe that there should be additional regulation relating to the environment.
    Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. If those issues are so important, will he tell the House why his party has not tabled amendments enabling the House to discuss them?
    Mr. Stunell: We have tabled a string of amendments on which I shall raise some of those issues.
    Finally, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton alleged that somehow the Bill was leading inexorably to a secret renationalisation of the energy companies in the United Kingdom. That is quite amusing given that the profit made from the electricity lighting the lamps in the Chamber is going to a state company—but it happens to be the French state electricity company. That is the outcome of the privatisation process of which the hon. Gentleman is so proud.
    Dr. Howells: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the previous Government had been a bit more rigorous and shown more guts in taking on other member states to break up the monopoly markets that still exist in some parts of the European Union, we might not have been in this situation.
    Mr. Stunell: I warn the Minister that the lights might go off if we have any more remarks like that.
    The much-vaunted privatisation of this country's power companies has resulted in state enterprises elsewhere moving in on our territory. A completely unregulated
    1336
    market in this country would mean that that would happen more often. I will be delighted to vote against the amendment if it is pressed.
    Mr. Forth: I want to register my mild protest at amendment No. 13, which strikes me as the epitome of guff. It looks innocuous enough, and who would argue with the intention to secure a diverse and long-term energy supply? However, propositions that arouse no argument are usually vacuous and meaningless. I suspect that this one is too.
    The amendment appears to encourage the development of solar energy, and wind and wave-generated energy. It may also aim to encourage the development of coal as a source of gas, in competition with or to complement natural gas. That is all very well, but is not that at odds with some of the environmental aims espoused by the same people who produced this nonsensical amendment?
    The amendment does not make clear whether the achievement of a
    diverse and viable long-term energy supply
    would be in conflict with environmental aims, and so it does not take us much further forward. I believe that Bills should not contain meaningless terms. The amendment is therefore to be resisted.
    Mrs. Liddell: I agree whole-heartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. The amendment was introduced by the Opposition in the Lords. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman was made by my noble Friend Lord McIntosh but, in the spirit of co-operation that we have shown throughout deliberations on the Bill, the Government are willing to accept the amendment. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's words will be heard by his noble Friends in another place.
    Mr. Forth: I am advised that Liberal Democrat peers in another place tabled the amendment. They are not part of the official Opposition: in fact, they usually do not oppose the Government at all.
    Even so, I am not impressed with what the Minister just said. It is astonishing that she should have told the House that the spirit of compromise—with which I rarely agree anyway—has led her to agree to the inclusion in the Bill of meaningless verbiage. That will hasten the Bill's progress to the statute book, but it is astonishing and disgraceful for her to admit that she is willing to accept words that she has said that she opposes. It reinforces my determination to vote against the amendment, if the opportunity so to do arises.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I shall not repeat my Second Reading speech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was kind enough to quote at length. However, I want to put it firmly on record that I believe that the regulatory system amounts to socialism on the sly. It has nothing to do with benefits for the industry, and everything to do with income distribution and the Government's political objectives.
    If that were not so, the Government would have established a totally different trading system, which did not depend on the big companies being able to sew up the contract market. Different arrangements would not have created so much worry among smaller market players,

    1337
    and no referrals to the Competition Commission would have been made. The whole matter would have been dealt with in a totally different way. That needs to be put on the record.
    This is not an isolated case—it is part of a process that goes right across the regulatory board. Every regulatory regime that the Government are tampering with is putting economic and competition considerations below the wider political considerations. The Government are proactive in this respect, and have that objective in mind. There is no disguise. It is apparent in all the bodies—the Financial Services Authority now has social banking, and integrated transport systems are an objective.
    In every regulatory regime, the political objectives are more important that the economic objectives. I am very glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that when we come into office, we will strip all this bare again and start off with a proper regime that puts competition, the marketplace and genuine economic objectives at the forefront. It will not do what politicians may seek to do, albeit through different means. Income distribution should not be made through a regulatory process that pretends to be of economic benefit to the country.
    Mrs. Liddell: Well, the splits have been exposed tonight all right. We have seen splits between the official Opposition in this place and the official Opposition in another place. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) claimed that amendment No. 13 was defective and that he would oppose it, yet his colleagues in another place supported it. The reason that the Government are accepting it is quite simple: it adds very little to the Bill, but it is better that people get the benefits of the Utilities Bill sooner rather than later.
    We also saw a split between those on the Front and Back Benches. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) complained about new electricity trading arrangements, yet only a couple of weeks ago Baroness Buscombe said:
    we welcome the merging of the electricity and gas regulators…—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 2000; Vol. 612, c.1143.]
    She also said that they supported the new electricity trading arrangements. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made exactly the same point. It is always a pleasure when the hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box; it is like listening to the speech of an old friend, because we hear it so often.
    We will make sure that we take careful note of what Conservative Members have said tonight—it will be very useful in the forthcoming election. Conservative Members put in place the system of privatisation that was deliberately opposed to the interests of the consumer. We will bear that in mind.
    The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton complained about telecommunications and water being taken out of the Bill. When he reads his speeches, he should read all of his speeches. I draw to his attention his remarks that the Government would have the support of the Opposition if telecommunications were to be removed from the Bill, when he said:
    That removal could be carried out in as swift and easy a manner as the Minister wished.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 February 2000; c. 184.]
    1338
    Despite the fact that this debate has sounded like a Third Reading debate, it was not—it was actually a debate on the Opposition's amendments (a) to Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 15. The Opposition's amendments are technically deficient. Under existing legislation, the regulator and the Secretary of State are under a primary duty to secure that licence holders are able to finance certain of their activities. That is why we are concerned that this and other aspects of existing legislation has led to the interests of consumers being subordinated to those of shareholders. That is why the Bill puts the consumer first. However, it remains important that licence holders are able to finance their activities. That is why the Bill replaces the existing finance duty as an aspect of the primary consumer duty. A balance must be struck between the consumer and the shareholder. That is why the finance duty has been incorporated as an aspect of the interests of consumers.
    The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton would add nothing to the present wording of clauses 9 and 13. They simply introduce a reference to securing finance and to capital investment required. However, it is already clear that the duty in the provisions extends to the securing of finance. The licence holder's provision could not be included could it not secure that finance. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has used this as an opportunity to rehearse the arguments that he has used in the past.
    6 pm
    The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) asks why we are using expressions like
    "arising out of this part".
    We are referring to the wording of the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989.
    I urge the House to support the amendments tabled by the Government which make sensible improvements to the Bill and take into account the concerns of all involved.
    The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 116.

    Division No. 296]

    [6 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Allan, Richard

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Allen, Graham

    Burden, Richard

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Ashton, Joe

    Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Austin, John

    (NE File)

    Banks, Tony

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Barnes, Harry

    Cann, Jamie

    Barren, Kevin

    Caplin, Ivor

    Beard, Nigel

    Casale, Roger

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Caton, Martin

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Clapham, Michael

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Benton, Joe

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Best, Harold

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Clelland, David

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Clwyd, Ann

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Coaker, Vemon

    1339

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hurst, Alan

    Coleman, lain

    Hutton, John

    Colman, Tony

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Connarty, Michael

    Illsley, Eric

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jamieson, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jenkins, Brian

    Corston, Jean

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cousins, Jim

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Cox, Tom

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cranston, Ross

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Dawson, Hilton

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Khabra, Piara S

    Doran, Frank

    Kidney, David

    Dowd, Jim

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Laxton, Bob

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Edwards, Huw

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Fisher, Mark

    Livsey, Richard

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Flint, Caroline

    McCabe, Steve

    Follett, Barbara

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    (Makerfield)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    McDonnell, John

    Fyfe, Maria

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    McIsaac, Shona

    George, Bruce (Walsall s)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McNamara, Kevin

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McNulty, Tony

    Godsiff, Roger

    McWalter, Tony

    Goggins, Paul

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Mallaber, Judy

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Grogan, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Gunnell, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Meale, Alan

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Merron, Gillian

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Healey, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Moffatt, Laura

    Heppell, John

    Moore, Michael

    Hesford, Stephen

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Hill, Keith

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Moriey, Elliot

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    (B'ham Yardley)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mountford, Kali

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Howells, Dr Kim

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    1340

    Olner, Bill

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Öpik, Lembit

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Pearson, Ian

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Pickthall, Colin

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pike, Peter L

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Plaskitt, James

    Stunell, Andrew

    Pollard, Kerry

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Pond, Chris

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Pope, Greg

    (Dewsbury)

    Pound, Stephen

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Tipping, Paddy

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Touhig, Don

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rammell, Bill

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Rapson, Syd

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Rogers, Allan

    Tyler, Paul

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Rooney, Terry

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Salmond, Alex

    Watts, David

    Salter, Martin

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Sawford, Phil

    (Swansea W)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wills, Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    Winnick, David

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wood, Mike

    Skinner, Dennis

    Woodward, Shaun

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Woolas, Phil

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Snape, Peter

    Soley, Clive

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Mr. Clive Betts and

    Spellar, John

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Amess, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Flight, Howard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Baldry, Tony

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bercow, John

    Fraser, Christopher

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gale, Roger

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gamier, Edward

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gibb, Nick

    Boswell, Tim

    Gill, Christopher

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Brady, Graham

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brazier, Julian

    Gray, James

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Green, Damian

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Greenway, John

    Butterfill, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    (Chipping Bamet)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Clappison, James

    Hammond, Philip

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Hawkins, Nick

    (Rushcliffe)

    Heald, Oliver

    Collins, Tim

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cran, James

    Horam, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    1341

    Johnson Smith,

    Pickles, Eric

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Prior, David

    Key, Robert

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lansley, Andrew

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Leigh, Edward

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Letwin, Oliver

    Spring, Richard

    Lidington, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Streeter, Gary

    Loughton, Tim

    Swayne, Desmond

    Luff, Peter

    Syms, Robert

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Trend, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Madel, Sir David

    Viggers, Peter

    Major, Rt Hon

    JohnWaterson, Nigel

    Malins, Humfrey

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Whittingdale, John

    Maples, John

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Wilkinson, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Willetts, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wilshire, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Yeo, Tim

    Norman, Archie

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Paice, James

    Mr. John Randall and

    Paterson, Owen

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 54 agreed to.

  Clause 28

    EXEMPTIONS FROM ELECTRICITY LICENSING
    Lords amendment: No. 55, in page 24, line 3, leave out
    (", after consultation with the Authority,").
    Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 56 to 69, 102 to 106, 108 to 118, 121 to 124, 164, 165, 167, 169 to 171, 176, 177, 179, 182, 188, 198, 199, 204, 213 to 216, 218, 223, 224, 230, 231, 236 and 244.
    Mrs. Liddell: In an attempt to assist the House, I will not speak at length on all those amendments.
    Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 121 and 213 introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to go out to consultation before granting an exemption under clauses 28 or 85. They require him to produce a notice that sets out the exemption that he proposes to make, together with the reasons why he proposes to do so. A copy of the notice should be served on the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council. It should be published so as to bring it to the attention of those likely to be affected by the exemption, so that those who wish to make representations have a minimum of 28 days in which to do so.
    1342
    In the context of the new obligation to consult, amendments Nos. 67, 68, 122 and 123 remove the granting of exemptions from the list of decisions that triggers the duty to give reasons under clauses 41 and 86.
    6.15 pm
    That will avoid setting an unfortunate precedent, as exemptions are granted by statutory instrument and it is not usual practice to require the giving of reasons for the making of legislation. This can be distinguished, however, from the giving of reasons for a proposal to grant exemptions, as required by the new consultation procedure.
    Amendments Nos. 68 and 123 have two further effects. First, in the context of the general requirement introduced for the first time by clauses 41 and 86 to publish reasons for key decisions, they clarify the matters that the authority or the Secretary of State should consider excluding when publishing those reasons. The amendments require that matters should relate
    to the affairs of a particular individual or body of persons
    before the requirement to consider exclusion is triggered.
    Secondly, they ensure that the subsection (5) exception to the duty to give reasons—a decision subject to a disapplication direction by the Secretary of State—applies whether the decision itself was taken by the authority or by the Secretary of State.
    Taken together, this package of amendments represents a strengthening of the provisions of the Bill. I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Forth: I want to say a few words about three of the amendments. The first is amendment No. 56. The Minister said that it referred to the Secretary of State giving notice of
    those likely to be affected.
    Although that phrase does not appear in the amendment, it requires some explanation. How does the Minister imagine that the Secretary of State will determine those "likely to be affected"? The phrase is so wide and loose that it could mean a great deal or not much at all. As the matter is so important, I should be comforted if she told us a little more about what she thinks those words mean.
    The amendment states:
    Before making an order … the Secretary of State shall give notice … and shall consider any representations which are duly made in respect of the proposals and not withdrawn.
    That might give comfort to some people, but does it take us much further? Of course, one might say that a sensible and responsible Secretary of State—I exclude the present incumbent—would naturally consider any representations; but how much protection does the provision really give? What does "shall consider" mean? Does it mean "glance at", "give a quick look at", "momentarily pause while officials give a summary of? It could mean almost anything.
    Mr. John Bercow: Ponder?
    Mr. Forth: I would not go that far. I do not think that any pondering will be done.
    Will the Minister tell us to what extent the Secretary of State will give consideration under that provision? What effect is that likely to have on the view that the Secretary of State will take?

    1343
    Amendment No. 66 contains the potential for much more substantial problems. I could dwell on them at some length, but I sense that my colleagues want to make progress, so I shall mention them only briefly. The amendment states that
    where, in consequence of a reference under section 12(1 A), the Commission modifies under subsection (4)(b) the standard conditions of licences of any type, the Authority may make such incidental and consequential modifications as it considers necessary or expedient.
    Two bodies will be acting simultaneously on much the same matters. It is possible for the Competition Commission to modify the standard conditions of licences—an important enough function—while the authority may make
    such incidental and consequential modifications as it considers necessary.
    The questions that I want to ask the Minister are: if the commission and the authority were to be in conflict over that sort of matter, (a) who would take primacy or priority and/or (b), what kind of conciliation process might be envisaged; and when the authority is making incidental and consequential modifications, is it at the sole discretion of the authority to determine what is incidental or consequential? If the amendment allows only incidental or consequential modifications to be made, that implies that something that is beyond the incidental or consequential would be beyond the powers of the authority in terms of the amendment. Is it solely the judgment of the authority as to what falls into that category?
    All I want to say about Lords amendment No. 204 is: is it not astonishing that at this stage we have before us, presumably in all seriousness and with a straight face, four pages of very important provisions, entitled "Secretary of State's licensing schemes" and going into very considerable detail? I could detain the House, if I was doing my job properly, and go through this in very great detail.
    Mr. Bercow: Go on
    Mr. Forth: I will not on this occasion; I should probably feel a bit guilty as a result. I just want to obtain the Minister's view as to how proper it is, at this stage of the legislative process, to introduce four pages of very detailed provisions without so much as an explanation or a "by your leave" or anything of the kind. Therefore I want to give the Minister the opportunity to tell us something more about the four pages of Lords amendment No. 204 and what it does or does not do, in addition to answering the more detailed questions that I have asked her about Lords amendments Nos. 56 and 66.
    Mrs. Liddell: I shall deal with Lords amendment No. 204 first, because there is quite a simple answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am sorry that he does not want to go into greater detail; it would suit me and other Labour Members to have an opportunity for a fuller debate on the subject. We enjoyed debating it in Committee—again, the right hon. Gentleman was not able to join us at that stage.
    Lords amendment No. 204 replaces the existing part I of schedule 7; that is why it is so long. It provides for the Secretary of State to make licensing schemes in order to
    1344
    ensure continuity of licensing for all those who hold gas and electricity licences at the time the licensing provisions of the Bill come into force. That is to ensure that, in the transition, everything can pass over.
    Licensing schemes will be used to ensure smooth transition from existing licence types in electricity to new licence types, and to incorporate the new standard condition of licences in all existing electricity and gas licences. Therefore, in effect, this is a transitional arrangement to ensure that there is no dislocation.
    In relation to Lords amendment No. 56, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asks who would be likely to be affected. Generally, the Secretary of State would seek as wide a consultation as necessary. In a case that was essentially local, that might reasonably be restricted to a local consultation. In larger cases, it may be sensible to issue a press notice or to publish the Department's proposals on its website. The phrase used is common in legislation; it allows the precise scope of consultation to be adapted to the circumstances of the case.
    The right hon. Gentleman also asks about representations not withdrawn, and how much protection is given. Representations will have to be properly considered. In the absence of a proper consultation, there will have been a procedural irregularity, which of course is challengeable in the courts.
    On Lords amendment No. 66, on the modification of licences, if the commission and the authority are in conflict, the commission takes primacy. The authority's incidental and consequential amendments can only be those that flow from the commission's modifications. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's questions.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 56 to 69 agreed to.

  Clause 45

    POWER TO REQUIRE SECURITY
    Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 49, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—
    ("(b) a person ("the initial contributor") has made a payment to the distributor in respect of those expenses, the line or plant having been provided for the purpose of making a connection to any premises or distribution system as required by that person."").
    Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 71, 101, 119, 120 and amendment (a) thereto, Nos. 159, 160, 161 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 162, 163, 166, 172, 181, 184, 185, 189, 190, 192 to 196, 200, 202, 203, 205, 217, 229, 232, 233, 240, 242 and 243.
    Dr. Howells: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on getting every one right.
    Mr. Wilshire: More than can be said for you.
    Dr. Howells: Well said.

    1345
    All the amendments are consequential on the decision to separate electricity supply and distribution. They make mainly minor adjustments to passages of the Bill dealing with connections, uniform prices in Scotland, pre-payment meter provisions, deemed contracts, determination of disputes arising from the duty to connect, billing disputes, standards of performance, transfer schemes, transitional arrangements for former tariff customers and miscellaneous provisions.
    I understand that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) wishes to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 120 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 161, which the Government will resist.
    Mr. Gibb: Late in the Committee stage, among the many hundreds of amendments, new clauses and new schedules, the Government tabled a particularly unpleasant and authoritarian amendment to what is now schedule 4 and clause 83. The new measure gives gas and electricity suppliers the right to enter someone's property and home to install a pre-payment meter against their wishes.
    Under the existing law, if customers fail to pay their bill and become problem customers they have a choice, if the supplier company finds it appropriate, between disconnection and accepting a pre-payment meter. If customers refuse to accept the installation of a pre-payment meter, they face disconnection. However, it remains their choice; a matter for them.
    The new provisions, introduced late in the day by the Government, give the electricity and gas supplier the power to enter premises by force to install a pre-payment meter. That is an unacceptable power for one person to have over another, except in exceptional circumstances in which safety is an issue. It certainly should not be a power over future payments.
    Aside from the issue of forced entry, pre-payment meters are extremely expensive for the customer. The Government's Green Paper illustrated how expensive they are. On page 34, it says:
    A recent Offer study found that these generally range from approximately £9.50 to £27.50 per annum, although one company had a negative charge of around £4.50. The median surcharge is between £14 and £15 per annum.
    So the poorest customers pay the highest charges. The Government, who claim to be on the side of the fuel poor, are giving more powers to suppliers to enable them to install pre-payment meters.
    Pre-payment meters hark back to the dark days when the utilities were state-run monopolies—inefficient, unresponsive, uninnovative monoliths—that tried to force people to pay huge cash deposits simply to become one of their customers. I remember from my student days being forced to pay a £100 deposit before I could be supplied with electricity. Those days, thankfully, have gone and so too should pre-payment meters.
    Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, Conservative Members have tried to put over the important principle that private sector competition in the utilities has led to falling prices—a 30 per cent, fall in real terms. That has done more to help the fuel poor with their bills than any mountain of regulations that the Government are intent on creating. That 30 per cent, cut would not have happened had Labour had its way in 1986 and 1988, when it opposed the privatisation. It is a result of privatisation that the proportion of homes with central heating has risen enormously since 1986.
    1346
    6.30 pm
    The truth is—a truth that those with a left-wing socialist approach still cannot bring themselves to accept despite all the evidence around them—that moving the gas and electricity industries into the private sector and opening up the markets to competition has delivered, and will go on delivering, huge benefits to society and to the least well-off in particular. The Government claim that the market and competition will not serve the least profitable customers, such as the poor or the elderly, but we have tried to explain that a fiercely competitive market with suppliers desperate for new customers and desperate to keep existing customers will develop new innovative products to enable companies to attract every last customer, including poor payers.
    The Government said that that was nonsense and that massive intervention was needed. I am afraid that, yet again, the Government were wrong. When the industries were privatised, the Conservative Government put in place provisions for the protection of the elderly, the sick, the disabled and those living in rural areas as part and parcel of the process of mimicking competition. When competition arrives, that protection is not necessary.
    For example, PowerGen has entered into an arrangement with Age Concern to provide a special lower-priced package for the elderly. The scheme is called "Better Deals for all Concerned" and it offers lower standing charges, cold weather rebates, free carbon monoxide detectors, free early warning hypothermia thermometers and free energy efficiency advice. That is just the start; there will be many such schemes in due course provided that the Government do not drive out the entrepreneurial spirit and capital from the industries.
    Another example is the stay warm scheme introduced by TXU, the owners of Eastern Energy, in May this year. The Minister was at the launch of the scheme, which is specifically for households on low incomes, such as those on state benefit, the disabled, the long-term sick and the elderly. It provides fixed payments for unlimited use of gas and electricity, and those payments are £120 a year less than those groups would have had to pay before. It is an extremely innovative scheme and way of enabling previously unprofitable customers to become highly viable for the industry. For the company, the scheme cuts down on meter readings—it carries out just one meter reading a year—and on the cost of dealing with debt problems. For the consumer, it results in lower bills.
    The scheme does away with the need for pre-payment meters and it could have never emanated from the industry had it remained under state control. It can not survive in the long run if the Government over-regulate the industry. It has happened only because of competition.
    The new powers to enter premises to install old-fashioned, unfair, highly expensive pre-payment meters should not have been introduced by the Government. The amendment would add a safeguard to that power so that it can be exercised only if the customer has agreed in writing to have a prepayment meter installed. Competition and enterprise—and not draconian rights-of-entry powers—are the solution to helping the poor and to heating their homes. I urge the Government, at this late stage, to think again about this issue.
    Mr. Wilshire: On amendment No. 71, it seems that we are being asked to approve a draconian power. Clause 46(21)(b) refers to
    any terms restricting any liability of the distributor for—
    this is the important point—
    economic loss resulting from negligence which it is reasonable in all the circumstances for that person to be required to accept.
    Action must be taken in such circumstances and I do not necessarily disagree with that.
    However, the other place has said that it is a technical provision. Therefore, it has asked us to approve the removal of all the references to restricting liability, economic loss and negligence. It ask us to accept an amendment in which any terms can be imposed that are
    reasonable in all the circumstances for that person to be required to accept.
    There is no reference to economic matters, negligence or loss; the amendment refers only to any terms that are reasonable in all the circumstances. We are back to the old chestnut—defining what on earth is reasonable—and this provision relates not merely to some circumstances, but to all circumstances.
    The amendment is so draconian as to be worthy of comment from the Minister. He clearly thinks that it does not matter and that he can give people the power to do anything that they like and to impose any terms they like in any circumstances they like. We were offered no explanation whatsoever, and I should be grateful for one.
    Dr. Howells: I shall try to give the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) an explanation. Ostensibly he is right, and the amendment provides a very wide power, but it must be borne in mind that the provision will come within the scope of section 23 of the Electricity Act 1989, as amended by the Bill. Under that section, in the event of a dispute about the terms offered by a distributor for making and maintaining a connection, either party may refer the matter to the authority for determination. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will view that as the safeguard that he is seeking. In the end, the question of whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for a person to be required to accept a particular term is likely to become a matter for determination by the authority, especially where the term is novel or unusually burdensome.
    I turn now to amendment (a) to amendment No. 120 and amendment (a) to amendment No. 161, in the name of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I agree entirely that it is fierce, fair competition that brings all consumers the greatest benefits, and I certainly do not believe that increased state intervention is the way to bring down electricity or gas prices. I agree also that excellent schemes are offered by companies such as PowerGen, which display a great regard for corporate responsibility. Long may that thrive—I am certainly doing all that I can to encourage it. However, we will resist the amendments.
    The amendments provide that a customer in debt to his supplier could not be required to accept the installation of a pre-payment meter in place of his existing meter. The supply company would be able to install a pre-payment meter in such circumstances only if the customer had agreed to it in writing. That is strange because it would mean that the customer who refused or, worse, forgot—many of us have forgotten to send our returns to such
    1348
    companies as quickly as we should have done—would be almost certain to have his supply disconnected unless he agreed in writing to accept a pre-payment meter.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot intend to increase the number of disconnections that arise from non-payment of gas and electricity bills; but by seriously weakening suppliers' powers to replace credit meters with pre-payment meters when a customer is behind with payments, the amendments would achieve exactly that. I am sure that he is aware that it costs a great deal more to be reconnected than to come to an arrangement for the installation of a pre-payment meter.
    Mr. Gibb: Essentially, the amendment would simply change the law back to what it was before the Bill was introduced so that suppliers would have no right to enter people's premises to install a pre-payment meter. Despite that, disconnections have fallen over the past few years.
    Dr. Howells: They have fallen over the past year by about 25 per cent., and I hope that they will continue to fall. However, it is important to remember that a supplier has to get a warrant before he can force entry to install a meter or to disconnect the supply. The existence of a power of entry to install a pre-payment meter does not necessarily mean that companies will use it. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the innovative approach of some companies and the way in which they have sought to get around the problem.
    Mr. Wilshire: It sounds to me as though the Minister objects to the fact that somebody has to get a warrant before they force entry. Is that what he is saying?
    Dr. Howells: I am not suggesting that at all. It is important that a company should get a warrant before it enters somebody's home.
    Mr. David Winnick: Before an application for entry is made—as my hon. Friend has explained, a warrant will be required—surely all the circumstances will be taken into account. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if, as a result of disconnection, a household was left with no supply whatever? Children may be involved and the supply may be disconnected as a result of the parents' irresponsibility. There is therefore a case for ensuring that the household has some fuel connection—to either electricity or gas.
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend has expressed the essence of this provision beautifully. It is important that we do not have disconnections, but have pre-payment meters fitted wherever possible.
    The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will be interested to learn that one major gas supply company has told Ofgem that it estimates that some 80 per cent, of gas supply disconnections occur because the company cannot illicit a response from defaulting customers, despite oft repeated attempts to do so. How are such people to be persuaded to avoid disconnection by being made to write to their suppliers agreeing to the installation of a pre-payment meter, when they do not communicate in the first place?
    Mr. Gibb: Those people are exercising their perfect right to refuse a gas company entry, and I believe that

    1349
    they should continue to have that right. The Bill removes people's right to refuse gas companies entry to their house to install meters.
    Dr. Howells: I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill contains a great many safeguards. We have confidence in the system. We certainly believe that it is a far better way to proceed than making children, innocent of the shortcomings of their parents, endure the cold, and then subjecting their parents to a hefty reconnection charge. We shall therefore resist the amendment.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 71 agreed to.

  Clause 56

    INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO CUSTOMERS
    Lords amendment: No. 72, in page 54, line 42, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
    ("(6) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.").
    Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 79 to 94, 98 to 100, 125, 138 to 140, 142, 173, 175, 186, 191, 222 and 238.
    Dr. Howells: The amendments deal with the standards of performance and aspects of consultation on renewables and energy efficiency targets, including some of the implications of the trading of obligations between gas and electricity obligation holders, rather than simply gas obligation holders on the one hand and electricity obligation holders on the other.
    Mr. Stunell: On the whole, I welcome the amendments. I wish to deal briefly with amendment No. 79, which requires any action by the Secretary of State in making an order to be preceded by consultation with renewable energy generators. I certainly welcome that, and regret that provisions on renewables are still missing from the Bill. We need more action to promote and support renewable generation, as well as simply consulting renewable energy generators before orders come into force.
    Can the Minister update the House on the DTI's views about the banding of the renewables obligation and the approach that the Government are likely to take in regulating in support of the Bill? I understand that a meeting was held at the DTI yesterday to discuss the banding of technologies. It would be helpful for the House to know the outcome.
    Is the Minister still as satisfied as Ministers have been in their public declarations in the past that the targets of achieving 5 per cent, of renewable electricity generation by 2003 and 10 per cent, by 2010 are still realistic and feasible? If the Minister is able to reassure us on those points, how would he refute the arguments put forward by those in the industry who believe that the targets are increasingly unrealisable and unrealistic?
    1350
    6.45 pm
    In supporting amendment No. 79 and agreeing on the need to include the renewable generators, will the Minister explain how he can reassure them that future investment will be worth while, that their product will be taken up in the market and that the Government's targets will be achieved? That is a vital part of the Government's longer-term policy to comply with the Kyoto agreement. There is definitely a gap in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will at least give a signal that further work will be done and further proposals will be put before the House.
    Mr. Forth: We are now wading knee-deep in gobbledegook, especially with amendment No. 81.1 shall give the Minister the opportunity to tell us, succinctly and with his usual clarity, exactly what he thinks amendment No. 81 means. It looks like complete nonsense to me. I suspect that it is to do with environmental strutting and posturing. What it is supposed to achieve is beyond me, but it seems to sanction sleight of hand. If I were to believe in any of the Kyoto nonsense, I should be very suspicious because a provision such as amendment No. 81—if I even begin to understand it—seems to represent almost an invitation to fiddle the books and to pretend that we are doing all sorts of Kyoto things when we are doing nothing of the kind.
    Amendment No. 81 is akin to the Government policy that, on the one hand, put additional taxes on vehicle fuel—which they claimed was an environmental measure—but, on the other, lowered taxes on domestic fuel consumption. They have never been able to explain the justification for that. I suspect that, if it means anything, amendment No. 81 comes into the same category.
    I am worried that amendment No. 86 will undermine any viability that may have existed in the adjustments for inflation. As we know from recent examples such as pensions and so on, those adjustments can be of the greatest importance to people of all ages and categories. However, amendment No. 86 seems to provide almost unlimited scope to fiddle the books on inflation. It states:
    for any such sum to be adjusted from time to time for inflation by a method specified in the order …
    That is fair enough; one would expect such a provision, but it continues:
    including such a scale or index or such data in a form not current when the order was made, but in a subsequent form attributable to revision or any other cause and taking effect afterwards…
    I do not know what that is supposed to mean. I was just about following it until adjustments "by a method specified" were mentioned. That is fair enough, but it then took off into the stratosphere of completely blank cheques, allowing people to produce whatever figures they felt like producing
    in a form not current when the order was made
    and for any reason.
    We are getting into some odd and difficult territory, but as usual in such circumstances, I rely on the Minister to step up to the Dispatch Box and, with great clarity and as succinctly as ever, to set right my anxieties about those matters and tell us exactly what he thinks amendment No. 81 means. When he says what he thinks, it becomes official and fixes matters. I have no doubt that he will tell

    1351
    us equally succinctly about amendment No. 86 and explain the reason why my unhappiness about it is completely unfounded. I cannot wait.
    Dr. Howells: I do not intend to make the right hon. Gentleman wait. May I deal first, however, with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)? Taken together, the amendments that he has mentioned try, I suppose, to set out some of the thoughts of another place on where we have got to. For example, the comprehensive spending review was excellent for encouraging renewables. I was glad to see that. A consultation will be conducted by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on the banding of technologies. It is far too early to predict the outcome of that consultation, but it is important.
    Mr. Stunell: I am encouraged by the fact that there is to be a consultation and that prediction is too early, but, before the door is shut firmly, is the Minister indicating that the door is now at least a little open?
    Dr. Howells: On the Government side, we are always receptive to constructive arguments and to imaginative approaches to what are important issues.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether we were still on line for 5 per cent. It is a big challenge—I give him that—but it is do-able and the CSR will help a great deal. Essentially, we are trying to move the renewables from the margins to the centre of the market. That must be a good thing.
    The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wanted to know more about amendment No. 81. It says that an order may provide that, to a specified level, under-achievement or over-achievement in a particular period of a supplier's obligation may be carried forward into a subsequent period—so-called banking and borrowing. I do not think that it is a fiddle. He will recognise that, sometimes, for example, a power station may be down for a time—an efficient one that does not spew out various pollutants into the air. The company that owns that power station may need a bit of time, going into the following year, to make up for the period when the power station was down, so the measure allows a bit of leeway at the end of the year. However, he is right to highlight the point because it must not be a big percentage of the obligation that the suppliers have. I hope that my saying that from the Dispatch Box will reinforce what he said—that when the Minister says something, it does matter.
    Mr. Forth: When this Minister says something, it always matters. Therefore, I want to press him a little on two things. He has just touched on one of them. Is he satisfied that there does not appear to be any limit on either the percentage—therefore, that leaves it very open ended—or on the period? I am prepared to accept what he says about the power station example over a limited time, but the amendment, as I read it, appears to allow the possibility of such movements over almost any time. That does begin to look like fiddling.
    Dr. Howells: Clearly, strict guidelines and time limits, where necessary, must be imposed by the authority.
    1352
    There is no question about that. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter, but I am sure that he will agree that there must be some flexibility for companies—not too much; I agree about that.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked about amendments Nos. 85 and 86. Amendments Nos. 80 to 94 are pretty minor. They do not make substantive changes to the renewables power in the Bill, but make some technical adjustments and enable the provision to be more effectively applied.
    On the specific measure that the right hon. Gentleman asked about, it provides that a different buy-out price may be set for different periods within the overall period of renewables order under clause 61, and that the buy-out price may be adjusted for inflation, which is important in case, suddenly, his party were returned to power and it became rampant again. To return to his earlier point, percentages and periods will be set in the statutory instrument.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

  Clause 58

    LICENCE ENFORCEMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 55, line 31, at end insert—
    ("( ) The Authority shall not impose a penalty on a licence holder under subsection (1) where it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998.")
    Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 74 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, 75 and amendment (b) thereto, and 76 to 78, 126 and 127, amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, and 128, amendment (b) thereto and 129 to 131, 183, 201, 219, 220 and 237.
    Mrs. Liddell: Lords amendments Nos. 73 and 126 insert into the financial penalties provisions protection against double jeopardy in regard to the Competition Act 1998. They follow closely the terms of the protection against double jeopardy that already applies to licence enforcement orders in the utility statutes. They help to achieve consistency between the provisions inserted by this Bill in both the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989, and provisions that already exist. They also ensure that there is clarity on the interaction between licence enforcement provisions and Competition Act enforcement provisions.
    Lords amendments Nos. 74 and 127 respond to concerns raised throughout the Bill's passage about the lack of a specific upper limit on financial penalties. The principal limit on the level of financial penalties remains the requirement for a penalty to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. We have had lengthy discussions in Committee and on the Floor of the House about the definition of "reasonable". The amendments, however, give licence holders extra comfort, in that they impose an upper limit on the amount of any financial penalty that can be imposed. That limit is 10 per cent, of the licence holder's turnover. Detailed provisions—for example, the definition of turnover—will be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State by affirmative resolution.

    1353
    Lords amendments Nos. 76 and 129 relate to the 12-month time limit applying to the imposition of a financial penalty in cases in which there has been a contravention of an obligation, and no enforcement order has been made. If the amendments are accepted, no penalty may be imposed in respect of such a contravention unless, within 12 months of that contravention, the authority has issued either a penalty notice or a notice under section 28(2) of the Electricity Act 1989 or section 38(1) of the Gas Act 1986, as amended, seeking information for the purpose of its functions in relation to the imposition of financial penalties. When the authority issues a notice under either the Electricity Act or the Gas Act, no further time limits will apply to the imposition of a penalty.
    The amendments will ensure that the authority has enough time to investigate alleged contraventions and to decide whether to impose a penalty. The authority will be able to determine the amount of any such penalty, particularly in large, complex cases in which it may have difficulty in obtaining information from the licence holder, or licence holders, concerned. That will mean that legitimate investigations of alleged contraventions will not run out of time as a result of licence holders taking too long in supplying the authority with information. That could well happen in the case of companies that did not wish to comply with licence requirements. The amendments remove any incentive for foot-dragging.
    Lords amendments Nos. 77 and 130 are consequential on Lords amendments Nos. 76 and 129. Lords amendments Nos. 78 and 131 apply to the enforcement provisions of the Gas and Electricity Acts, as opposed to the proposed financial penalties provisions. Lords amendments Nos. 75, 128, 183, 201, 219, 220 and 237 are minor, technical and consequential amendments, replacing a reference to the commencement of a subsection with a more accurate reference to the commencement of a section of the Utilities Act 2000.
    The Opposition have tabled some amendments—
    It being Seven o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) and Order of 25th October 1999,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Utilities Bill and the Postal Services Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.
    Lords amendments again considered.
    Question again proposed, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mrs. Liddell: The Government will resist the amendments that the Opposition have tabled to this group of Lords amendments. I shall speak to those amendments in due course.
    Mr. Gibb: We have argued long and hard—on Second Reading and in Committee, as well as in the other place—for the Government to introduce a cap on the potential penalty and fines that the regulator can impose on the utility companies for failing to comply with licence conditions or breaching standards of performance obligations.
    Limitless fines were one of the major concerns that industry had with the Bill. The problem with a penalty regime without a ceiling on the upper fine is that it adds
    1354
    to the level of regulatory risk faced by the utility companies, and that that increased risk leads to demands from the providers of capital for a higher rate of return in compensation. As the industries that we are discussing are highly capital intensive, such demands constitute a significant hit to the profit and loss account, which inevitably will be passed on to the consumer either in higher charges or in charges that are not as low as they would otherwise be.
    We were delighted, therefore, that the Government eventually backed down and introduced, in the other place, a cap. However, that cap is still high. The fact is that a fine of 10 per cent, of turnover is still sufficiently high to wipe out completely any company that receives one. A significant portion of the regulatory risk will remain, notwithstanding the cap. Therefore, our amendment (a) seeks to reduce the 10 per cent, figure to 5 per cent.
    Our next concern about the penalty regime hinges on the definition of turnover. The wording of the 10 per cent, turnover cap used in Lords amendment No. 74 echoes that used in the Competition Act 1998, which also has 10 per cent, turnover cap. However, we had to wait several months after implementation of that Act for "turnover" to be defined. When the statutory instrument defining turnover was finally produced, it added to rather than alleviated concerns.
    In our amendments (b) and (c), we have sought to clarify the definition of turnover to avoid the same problems in this legislation. That will at least save the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs the inconvenience of having to produce another statutory instrument, speaking to another Committee on statutory instruments—he and I have already met in several such Committees—and swotting up on his briefings.
    Our amendments will also remove the uncertainty over whether "turnover" means only the company's turnover in the United Kingdom, or whether any turnover derived from abroad should also be included. The amendments make it clear that the turnover should be derived only from the United Kingdom.
    Our amendments also deal with the sleight of hand that the Government have perpetrated in the 1998 Act. In that Act, as the Minister knows, the cap for fines was set at 10 per cent, of turnover. However, the definition of turnover in the subsequent statutory instrument—which I think that he introduced—was such that it could be applied to up to three years of turnover. Therefore, at a stroke, he changed the 10 per cent, limit to 30 per cent. That is not an acceptable approach under the 1998 Act, and it certainly should not be an acceptable approach in the Bill.
    Our amendment (c) defines turnover as a period not exceeding 12 months, so that the maximum fine in the Bill will remain at 10 per cent, and not be tripled by means of a subsequent statutory instrument.
    I am disappointed—the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe will be pleased to hear—that the Government will resist our amendments. If they do, however, I shall try to persuade my colleagues to vote for them.
    Mrs. Liddell: There we have it—soft on price fixers and soft on the causes of price fixing. [Interruption.] At this time of night, I always find it best to be catchy.

    1355
    I resist these Opposition amendments to the Bill's financial penalty provisions. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, amendment (a) to Lords amendment 74 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 127 seek to replace the cap of 10 per cent, of turnover with a cap of 5 per cent, of turnover. The Government have been consistent on this point. We have always maintained that the primary constraint on the level of any financial penalty is the requirement for the penalty to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
    We initially resisted the imposition of the cap on penalties on the ground that it was not strictly necessary, but we have also listened to the views of groups inside and outside the House and responded to the growing view that a limit would provide some comfort to companies without unduly constraining the authority's ability to protect consumers' interests.
    Now that we have done that, the Opposition want to move the goalposts again. No one gains from that. The Government have already done everything that is necessary to respond to the concerns that have been put to us about these provisions. We have introduced a cap on penalties, as requested, analogous to that in the Competition Act 1998, which seemed to be the example that the Opposition referred to most often in Committee and elsewhere when pressing for a cap.
    The only possible reason for wanting to introduce a lower cap is to protect companies from facing a penalty that would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case when they have committed a serious contravention. A cap of 5 per cent, of turnover would run that risk, and on that basis the Government cannot accept it.
    Amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 74 and amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 127 would insert provisions in the Bill to the effect that the definition of turnover used in relation to the cap on financial penalties shall be the UK turnover of the licence holder in the year preceding the imposition of the penalty.
    The Lords amendment inserting a limit on financial penalties also states that detailed provisions in relation to the definition of turnover and other matters shall be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State by affirmative resolution. There will therefore be ample opportunity for Parliament to discuss the relevant provisions when the order is made. The definition that the Opposition amendments would insert would pre-empt the debate that will take place when the order is made. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.
    Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 75 and amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 128 have been linked—very tenuously—to a part of the financial penalties provisions that prevents penalties from being applied retrospectively. The amendment tabled in another place was purely technical.
    The amendments to the Lords amendments are an attempt to reintroduce a provision that penalties shall be limited to cases of recklessness and intent, similar to the Competition Act 1998 restriction to cases of negligence and intent. The Government have resisted amendments to that effect throughout the passage of the Bill, on the ground that the onus should be on companies to comply with their licence conditions and that such an amendment would work against the interests of consumers.
    1356
    As my noble Friend Lord McIntosh explained in another place, there are valid precedents for our approach, such as the National Lottery Act 1998 and the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996, which were introduced under the previous Administration. Those Acts provide for the relevant regulatory authority to impose financial penalties for contraventions of licence conditions. They do not provide get-out clauses for companies that breach their licences without negligence or intent. There are good reasons for the approach that the Government have adopted.
    We hold to the view that the onus should be on the licence holder to maintain compliance, especially when the consumers concerned cannot move to another service provider, as is the case with the electricity transmission and distribution companies and the gas transporters.
    The amendments to the Lords amendments ignore entirely the nature of the powers that we are providing. The authority will have a power, not a duty, to impose financial penalties. Any penalty that it imposes must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. It seems most unlikely that any penalty that did not take account of best endeavours by a licence holder to remedy a contravention would be considered reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and any such penalty would without doubt be liable to challenge in the courts. Consumers none the less deserve proper protection, and the amendments do not help in that respect.
    For all the reasons that I have set out, I cannot accept the Opposition's proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments to a vote but, if he does, I am afraid that we must oppose them.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 74, in page 56, line 39, at end insert—
    ("(6A) No penalty imposed by the Authority under this section may exceed 10 per cent, of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with provisions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).
    (6B) An order under subsection (6A) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (c), leave out from "holder" to end and insert—
    'the turnover being determined on the applicable turnover for the business year preceding the date when the infringement ended and shall in any case not exceed a period of 12 months'.—[Mr. Gibb.]
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 257.

    Division No. 297]

    [7.10 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Amess, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Butterfill, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Cash, William

    Bercow, John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    (Chipping Bamet)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Clappison, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Boswell, Tim

    (Rushcliffe)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Collins, Tim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Brady, Graham

    Cran, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    1357

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Day, Stephen

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Duncan Smith, lain

    Madel, Sir David

    Evans, Nigel

    Malins, Humfrey

    Fabricant, Michael

    Maples, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Flight, Howard

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fraser, Christopher

    Norman, Archie

    Gale, Roger

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Gamier, Edward

    Ottaway, Richard

    Gibb, Nick

    Paice, James

    Gill, Christopher

    Paterson, Owen

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Pickles, Eric

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Prior, David

    Gray, James

    Robathan, Andrew

    Green, Damian

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Greenway, John

    Ruffley, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hammond, Philip

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Spring, Richard

    Hayes, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heald, Oliver

    Streeter, Gary

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Swayne, Desmond

    Horam, John

    Syms, Robert

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Tredinnick, David

    Johnson Smith,

    Trend, Michael

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Viggers, Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Wells, Bowen

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Lait, Mrs Jaoqui

    Whittingdale, John

    Lansley, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Leigh, Edward

    Wilkinson, John

    Letwin, Oliver

    Willetts, David

    Lidington, David

    Wilshire, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Yeo, Tim

    Loughton, Tim

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Luff, Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    and

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Mr. John Randall

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Allen, Graham

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ashton, Joe

    Burden, Richard

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Burnett, John

    Austin, John

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Banks, Tony

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Barnes, Harry

    Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

    Barton, Kevin

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Beard, Nigel

    Cann, Jamie

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Caplin, Ivor

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbmugh)

    Casale, Roger

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Caton, Martin

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Berrton, Joe

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Best, Harold

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Betts, Clive

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clelland, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clwyd, Ann

    1358

    Coaker, Vemon

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jamieson, David

    Coleman, lain

    Jenkins, Brian

    Colman, Tony

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Cooper, Yvette

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Corston, Jean

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Cousins, Jim

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Cox, Tom

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Cummings, John

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Darvill, Keith

    Kidney, David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Laxton, Bob

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dawson, Hilton

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Denham, John

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Doran, Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    McCabe, Steve

    Edwards, Huw

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ennis, Jeff

    McDonnell, John

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Fisher, Mark

    McIsaac, Shona

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Flint, Caroline

    McNamara, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul

    McNuHy, Tony

    Follett, Barbara

    McWalter, Tony

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Marshall, David (SheWeston)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    George, Bruce (Walsali S)

    Merron, Gillian

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Miller, Andrew

    Godsiff, Roger

    Moffatt, Laura

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Motley, Elliot

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Grogan, John

    (B'ham Yardley)

    Gunnell, John

    Mountford, Kali

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mullin, Chris

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Olner, Bill

    Healey, John

    Opik, Lembit

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Heppell, John

    Pearson, Ian

    Hesford, Stephen

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hill, Keith

    Pike, Peter L

    Hinchliffe, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Pollard, Kerry

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Pond, Chris

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Pope, Greg

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Pound, Stephen

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hurst, Alan

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Hutton, John

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Illsley, Eric

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    1359

    Rammell, Bill

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Rapson, Syd

    (Dewsbury)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    Rendel, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Rogers, Allan

    Timms, Stephen

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Trickett, Jon

    Rooney, Terry

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Salter, Martin

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Tyler, Paul

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sawford, Phil

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sheerman, Barry

    Watts, David

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Soley, Clive

    Wills, Michael

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Winnick, David

    Spellar, John

    Wood, Mike

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

    Woolas, Phil

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wyatt, Derek

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mr. Jim Dowd and

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mr. Don Touhig

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendment No. 74 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 75 to 94 agreed to.

  Clause 67

    HELP FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS OF ELECTRICITY CUSTOMERS
    Lords amendment: No. 95, in page 66, line 35, leave out ("1989 Act") and insert ("Electricity Act 1989")
    Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 96 and 148.
    Mrs. Liddell: These are technical amendments which are necessary to provide that clause 67 commences at Royal Assent. Clause 67 gives the Secretary of State
    1360
    powers to change electricity licences to implement the new electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales. Commencement at Royal Assent is essential so that the powers can be used in time to bring the new trading arrangements into effect in the autumn. The planned start date for the new arrangements is 21 November this year.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 96 to 143 agreed to.

  Clause 103

    TRANSFER TO AUTHORITY AND COUNCIL OF FUNCTIONS, PROPERTY ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 144, in page 108, line 36, leave out ("and in Part I of the 1986") and insert
    ("which are defined in section 48 or 66 of the 1986 Act or used in Part I of that")
    Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 145 to 147 and 149.
    Dr. Howells: Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 make the drafting of clause 103 slightly more transparent and user-friendly—and it needs it. The amendments assist the reader by inserting into the clause specific references to the interpretation sections in part I and part III of each of the existing Acts.
    Amendment No. 146 has the effect that section 46 of the Gas Act 1986 applies to the Utilities Bill. This amendment is needed because the Bill itself does not contain any provisions as to the manner of such service.
    Amendment No. 147 clarifies the scope of the Secretary of State's power under clause 106 to make transitional and consequential provisions concerned with the coming into force of this Bill. The amendment makes it clear that the power to modify any enactment for that purpose extends to Acts passed and subordinate legislation made in the present parliamentary Session. Amendment No. 149 makes provision that a commencement order made by the Secretary of State may contain transitional provisions and savings relating to the provisions being brought into force by the order.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Postal Services Bill
Lords amendments considered.
7.26 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 33, 34, 124, 125, 149 and 154. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Postal Services Bill
  Clause 4

    PROVISION OF A POSTAL SERVICE: MEANING.
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("are") in line 33 and insert
    ("a service of conveying relevant postal packets from one place to another by post and the incidental services of receiving, collecting, sorting and delivering such packets")
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 30, 31, 44, 45, 49, 91, 92, 94, 101 and 126 to 132, No. 133 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 134 to 140.
    Mr. Johnson: This group of amendments relates to the rights given to universal service providers in connection with the provision of the universal service.
    Amendments Nos. 1, 30, 31, 44, 45, 91, 92 and 94 are drafting amendments, which deal with the definitions of postal services, postal operator, post office, universal postal service and related consequential amendments.
    Mr. David Wilshire: The Minister referred to amendment No. 31. Will he explain why it is considered necessary to remove the word "transports" and insert "conveys", as I am struggling to understand why it is worth taking up the time of the House to make such a footling little pedantic change?
    Mr. Johnson: I will do my best to explain when I get to that amendment.
    The amendments narrow the definition of postal services, postal operator and post office to prevent catching persons or places only involved in the provision of services related to postal services, such as the sale of stamps at a newsagent or the sale of envelopes by a stationer. They also ensure that those related services are only caught if they are provided in conjunction with the conveying, receiving, sorting, collecting and delivering of relevant postal packets.
    Amendment No. 2 is intended to ensure that it will be possible to identify a universal service provider or providers in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Bill in the event that the current requirement to notify the commission of their identity under the postal services directive lapses.
    Amendment No. 101 is a minor, consequential amendment resulting from amendment No. 2 to the list of expressions in clause 1. Amendment No. 49 inserts a new
    1362
    clause into the Bill, which replaces the provisions in the Post Office Act 1953, to enable a universal service provider to require the owner or operator of a ship or aircraft to carry mailbags in connection with the provision of the universal service. It also provides for the transport tribunal—or, where relevant, the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland—to decide the level of remuneration where the remuneration for providing such a service cannot be agreed.
    The clause proposed updates the 1953 Act provisions so that they apply to universal service providers and apply only in those areas where such provision is still thought to be justified; for example, where ships and aircraft are operating to places not readily accessible by road. On some air and sea routes, there may be a single provider. Unless the prices charged to universal service providers are reasonable, the cost of delivering postal packets to remote areas will increase and could threaten the maintenance of the universal service at a uniform tariff.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Wilshire: On amendment No. 49, has the transport tribunal the power solely to deal with price, or can it deal with the length of time allowed for delivery? That is not a pedantic point: if there is no time limit, there will be problems, but a time limit would surely mean that passengers would have to be taken off transport in order to deliver the mail, which would be unfair.
    Mr. Johnsonm: The tribunal's power relates only to price. The procedure is well tested and carries forward the provisions of the 1953 Act, with which there have been no such problems as those identified by the hon. Gentleman. We felt able to translate it to the Bill in its original form.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Can the Minister satisfy my curiosity about what happens when one of the universal Post Office people is told that he cannot put his mailbags on some mode of transport? What mechanism exists to resolve such a dispute?
    Mr. Johnson: The point of the clause is that such transportation providers cannot say no. That would affect the Post Office's ability to provide a universal service. This provision relates to the costs of the service. Transporting the mail will be a requirement of the Act.
    Amendment No. 133 addresses the legal authority relating to the installation of post boxes and postal pouch boxes in the street, which is unclear in the current legislation. The amendment puts universal service providers on the same basis as other statutory undertakers in relation to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and reduces the unnecessary administrative burdens involved in installing postal apparatus.
    Mr. Wilshire: Subsection (7) of amendment No. 133 states:
    Sub-paragraph (1) does not free the universal service provider concerned from obtaining any other consent, licence or permission which may be required.
    What does that mean when it comes to obtaining planning permission? The erection of a post box technically involves a structure. How will that be handled?
    Mr. Johnson: At present, permission is not required for the construction of a pillar box, but is required for placing a post box in the street. The Bill will not change that.

    1363
    We must ensure that delays are not caused in the installation of postal pouch boxes, which are important to ensure that letters are delivered on time. Pouch boxes are secure receptacles from which postmen and postwomen collect additional mail sacks without returning to the delivery office. That enables health and safety legislation to be observed as well as responding to increasing volumes of mail. The alternative would be to deliver extra sacks to postmen by van, which would be environmentally undesirable.
    The other amendments are minor drafting amendments to the compulsory acquisition and other land provisions in schedules 5 and 6.
    Mr. John Bercow: It is a pleasure to joust with the Minister this evening. First, I should explain my presence and the absence of my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). Both my hon. Friends have been indisposed and have experienced hospital treatment. The House will be pleased to know that both are making a full and rapid recovery and will return to active service 'ere long.
    I have been posted—if I may use that term without being accused of a pun—on a free one-day transfer to the shadow Trade and Industry Front-Bench team. I have discovered that it is en route to the shadow Home Office team shortly thereafter. I wondered why the Opposition Whip's Office chose me to deputise for my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. The only explanation at which I could arrive was that they were looking for someone of a similar size and shape to my hon. Friend. The House will understand, therefore, that necessarily there was in more ways than one a very short shortlist.
    I have a simple query on Lords amendment No. 2 for the Minister, with which I feel sure he will be able to deal speedily. In what circumstances would the amendment apply? That is not entirely clear to me. The amendment specifies the circumstance in which there would be no "obligation to notify" the European Commission of the identity of the universal service provider. Although I read the amendment and re-read it, as I was duty to bound to do, it became none the clearer. However, with the great talents that the Minister brings to bear in debates in the House, I feel sure that he will be able to put my mind at rest and tell me that the amendment has a good purpose.
    Briefly on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 133, my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon flagged up this issue in another place some time ago. She took up the cudgels on the matter on 8 June—if I remember rightly, it was in an amendment No. 19. We are concerned about the power that exists under the amendment to alter the designation of a letter box or a universal postal service pouch box in a street.
    Paragraph (2)(b) of Lords amendment No. 133 refers to
    inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing, altering or renewing such apparatus which has been so placed, changing its position or removing it.
    We could legitimately debate a number of those matters, but my concern is the reference to the entitlement to alter. This is no trifling matter. I hope that the Minister will accept that many people in local communities—especially
    1364
    in rural areas and small villages—can be considerably exercised about the location of post boxes and what they may in some cases consider to be any unjustified changes to them.
    Mr. Jack: I am following my hon. Friend's argument keenly. Does the existing law as it applies to the Post Office, give the facility for moving, changing or altering, which are his causes of concern about these new universal providers?
    Mr. Bercow: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has it right. Until now, I have not had a particular concern, but I am concerned in the context of the amendment. My right hon. Friend is a patient chap. If he will hold on a moment, he will find out why.
    The reason for our concern is that the amendment did not occur to the Government at an early stage of the Bill; it made a late entrance. That prompts me to ask the Minister—although I have looked at the record, I cannot find it anywhere—when the idea occurred to Ministers, whom did they consult and why did they decide at such a late stage to insert so apparently substantial an amendment? I wait with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brown to learn the hon. Gentleman's response.
    Mr. Alan Johnson: We are delighted to see the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the Opposition Front Bench. He has been recruited as a type of Christmas casual to the post office team in the shadow Department of Trade and Industry, while the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—who made important contributions to the Bill in Committee—are both indisposed. We wish them a speedy recovery. I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham does not catch whatever is going around the Opposition DTI team.
    Mr. Bercow: I would not want there to be any confusion, so I should explain that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who is still in considerable pain—although making a good recovery—is suffering that pain because he fell off his horse.
    Mr. Johnson: I hear that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire was trying to use his mobile phone at the same time, but that is probably a vicious rumour.
    I was asked about the reference to determining universal service providers. That attaches to a European directive whose life itself stretches until 2004. It is almost inconceivable that there will not be a replacement provision in that directive after 2004. However, we need to be wary and to ensure that, if that European provision should be subsumed or disappear, there will be provision in the Bill so that universal service providers can be properly listed and put on record. That is the reason for Lords amendment No. 1.
    On amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 133, the hon. Member for Buckingham referred to pouch boxes. They are a source of considerable concern, although not so much in rural areas, where postal staff use vans for deliveries and are thus able to deal with the extraordinary increase of mail that has occurred during the past 10 to

    1365
    15 years. Postmen or postwomen in urban areas, who have to deliver, on cycle or on foot, by 9.30 am, have an increasing amount of mail. That is why pouch boxes have crept on to the scene during the past 20 years.
    The hon. Gentleman asked at what stage we considered the matter. We addressed it after Committee stage when it was realised that there was no provision to deal with it. There have been provisions on pillar boxes for more than 100 years, but pouch boxes are different. The only change that we are making is to a costly and bureaucratic system under which providers have to apply for street works licences to cover alterations to postal apparatus, although they are exempt from that requirement when they inspect, maintain, adjust, repair or renew such apparatus.
    The provision was introduced after discussion with the Post Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—because there is an environmental aspect. The discussions continued for some time and it was not until the Bill had gone to the Lords that we could table the amendment.
    People are understandably concerned when pouch boxes are erected at the end of their street. The boxes are usually free-standing. We have not changed any provisions that relate to planning applications. The right of the public to oppose such an application remains. The problem with the Opposition amendment is that the removal of the word "altering" might prevent the postal service provider from undertaking sensible work; for example, changing the metal plates that inform the public of clearing times for the pouch boxes. If the pouch box is attached to a pillar box—which would also be covered by the provision—that could create unwarranted interference to improvements to the service to the public.
    The provision could prevent the Post Office from blocking up pillar boxes when there is a terrorist attack or a postal strike. That would be an alteration. Nothing horrendous would result from alteration that could not also be caused when such an appliance was replaced, renewed or adjusted. Therefore we believe that the amendment may prevent innovations of a type that may result from a more competitive marketplace. We cannot see that the schedule as it stands would be improved in any way by removing the word "altering", and we are very anxious to ensure that the public still have the right to oppose planning permission for pouch boxes, because that is an essential safeguard for communities throughout the country.
    On that basis, I hope that the Opposition will see fit not to press amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 133.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Tony Baldry: I shall be brief. I believe that I am the only Member on the Conservative Benches who served on the Standing Committee of the Bill and is also a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which has several times considered the working of Post Office services.
    I believe that it would be in order for me to put my argument on practically any group of amendments to the Bill, so I shall make it briefly on this group and make it relevant.
    Under the Bill, Ministers are giving themselves powers to introduce social and environmental guidance to the Post Office that will give Ministers the power to direct the
    1366
    Postal Services Commission to do various things, but that guidance will not be issued until the Bill receives Royal Assent. In other words, until that happens, we have no idea what the guidance will say.
    We have some indication of that guidance, however, because it was issued in draft in February. Rather presumptuously, it describes itself as draft guidance to the Postal Services Act 2000, and in paragraph 4.9, under the heading "Access to the Universal Postal Services", it says that the commission has a duty to ensure that sufficient access points are provided to facilitate the universal postal service. It also states that the commission will wish to consider, as part of its duty to ensure the provision of a universal postal service, the number, type and distribution of access points necessary as a minimum to ensure that the licence holder so required for providing a universal postal service can operate. It makes it clear that access points are considered to be pillar boxes and post offices and other places and points clearly marked as such, provided for users to deposit postal items for collection by UPS providers.
    On Monday, when the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, he said that until the Bill receives Royal Assent, there is no social and environmental guidance to tag it on to. Ministers have, however, promulgated draft guidance which, once the Bill comes into being, they will impose by way of policy. That guidance could say anything. The draft guidance is totally relevant and germane to the points that the House is now considering, but it is otiose for the House to consider those points if, irrespective of the Government's ability to drive the Bill through with their majority and regardless of what is said in that legislation, they have an all-embracing clause that says that they are enabled to issue environmental and social guidance. What is more, under that guidance they can then promulgate any policy that they wish, which has never been considered by the House but which, regardless, will have statutory force.
    If that is so, one really wonders what the House is doing. Why are we here if, effectively, somewhere in the Bill, there are powers for Ministers to issue guidance that will never be considered by the House, but which will have far-reaching effects on everything from the provision of postal boxes to how many post offices are allowed to stay open?
    My argument, which I can put succinctly, having sat through the Committee proceedings and having considered the Bill on the Trade and Industry Select Committee, is that this is a rottenly drafted Bill, and that it simply gives Ministers, through so-called social and environmental guidance, almost unlimited powers, which will never be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny. It is a sad but appropriate note that the last Bill to be considered on the last day before the recess treats the House with such contempt that, effectively, Ministers are taking unto themselves universal powers to impose policy on the universal postal providers and others by way of a device called guidance. If such a device was introduced in any and every Bill, Ministers would easily be able to bypass Parliament. I would not wish the House to accept the amendment without noting what is happening here. We are giving the Government a blank cheque to issue any further policy. I suspect that few hon. Members have heard of the social and environmental guidance. The consultation period ends on the 31st of this month.

    1367
    This is a rotten Bill that is rottenly drafted, and it is contemptuous of the House and the scrutiny of Parliament.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

  Clause 13

    LICENCES: CONDITIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 9, line 26, after ("lie") insert
    ("or, in Scotland, be competent").
    Mr. Alan Johnson: 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. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 to 19, 21, 23 to 26, 32, 41 to 43, 47, 48, 55, 56, 87 to 90, 93, 95 to 98, 100 and 141 to 144.
    Mr. Johnson: These are all drafting and consequential amendments intended either to clarify various references or to ensure consistency within the Bill. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

  Clause 30

    FINANCIAL PENALTIES
    Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 21, line 6, at end insert—
    ("(1A) No such penalty shall exceed 10 per cent, of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with provisions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).").
    Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendments Nos. 7, 10, 13 and amendment (a) thereto, No. 14 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 51, 52 and 83.
    Mr. Johnson: This group of amendments deals with a number of issues relating to the Postal Services Commission's duties and powers. It will place a cap on the financial penalties that can be imposed on licence holders for contravening a licence condition.
    Mr. Bercow: I shall focus my remarks on our amendment to Lords amendment No. 6 and other Lords amendments in the group, especially amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
    The purpose of amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 6 is to restrict any fine that is levied under the Bill to 10 per cent, of turnover. We are concerned that the period in which turnover is taken into account should be a period of only one year, or certainly not exceeding one year.
    1368
    It is at least arguable and it has been argued in other contexts, not least by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that a 10 per cent, fine is excessive. We contend that one such fine imposed on a company in respect of three years of its turnover would be extortionate. The Conservative Opposition moved a similar amendment, as the Minister will be aware, in Committee in another place. It was flagged up and eloquently argued for by Baroness Miller of Hendon on 8 June. She objected to what she thought was the potential for grossly excessive fines. It is interesting that on that occasion the Minister rejected the amendment tabled by my noble Friend on the grounds that the clause stated that any fine that was imposed would have to be reasonable.
    I observe, almost in parenthesis, that it was a slightly curious line of argument for the noble Lord representing the Government to deploy. On several instances during the other House's consideration of the Bill, my noble Friends argued for the insertion of the word "reasonable" in respect of other clauses and amendments. They were swiftly rebutted on each and every occasion by the noble Lord on the ground that reasonableness was implicit in all the clauses and amendments to the Bill. It would thus be otiose to insert the word in the Bill. However, when it suited the Government to argue that their plans were reasonable and did not require our amendment, that is what Lord Sainsbury did.
    As the Minister knows, I am a fairminded chap and, in continuing my description of the chronological sequence of events, I must tell the House that, by Third Reading, the Government had had a change of heart. I am sure that that was the result not only of the intellectual ferocity but of the personal charm of my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon, which I could not possibly hope to emulate. Nevertheless the Government changed their mind and tabled an amendment.
    The draft Competition Act 1998 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2000 was made on 10 February and it implemented section 36 of the Competition Act 1998. Although the order owes its origin to section 36(8) of the Act, that section says:
    No penalty fixed by the Director under this section may exceed 10 per cent, of the turnover of the undertaking (determined in accordance with such provisions as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).
    Therein lies the reason for the continuing dissatisfaction of Conservative Members. The Government have shifted their position and that is welcome. However, it would help if they changed their position somewhat further so as to recognise the force of the argument, made not least by commercial undertakings, that it is unfair and excessive for the fine to be able to apply to three years of turnover. There is nothing in what the Government have so far provided for to suggest that the period could exceed one year but equally, there is nothing to say that a limit of one year will be observed.
    That, therefore, is the problem with the provision. The Secretary of State could issue an order that would triple the figure from 10 per cent, to 30 per cent. There was no mention in Committee or on Second Reading that turnover would exceed one year, but out of the blue last August, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a press release that said that
    companies engaging in anti-competitive practices will face a maximum penalty of 10 per cent, of their UK turnover for each year of the infringement, up to a maximum of three years.

    1369
    That could amount to tens of millions of pounds in some cases.
    It beggars belief, but the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry were not merely acknowledging that they were providing for the application of a fine on three years' turnover, but were bragging about it as though it was something of which to be proud. First, the Government gave no sign that they would do that and then they did it. They then talked about an amendment in the Lords Committee, assuaging, in some way, the Opposition's legitimate concerns. However, at heart, the Government still want there to be a punitive fine regime.
    Although there is indubitably a case for a fine regime, that regime should be fair. It should not be punitive or extortionate and it should assuredly not be used as a source of revenue for application elsewhere. The suspicion exists—my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) will confirm it after three years of this Government—that such moneys can be regarded as stealth taxes. In this case, those stealth taxes are imposed not on individuals, but on businesses.
    8 pm
    As the Minister will acknowledge, consultation revealed a long hostility towards the new penalty regime. The Confederation of British Industry is especially critical of the order. A Government who pride themselves on their apparently close relations with at least some representatives of business, and with the CBI in particular, should at least have taken on board those comments and changed the order accordingly.
    The CBI said:
    The proposed maximum penalty for breaches of the Act is excessive. It could lead to extremely large fines, and affect the viability of businesses, potentially leading to insolvencies and consequent job losses…The CBI believes the imposition of a maximum fine on a three-year basis to be contrary to the principle of section 60 of the Act; the equivalent time period at EU level is only one year.
    It went on to say:
    The proposed level of maximum fine may also be contrary to the general Community law principle of proportionality.
    It continued:
    Such a level of penalty goes beyond normal bounds, whether in terms of deterrent, retribution or proportionality, and arguably runs counter to the Government's stated goal of creating a healthy, pro-business environment.
    My next concern relates to paragraph 4 of the Competition Act 1998 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2000, to which I direct the Minister's attention. It reads:
    Where an undertaking consists of two or more undertakings that each prepare accounts then the applicable turnover shall be calculated by adding together the respective applicable turnover of each, save that no account shall be taken of any turnover resulting from the sale of products or the provision of services between them.
    That seems further to emphasise the punitive character of the fine regime. One can have a substantial number of companies only indirectly and tangentially involved with the main culprit, whose turnover is contributing to the sum on which the 10 per cent, fine over three years is levied. That does not seem fair.
    1370
    The Minister is an immensely reasonable specimen. He is the closest approximation to reasonableness that one can expect in this Government.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: He never used to be.
    Mr. Bercow: As my hon. Friend points out from a sedentary position, the Minister used not to be reasonable, but that was when he was representing the forces of organised labour—he was veritably an old-fashioned trade unionist in those days. Of course, he has since made the transition to new Labour, and he is an aspiring and rising Minister. His tune has changed, but we will dig out what he has said on previous occasions. If he can persuade us that the provision is reasonable, we will be interested to hear how that can be so.
    This is a matter of particular concern at a time when the Post Office is trying to expand. It has recently made several acquisitions—German Parcel being the most notable example—and it is in the process of forming important and potentially profitable strategic alliances. When it is getting bigger, the scope for hefty fines to be imposed is a legitimate source of anxiety, and I hope that the Minister will at least reflect on that point.
    In the DTI press release to which I alluded earlier, which was issued on 9 August last year, the Government proudly flagged up the fact that they were providing for tough penalties. If memory serves me correctly, in 1996, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were considering proposed reforms to competition law, there was consideration of a new fine regime, which was to be determinable by, or at least capable of being heard by, a tribunal. The idea was to impose a maximum limit on a fine of about £1.5 million. Here we have a proposal that could result in extortionate sums of money being taken from companies. On the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
    I turn now to Lords amendment No. 13, which is also a matter of legitimate concern to the House, and the Opposition seek to amend it. This amendment is intended to place the commission under an obligation to conduct benchmarking operations with other postal operators in order to ensure a competitive market place. The present commission has indicated a willingness to do that, but the commission should be under an obligation to do something, rather than simply consider whether it is practicable.
    The Government have talked about the prospect of benchmarking where it is "practicable" to engage in it. We think that that is not a persuasive case. If benchmarking is a good idea—if it is in the national and commercial interest to be able to compare the performances of different service providers, it is not clear, given that there is to be a regulatory structure, why this should be only an opportunity and not a formal obligation.
    We welcome the Lords amendment based on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in Committee in the Commons, but we want to strengthen it. In doing so, we would be meeting a function of the commission under clause 5(3), requiring that the commission
    shall exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to promote efficiency and economy on the part of postal operators.

    1371
    Accordingly, this amendment proposes that the commission collect information about the effectiveness of the Post Office, as compared with similar operations, and then report on the information that it has collected. It is difficult to see how the commission will be able to discharge the function referred to in, and provided for by, clause 5(3) without the benefit of such information. The proposal provides the information necessary to enable the commission to carry out its functions and the reassurance that that information will definitely be sought.
    Thus the amendment that we commend is similar to that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for B anbury in Committee, and I ought properly to add that it is supported by the Periodical Publishers Association. It is designed to ensure that the Post Office make efficiency savings and offer a competitive service. When a similar amendment was tabled in Committee, the Minister rejected it, as it would have required licence holders to arrange and fund the carrying out of annual independent reviews of the efficiency and economy of its operations.
    Our contention is that the amendment seeks the same ends, but the commission will be responsible. Because the Post Office is, for the time being, the only realistic carrier of magazines, PPA members want it to operate in a manner calculated to promote efficiency and economy.
    I shall detain the House only briefly to say something about the amendment to Lords amendment No. 14—[Interruption.] The Minister for Trade is a distinguished denizen of this place. He has detained this House on many occasions. I have listened with wide-eyed enthusiasm to the sheer power of the hon. Gentleman's oratory, so I hope that he will forgive me if, in performing my duty on behalf of the Opposition, I briefly detain the House on the amendment to Lords amendment No. 14. If the hon. Gentleman knows me well, he will know that it is much better for him to keep quiet and not provoke me. If he insists on provoking me, it will take a great deal longer, and the blame and responsibility for that will be his, not mine.
    The amendment to Lords amendment No. 14 is designed to ensure that a reference to transparency and accounting appears in the Bill. It would ensure that the commission considers any potential cross-subsidy and reports on it each year to ensure fair competition. The Government amendment was tabled in response to concerns expressed by my noble Friend Baroness Miller on 15 June. It seeks to highlight how the commission is performing its functions under the European directive. I emphasise to the Minister that this is a welcome concession from the Government, but we would like to see in the Bill a direct reference to transparency in accounts.
    It might be helpful if I explain to the House that the wording of the amendment is taken directly from article 14 of EU Postal Services Directive 97/67/EC. The Minister will understand that the background is the July 1999 White Paper "Post Office Reform: A world class service for the 21st century", which emphasised the importance of transparent accounting and limiting cross-subsidies to a level necessary for the preservation of essential services. It stated that the regulator would need to ensure that the necessary accounting transparency was in place to give credible assurance that there was no
    1372
    undue cross-subsidy from the business units operating in the monopoly area to those competing in other market sectors. That point was expanded upon at page 25, paragraphs 25 to 26, which no doubt the Minister could reproduce off the top of his head and with which I will not therefore weary the House.
    The White Paper made it clear that, until the regulator was established, responsibility for ensuring transparent accounting and for monitoring cross-subsidies rested with the Government. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry in its 12th report reached a similar conclusion. Transparency of accounting and the limiting of cross-subsidies are central themes of the European postal services directive. That is clear from recitals from that directive. In article 14, there is an express requirement to keep separate accounts and to allocate costs to each of the non-reserved and reserved services.
    The amendment would ensure that the Bill gives appropriate weight to the stated aim of the directive, of the White Paper and of the Select Committee report, that competition should be fair and cross-subsidies be limited to cases where they are necessary to maintain the universal service obligation, and necessary to the transparency of accounts. The amendment seeks to enhance, rather than to detract from, the existing provisions of the Bill.
    On 14 March, in Committee, the Minister said that the Government had considerable sympathy with our aims. I hope that he will accept that our amendment is a robust means by which to achieve them. It would have the advantage of transparency and predictability for commercial operators, which have long complained about unfair cross-subsidies to the Post Office's Parcelforce.
    It is a powerful case. I hope that the Minister will reflect on it on his feet, if I may put it that way, and accept the wisdom of our arguments.
    Mr. Alan Johnson: All throe of the issues that we are debating and that were covered by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have come about as a result of us listening to points that were raised at Committee stage in the House and in the other place. I am a little surprised that Conservative Members have tabled amendment (a). The Lords amendments that they seek to amend or to remove concern issues on which the Government have accepted changes to deal with particular concerns in the other place.
    The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we took note of the intellectual ferocity and charm of Baroness Miller of Hendon. She said about our amendment, which the Opposition are trying to amend:
    We have no difficulty in accepting this amendment—
    amendment No. 6.
    We argued for it quite strongly either in Committee or on Report. We thank the Minister for bringing it back in this form.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 171.]
    The people whose intellectual ferocity and charm convinced us to table the amendment have said not one word in support of amendment (a). Lord Dearing of Hull, who knows one or two things about the Post Office, also warmly welcomed the change.
    Amendment (a) would define the applicable turnover for determining the maximum fine under clause 30 as being for a period of not more than 12 months, and being either the period of the business year preceding the date

    1373
    when the contravention ended, or the date of the imposition of the penalty if the contravention had not ended. It would also effectively make the order-making power of the Secretary of State—which is a crucial element of that part of the Bill—unnecessary. It would, in that sense, be a backward step.
    The amendment is overly prescriptive. We believe that it is technically deficient. I know that arguments about technical deficiency are always the bane of those on the Opposition Front Bench, but it makes no provision, for example, as to whether the relevant turnover is to be restricted to that of the business in the UK, or extended to cover worldwide turnover. Nor does it allow for the possibility of the detailed provisions to change over time.
    Careful consideration is needed to define turnover for those purposes. That will entail a level of detail that would be inappropriate in the Bill.
    Detailed provisions should be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State, as provided for in Lords amendments Nos 14 and 83. Such provisions would mirror the procedure adopted for the analogous provisions in the Competition Act 1998, and in the Utilities Bill.
    8.15 pm
    The hon. Member for Buckingham made a valid point. He was concerned about whether a Government would use the power to impose burdensome fines on what could be the Post Office but could, in the future, be other universal service providers. That is the whole point about the licensing regime. The time to raise the issue, however, will be when the Secretary of State lays the order before the House by means of a statutory instrument. That, entirely properly, will give the House an opportunity to decide whether there are any problems relating to the fine.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made an entirely reasonable point. The Minister batted it off, saying, "We can discuss this later, when an order is laid". Given that my hon. Friend raised an important point, however, will the Minister assure me that there will be a period of open consultation, so that when the order is laid, the important accounting and equity issues raised by my hon. Friend can be properly discussed?
    Mr. Johnson: We are talking about circumstances in which the terms of a licence have been breached. We were originally reluctant to put a cap on the fine imposed, but the forceful arguments advanced in another place convinced us that we should do so. That is entirely consistent with the Competition Act and with the Utilities Bill, and it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that we should not be burdened in the Bill by the form that the penalty should take.
    Mr. Bercow: May I press the Minister on the question of the entitlement to fine on three years' turnover? This is a matter of grave concern. We do not dispute the principle that fines should be imposed, but business representatives out there believe that the scope for fining of three years' worth of turnover is excessive. How will the Minister reassure them?
    Mr. Johnson: I would reassure them on this basis. As I said earlier—I realise that someone was speaking to the
    1374
    hon. Gentleman at the time—the amendment, as drafted, does not take account of whether turnover in the domestic part of the business is involved, or turnover in its European subsidiaries. There is a technical deficiency. It is impossible to deal with such technicalities in the Bill, but we will ensure that an order is laid before the House so that the issues can be debated.
    The money obtained from any fine will not go into Treasury coffers; it will go to the Postal Services Commission. There will be no great imperative either to impose too many fines, or to insist that the fines are used to plug a gap in public finances. The money cannot be used in that way: it will go to the commission.
    I do not think the amendment is necessary. I think the Opposition should quit while they are ahead. They made a good contribution which was accepted in another place, and I do not think we need amend that further.
    Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 13 would require the Postal Services Commission to collect information enabling comparisons to be made between the efficiency and economy of different postal operators, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad. Unlike Lords amendment No. 13, the amendment leaves the commission with no discretion whatever.
    We do not doubt that comparative information will be essential to the commission when it carries out many of its core duties. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in Committee; we thought it sensible, and we have dealt with it. However, we do not think that we need to be prescriptive in the Bill. It is important to leave operational matters to those who are in the best position to make the decisions—in this case, the Postal Services Commission.
    It is important that the commission should have some discretion in when it collects comparative information, because it may not always feel that a comparison is useful. The Government do not want to require the commission to do work—for which licence holders will pay—if the commission believes that that work is unnecessary.
    The commission also does not have the power to require such information from unlicensed operators or from anyone except universal service providers in the United Kingdom. It certainly does not have the power to require information from operators abroad. However, an important aspect of comparisons, particularly of the services provided, will be to consider operations in the private sector and in countries such as Sweden. Removing the element of choice and insisting that the commission must do such work regardless of whether it is necessary would be a backward step and would not be acceptable.
    We think that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 14 is quite unnecessary. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Buckingham that transparency is essential and absolutely healthy. Indeed, ensuring that a universal service provider keeps separate accounts within its internal accounting systems for each of its reserved and non-reserved services is one of a number of important requirements of the European postal services directive. However, a requirement to report on how it has complied with that duty is already subsumed within the provisions of amendment No. 14, which will require the Postal Services Commission to include in its annual report a report on how it has complied with its obligations under the postal services directive. Highlighting that specific aspect of that duty would have no practical effect and would serve no useful purpose.

    1375
    Now I come to the point that is dreaded by every speaker at the Dispatch Box, when it is necessary to correct an earlier statement. I am told that the money goes not to the commission, but to the Consolidated Fund. However, the commission has no financial incentive to fine companies. I hope that that fully clarifies the point.
    I cannot accept the amendments to the Lords amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 19 agreed to.

  Clause 49

    POWERS OF ENTRY AND SEIZURE
    Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 32, line 13, leave out (" 95(2)") and insert ("(Inviolability of mails)(2)")
    Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 40, 50, 53, 57 to 61, 72, 73 and 79.
    Mr. Johnson: This group of amendments clarifies and improves the Bill's provisions protecting postal packets in the course of transmission by post. The amendments were made to honour a promise made in Committee that the Bill's provisions on interference with the mail and the connected provisions on inviolability and conditions of transit of postal packets would be clarified. The matter required careful consideration, and I regret that we were not able to complete our consideration of it in time to make the amendments on Report. However, we believe that, with the introduction of the amendments in the other place, the provisions have been clarified.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.

  Clause 54

    EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS: GENERAL
    Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 34, line 34, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
    ("(c) shall establish at least one committee, and may establish other committees, in relation to England (whether a committee for England or a committee for an area within England).")
    Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29, No. 68 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 109 to 120, 149 and 166.
    Mr. Johnson: This group of amendments relates to the Consumer Council for Postal Services established by clause 2. The lead amendment requires that at least one regional committee must be set up in relation to England, whether for the whole of England or an area within it. That reflects concerns that there should be at least one regional
    1376
    committee in England. The amendment leaves the council free to recommend whatever number of committees it feels is appropriate, but there must be at least one. There are several consequential amendments to schedule 2.
    Lords amendment No. 28 removes from clause 57 the requirement to notify investigations. Lords amendment No. 68, which inserts a new clause after clause 110, facilitates the transfer of property and staff from the existing consumer bodies and the Post Office Users National Council to the new council.
    The rest of the amendments are drafting, technical or consequential. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 32 agreed to.

  Clause 71

    LIMIT ON LOANS AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS WITH GOVERNMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 44, line 30, at end insert—
    ("( ) amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of debt securities issued in pursuance of section 63 of this Act, and")
    Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 and 35, No. 66 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 67, 121 to 125, 146, 153 and 154.
    Mr. Johnson: These amendments relate to the financial and tax provisions in the Bill concerning the Post Office company, and to issues arising out of the transfer from the statutory corporation to the Post Office company.
    Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 34 amend clause 71 to remove the Government's shareholding from the calculation of the Post Office company's indebtedness to Government while retaining in the calculation any debt securities issued to Government under clause 63. The amendments stem from an agreement in Committee in the Lords to consider further the inclusion of the Government's shareholding in the Post Office company in the light of Lord Dealing's amendment seeking to remove both the shareholding and debt securities issued to the Government from the calculation.
    Lords amendments Nos. 67 and 146 deal with public records. Amendment No. 67 inserts a new clause recreating a power similar to that in section 75(2) of the Post Office Act 1969, to enable the Secretary of State to vest in the Post Office company the property in the records of the Postmaster General and to give directions to the Post Office company in respect of making those records available to the Crown for inspection and copying.
    The order-making power in section 75(2) of the 1969 Act has never been exercised, so the vesting of the pre-1969 records remains an outstanding matter from that Act. Amendment No. 146 amends schedule 8 to bring the Consumer Council for Postal Services and the Post Office company into the scope of the Public Records Act 1958 when the bodies come into existence.

    1377
    Lords amendment No. 123 inserts a new paragraph into schedule 3 to ensure that the managers of welfare funds for persons who are or have been engaged in the business of the Post Office, and for their relatives and dependants, have the power to alter the funds to take account of the transfer of the Post Office to the Post Office company. The amendment maintains the rights of persons eligible for assistance under the existing funds.
    Lords amendment No. 125 is a deeming provision with the effect that, on or after the appointed day mentioned in clause 62, the Post Office company will be treated for all purposes of value added tax as if it were the same person as the Post Office. That will mean, for example, that no charges will arise from changes to the Post Office company's VAT group simply as a consequence of the transformation into the company. Together with the other tax provisions in the Bill, the amendment will ensure that the transfer of properties, rights and liabilities from the Post Office to the Post Office company under clause 62 is tax neutral.
    The remaining amendments are minor technical or drafting amendments that complete or clarify existing provisions in the Bill. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Bercow: The Opposition propose a small but significant amendment to Lords amendment No. 66. Our understanding is that there is a provision for loans to the Post Office and reference is made to the powers of the Secretary of State in that context. What foxes and perturbs my right hon. and hon. Friends is the provision that where sums are made available in currencies other than sterling
    For the purposes of this section equivalents in sterling shall be calculated as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
    Our amendment would ensure that calculations were not made by the Secretary of State, but determined in accordance with the dictates of the market.
    It seems curious that the Government wish to arrogate to themselves power for the Secretary of State to determine equivalents in sterling where other currencies are involved as their track record over several years is that whenever Ministers have been challenged, they have been very reticent on the subject of exchange rates. It genuinely perplexes me that now, instead of leaving these matters for market determination, they wish to arrogate to themselves the authority to make such judgments.
    I shall not take the House through the litany of examples of occasions on which Ministers have been challenged. I remind the House of just one pertinent example, namely the proceedings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 4 November 1998, the detail of which I feel sure is still firmly imprinted upon the mind of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I specifically questioned him on the subject of exchange rates and the relevant issue of economic and monetary union, and whether it should be undertaken at exchange rate mechanism mid-rates. The right hon. Gentleman looked most perplexed and, after reflection, said that he thought that I was jumping a whole lot of hurdles very prematurely. I make the observation simply to underline the surprise of Opposition Members that the Government wish to determine these matters themselves.
    1378
    It could be that there is a peculiarly good reason why Ministers wish to be able to judge the equivalents in sterling where other currencies are made available, but it is not clear to me or to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
    I suspect that, in addition to all his other claims to fame, the Minister for Competitiveness is a financial wizard of the highest calibre. His explanation will be comprehensive and compelling in equal measure, I hope. I wait to hear it.
    Mr. Alan Johnson: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has heard about my economics O-level.
    Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is boasting again.
    Mr. Johnson: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) proposes an amendment that will have a very short shelf life as it would apply only to foreign currency loans made to the Post Office Corporation. Of course the corporation will cease to exist once the pic company comes into being—hopefully next year—after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
    Lords amendment No. 66 to clause 109 has nothing whatever to do with the rate of interest applied to foreign currency loans. The hon. Gentleman did not raise that point, but it has been raised elsewhere. It merely provides that, for the purposes of calculating total indebtedness of the Post Office Corporation under clause 109, the Secretary of State will determine the sterling equivalent of any foreign currency debt. That is particularly applicable to the acquisition of German Parcels last year. The amendment ensures that clause 109 mirrors the provision in clause 71(4) regarding the determination of the sterling equivalent of any foreign currency debt for the Post Office company.
    There is absolutely no doubt that market rates will be taken into account for the purposes of the calculation. The Government amendment creates the flexibility for sterling equivalents to be valued in different ways according to their purpose. It allows for foreign currency loans to be given a sterling valuation first by taking the prevailing exchange rate at the date of the loan for the purposes of measuring the Post Office's outstanding borrowing against its statutory limit, and secondly, by taking the prevailing exchange rate on the balance sheet date for Post Office and National Loans Fund accounting purposes. The key point is that market rates will be taken into account for the calculation. Opposition Members have nothing to fear in that regard.
    For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will not press his amendment, and that he will accept that the Government amendments fully account for the questions that he raised.
    Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].
    Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 53 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

  Clause 103

    APPLICATION OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ENACTMENTS TO CERTAIN POSTAL PACKETS
    Lords amendment: No. 54, in page 62, line 20, leave out ("other country") and insert
    ("country or territory outside the United Kingdom")
    Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 71, 75 to 78, 80 to 82, 85, 102 to 104, 106 to 108, 145, 147, 148, 150 to 152, 155 to 165 and 167 to 171.
    Mr. Johnson: The amendments in this group modify the detailed arrangements in the Bill to ensure its smooth commencement, and the transition to the new arrangements.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 55 to 65 agreed to.

  Clause 109

    EXTENSION OF EXISTING POWERS RELATING TO THE POST OFFICE
    Lords amendment: No. 66, in page 65, line 15, at end insert—
    ("(7) After section 74(4) of that Act there shall be inserted —
    "(4A) For the purposes of this section equivalents in sterling shall be calculated as the Secretary of State considers appropriate." ")
    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, leave out from "calculated" to end and insert —
    'in accordance with market rates'.—[Mr. Bercow.]
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 226.

    Division No. 298]

    [8.37 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gamier, Edward

    Amess, David

    Gibb, Nick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Gill, Christopher

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Baldry, Tony

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bercow, John

    Gray, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Green, Damian

    Blunt, Crispin

    Greenway, John

    Body, Sir Richard

    Grieve, Dominic

    Boswell, Tim

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Hammond, Philip

    Brady, Graham

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brazier, Julian

    Hayes, John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Heald, Oliver

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cash, William

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Jenkin, Bernard

    (Chipping Batnet)

    Johnson Smith,

    Clappison, James

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Key, Robert

    (Rushcliffe)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Collins, Tim

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Cran, James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Day, Stephen

    Leigh, Edward

    Duncan Smith, lain

    Letwin, Oliver

    Evans, Nigel

    Lidington, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fallon, Michael

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Right, Howard

    Loughton, Tim

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Luff, Peter

    Fraser, Christopher

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gale, Roger

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    1380

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Streeter, Gary

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Swayne, Desmond

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Syms, Robert

    Madel, Sir David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Trend, Michael

    Norman, Archie

    Tyrie, Andrew

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Paice, James

    Wells, Bowen

    Paterson, Owen

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Prior, David

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wilkinson, John

    Ruffley, David

    Willetts, David

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Wilshire, David

    Shepherd, Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spring, Richard

    Mr. John Randall and

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Corston, Jean

    Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cousins, Jim

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cox, Tom

    Allen, Graham

    Cranston, Ross

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cryer, John (Homchurch)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Ashton, Joe

    Darvill, Keith

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Austin, John

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Banks, Tony

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Barnes, Harry

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Barron, Kevin

    Dawson, Hilton

    Beard, Nigel

    Dismore, Andrew

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Doran, Frank

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Dowd, Jim

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Benton, Joe

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Edwards, Huw

    Best, Harold

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Betts, Clive

    Ennis, Jeff

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Fisher, Mark

    Blizzard, Bob

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Flint, Caroline

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Flynn, Paul

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Follett, Barbara

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Burden, Richard

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Burnett, John

    Fyfe, Maria

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Gerard, Neil

    Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Godsiff, Roger

    Cann, Jamie

    Goggins, Paul

    Caton, Martin

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Cawsey, Ian

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clapham, Michael

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Grogan, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Harvey, Nick

    Coaker, Vemon

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Healey, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Coleman, lain

    Hesford, Stephen

    Colman, Tony

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hope, Phil

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    1381

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Pope, Greg

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Pound, Stephen

    Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Hurst, Alan

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hutton, John

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Jenkins, Brian

    Rammell, Bill

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Rapson, Syd

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Rendel, David

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Salter, Martin

    Khabra, Piara S

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Kidney, David

    Sawford, Phil

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Laxton, Bob

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Leslie, Christopher

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Snape, Peter

    Linton, Martin

    Soley, Clive

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Spellar, John

    McCabe, Steve

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    (Makerfield)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    McDonagh, Stabhain

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    McDonnell, John

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Stunell, Andrew

    McIsaac, Shona

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    (Dewsbury)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    McNulty, Tony

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    McWalter, Tony

    Timms, Stephen

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mallaber, Judy

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Touhig, Don

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Trickett, Jon

    Merron, Gillian

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Miller, Andrew

    Tyler, Paul

    Moffatt, Laura

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Morley, Elliot

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Mountford, Kali

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    (Swansea W)

    O'Brien, Bill (Nonvanton)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Olner, Bill

    Wills, Michael

    Opik, Lembit

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Wood, Mike

    Pearson, Ian

    Woodward, Shaun

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Woolas, Phil

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wyatt, Derek

    Pike, Peter L

    Plaskitt, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pollard, Kerry

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Pond, Chris

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    question accordingly negatived
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 67 to 171 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND
Resolved,
That Bernard Harold Ian Halley Stewartby, Baron Stewartby of Portmoak, shall be appointed as a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, in pursuance of Section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.—[Mr. Bern.]

PETITIONS

  Doncaster-Finningley Airport
  8.49pm
  Caroline Flint: It gives me the greatest pleasure to present to the House a petition from 21,000 residents of my constituency and the surrounding area, including Mr. Andrew Bosmans of 14 Strutton close, Cantley, Doncaster, who is a member of the Finningley "Say Yes" campaign, which organised the petition.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of residents of the Don Valley Constituency and surrounding area
  Declares that Doncaster and the Yorkshire and Humber Region will greatly benefit from the employment and services generated by the proposed Doncaster-Finningley airport.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow the application for the proposed Doncaster-Finningley airport to proceed without a public inquiry.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  I should like to add that that petition has my full support and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis).
  To lie upon the Table.

  Silver Springs Motel, Tenpenny Hill
  8.50pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is a great honour to present the House with a much humbler petition, which, though signed by a mere 370 people, comes from a village in my constituency that is home to a mere 800 or so souls.
  The petition states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble Petition of the Residents of the Parish of Thorrington and the surrounding area.
  Sheweth
  that, while the United Kingdom should always remain a safe haven for genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution, the Silver Springs Motel on Tenpenny Hill is a completely unsuitable facility for the accommodation of up to 120 asylum seekers, because—
  it is in a rural area, where the nearest settlement of Thorrington has a resident population of only 850 souls, only one shop and none of the necessary facilities or available jobs to accommodate a major influx of new people;

  1383
  it does not comply with the criteria laid down by the government's policy of dispersal of asylum seekers, namely that there is no ready access to the legal advice, English language support, mental health services and refugee community organisations which offer practical and social support that asylum seekers need, and which the recent Audit Commission report cited as necessary in order to achieve the Government's social inclusion objective;
  it comprises only wooden structures that comprise nothing more than the most basic bed and breakfast accommodation;
  and because there has been no local consultation whatsoever with local people, who are shocked to learn that planning law provides no protection from the change of use of the premises;
  and, notwithstanding any central government grant assistance to local authorities for the costs of asylum seekers, the use of Silver Springs is likely to give rise to additional costs that will be borne by local taxpayers;
  and that the announcement that Silver Springs is being considered has not unnaturally given rise to exactly the kind of adverse reaction in the community and hostile press reaction that those seeking to protect the genuine interests of asylum seekers would wish to avoid;.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to prevent the housing of asylum seekers at Silver Springs in Thorrington.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Industry and Employment (Dunstable)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
8.53 pm
Sir David Madel: It is three years since I had an Adjournment debate on the position of industry in Dunstable. That was in May 1997 and, while I did not expect immediate action in the first month of a new Labour Government, I hoped to put Dunstable's industrial problems at the top of Minister's in-trays and I think that I achieved that.
Three years on, however, industry and employment in Dunstable are again sliding backwards. By that I mean that there have been job losses and no improvement in the infrastructure, which harms local industry in Dunstable and the next-door town of Houghton Regis. Last year, the TRW steering group left the area, with almost 300 jobs losses. Of immediate concern to Dunstable and the surrounding area was an announcement on 4 July by Automotive Sealings Systems, BTR. In a press statement the company announced
the closure of its Dunstable factory with the loss of up to 400 jobs.
BTR manufactures rubber seals for car doors and windows for all the major European car manufacturers. The press statement went on to say that the company
plans to set up a smaller plant in the Dunstable area which will employ up to 130 people.
That was a bad blow for the town. The company followed it up with a request to me for three forms of action—three areas of financial assistance that would help. The first was relocation assistance in establishing a new greenfield site. The second was training grants in connection with the multi-skilling programme for the work force who are going to transfer to the new site. The third was local employment assistance for those people seeking alternative jobs as a consequence of the reduction in employee numbers—alas, 400 jobs are going.
Other auto-component manufacturers in the town are not finding it at all easy. One cause is the high value of the pound. One month ago in June, Mr. Richard Marton, the chief executive of Britax pic, made the most ominous comment on the sale of his company's automotive components business. On 26 June, he said:
It's a very unpleasant industry. It's a beastly environment with some very unreasonable demands and pressures being put upon all the people that operate in it.
Decoded, one could say that that means that there is strong global competition and car manufacturers are putting heavy pressure on components manufacturers to keep prices as low as they can.
The good news in the past 24 hours was the announcement of the new assisted area map, and I am grateful to the Minister for Trade, who is to answer the debate, and to his civil servants for keeping me informed as to local developments. The Minister says in his letter to me of 27 July:
You will have been pleased—
I am very pleased—
with the confirmation yesterday that the European Commission accepted our proposals and for the first time these wards—

1385
three wards in Dunstable-Houghton Regis, Houghton South, Northfields and Icknield—
qualify for Tier 2 funding. The company—
BTR—
may be eligible for grant-aid under the Regional Selective Assistance scheme subject to it satisfying that the intended investment meets the same criteria and European Union sectoral restrictions do not apply.
That is good news, but when the company made its press announcement on 4 July it said:
The company expects the factory in London Road, Dunstable to close by March 2001. The 42,000 sq metre site is likely to be re-developed.
The site is not in any of those three wards; it is in the Priory ward. I do not know where the company will move. If it goes into one of the three wards that now have assisted area status, it will get help.
Also, I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that we want the London road site to be redeveloped, but for industry. I do not want another derelict site in Dunstable. I want someone to go to the London road site and provide jobs. If such a company needs help to restructure and alter the site, I hope that there will be a way of finding that help. BTR has said that it will have a new site locally, with 130 jobs. That is fine, but finding a new employer for the other site is equally important.
In our area, we are not merely sitting back and wondering what on earth to do after these employment difficulties. As I understand it, the East of England development agency is involved in an infrastructure benchmarking study—a fair bit of jargon, but I hope that it means that the development agency will help us in the Dunstable area to re-use a number of brownfield sites for industry.
If our assisted area status is to be of lasting benefit to south Bedfordshire, we must use this opportunity to make those sites suitable for 21st century usage. That means high-tech companies. However, as the study notes, infrastructure funding must also be provided. We need help from the EEDA on that problem.
Furthermore, we are considering a scheme described as an Oxford-Cambridge technology arc. That too is jargon; it means a proposal to build on the international reputation of Oxford and Cambridge universities to create an English silicon valley. It offers a possible way to spread the pressures and benefits of the Cambridge phenomenon sub-regionally to areas such as Bedfordshire, Luton and, of course, Dunstable-Houghton Regis by the provision of suitable infrastructure links.
The proposal is fine, but the EEDA has not yet agreed to part-fund the study. I hope that it will do so, because I think that our area can become a silicon valley between Oxford and Cambridge. When the Minister replies, will he say whether he can give the EEDA a shove forward?
I want to go into a little more detail on the infrastructure. There is a disused railway line between Dunstable and Luton. Detailed proposals for its conversion into a busway are on their way to the Government; work will be completed and submitted within the next few months. Do the Government think that it would better for us to restore the rail link between those two industrial towns? In Dunstable, there is strong opinion in favour of reopening the disused line. In one parish poll, 80 per cent, of people said yes. There will
1386
be another poll in the autumn. It would be helpful if the Government could give us their opinion during the next few weeks. In which direction—railway or busway—do they guide us?
A much bigger infrastructure problem for industry and individuals is the complete lack of progress on Dunstable's bypass and the effect that it has on industry. I have studied the glossy publication issued by the Deputy Prime Minister last week. I searched it until I was dizzy for a mention of Dunstable's bypass, but there is none, so I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question. He replied that
a five-year plan will be announced after full representations have been taken by December. Those plans—
that is, local transport plans—
will make recommendations for bypasses and roads and I shall consider them.
The crucial words in the reply are:
Of course bypasses can play a part on some strategic routes in both rural and urban areas and I shall take representations from the strategic regional review bodies and the development agencies. All that will enable us to identify those roads over the next six months.—[Official Report, 20 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 560.]
Is there a chink of light there? Is it possible that, by December, the Government will nerve themselves to say that we can go ahead with a public inquiry into the Dunstable bypass-not least for industrial reasons? I cannot hold my breath until December, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I shall pass away; a by-election in my constituency would not be welcome. However, I very much hope that, by December, the Government will agree to a public inquiry in Dunstable and that a bypass will be constructed.
I shall not seek re-election to Parliament at the next general election. After 30 of the happiest and most challenging years of my life, it is time for a new person to represent my constituency. It has been the greatest privilege for me to have served my constituents for those 30 years. While this Parliament continues, however, I am drawing up a list of leaving presents; not for myself—because I do not want to wreck my parliamentary career by having a row with the sleaze buster, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—but for my constituents. Here is one which I hope the Government will consider, and which I think will help us in our difficulties.
I refer to the final report by the Rover taskforce, which the Minister now has. The taskforce identified five areas in which action was needed to help industry in the Birmingham area: modernisation of the automotive base, diversification of the regional economy, regeneration and creation of new opportunities, support for the work force and support for families and communities. All of those apply to Dunstable and Houghton Regis. That is almost tailor made for our area in view of the industrial setbacks that we have had. There would need to be some modification. Those are five excellent aims that are just as relevant for us.
What I hope the Government can do—they will get my full support if they can—is to take Dunstable and Houghton Regis and the industrial area next door forward on the basis of those recommendations. We need to diversify our local economy. We need regeneration and creation of new opportunities. My goodness, we need support for the work force in view of what has happened

1387
in the last few years and support for families and communities, who are used in Dunstable and Houghton Regis to working for a thriving industrial base.
Therefore, I am reaching out to the Government and the Minister this evening, as this Session almost comes to an end, to ask him for help, because if the Government will give such help they will get a superb response from people in Dunstable and Houghton Regis, who want to rebuild their industry and economy and who want to go on doing what they have done for years—making a substantial contribution to the economy and well-being of this country.
9.6 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel). I did not know that he would be retiring at the next general election, but I can say—I believe, for many people in the House—that he is a man of great integrity, and a person who has fought very hard for his constituency and his constituents from the Back Benches. He will be sorely missed.
In his usual style, the hon. Gentleman has put his case extremely forcefully on behalf of his constituents, and one agrees with him that any loss of jobs is a difficulty for those people who lose them, and who, obviously, have the Government's sympathy. However, against the background of an ever-changing world, we must now consider how we can manage the change that is inevitable in an ever faster-moving world and in the continued development of the global economy.
say from the start that the Government are very supportive of manufacturing industry and, specifically, the automobile industry. In the automobile industry, especially around the Dunstable area, there are probably some of the best technicians, the best mechanics and the best designers. I believe that eight of the top 10 formula one teams are working in the United Kingdom—many around the area that the hon. Gentleman represents.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the wider context of manufacturing, it is important to put the automobile industry at the heart of our economy—the real wealth creation. To that end, since May 1997 we have been bringing forward a raft of initiatives to ensure that our manufacturing base not only continues but gets into the real value added and makes real use of the intellectual property that is in many of our academic institutions, in science parks and research centres.
I shall lay out a few of those initiatives for the hon. Gentleman. We have cut corporation tax to the lowest level ever. We have introduced a new 10 per cent, starting rate for small companies from April 2000, and that has benefited 270,000 companies. The temporary 40 per cent, first-year capital allowances for small and medium enterprises was welcomed; we have now made that permanent. We have introduced 100 per cent, first-year capital allowances for small businesses investing in information communications technologies.
We have introduced a research and development tax credit from April 2000 to boost the level of R and D undertaken by small firms. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that we encourage our small and medium companies to get involved in more R and D.
1388
We have revisited the whole of the skills base of the nation and, after wide consultation, we have introduced the Learning and Skills Council. I hope that it will work in conjunction with the university for industry, which is now being developed, and will reach out to many of the employees and companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
We have neglected in the past few years the need to sharpen up our ability to export. That is why we have created a new organisation called British Trade International, which is a marriage of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is designed to give exporters the best possible service. It will make directly available to those who want to export the knowledge and information that the 200-odd embassies and high commissions around the world hold. We shall do that by electronic as well as other means. We have to be seen to be managing change, which is inevitable. We have to see how we can equip the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred and many others with the necessary skills to go into high-tech industry.
I have looked at the statistics for the hon. Gentleman's constituency. While I accept that when individuals are declared redundant, they and their families suffer, since 1997 unemployment has been brought down by 30 per cent, in south-west Bedfordshire, which is a considerable achievement, as a result of the Government's policy not only to tackle the problems of unemployment, but to manage change further along the supply chain, where real value is added.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also trying to adopt a more sensible approach to regional selective assistance. Within the stringent constraints set by the European Commission, we have tried to make sure that all the facilities available to assist industry are used to best effect. That is why the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that 90 per cent, of the population in his constituency is covered by the assisted areas map. I hope that he and his constituents will use that facility in the most effective way. It can be used to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman was asking for—to assist companies that want to bring new investment into the area. There is a facility there that can aid and abet that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his regional development agency. He is a sensible Member, so I hope that he will tell some of his Front-Bench colleagues not to propose to scrap the agency in the event of their gaining power. That is a long way off, but to undermine the development agencies in the job that they are doing would not be good for the region or the problems of Dunstable. So we have developed the regions and business-led boards that can look strategically at some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
I suggest that some of the ideas for development in Dunstable and the surrounding area are brought before the development agency. I am sure that not just the financial facility of assisted area status, but the agency's wider powers will be utilised. Last week, the comprehensive spending review showed clearly that the Government have confidence in the regional development agencies both by the amount of money that we are dispensing to them to carry out social and economic regeneration in their area and by providing flexibility in budgets, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor outlined and discussed with the RDAs last Friday when he met all the chairmen of

1389
the agencies. In the lifetime of the comprehensive spending review, the RDAs will have about £1.7 billion a year to dispense in a fairly flexible way.
The Small Business Service is now coming on stream along with the local learning and skills councils. The RDAs will be influencing them, so they are important bodies with which the hon. Gentleman ought to set up a dialogue to tackle the specific problems that he has raised this evening.
I am not able to answer in detail the hon. Gentleman's questions on transport links, but I assure him that I will convey his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I can refer him to what my right hon. Friend said when he answered the hon. Gentleman's questions during the statement on the Government's plans for transport. Clearly, the answer offered a chink of light in terms of restoring railway links and taking a sensible approach to bypasses.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the chairmen of the regional development agencies, the wider issue of the economic well-being of the region was discussed. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the chairmen that he wanted them to become involved in the decisions that
1390
we shall take on transport and land use planning issues. Their advice will be factored into the decision-making process in the Department because my right hon. Friend recognises that it is extremely important that land use, transport and economic planning work together. If they do, we shall achieve the best results. Therefore, the RDAs will have a major influence on how the money is dispensed and, more important, on the evolution of land use and planning issues.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a site that might be vacated as a result of a company's reorganisation. That site could well be considered by the regional development agency, and I hope that it will be able to find a better use for it.
The facilities that the Government have put in place will assist in managing the change that is inevitable and necessary in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I believe that that change can be managed. Reducing unemployment by 30 per cent, in the constituency in the past three years is not a bad result. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will be better-off in terms of their disposable income and they will have a future to which they can look forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Nine o 'clock.

Preamble
[Mr. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Crime Reduction Partnerships
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): People in this country want to feel safe in their homes, safe on the street and safe in their workplace. Reducing crime and disorder is a key element in achieving that aim. That is why one of the first actions of the Government when they came to office in 1997 was to draft the Crime and Disorder Bill. which subsequently became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That legislation was a product of widespread consultation which we undertook in opposition and we implemented as soon as we were in government.
We talked to ordinary police officers on the beat who have experience of problems on the street. They told us what was needed in the crime and disorder legislation and we delivered the laws that they wanted. We talked to our constituents, who wanted young thugs dealt with, and the Act was part of the process of tackling the roots of the problems that afflict many of our constituents. When we came into office, there were serious problems in the way in which crime and disorder were being dealt with. Our criminal justice system was not working efficiently or effectively. It took too long to bring a juvenile offender before the courts, have him properly charged, dealt with and punished. Many young offenders, in particular, did not understand the link between the crime that they had committed and the punishment that was pronounced on them. All too often, they were getting away with crimes. We were determined to make clear the link between the offence and the punishment, so that young offenders learnt their lesson early and we could nip in the bud their offending behaviour and stop them committing further offences.
We also wanted to ensure that local communities were involved in tackling crime. We did not want people to believe that such matters should just be passed to police officers in the hope that they could deal with them. We wanted communities to be involved and local authorities to accept their responsibility. Fighting crime is a community objective. The police have the lead role, but local authorities and communities also have a vital part to play. That is why the Crime and Disorder Act was so important. It showed that the Government were listening to the people of this country and were determined that law and order was at the top of their agenda.
The purpose of the Act was to create safer communities by ensuring that the police, local authorities, the voluntary sector and community groups worked together to tackle crime. They would audit the problems in their areas, put in place a strategy to address the problems of crime and ensure that that strategy was
264WH
implemented properly. The Act recognised that local authorities had a key role to play in planning law, for example, which could do much to help the drive towards safer communities. It also acknowledged that no one organisation, such as the police or local councils, could beat crime alone. It set out a framework for the radical empowerment of local communities to be involved constructively in the fight against crime and disorder.
The 1998 Act established 376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships throughout England and Wales. The partnerships oblige police and local authorities to work together with other local organisations. Their aim is to formulate and implement a local strategy to reduce crime and disorder in local areas, examine the priorities and ensure that what they are doing locally is part of a national strategy of tackling crime and disorder. The first strategy came into force last April and covers the period until March 2002.
The crime audit is a process of examining the evidence and listening to local people about what is happening in their areas. Local people therefore have an input into the development of the crime and disorder strategy, which tackles problems in their areas. The partnerships are an important element in our commitment to tackle crime and its causes. Our crime reduction strategy, published in November, explained how we intended to achieve that.
We must remember how matters were when we came into office. There were serious deficiencies in our criminal justice system and policing, and a lack of effective laws in place to deal with some disorder problems. We wanted to ensure that we did not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government. Under the Tories, crime doubled and the number of people convicted in the courts fell by a third. During 1998, convictions rose by 6 per cent., which was the biggest increase in 20 years. That means that the police are nicking people, the Crown Prosecution Service is convicting them and the courts are dealing with them. We are starting to turn around the legacy that we inherited.
The crimes that affect people most—having their homes and cars broken into—are coming down in number. Recorded crime has fallen by 6 per cent. since the election, with the numbers of domestic burglaries falling by 24 per cent. and vehicle crimes by 17 per cent. Overall numbers of crimes are still falling in 40 per cent. of the country's police forces. Remember again that crime doubled under the Tories, and the number of people convicted fell by a third. We are starting to turn that trend around. We have embarked on the most comprehensive attack on crime for a generation, spending £400 million on a crime reduction programme that includes the biggest ever expansion of closed circuit television in town centres. The massive CCTV expansion has benefited the fight against crime in many constituencies.
A crime-fighting fund has been established to boost police recruitment, expand the DNA database and improve police communications. Our radical reform of the criminal justice system includes new measures to deal with young offenders, halving the time from their arrest to punishment so that they learn their lessons and are diverted away from crime. Tougher punishment for serious and persistent criminals has been provided for in

265WH
legislation and is being implemented. Such matters take time, but the process has begun. The laws are in place and change is beginning.
When we introduced our spending plans for crime and disorder, the Conservatives condemned them as "reckless". They have opposed many of our changes, including measures to deal with anti-social behaviour, drug-addicted offenders and youth crime. Under budgets set by Conservative Home Secretaries under the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), police numbers fell by 1,500 between March 1993 and March 1998, despite the then Government's repeated promises to increase them. Today, the Opposition suggest that they are in favour of increased police numbers, but they delivered reduced police numbers. That is why we have decided to increase the funding available to recruit further police officers.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: In a minute.
We have announced additional funding of £91 million to raise police numbers and improve effectiveness, including £15 million to enhance policing in rural areas such as Shropshire. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) wants to congratulate the Government on putting resources into fighting crime and increasing police numbers, which the Conservative Government failed to do. When he and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) speak, perhaps they will make a commitment to their constituents that the £900 million of extra funding announced by the Government in the past couple of weeks will be met by any future Conservative Government over the next three years. If they cannot do so, they will let their constituents down.
Mr. Paterson: According to the House of Commons Library, the number of police officers in the West Mercia police authority, which covers my constituency, rose by 405, or 17 per cent., during the years of the previous Conservative Government, but the number decreased by 101 between April 1997 and April 2000 while the Minister and the Home Secretary have been in power.
Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain to his constituents why he came into Parliament to support a Government who set the budgets that caused the reduction in the number of police officers that he complains about. It is not acceptable for Conservative Members to say that they are in favour of increased police numbers when their budgets were the cause of the cuts. I hope that he will explain to his constituents the reality of what Conservatives have done and failed to do, and the way in which they now seek to make what are no more than cheap political opportunist points of the sort that Madam Speaker warned against yesterday. We need a serious debate on tackling crime—that is what the people of this country want and it is what the Government seek. It is why we have put in place the 376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships across England and Wales that are now making a real
266WH
impact on the problems that we inherited. The new partnerships oblige police and local authorities to work together with other local organisations in formulating local strategies. We want the partnerships to be an important element in our commitment to tackling crime and its causes. Our crime reduction strategy, published last November, shows how we intend to do that.
We have asked all the partnerships to provide a report on the first year of their work and those reports are being analysed by the Home Office. I anticipate that some of those results will be patchy. I also suspect that the crime figures will be patchy because in 40 per cent. of constabularies crime is going down, while in other constabularies it is going up. It is interesting to note from recent figures that the Metropolitan police area accounts for 61 per cent. of the overall increase in crime and the West Midlands area for 26 per cent. There have been changes in the way in which the West Midlands collects its statistics, but the chief constable has accepted that there is a need to address issues. That chief constable, Ted Crew, is a good, effective senior police officer who is establishing the changes necessary to enable the West Midlands police, which has a long history of problems, to tackle crime effectively. I believe that he can turn that police force into one of the best in the country in terms of tackling crime. I hope that that happens quickly because my own constituency borders on the west midlands. I know that Ted Crew is determined to work closely with the Warwickshire constabulary to ensure that that is delivered.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend the Minister makes an important point about crime statistics. Will he confirm that the Government would welcome a rise in the number of recorded domestic violence crimes? That would reflect the Government's determination to get people to report such crime.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right and puts his finger on an important issue. Certain crimes, including domestic violence and racial crimes, are Under-reported. People are encouraged to report crimes that they were previously reluctant to report and we have concentrated on establishing strategies that will address the nature of racist crime and domestic violence. That will have an impact on the statistics. However, I do not claim that all the problems on crime are a result of the increased reporting or statistical changes, and we are determined to address the issues. In debating such issues, we must bear in mind the nature of the statistical evidence involved and realise that the statistics are not merely headline figures but are often quite complex and require a detailed understanding of the reasons why the statistics have changed.
One of our key tasks is to ensure reductions in crime in local areas. That will involve raising performance in some of the areas that have problems and working with the police and local authorities to set challenging but realistic targets for reducing crime. Under best value, police authorities have five—year targets to reduce crime by 30 per cent., to reduce domestic burglary by a quarter and, in our principal towns, to reduce robbery by 14 per cent. Local councils must also report on and set targets for those three indicators. We expect to have the target-setting process in place by April 2001 in order to set all local crime and disorder reduction partnership targets.

267WH
The target-setting process is not about imposing targets on police and local authorities. It is about identifying national priorities to reduce crime and arranging for the setting and achieving of those targets in a locally determined way. The Government remain committed to the principles of the 1998 Act and the development of local crime and disorder strategies built around local priorities. The process is about striking the right balance between national crime reduction and dealing with local anxieties in a way that involves local people.
Mr. David Drew: We have a very successful crime reduction partnership in Stroud. Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of scrutiny is the different ways in which the police, for example, are scrutinised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, whereas local authorities are evaluated by district audit? There must be some pulling together so that we achieve communality and know that that constitutes a correct measure of what is happening.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure general consistency between the ways in which strategies are evaluated for local councils and constabularies, and greater co-operation and link-up between the various ways in which they are inspected.
Consistency between local and national priorities is also important, and I am pleased to report that that consistency is now developing, having already emerged from the development of local crime and disorder strategies. We do not expect every area's priorities to be exactly the same. Such matters are locally determined. As we found from our visits to partnerships last summer and from partnership audit and strategy documents, many of the priorities that emerged from local consultation are consistent with those that we identified as national priorities. In some ways, it would be surprising if they were not.
As the Government's crime reduction strategy suggests, we need to take on the crimes about which the public are most worried. The strategy focuses on burglary and theft from and of cars. Progress in reducing such offences would constitute a significant step towards making this country a safer place for all of us.
Mr. David Lidington: How will national targets for reducing specific crimes be translated into local targets for individual partnership areas? Some problems will have to be overcome, given that a chief constable might say that he can best achieve his force target by, for example, concentrating on reducing burglary in a particular urban area. How will national priorities be translated into police force and individual partnership targets? That difficult administrative task must be worked out.
Mr. O'Brien: I agree that an element of consistency is important. I do not expect every local strategy to identify those two particular performance indicators—burglary and car crime—as their top priorities. Levels of those categories of crime will vary among areas. However, as those crimes account for a substantial element of recorded crime, they feature highly in the priorities of most of the local strategies with which the
268WH
local crime and disorder partnerships have provided us. Eighty—four per cent. have set burglary as a priority, and 80 per cent. have set car crime as a priority. Those figures chime in well with our national targets. It is, therefore, right to say that there is a need for a link and for consistency between the two.
By allowing a fair amount of local input, that consistency is emerging. National targets and priorities were set as a result of consultation at local level and have come up to national level, which will be reflected in the way in which the local strategies develop. Thus, partnerships have developed their own clear strategies for addressing the issues and have set clear and challenging targets at local level, which feed into our national strategy. There is no contradiction between addressing locally perceived needs and addressing national priorities. It is not a question of addressing one or the other. As the hon. Gentleman would agree, we need to tackle both.
Local crime and disorder reduction partnerships have asked for a greater national focus to their work. Therefore, we have set up the national crime reduction task force to respond to their requests. That provides an advisory body to the local partnerships, made up of practitioners and key Government policy makers. It is chaired by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who deals with policing matters. Its membership includes people with practical experience of reducing crime at local level. It will focus on the role and work of the partnerships, acting as a source of support and guidance to them and helping them to deliver sustained reductions in crime on the ground.
It is important to recognise that we are only part of the way through creating the partnerships and putting the strategies into place. That will take time, but it can be done. Although the task force itself has no executive authority, it will influence the making and implementation of local crime reduction policies—most importantly, in providing advice about the work to develop agreed packages of good practice guidance and tool kits for strategies for tackling crime locally. The task force will be able to steer the key areas that will form part of the good practice programme. Actual preparation of the good practice kits is under way, and we expect delivery of the first batch in August.
We are anxious to strengthen our regional crime reduction capability. We have appointed regional crime directors in each of the nine Government regional offices in England; the tenth will be based in the Welsh Assembly. Their role will be to help reduce crime by improving the effectiveness of local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. They will also be responsible for the management of crime reduction programme expenditure in their region. The directors will be supported by enhanced regional crime reduction teams, which will be expected to monitor the performance of each of the partnerships within the region and to intervene, where necessary, to secure improvements.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister tell us the statutory basis of the powers that will reside with the regional crime directors? If it is intended that

269WH
they will perform a monitoring or auditing role, does the agree that there is a danger that a structure will be created that is too bureaucratic?
Mr. O'Brien: I have no wish to create too bureaucratic a structure. I want to ensure that the best advice possible is available on a regional basis from people who know the region. For example, we will have advisers on Clwyd—the hon. Gentleman's constituency—who know the problems in that area and can adopt not a national perspective but a regional and local one. Those advisers will have background knowledge of the sort of strategies that are being adopted across the country, so they will be able to bring the regional directives together to ensure that best practice is known about; Otherwise, how will people in Clwyd know about a crime and disorder reduction partnership in Tyneside that has a good set of ideas and a good strategy which could he replicated? We want to ensure that a framework is in place to provide the advice that we feel is necessary.
We will be able to intervene to provide advice but not, at first, direction. We will advise people about how best to develop their own local strategy and what the most effective tools are. That is how we anticipate regional directors will operate. If there were a need for direct intervention—I anticipate that there will not be a great need for it—mechanisms are already provided through the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Home Office and through discussions between Ministers, local authorities and chief police officers. I am not concerned that we are setting up a bureaucratic structure, as the framework is primarily advisory. However, I am concerned to ensure that those who develop local strategies have the best advice available, as well as knowledge and understanding of best practice across the country.
We also intend to work at supporting the police and partnerships, and are conducting an extensive programme of research, training and seminars. We are spending £1 million in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2000–02 on providing a programme of seminars and training targeted at the main areas of partnership work and crime reduction. That also includes, on request, support and guidance on an individual partnership level. Clwyd can, therefore, ask for regional or national advice on what is the best approach.
As well as focusing on the structure and support programme, we have invested heavily in crime reduction, and have fed in to local strategies. We have launched a £400 million evidence-based crime reduction programme, which includes a number of initiatives, such as an investment of £153 million in CCTV, for which £50 million has already been committed to 342 schemes. More than £50 million has been committed to projects to reduce burglary in high-crime areas, and up to £12 million has been committed to improving home security for low-income pensioners. We have committed £31 million to the long-term "On Track" programme, which is aimed at children between the ages of four and 12 who are at risk of becoming involved in crime. Another £30 million has been earmarked for problem-orientated or intelligence-led policing projects. Funding of more than £9 million has so far been granted to
270WH
19 such projects, and another £17 million has provisionally been allocated to 34 additional projects, pending the submission of detailed plans.
Funding of £13 million has been allocated for the setting up of 70 youth inclusion schemes to prevent youth offending and the associated risk factors. The Government have provided an additional £20 million to force areas with a robbery reduction target, in order to focus on robbery and street crime.
As I indicated, an extra £15 million has been made available to deal with crime in rural areas. That recognises the problem in relation to sparsity factors, which the previous Govt repeatedly failed to address. We have accepted the need to address that problem. People in rural areas who are concerned about the underfunding of their local police forces should remember that the previous Government denied that there was a sparsity factor, while this Government recognise that it is a problem that needs to be addressed.
In addition, £20 million was provided for arrest referral schemes to cut drug crime, and £50 million to support the introduction of modern digital communications in the police service. Is the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who will speak for the Conservative party, prepared to commit to the new airwave digital communications system, which we want to ensure that the police have at their disposal? It is an absolutely vital instrument to assist the police in targeting crime. Can he guarantee that such funding would not be cut, were the Conservatives ever to get into office? Will he guarantee that the Conservative party will deliver the additional £900 million expenditure over three years? If he cannot do so, everything else that he says is hot air.
All of those investments are aimed at reducing crime and the causes of crime, in addition to the crime fighting fund, which will enable the police force to recruit an additional 9,000 officers over and above recruiting plans for the next three years. We are determined to ensure that that funding is delivered. We have also provided the extra funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 18 July, as part of the spending review. A wide programme of activities is under way on all key fronts. It is an ambitious and comprehensive programme, which is aimed at delivering sustained reductions in crime.
We are committed to the partnership process. Local crime and disorder reduction partnerships are the key to our strategy to reduce crime. The recorded crime figures published on 18 July show that a targeted approach to crime can achieve real results. We have shown that we can do something about crime and we can do it in the areas that people feel strongest about, such as burglary and car crime. We have also shown that, from the time we came into office until now, crime has been 6 per cent. lower than it was under the Conservatives.
We readily acknowledge increases in other areas of crime. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that we make inroads into those areas as well as achieving sustainable reductions across the board. Our strategy is sound. It is based on local initiatives, prevention, protection, punishment and ensuring that we get effective performance. We have shown that we can achieve success. Our efforts will continue to focus on working together with and supporting our local crime and disorder reduction partnerships to maintain our commitment to making Britain a safer place to live.
3 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I do not begrudge the Minister his moments of political partisanship, although it was a pity that, when he talked about turning around the legacy that he inherited from the Conservatives, he did not immediately point out that the single biggest turnaround has been in the trend in recorded crime. The Government inherited a situation in which recorded crime was falling in the most sustained fashion since the second world war. During their period of stewardship they have presided over the halting and then the reversing of that fall. The Minister also skated somewhat lightly over the cut of 2, 700 in police officers since the general election.
It is a pity that when the Government talk about the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 they pretend that nothing in the way of partnership to defeat crime had been happening before 1 May 1997. A great deal went on before they were elected. Indeed, the literature that they have published shows that the Thames Valley initiative on restorative justice started in 1994; and in Dyfed Powys the idea of volunteers aiding the police had been going since 1993. In counties such as Northamptonshire, tremendous efforts have been made to get the local and national Government agencies to work in partnership for more than a decade. Wandsworth borough council has had crime prevention on the agenda of all its committees for many years. Brentwood district council appointed a crime prevention officer to its staff in the early 1990s. There have been Home Office funded crime prevention projects in areas such as Rochdale. Neighbourhood watch, Crimestoppers and Crime Concern have been encouraged in South Wales.
We could have a somewhat historically based debate about the relative merits of the different initiatives taken under our respective Governments, but I want to take seriously the topic of crime reduction and crime reduction partnerships. When the Crime and Disorder Act was going through the House, the Government acknowledged that a lot of work had already been done in various parts of the country. There was a case for bringing all that work together and putting it on a statutory basis, as the Government have now done. The test of the effectiveness of this new statute-based partnership arrangement is how well it works in practice.
Whatever our political party, we will see in our constituencies the advantages of the police, the local authorities, the probation service and the voluntary sector getting together to work out a co-ordinated response to reduce and defeat crime in their neighbourhoods. The question we must debate today is how effective the approach embodied in the 1998 Act has been. I was surprised—to put it mildly—that the Minister did not mention the "Calling Time on Crime" report, which was published this week and is the fruit of a detailed inspection and evaluation of the partnership work conducted following the enactment of the 1998 Act. That was a thematic inspection on crime and disorder by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary with the Audit Commission, the Local Government Association, the Office for Standards in Education and the Social Services Inspectorate. When debating Government initiatives and public expenditure, there is no better example than that report of the importance of focusing not merely on totals spent, but on how public
272WH
money and the powers of Government are deployed to try to achieve the improvements in the lives of our citizens that we all want.
Mr. O'Brien: Although I did not quote directly from the "Calling Time on Crime" report, I quoted from its press release. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the report.
Mr. Lidington: I am grateful that the Minister read at least the press release, if not the report. I intend to quote from the report. Its premise is that the arrangements in the 1998 Act are good and provide the basis for effective action to reduce crime, and it acknowledges that there is much good practice, but it makes several trenchant criticisms of the way in which the system has worked. I hope that there will be some agreement in the Chamber about the flaws that the inspection identified and the need for the Home Office to take a lead on action to tackle those flaws.
Mr. Steve McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the report's key messages, which the Government accept, is that much of the action undertaken was not based on a real analysis and real prioritisation of crime? That is crucial in ensuring that resources are used in the best way.
Mr. Lidington: I agree absolutely about the necessity of basing action—whether taken by the police service, the local authority or all the agencies in the partnership—on an informed assessment of the local situation.
The difficulties that the inspection identified centred on the risk that meetings, audits and strategies would become a substitute for effective action. I shall paraphrase what one local authority chief executive told me this week. I asked him about progress in his area, and he said that doing the audit was fine—it was time-consuming, but straightforward—and that when people co-ordinated their diaries, it was relatively easy to sit down and hammer out a strategy. However, his local authority had not yet made effective progress on the real challenge of translating the strategy's aspirations into practical action to reduce crime and the fear of crime.
One of the difficulties is that the agencies are subject to a surfeit of plans. To show that I am being neutral, I shall refer to page 24 of the report, which contains a list supplied by Blyth Valley borough council—certainly not a Conservative authority—of the strategies and plans to which it is required to provide a local authority response. On law and order, it refers to the youth justice plan, crime and disorder reduction strategy, policing plan, drug strategy and community legal service plan. I shall not read into the record the entire list provided by that council, but it lists a number of plans under headings as diverse as education, regeneration, economy, housing, transportation, health and care, culture, environment and planning.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will not read the entire list, but I advise him that a record is being made and it would be courteous to read one or two headings slowly.
Mr. Lidington: I am always grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

273WH
The inspection also found that local education authorities and schools, which are supposed to be key partners in the crime reduction strategy, said that they were required to comply with 17 different statutory plans. To be effective, all those plans require commitment and time from senior officers of the agencies involved: they must not simply be delegated to the newest recruit on the front desk.
The police must contribute to an annual policing plan in accordance with the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. The Home Office requires each force to provide an efficiency plan, and the Local Government Act 1999 requires a best value plan. The Government, as every superintendent to whom I speak reminds me, ask the police to measure their activities against 57—at the last count—different performance indicators.
All that is happening at the same time as the police service is preparing for the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the enactment of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. Following new legislation, local councils are grappling with major changes to their structures and methods of working. The different bodies that make up the national health service are responding to a major organisational upheaval. In addition, major cuts have been made in police numbers.
Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a problem with two-tier authorities? A locus in both the county and the district can lead to conflict. That needs to be resolved.
Mr. Lidington: I agree that that problem needs to be resolved. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the inspection's conclusions is that it is more difficult to reach agreement in two-tier areas than in unitary areas, but that agreement can be reached provided that there is a management culture in the agencies and a commitment by senior executives. I agree that it is important in two-tier areas that counties and districts work closely together in pursuit of the common objective.
My key point is the message that clearly comes out of the inspection report: it is difficult for the partner agencies to decide how to prioritise the various plans with which they are required to comply and which take up much of senior executives' time and energy. A manager in a health authority told the inspection that
the planning cycles for health-related plans did not coincide with community safety planning cycles.
The inspectors summarised the problem by stating:
A consistent message was that government departments, such as the Home Office, DETR, DfEE and the Department of Health, could work better together and thereby assist local partnerships by co-ordinating their own work and their liaison with local agencies.
The agenda for action states:
Inspectors urged Ministers to improve strategic co-ordination of planning processes to ensure that all plans, national and local, support each other and do not require energy to be invested in planning to the detriment of service delivery.
A comparable criticism is made of the funding and bidding process. As the Minister said in his introductory remarks, much of the moneys that the Home Office put into crime reduction strategies is available in the form of
274WH
challenge funding for which partnerships or their constituent agencies must present bids. The irony is that the Government complained to the inspectors that many of the bids were of poor quality, and local authorities and police forces told the inspectors that they were concerned about the complexity and inconsistency of the bidding process, which wasted so much time and effort.
On page 19 of the report, a director of housing in one local authority is quoted as saying:
The notification period and time to react and respond is woefully short… This is valuable time, which could have been utilised far more productively on existing well proven initiatives.
It is important to get challenge funding right. Both political parties have viewed it as a valuable means of encouraging innovation and experiment and of ensuring that moneys follow genuine fresh thinking, rather than being doled out to support continuing projects year after year without review. We must, however, guard against the risk that flashy new challenge funding initiatives become a substitute for effective work already taking place on the ground that did not previously require extra form filling, extra chasing after funds and so forth.
Dr. George Turner: I sympathise with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. I was able last week to reassure my partnership that funding was available to bid for: the figures are quite easy. The hon. Gentleman's party has promised our constituents some £24 million in cuts. Can he tell us how much funding for tackling crime and disorder will be cut from the amounts announced last week?
Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman wants a pledge to take back to his constituents, I can tell him that, when the Conservative Government are elected in 2001 or 2002, they will ensure that the resources that the country can afford to pay in tax are spent much more effectively than under the current, or any future, Labour Administration. There will be up to two further Budgets between now and the possible date of the general election, so my right hon. Friends in the shadow Cabinet will have ample time to take account of the state of the economy and understand exactly where our spending and tax priorities should lie. We shall certainly not make promises that look far into the future without regard to what might happen in the economy. It may be easy for the Government to produce a day's headlines, but it is much more difficult to deliver their claims in practice.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman says that we will not be able to deliver our expenditure commitments in practice. None of these resources could possibly be delivered by a Conservative Government. I can assure him that the Labour Government will deliver, but the hon. Gentleman seems to doubt whether a Conservative Government ever could.
Mr. Lidington: I am saying, as the Minister well knows, that the country must pay what it can afford. The Government have been reluctant to release the detailed figures underlying the headlines, which the Chancellor published last week. I have tabled questions to Home Office Ministers to dig out from them how they envisage the money being spent. So far I have been

275WH
stonewalled, but I live in hope that I will strike a golden seam and unexpectedly find information from Ministers.
I was speaking about the systems for bidding and financial planning. The point about priorities not being simply about how much money is available but about how effectively it will be spent is made crisply on page 96 of the Home Office report. Inspectors say that few of the partnerships have clear financial plans. The report states:
Even where there was a partnership budget … it was rarely aligned to priorities.
The inspectors state that to the best of their knowledge only one local authority, the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, is known to have carried out a full costing of its community safety plan. So, whatever the Minister promises for this year, next year or four years' time, and even if, on the most optimistic assumption, the money is given to crime reduction partnerships, if that money is to make a difference to the lives of constituents, it is essential to put in place arrangements for financial planning and for the setting of priorities. According to the inspectors, that is demonstrably lacking.
Another area of concern is the sharing of data between the different agencies involved in partnerships. The inspectors found what they described as too much caution and concern among senior managers, which was primarily due to their lack of confidence that the powers in crime and disorder legislation would be sufficient defence in a court action against personal liability under the Data Protection Act 1998. Given that finding, there is a clear need for the Government to publish a circular that will reassure people that they can exchange data.
Mr. McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although that has been a genuine concern, a solution has come from the police and other agencies establishing proper protocols for sharing information? A current excellent example in the west midlands is the policy for tackling the problem of abandoned vehicles, which is based on the information sharing that has resulted from the protocol established 12 months ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen who want to catch my eye might like to bear in mind the fact that I like short, sharp interruptions.
Mr. Lidington: I am glad that that protocol was negotiated in the west midlands. However, what emerged as a result of the difficulty in persuading police and local authorities to use anti-social behaviour orders more widely was that councils, the police and other agencies found it complicated and difficult to negotiate protocols, including those on the exchange of information, which they need to have in place before seeking an anti-social behaviour order from the courts. From my conversations with police officers and local authority chief officers, I know that there have been one or two concerns about data sharing. There has been a great improvement in the mutual trust between local authorities and the police. Senior police officers and chief executives of local authorities have told me that what we call crime reaction partnerships sometimes involve only the local authority and the police, with others playing a somewhat peripheral role.
276WH
That experience probably varies greatly from one part of the country to another, so one should not generalise on the basis of individual circumstances. I have been told that the health service is often reluctant to share information about domestic violence or mental health that is relevant to the crime reduction work for which the partnerships are responsible. As the medical profession and the national health service rightly place great importance on medical confidentiality, I can understand that reluctance; nevertheless, if the partnerships are to work effectively, further work needs to be done to overcome those difficulties.
I had the same complaint in respect of education—
3.25 pm
Sitting suspended.
3.40 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Lidington: I was referring to difficulties about the exchange of information between different agencies.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I was about to intervene when we suspended for a Division. I chair a community safety partnership and, although there have been problems with the protocol, they have been largely overcome. The health authority is now a signatory to the protocol and information is flowing, so some of the difficulties to which the report refers have been overcome.
Mr. Lidington: That is encouraging news. I hope that, through the inspectorates or the Government, the successes that have been won in places such as Barnsley will spread to the rest of the country. It is important in the work on community action against crime to learn from best practice so that what works in one locality can be disseminated to another.
In addition to the problem with the health service, I have received reports that some education authorities and schools have been reluctant to divulge information about exclusions. That information would be helpful in devising effective crime prevention strategies, so the problem must be addressed.
The theme through the report is that the success of the new partnerships is being held back by tension between the priorities set by local people and those of central Government as circulated to various local agencies. The inspectors used firm language in the report, which states:
The Inspection heard a number of complaints of a lack of consultation by the government in developing approaches to community safety, including the Government's own Crime Reduction Strategy and the decision to create regional crime directors.
The inspectors went on to say that because of the perceived lack of consultation—they made no judgment about the reality behind that perception—the

277WH
partnerships have been more effective than they might otherwise have been. The report continues:
This lack of consultation has led to … lack of ownership of the strategy
at local level
with a feeling by key players that policies have been imposed rather than negotiated. There is a lack of understanding of the role of the
regional
director among crime reduction partners; this has engendered avoidable suspicion and resentment.
To be fair to the Minister, the inspectors state:
The gap … has been recognised by the Home Office
and action is in hand to try to address the challenge.
I hope that Home Office Ministers and officials will make that a priority over the next 12 months, because if such problems cannot be overcome the whole strategy may be at risk.
My final point concerns the role of central Government in partnerships. I have heard complaints from the police and from local councils that part of the difficulty in persuading the various agencies to play their full role in partnership work derives from the reluctance of particular Departments to play their part as the Home Office would like. One local authority chief executive said to me that he had, as yet, seen no guidance from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the impact that crime reduction priorities should have on the determination of planning decisions. That is especially important in the light of what the HMIC report says about section 17 of the 1998 Act, and it shows that agencies could be under threat of litigation if they fail to build crime reduction into their decision making and policies.
Similar complaints have been made to me about the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. It is not only councils in Buckinghamshire that have had problems getting the health service and the education service fully engaged in crime reduction work. The retort from health managers is often, "We know that what you are doing is worth while, but it does not figure among the key priorities set for us by our parent Departments in Whitehall." They go on to say that, until the Departments adjust their priorities and demands to reflect the priority that should be given to crime prevention, they will not be able to engage fully with crime reduction work as the Government wish.
That is an issue for the Government, and I note that the inspectors suggest that they should establish a ministerial working group on crime reduction to give a focus to the work of co-ordination at government level. The inspectors cite the ministerial working party on drugs as an example that could be copied. There used to be—I am going back 10 years—a ministerial group on crime prevention which, in my salad days as a special adviser, I attended from time to time. Although I do not believe that moving the furniture around in Whitehall will solve all the country's problems, there is a case, which is well made out in the report, for partnership work to be given a political focus. That might enable the Home Office team to persuade some of their colleagues
278WH
in other Departments to give priority to crime prevention and crime reduction, which is what Home Office Ministers and our constituents undoubtedly want.
The crime reduction partnerships and the community work embodied in the 1998 Act represent a valuable part of our national campaign to check and reduce crime. However, we must guard against the risk of meetings, paperwork, strategies and audits being interpreted as an end in themselves, when they should be only the starting point for effective grass-roots action to curb crime in our constituencies. Action on the flaws in the system identified by the inspectors in their recent report is the first step that Ministers must take to turn their hopes into reality.
3.48 pm
Jackie Ballard: In preparing for this debate, I have to confess that I did not read "Calling Time on Crime". However, I asked members of my local partnership and a number of national voluntary organisations with which I am in contact how they envisaged the strategy would work on the ground. As some hon. Members know, I am doing a secondment through the National Council for Voluntary Organisations scheme for parliamentarians with Crime Concern—which has played a key role in many crime and disorder reduction partnerships—and I have spoken to people there about their perspective. However, I have not had time to ask the most important group of people how the strategy is working—that is, of course, the public.
As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, we should not forget that the real test of any strategy or partnership is how it works for the public. Do they feel safer? Are they safer? Is their neighbourhood quieter? Is there more purposeful activity for young people and others in the community? This morning, I had an interesting discussion at Crime Concern about the difference between outputs and outcomes. Outputs can be measured statistically. They give comfort and feedback to the agencies involved, and help to make them accountable to the Government in terms of funding. Outcomes give residents comfort. They are often as much about perception as about reality, and concern matters that cannot so easily be measured.
There have been several positive developments in my area. Unlike many of the crime figures that were discussed earlier, crime levels in Avon and Somerset are down for the seventh year in succession. That is viewed locally as not only a police success, but a crime and disorder reduction partnership success. It is important that successes are recognised as being due to the partnerships, as much as perceived failures are attributed to them.
I shall describe three activities in my constituency that have developed in recent years. The Wellington drug awareness group is a local project that shows the real value of community involvement. It was initiated by a local family, whose son tragically died in a drug-related incident. His father was a member of the local town council, and was able to get the council involved in the initiative. Turning Point, a local voluntary agency, is also involved. The aim of the initiative is to help support

279WH
not only drug users, but their families, who often feel unsupported and isolated, and find it difficult to talk to anyone about what it is like living with someone who has a drug problem.
My second example is Taunton retailers against crime. Hon. Members have not mentioned the role of the business sector in crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Businesses have a role to play and not only in providing funding, which they all too often think is the only reason that people want them on board. Under the scheme, retailers in the town have a system of radio contact to inform each other when there is someone suspicious in one of their shops. I have seen it in action when I have been out shopping, and it is very effective.
The third scheme, which is called safe and secure for the elderly, is led by the local authority. As its name suggests, it is intended to assist the elderly in feeling safer and more secure in their own homes through advice and practical means. Those schemes are all successes of the partnership, but in each of them the lead is taken by the appropriate authority or organisation. That is how it should be.
Many partners in crime and disorder reduction partnerships are involved in other local partnerships. Sometimes they feel as though they are suffering from partnership overload—the same representatives of one organisation constantly meet the same representatives of other organisations wearing different hats. I recently attended a primary health care partnership meeting during which someone cynically said that their definition of partnership was sworn enemies coming together for the common purpose of seeking funding. Sadly, in some cases that may be true.
Mr. Lidington: The Labour party.
Jackie Ballard: I am not going to make party political points, because it is not necessary.
People made a number of positive points about the initiative when I questioned them about it. There has been a general welcome for crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Key partners have been brought together, sometimes for the first time, to address crime and disorder problems. Usually—not always—it has led to better working relationships and better multi-agency working. It is welcome that the role of local authorities has been recognised. Many local authorities have done a great deal in relation to community safety initiatives, although it is not a statutory requirement. We have heard about examples of that today and, no doubt, we will hear more.
No one—certainly no one in the agencies involved—thinks that crime is the concern only of the police and the criminal justice system. Most people recognise that the causes of crime are many and, therefore, the agencies involved include health, education and housing authorities, social services, planners and estate design teams. Of those, the estate design teams are the slowest to catch up. I understand that police architectural consultants are not used as well as they might be when new housing estates are being designed. In addition, we should remember the key role played by voluntary organisations.
The process of doing the audit and putting together the strategy has engendered a more rigorous approach, based on the analysis of problems, identification of
280WH
priorities and formulation of targets, leading to the adoption of evidence-based solutions. However, as we have heard, it has exposed a serious lack of adequate systems for data collection on the part of many agencies. In some instances, there is still a reluctance to share data, although, as we have heard, some of those problems have been sorted out. I was responsible for setting up a county-wide domestic violence forum, and the first problem we encountered was that different agencies had different types of data. Some agencies were not at all clear about the data that they held and were reluctant to share them.
The Minister will be pleased to hear me say, as an Opposition Member, that the general view among the public is that more progress has been made in the 18 months since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force than was made in the previous 18 years. That is positive, but it is not all plain sailing. Partnership work can be difficult to convert into action, and there can be culture clashes in values and ways of working between agencies. The most obvious example relates to the police and local authorities. One group is directly democratically elected and the other has no obvious direct democracy. One group has member involvement and a slower timetable for decision making—although that is changing—while the other is able to make decisions more quickly. I shall not go through the whole list of differences between the police and local authorities. It is not always easy to merge different cultures.
Statutory agencies have not always given proper value to the role of the voluntary sector. Often, there are jealousies involved. Partners have given varying levels of commitment and resources, and there have been disputes over ownership and boundaries. Time and again, there has been conflict between tried and tested solutions and localised solutions and between reconciling the needs and experiences of different areas with national priorities and targets, which can cut across the concept of generating local solutions to problems. Such matters are not easy to resolve. The Minister said that it was important to strike a balance, and I can understand the Government's desire to set national targets and priorities. However, it is not always easy to match them with local priorities.
Some people regard the Home Office guidance as over-prescriptive; others want more guidance. We might have expected that. We must establish the areas in which guidance would be welcomed and those in which it would be intrusive. For example, health authorities have complained about a lack of guidance on signing local protocols on data exchange. The hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned that problem in relation to data on domestic violence. Some partnerships are unwilling to target geographical areas, for fear of labelling them, and prefer a thematic approach. In other areas, there are neighbourhoods that, clearly, have a concentration of problems, and it makes more sense to work at neighbourhood level.
We have heard about difficulties in areas with a two or three-tier local government. The hon. Member for Aylesbury drew attention to the time-consuming nature of preparing proposals for funding, which is not always proportionate to the funding that is available. Often, the time scale for bids is not seen as being long enough.There are resource implications for partners in

281WH
partnership working and there is a general view that the Government have not adequately acknowledged the resource implications in working in partnership. It is not something that can just be bolted on to the work that local authorities already carry out.
The Government have found that corporate working and dealing with cross-cutting issues is not easy. We must recognise that the same is true for local authorities and others who are often still fighting the culture of departmentalism. There are also competing agendas. I shall not repeat what he said, but the hon. Member for Aylesbury drew attention to the fact that, at times, key partners are not able to devote sufficient time and resources to crime reduction. For example, the performance indicators and targets of health authorities relate to cardiac arrests, cancer and waiting lists, so crime reduction targets are not a key performance indicator for them. The performance indicators for schools are standard assessment tests, GCSEs and truancy, so crime reduction targets are not a key performance indicator for them.
If funding or success in league tables and tangible rewards are not linked to crime reduction, it is more difficult for such agencies to make it a priority for resource allocation. One of the action points in "Calling Time on Crime" is that ministerial portfolios should contain the requirement to consider the prevention of crime and disorder. Can the Minister say whether that is likely to happen? If that can happen at national Government level, it might be easier for that example to be followed at local level.
What is needed? Partners should be willing to adapt off-the-peg solutions that work elsewhere to reduce common problems, such as residential burglary. To repeat the press release at the launch of a new website on crime this week: it will certainly help in the exchange of best practice. Partners need to be able to deliver quick wins—to gain public support and increase awareness. I should be surprised if members of the public had a high awareness of the existence of crime and disorder partnerships.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: If the hon. Lady's constituents want to find out about the website, its address is www.crimereduction.gov.uk, and it is open.
Jackie Ballard: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. We shall do our best to publicise the website. I am glad that it is on line; I shall check it out myself.
The neighbourhood approach is often better than a thematic approach because it enables joined-up action at community level and because of its linkage to the national neighbourhood renewal strategies. However, a neighbourhood focus can also mask problems in rural areas, for example, where there is not the same concentration of issues. Thus, a thematic approach may be more appropriate in those areas. We must be pragmatic when dealing with the issue.
Hot spotting of geographical areas can have a negative impact, but there is a need to hot-spot issues in neighbourhoods, such as domestic violence. Drug use can also happen anywhere, although its impact may be
282WH
different from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. I am sure that the Minister is aware, however, of the drug use problem in the most rural parts of my constituency. Its impact on those living on Exmoor will not be perceived to be nearly as serious as its impact would in an urban or inner-city area, but it certainly impacts on the lives of those who are misusing drugs.
Partners need to address the barriers to effective working, such as culture, competition and trust. Crime Concern has facilitated "partnership away days". That may sound like a trendy idea, but they can be helpful in bringing partners together, breaking down barriers and attaining a level of understanding. Partners have reported that the away days have made a difference in their relationships.
How can the Government improve the working of crime and disorder reduction partnerships? I shall not talk about money, as that would not necessarily help at the moment. There are uncertainties—I do not know whether they are real or an excuse—about the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of data sharing. It would help if there were more guidance available to partners on that.
Mr. O'Brien: I did not understand. Did the hon. Lady say that there was a lack of guidance on data sharing in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 or on both data sharing and the 1998 Act?
Jackie Ballard: I meant that some partners use the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Human Rights Act 1998 as an excuse for not sharing data. It would help if there were guidance on whether either Act limits the extent to which data can be shared and, if so, on how it is limited.
The pathfinder sites report notes that the coterminosity of as many boundaries as possible is desirable, and that unitary authorities are much easier to manage. I do not argue for another local government review. I was a member of a local authority that went through one a couple of years ago and it was a fairly painful process. We ended up staying as we were, so we went through it for nothing. The difficulties in multi-tier areas need to be acknowledged. Like me, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) represents a three-tier area. The subject is worth mentioning, as in rural areas it is important that parish and town councils are involved as well as district and county councils. I talked about an initiative in my constituency that was led or supported by a town council.
The Government need to acknowledge that local concerns will not be the same everywhere, as the Minister said. Local views about priorities in tackling crime and disorder will not always be the same as national perspectives. The 43-point action plan in the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary mirrors many points made by members of my local partnership, which may not be surprising. The report confirms that substantial progress is being made on ensuring a high level of commitment, but there is a still a long way to go to ensure that local strategies deliver tangible and sustainable results for local communities.
The Minister spoke of the need to involve local people. The experience of local people on the ground may often be missing when we have such debates. At

283WH
Crime Concern's head office this morning, we had a fascinating presentation about a certain project in the midlands. The point was made that we should not be over-reliant on official statistics, especially when it comes to recorded crime. We all know that recorded crime statistics are the tip of the iceberg of actual crime. An example was given of an estate on which the man who ran the fish and chip shop reported that he used to sell many suppers to older residents, but now sells none to them. That tells us that older people no longer feel safe going out on the streets of the estate in the evening.
Such a fact may not be shown in official crime statistics, as it is about perception and fear of crime rather than actuality, although it may lag after actual crime. On the same estate, the owner of a shop reported selling out of tin foil on one weekend, which suggested an influx of a certain hard drug. Such intelligence might not be available to police officers or any other members of the crime and disorder reduction partnership, but would be available to someone living and working in the middle of a community.
The final relevant example from the presentation was of a young man who came into the project office. He knocked on the window and said, "I am your worst nightmare, and I want to talk to you. I am a heroin user and, in order to feed my habit, I commit burglaries. I understand that you have a lot of money to spend, to clear up crime and improve the neighbourhood. However, you need to talk to me about how I can get out of this vicious circle. You need to involve me in your plans for the community."That is a challenge for a partnership. How can the police sit down around the same table as drug users? How can the health authority respond quickly to that young man's need for assessment and treatment? It is also a challenge for the local community. How can it talk—face to face and in a positive way—with someone who is causing it so much trouble?
I do not believe that partnerships will deliver real outcomes on the ground if they do not involve people who are the cause of problems as well as those on the receiving end of those problems. The partnerships are generally working well, judging by the short period during which they have been running. However, there are key issues that need addressing if well-meaning strategies are to be turned into sustainable action and to produce real improvements on the ground.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I want everyone to have the opportunity to speak, and a tiny bit of discipline would help us to achieve that.
4.11 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I adhere to your stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will be speedy.
I should declare an interest. I chair a safety community partnership and a multi-agency panel for the anti-racist strategy in Barnsley. Many of my Fridays are taken up doing work around my constituency for those two bodies.
This is the first year for the crime prevention partnerships, as set up under the 1998 Act, although many communities have had partnerships for some
284WH
time, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said. There is a long history of partnerships in Barnsley. The crime prevention partnership came into being in 1995 as a result of initiatives that had been taking place since 1993. The partnership had to take on board a large number of projects that had been set up to run throughout the borough. The way in which it was run provided a good lesson in organisation. A co-ordinator was appointed and 28 projects, including projects for drugs, parents and young children, and young people, were given to topic groups. Those groups were given a chairman and set into a coherent framework that could follow through the work that was being done and identify where the resource was needed. When the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into being, we had to change the constitution because we had new partners. The health authority, the health action zone and the local LEA all joined the new community safety partnership.
I have watched and observed the various agencies working, and most people seem to be prepared to enter into a new culture. They have put their differences on one side and worked together. When I relate some of the statistics, we will see how the partnership has become bedded down in the community, which is resulting in achievements that reflect a falling crime rate.
Barnsley's partnership was up and running and achieving results before the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We set up that organisation to engage with the community; previously, we had a community and voluntary forum, which was an integrated part of the original partnership. Since bringing in the new constitution we have given greater autonomy to that community forum, which engages with the community and then reports back to the policy board. That board is obviously concerned with policy but it has also been necessary to look at the operational level and how we change that. We have created a grouping of heads of agencies which are responsible for operations, who meet regularly. They implement policy from the policy board and follow it through down to street level, where we are beginning to see results.
The original objective of the community partnership was to create an effective and sustainable preventive approach while ensuring law enforcement. It is a matter, therefore, not merely of looking at the social side of the development of the partnership but also of keeping an eye on law enforcement strategy—not with great rigour but carefully—to ensure that it is robust. The partnership approach works through consultation procedures with the community and provides for an inclusive structure. As I said, I chair the community partnership, but my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is the vice-chair and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) is a member of the policy board. The chief executive of the local authority and the chief constable for South Yorkshire are also on the board. Since the new constitution was instituted, the chief executive of the health authority has also been present, so there is always an input from the highest level to ensure that policy is thought through and followed at operational level.
From what I have seen of the inter-agency approach, I believe that it assists in mobilising the community to achieve fair results in certain circumstances. There has

285WH
been criticism about local authorities not using the new panoply of measures available under the Crime and Disorder Act, for example, such as the anti-social orders and curfew orders. In Barnsley we have not yet used either of them; the community approach creates a situation that is conducive to achieving results without having to do so.
I shall give an example of that. We arranged several meetings two years ago, through the tenants and residents association, on one of the problem estates in Barnsley. We had identified addresses where substances were being disposed of at weekends. The estate was consequently full of young people coming to get hold of those substances and they created mayhem, particularly for the elderly. The first meeting we had was attended by the police, the chief executive, the head of housing, the head of social services, my colleagues and me, with around 70 or 80 residents present to discuss how to deal with the problem. The people responsible for the trouble came in to intimidate the participants in the hope that names would not be given and after the meeting there was an increase in burglaries. However, the residents were determined and stuck to their guns. More meetings followed and, after identifying the addresses, visiting the premises and seeing that they were in a poor state of repair, the local authority was eventually able to move two households off the estate. The third household that had been causing a problem followed. As a result, the problem on the estate was cleared up. Every other house on that estate is now in the neighbourhood watch scheme. We were, therefore, able to deal with the problem on the estate without resorting to anti-social behaviour orders.
The Minister should bear in mind the fact that when people are moved on—which happens not only in Barnsley but nationally—the problem is merely displaced. The question is how to deal with the problem. Instead of merely moving a household on to settle in another part of the borough and cause the same problem, should we not be able to ensure that sanctions are applied through, say, a life style centre, which would rehabilitate people in the community? That would avoid the creation of ghettos, which appears to be occurring in certain areas of Barnsley, and which will have to be dealt with robustly. Will the Minister consider how the problem might be tackled? It will have to be addressed during the next two years.
As partnerships are conducive to dealing with thorny social problems, anti-social behaviour orders are not always necessary. Another important factor in relation to a partnership is that it recognises that crime is not an isolated matter—it challenges the community to think about the impact on crime of other factors. In that context, poverty, poor educational attainment, unemployment and health are recognised as playing a role in the criminality of an area. Some of the statistics in relation to Barnsley show that clearly.
I want to make a statistical comparison between 1979 and 1994. In 1979, Barnsley was quite a prosperous area, and, if my memory serves me correctly, the average wage in the town was a few percentage points above the national average, while crime was 25 per cent. below the national average. In 1994, when the local authority carried out a survey across Barnsley, it found that the
286WH
average income per household on the council estates was between £5000, and £6,000. The average income across the borough was £11,000. That compared with an average income of more than £18,000 for the rest of Yorkshire and Humberside. That indicates just how deprived the area was at that time. In 1994, crime in the area was 13 per cent. above the national average. Those statistics highlight the other social factors that impact on crime.
Mr. Coaker: Will my hon. Friend recognise a further problem in relation to the economic change to which he refers? In the mining communities that he knows well, and in the mining communities in Nottinghamshire, the social glue disappeared, which had an impact on crime. Communities must be put back together if we want to tackle crime.
Mr. Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention, which he made pointedly. Communities did fall apart, and crime prevention partnerships can be part and parcel of rebuilding them. That is very much how we see it in Barnsley. It is a central part of the local authority's regeneration strategy.
We have set out to ensure that educational attainment is lifted to the national average level. In Barnsley, the average attainment level, measured by a pupil who attains five GCSEs with grades between A and C, is currently about 31 per cent. I believe that the national average is about 45 per cent. The authority has an ambitious programme to reach the national average level of educational attainment within four years. Much emphasis is therefore being placed on education, projects for parents and young children and drug projects.
One of the main causes of burglary in Barnsley, as in the country in general, is drug-related crime. Until 1994, we did not have a drugs problem. In 1994, we knew precisely where the stuff was coming in from, and we saw an influx of heroin. The drugs action team estimates that about 5,000 people out of a population of 235,000 regularly take heroin.
Sheffield university's analysis of burglary statistics shows that we have a high level of burglary compared with the national average. In four areas in my constituency and the constituency of Barnsley, Central, the level of burglary is four times the national average. However, that applies to a very small area. Forty-three per cent. of burglaries are carried out by just 5 per cent. of offenders, and those 5 per cent. tend to be substance abusers.
The drugs problem has caused an enormous problem for the local authority. Much work is being done. The difficulty is in funding the crime prevention framework and ensuring that it contains a coherent strategy for treatment and rehabilitation after treatment. In Barnsley, 70 per cent. of crime is said to be related to drugs.
This year, the average level of crime in Barnsley fell. The borough is divided into two police districts, D and E. In E district, crime is down this year by 7.4 per cent., and in D district, by 12 per cent. Throughout the borough, violent crime is down by 8 per cent. Having served as its chairman for the past five years, I believe that the crime prevention partnership has played an

287WH
important part in reducing crime. I realise that caution should be exercised in analysing crime statistics, but the statistics to which I refer are clear.
Barnsley's partnership is now firmly embedded in the community, and we are achieving results. However, I am not ignoring the physical measures that have been introduced. I accept that CCTV camera projects in both the town centre and Grimethorpe have had an effect and that improvements in lighting, fencing and locks for the elderly, among other measures, have played their part. I am not ignoring the physical issues. They are important, but they are generally short-term measures undertaken, in this context, with an important endeavour. However, prevention through social measures such as early intervention schemes including sure start—on which I hope that the Minister will work closely with his colleagues in the Cabinet Office, because it is an important project—and care in the community projects financed by Joseph Rowntree offer a great many lessons.
I hope that the Minister will examine some of those projects, because they are extremely important. One such project running in Barnsley will, I hope, give us the opportunity of rolling the benefits out across the community. Safety community partnerships provide the essential framework to sustain safer communities in the long term.
4.30 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: I should like to begin by saying that, in contrast to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the shadow Home Office team, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been warmly applauded by the Association of Chief Police Officers, local authorities and the other agencies involved in the crime reduction partnerships. This approach is an opportunity to involve everyone in the fight against crime, and to ensure that we have the extra orders that we need to tackle certain forms of anti-social behaviour.
This is in sharp contrast to the approach adopted in the 1980s and 1990s, when to a great extent the approach was fragmented. Agencies were encouraged to adopt a hostile approach to one another, there was a strong element of passing the buck, and it was difficult for agencies to co-operate. The starting point now should be the approach that the Government are adopting which will bring the necessary elements together to give us a real chance to make a difference.
I have been concerned recently to see that the Opposition have chosen to describe both this approach and the crime and disorder legislation as failures because there has not been massive use of provisions such as anti-social behaviour orders. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), I believe that such orders should be used only when all other efforts have failed. We should not rush to use them immediately. The first anti-social behaviour orders have now been made in Birmingham, but this should not be seen as some kind of macho test to see who has issued the most orders or how quickly they have been implemented. The test should be: why were the orders applied and how were they used?
The first orders to be made in Birmingham were, interestingly, used in cases of prostitution to ban people from a neighbourhood where the local population had
288WH
persistently complained about the level of harassment and distress that they were experiencing. This was a joint effort between the police, local people and the local authority, and it was eventually concluded that, having used every other power at their disposal, an anti-social behaviour order would be an effective way of banning the people in question from the area. That is the right use of such an order in the context of the legislation, and an example of a partnership coming together to tackle a problem that is causing distress to the community.
Three further orders have been made recently on a housing estate in Birmingham, which have more to do with youths engaging in a succession of anti-social acts. However, I cited the case that focused on prostitution because that is an area in which it is often difficult for the local community to take legal action, and there can be no doubt about the distress that it causes to people.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that the concept of partnership was new and I accept that. However, he implied that the Government were wrong to take the credit for putting partnership at the centre of their approach to crime and disorder. The Government are trying to develop a new and slightly different emphasis but the Opposition are trying to reduce our debate to a simple argument about police numbers. The Opposition have decided to make that the focus of our debate and that narrow, opportunistic approach is to be expected, but the danger is that it takes us back to the position in the 1980s and 1990s when people believed that the police were the only element in the strategy. The police would be the first to say that they cannot work in that way and that it is a recipe for failure, which is a good reason for moving away from the narrow focus on police numbers and broadening the approach to include other agencies that can make a difference.
If the Opposition are desperate to focus on police numbers, they must concede that numbers have been falling since 1993. It is reasonable to ask them what commitment they have made on resources, because it is clear that they cannot sustain the numbers that the Government have promised and manage their £16 billion cuts in public expenditure. We are entitled to an answer to that question. Another important point about police numbers, which is part of the general trend in this approach, is that it is not simply that there has been a reduction in police numbers; other factors are in play. I shall cite the west midlands, with which I am most familiar.
During the past couple of years we have seen a significant shift in sector policing. That is happening in other parts of the country and is crucial for two reasons. First, it moves police officers to front-line policing duties. Previously, they were often engaged in civilian and administration tasks at police headquarters. There has been a change in numbers, but the police are being used more efficiently by policing the community in the front line. There has been a massive corresponding rise in the number of civilian staff employed for many of the duties that were previously performed by police officers. The police authority and the chief constable have made that decision because they recognise that it provides better value for money and uses the police for the purpose for which they are intended.
For me, perhaps the Government's greatest success of this approach has been seen in the relationship between central Government targets and what happens on the

289WH
ground. We were told earlier of criticisms and that the thematic report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary criticised the lack of analysis and the problem of setting targets without proper analysis. It emphasised the need to move from analysis and targets to monitoring the process and the outcome, and that is right.
I shall take the example of vehicle crime in Birmingham and the west midlands and the target to cut it by 30 per cent. over five years. As vice-chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, I have an interest in the subject. Birmingham and the west midlands have a particularly large problem with vehicle crime. It costs the country about £3.5 billion a year and during the past five years about 1 million vehicles were never recovered. It has an impact on many people's lives in different ways. It can prevent them from going to work to do their jobs or wreck their family plans and arrangements. It is an unpleasant and costly crime.
Last year, West Midlands police launched Operation Auto Guard, a four-week offensive to cut vehicle crime. When they engaged in a similar operation two years previously, they arrested around 1,700 people. There was a dramatic drop in that crime in certain areas of the city, because relatively small numbers of people commit such offences. A single operation can have a dramatic impact. However, what was important was not only the four-week police offensive, but the relationship between that action and other activities by the other parts of the partnership.
I mentioned abandoned vehicles. That element of vehicle crime, which has grown massively, is causing significant problems in the west midlands. It may have something to do with the fall in the value of scrap metal and the impact of that on the cost of vehicles. It is estimated that around 10,000 vehicles a year are dumped in Birmingham, compared with just 2,000 a few years ago.
In the past, it has been difficult to solve that problem because different agencies have denied responsibility. It has been difficult to obtain information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and many complications have arisen in the process of identifying who owns the vehicle and who is responsible. As a result, it has often been difficult for an agency to take action. Now, the police and the local authority are co-operating through the crime partnership. They have established a protocol on information sharing. When the police identify a registered keeper, that person is notified and told that the vehicle will be disposed of within 14 days if they do not remove it. If the registered keeper cannot be identified, the vehicle is disposed of immediately. That is having a significant impact in certain areas of the city.
The problem is not merely that vehicles are abandoned—they are often set on fire, which causes further distress to local residents and puts pressure on the fire service and other agencies. Pulling the partnership together to tackle the problem is having a general beneficial effect. There is a direct connection between the Government's targets to cut vehicle crime by 30 per cent. in five years, working through the police authority, and the crime reduction partnerships. Each part of the set-up can make its own valuable contribution.
290WH
I was a little surprised by the reference of the hon. Member for Aylesbury to "Calling Time on Crime". I recently went to a seminar given by Mr. Keith Povey, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary, who is responsible for the report. Having listened to him, I would not have recognised the description of the report that we heard today. It is true that the thematic report, which was a massive piece of work, drew attention to the dangers of too many initiatives, too many different reporting phases, and failing soundly to base practice on proper crime analysis. However, the report identifies the steps that are necessary to improve the performance of partnerships. It would be a terrible mistake for anyone to give the impression that the report is generally critical of the approach. It is generally positive about it, but draws out the lessons that need to be learned so that we can improve the performance of the partnerships. That is vital.
We should be careful not to allow this generally positive approach to dealing with crime to be lost in the alarmist remarks that we recently heard following the publication of the latest crime figures. It is true that the figures show rises in some areas and in particular offences, which is a cause for concern. However, we should consider what lies behind the figures. In the west midlands, 4 per cent. of the rise can probably be explained by the new approach to recording. The West Midlands police have been consistently criticised in relation to the accuracy of their reporting, and they have made a major effort to improve it. That is why the figure is slightly higher.
It is in no one's interest to go back to the days when people tried to produce better figures by fiddling them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said, we have seen much higher levels of reporting for particular offences, such as domestic violence and racially motivated crimes. The encouragement that people get from the partnerships makes it possible for them to be more open in their reporting of offences. Rather than allow our alarm at the figures to weaken that approach, we should recognise that there will be increased reporting, which will, in turn, increase the figures. That is the least of our concerns; our main concern should be to paint as accurate a picture as possible and put in place the strategies that will have the greatest impact.
The issue of ownership is crucial. Crime affects all of us—the public, local authorities, the fire service, youth offending teams, and education services. All of us, including the police, must work together and prioritise our concerns, if we are to have a major impact on crime. The partnership approach is winning over people who had come to the conclusion that everything was the fault of the police or that there was nothing that could be done. We should focus on the fact that, although there are lessons to be learned that will help us improve performance, the current approach is drawing new people into the battle against crime. That is why it is the right one.
4.47 pm
Ms Dari Taylor: My constituency is in the Cleveland area, where, in recent months, a question mark has been placed against the capability of the police. I should like to put that right, in the context of our discussion on crime reduction partnerships.

291WH
Cleveland police have embraced the concept of partnership; they have looked for partnerships, fought for them and developed them.
The chief constable, the local authorities and the probation service in my area have warmly welcomed the embrace of the Government. Of course, they want more financial resources, but they like the idea that we are carrying out an effective and accurate analysis, which drives effective strategies. There has been a positive response from the partnerships that I know.
Some of the figures for Cleveland—especially Stockton—are persuasive. We have bucked the trend, and our overall crime figure for 1999–2000 was down. It was down only marginally—by 2.2 per cent.—but nevertheless it was down. We acted effectively, bringing the public on board. People were prepared to be part of the effort and were ready to give evidence. We are saying to people, "Please, don't be prisoners in your own homes. Come and tell us what is going on." Only when that dialogue is publicly articulated can we begin to deal with the issues of crime.
That is the start. I am even more proud of my patch. The figures show that house burglary has been reduced by more than 22 per cent. More than 500 extra people have felt a benefit. The down side of being burgled is monstrous. I was burgled four times in five weeks and became a veritable prisoner in my own home. I would not allow my 14-year-old daughter to go home alone, which made her indignant, but I was concerned that she could come home and find that someone had been in, taken things and caused disruption. The home is so precious, and for someone to abuse it in such a way is a nightmare. I am extremely pleased for my constituents that burglary rates are down, so there seems to be a turning of that tide. In Stockton, we also have fewer crimes of violence. The reduction is only small, but the rates are nevertheless down.
I realise that my colleagues are keen to speak, so I shall briefly refer to two initiatives that have focused on reducing crime, especially burglary. The initiatives have determinedly considered the use of CCTV, and I must tell the Minister that every other household wants it. I am not convinced that it is a perfect answer, but it certainly reassures many people, so we have increased its use. I shall soon ask for additional money on that score, and I hope to receive it. With CCTV, people feel that the police can at least watch, monitor and respond quickly to behaviour that is highly suspect.
We have had a superb response from our schools. More than 70 per cent. of schools in Cleveland have been covered by a crime reduction initiative. Our junior crime prevention panels are a striking success. We are beginning to talk to young victims of people who sell drugs outside our school gates and on our street corners. In my multi-deprivation areas, such drug sellers are the only people who drive spectacular cars. Catching them and having evidence to convict them is monstrously hard, but children are becoming good at warning schools, and the schools warn the police. The network is beginning to have an effect on the prevention and reduction of such crimes in our community.
Landlords of pubs are valuable in our partnerships. They do not want people to abuse a substance that they sell, and they certainly do not want other substances sold on their premises. For the first time in my
292WH
community's leisure life, people are beginning to believe that there is hope. Those of us who have teenagers see them go out at 8 o'clock in the evening looking beautiful. We give them money for taxis, and from 12 o'clock on we listen to hear the door latch. That is the tyranny for families and youngsters, but I see a change beginning. We have spoken to taxi drivers and have them on board, so that they act as a source of protection for our youngsters and another source of information.
There was a startling drop in crime under round 2 of Stockton's burglary reduction initiative, which was implemented in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). The focus was on two seriously deprived areas that had enormous problems. With the effective involvement of so many different partners, household burglary was reduced by more than 76 per cent in one year. That figure shows that neighbourhoods can be confident that the police, the probation service and the local authority are there for them. People in those neighbourhoods will become confident that their citizenship is worth fighting for once again, and they will give evidence even though people may threaten them for doing so. They will give evidence because they know that we are a fair society.
I should mention our approach on domestic violence, which is a problem that has been a serious cause of concern to me throughout my working life. I have worked with people who have been abused by their partners. Some women are prisoners in their homes, and when I took evidence their children would say to me, "I put my pillow over my head because I did not want to hear Mum screaming again or shouting, 'Please, someone help me.'" I have been through that with youngsters and I know the hideousness that so many women face. However, when we ask ourselves, "What can we do?", we are beginning to answer the question. There has been an increase of over 14 per cent. in the reporting of domestic violence cases in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North. That thrills me no end. It tells me that women are no longer prepared to be smacked, beaten and intimidated by men who feel that such behaviour is their only power base.
Again, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that on board because the straight fact is that we must support women who are prepared to report such crime. The issue of contact is monstrously serious. It is totally unacceptable for partners, previous husbands and fathers to be given contact with their children, only to use it to blackmail, intimidate and threaten women. In such circumstances, women will back off and return into hiding—when we want them to come forward. We want domestic violence to stop and to be able to say that we have a society in which decency prevails.
The police partnerships in Cleveland and Stockton are working and are producing some superb responses. I want better and earlier responses, as we all do, but partnerships have shown that people are working together effectively. However, I should strike a negative note in regard to inquiries into police authorities. The Lancet inquiry, and previously the Charrington inquiry, into Cleveland both took an enormous time and a formidable amount of money—perhaps upwards of £4 million to £5 million the second time around—and both fell, neither producing evidence that could lead to criminal prosecutions. As a result, the people in the Tees

293WH
constituencies feel thoroughly let down and do not feel confident in their policing service. I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister to give that serious consideration. We need an independent inquiry board, not the police carrying out inquiries into themselves. Such inquiries should be independently framed, outside the police authority, so that time can be concentrated and evidence scrutinised without taking the police away from other responsibilities.
The partnerships that we have put together are leading to some reasonable and accurate statistics that tell us that crime is beginning to be confronted and reduced in our communities.
4.58 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: One of the ground-breaking principles enshrined in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was the statutory recognition that crime and disorder affect the whole of society, requiring joint working and a multi-agency approach. That is to be welcomed. If we are to develop strategies to deal with crime and disorder, the whole of society has to become involved. I spoke today to the deputy chief constable of North Wales police, who spoke highly of the principles behind the Act and its emphasis on partnership working. The message from north Wales is that partnerships are an excellent idea that are already beginning to yield considerable results in terms of crime reduction.
In the limited time available, I would like to deal with a few issues. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who is to be congratulated on chairing his own partnership—I am not sure how he finds the time, but I am sure that it has gained much from having Members of Parliament as its chair and vice-chair—that crime reduction is linked to the economic and social regeneration of our communities, especially in deprived areas. I hope that you will allow me to talk about my own constituency for a while, Madam Deputy Speaker. The major town in my constituency is Colwyn Bay, which is' a coastal resort and the second largest town in north Wales. Coastal resorts have faced problems for several years, as the traditional British seaside resort declines. Social problems have accompanied that decline in economic fortunes.
Mugging and anti-social behaviour are the major crime problems on the north Wales coast. That is linked with the problem of houses in multiple occupation. A great number of people—many of them vulnerable people with drug and other problems—come to areas such as north Wales and other seaside resorts throughout the United Kingdom. They are often enticed by the offer of accommodation from unscrupulous commercial landlords who are playing the housing benefit system. That matter was addressed in a report about housing benefits published this morning by the Social Security Committee. Those landlords house people in poor accommodation but are able to get the housing benefit. That is a problem that the Department of Social Security, as much as the Home Office, must tackle.
There is a link between crime and poor housing. There is a need for a system that enables registration of houses in multiple occupation. There is a role for a partnership
294WH
approach between those charged with environmental health regulatory functions within local councils and the police. A few weeks ago, I was heartened to visit a meeting of a crime reduction partnership in my constituency, which focused on problems in an area called Pensarn, which is also on the north Wales coast. I am pleased to say that the crime reduction partnership that has been established in the county of Conwy is focusing real attention on problems associated with that community, and that results have been achieved already.
I congratulate the Minister on initiating the debate. The project is a long-term one and results are not going to be immediate, although we are beginning to see encouraging signs. However, it represents a real sea change in that agencies, councils, probation officers and people within other organisations are taking the view that the buck should not be passed. We want to find solutions.
I should like the Minister to deal with a small number of specific points in his winding-up speech, but if he does not have time to do so, perhaps he will write to me. I referred earlier to the manner in which regional crime directors have been appointed. I accept the need for co-ordination. Indeed, common sense suggests that we must ensure that best practice is disseminated among the various partnerships throughout the country. Do the Government intend to give a monitoring and auditing role to regional crime directors? The Home Office seems to be giving out confusing signals. The job description for regional crime directors in England and Wales stated that one of their functions was to
agree and implement a plan for the audit of the partnerships' crime reduction strategies, taking into account the work of H. M. Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission.
The deputy chief constable of North Wales police said that there does not seem to be a statutory basis in law for giving an audit function to regional crime directors. Reflecting his concerns, my plea is for us to ensure that there is not too much bureaucracy and that the good work undertaken by crime reduction partnerships is not smothered by a heavy-handed bureaucratic approach. When referring to the recently appointed crime reduction director for Wales—a Welsh Assembly appointment, although policing is a Home Office matter which has not been devolved—the deputy chief constable said:
If the post is to work by support, encouragement and facilitation to help statutory partnerships to be more effective then I am all in favour—but if it is to be yet another auditing and monitoring role in an already crowded field then I am concerned.
I should be grateful if the Minister will address those remarks in his response.
5.7 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: This debate is very important because, without law and order—however it is achieved—our communities cannot function. Since I became a Member of Parliament in 1997, among the many problems that constituents approach me about are those of crime and anti-social behaviour, matters on which people always have an opinion. They are all worried about it, whether at a national or local level. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for their work on crime. The number of police officers on our streets is important, and that is

295WH
now being dealt with. If we really want to make an impact on crime, we must adopt the partnership approach. The police, on their own, cannot solve crime in our communities.
I am not making a political point, but it is a difficult message to get across. Whether we have a Conservative Government, a Liberal Democrat Government or a Labour Government, people will base their judgment of how much is being done about crime on the number of police on the streets. However, other ways of fighting fight crime and tackling disorder are also important. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) that we must listen to people and involve them. If we do not engage in such a debate in a sensible and mature way, it will be difficult to make progress. I know that it makes for a good political to and fro in Westminster Hall, but if the debate comes down to how many police are on the streets now as opposed to how many there used to be, it will not be an intelligent debate and we will not move forward. That is not to say that the number of police is not important and that a visible police presence is not something that we are all striving to achieve—I say that in case any of my constituents read this! We need more police, and I know that the Government are looking into that.
The Gedling crime reduction partnership in Nottingham is working well. Local input and local priorities are especially important, and a wide range of bodies are involved—the police, the local authority, neighbourhood watch groups, the voluntary sector and business. Significant results have been achieved. There has been a 25 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary since 1997–98. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) referred to the impact on people whose homes are burgled. Theft of vehicles has fallen by 53 per cent., which is a big reduction. Theft from vehicles has fallen by 17 per cent., and criminal damage is at its lowest level for five years. Violent crime has increased, however, which must concern us all. There is no point trying to fudge that; it is a worry. If the increase in violent crime is partly due to people reporting crimes of violence in the home, which they were not previously willing to do, I hope that the figure continues to rise for that reason. Nothing is worse than people feeling unable to report crimes of domestic violence because of fear. All Governments have tried to address that problem in relation to the reporting of rape, and domestic violence should be addressed in the same way.
The Gedling crime reduction partnership has set targets for tackling the increase in violent crime using local statistics. Making it a local priority should increase the effectiveness of methods to tackle the problem. There has been some excellent news on crime reduction partnerships, and the empowering of local communities is especially important. Local people, including those in the partnership, have asked me how to make crime reduction more effective. Those are questions for all of us, and the Minister will not be able to give answers to every one. One such question is how to restore the legitimate authority of the police. Local people have raised that issue with me, as well as within the partnership. Sometimes the police are confronted with particular difficulties when they attend incidents. We must try to ensure that their legitimate authority is maintained.
296WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said that the existence of anti-social behaviour orders encourage people to work together. The fact that we do not have a league table of local authorities that have issued the most anti-social behaviour orders does not necessarily mean that they have not been effective. The Home Office has examined the bureaucracy involved in the use of those orders, and has produced new guidelines. I hope that the Minister will ensure that local authorities regard anti-social behaviour orders not just as a last resort but as a measure that can be used if appropriate. There was a famous case in Nottingham of an individual who was subject to an anti-social behaviour order. Local people who became aware of the length of the individual's criminal record did not understand why such a person had been allowed to commit so many crimes for so long before anything had been done about it. Sometimes I wonder why an anti-social behaviour order has been used, because the individual concerned should already have been locked up. However, we should continue to encourage people to view anti-social behaviour orders as a way forward.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, I raised the issue of curfews in a ten-minute Bill. We should reconsider the age limit. Curfews can be applied in an area only for young people up to the age of 10. The Home Office is considering raising the limit to 15, which would be useful. I do not suggest that people should be compelled to use the measure, but it should be available if crime reduction partnerships feel that it would be appropriate. My own local authority has one or two open spaces, shops and other areas, and having such a power for a month or six weeks would enable the police, the local authority and people working together to bring that area back under control.
My crime reduction partnership has problems in dealing with nuisance neighbours quickly and effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone made an excellent point. We are not trying merely to dump people on to another community, but some nuisance neighbours cause such mayhem that it is difficult for crime reduction partnerships to deal with them. It is a particular problem when a family with young children is causing the problem. No one wants to evict people and put them on the street when young children are involved, but people who come to my surgery ask what on earth they should do about people who simply will not abide by the normal rules of civilised behaviour in a community. They say to me, "It is all right for you. I feel sorry for the kids, but you don't have to live next door to it every day." The law presents a genuine problem in dealing with such matters, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider how we should proceed, as, indeed, I am sure he is.
The Government are considering the issue of neighbourhood wardens and the re-establishment of figures of authority, on which I am especially keen. I was brought up in London, which used to have uniformed park keepers on bikes, with radios. We used to be frightened of the parkie. I do not suggest bringing back the parkie as a replacement for the police, but too often we have got rid of bus conductors, station staff, caretakers on housing estates and park keepers. Although such figures of authority would not be able to deal with drug dealers or violent behaviour, they could

297WH
have a role to play in creating an image of authority in and around those areas. If park keepers or something similar were re-established, parents might feel more comfortable about their children going to parks.
We talk a lot about young people being a problem. However, my visits to schools suggest that young people are as worried about crime as we are. They are often the victims of crime. They suffer in our communities, and they want something to be done. One of the problems facing our crime reduction partnership is that we focus on the negative side of young people, whereas many of our youngsters have limited local facilities for play and recreation, such as skateboarding.
I make a plea: everyone is favour of more facilities for our young people and says that it is dreadful that they have nowhere to go. However, as soon as we start discussing where to put a skateboard park or various facilities, people start raising all sorts of objections to it. We should adopt a mature, grown-up approach to the matter. Our young people deserve a little better than they sometimes get in some of our communities, especially in terms of facilities. Much as I want anti-social behaviour to be clamped down on, some of our young people are only really hanging around, not causing trouble.
Locally, the crime reduction partnership is working well. I emphasise that partnership is the only way forward. Crime is the responsibility of all of us. One of the things that crime reduction partnerships are trying to do relates to a point made by my hon. Friend for Barnsley, West and Penistone. As he will know, one of the problems in our coal communities was that, when the pit went, the social glue went. The self-policing of those communities declined, and their authority and self-discipline were undermined. Part of the purpose of crime reduction partnerships is to restore that self-discipline and the concept of the community policing itself.
We talk about putting more police on the street, about changing the law and about cracking down on crime, and all those measures have a role to play. However, the partnerships are also crucially about reinvigorating and regenerating the belief that policing of communities is ultimately the responsibility of the community itself. People have a responsibility to police themselves, and restoring that responsibility will have as great an impact on crime as flooding the streets with police.
5.20 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, as time is short.
My constituency is in an area where levels of crime have fallen over the past three years—there have been increases in some areas, but generally there has been a reduction. To that extent, the local partnership in our area has been successful. To be fair, the reduction in crime was taking place before that period, but there has also been a marked reduction during that time. In London—I think that I am the only hon. Member here today who represents a London constituency—my area is near the top of the league in terms of safe areas.
Our local partnership has had significant success in forming youth offending teams in which members of the police service, the probation service and the local
298WH
authority work actively together under the same roof, in accordance with the programme of reducing youth crime. That has been very successful. There has been a significant partnership in Romford town centre—just outside my constituency—which is the main retail shopping area in the vicinity. There has been a significant reduction in retail crime there since November 1998: levels are 49 per cent. lower than in November 1997. In 1999, there were 41 retail crime free days.
That partnership takes photographs of habitual criminals, which are issued in accordance with the provisions of data protection legislation. That information is then assessed by the local police and the partnership organisers. The retailers involved also gather information and pass it on to the police, both through closed circuit television and in written format. The courts involved examine the published results; they are made aware of the information and build it into their considerations of bail conditions, and so on. The partnership has been very effective, which has been recognised by the Home Office. It has been a positive success. Other CCTV extensions have flowed from information provided to the partnerships, and the priorities for those have been set at partnership level.
During the past few weeks, a neighbourhood watch scheme has been extended and 100 per cent. of the houses contacted joined the scheme. That is a further example of the concentration on the important issue of reducing crime. Local community police have been appointed in a number of areas in my constituency, and they are doing sterling work, especially in schools. A range of successful partnership initiatives is having an impact on reducing crime.
However, in a debate such as this it would be wrong to dwell only on the successes. We must also examine the failings. All is not sweetness and light and, as other hon. Members have said, the main areas of increased crime are violent crime and crimes related to anti-social behaviour. The partnerships need to focus on those areas to bring about reductions.
When I was preparing for this debate, I looked at the consultative document that the Home Office published in 1997, "Getting to Grips with Crime". Chapter 3 deals with the post-legislation aspect, especially in relation to funding. It states that the Home Office did not, at that stage, envisage any increased funding for the partnerships and suggests that in the longer term they could be financed through substantial savings.
All the partners in my local area have embraced the policy with great enthusiasm. However, if local authority funding is particularly pressed—as it is in my area—the initiatives that can be developed are weakened. Although resources are being devoted to the youth offending teams, and to other initiatives to which I have referred, targeting the estates where violent crime takes place and car crime is at its highest levels would have the greatest impact in reducing crime.
There should be some recognition of those burdens in the funding arrangements for local authorities. In using the word "burdens", I do not mean to be critical of the Government. In my area we embrace the policy enthusiastically and want to initiate projects that would help to reduce crime even further. Ultimately, however, a local authority can do only what its funding allows it

299WH
to do, and it is important to take that into account. I know of estates that could work with the police and the local authority in targeting youth offending, but the local authority does not have the resources to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) referred to the park keeper. In my area, an organisation called Green Patrol patrols local parks, and is active in the partnership. Because of its funding difficulties, the local authority has had to reduce the number of people who are employed in the patrols, which leads to a reduction in the effectiveness of the partnership. The local authority can have an impact in other respects, such as housing. Again, funding has been reduced and some initiatives have therefore not been as good as it would like.
I embrace the partnership initiative at national, as well as local, level. It can still go further, and it gives us the opportunity to have a significant impact on reducing crime. However, the funding of local authorities must be considered as a matter of urgency if we are to deliver the benefits that are there to be taken.
5.27 pm
Dr. George Turner: Much sense has been talked this afternoon. In the interests of avoiding repetition, I am grateful that I can agree with much of what was said. That may be partly due to the fact that not a single Back Bencher from the Tory party has been present.
Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the annual meeting of my local partnership, from which I came away heartened. I should like to make three simple points to my hon. Friend the Minister, dwelling on a suggestion that was made during the meeting.
First, partnerships are promising, but they are still new. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), I know from 20-odd years in local government, and involvement with the police authority, that in the past partnerships were relatively unstructured and ad hoc, and depended on individual initiatives. Frankly, they were a pathetic shadow of what the Government have introduced. Because the partnerships are new, they must be nurtured. That is the Government's role, now that they have established them and given them many of the tools that they require in relation to changes in the law—the new powers and orders, which will be very helpful—and resourcing.
The people at the meeting were delighted that on the previous day they had received a positive response from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the form of an award of £600,000 to address the specific problems of the Fens—where the case of one of my best-known constituents, the farmer Tony Martin, has highlighted crime in the rural parts of my constituency and, perhaps more importantly, the fear of crime. The crime statistics do not take account of the fear of violence, especially in isolated communities, which can have as dramatic an effect on my constituents as actual crimes. They are pleased that the Government are taking these steps.
I was pleased that Dr. Henry Tam, who has been appointed regional director of crime reduction but has not yet taken up his post, was present at the meeting and I want to say something about his role. Despite the concerns expressed this afternoon, I believe that there is a role to be played, whether statutory or not. My local
300WH
partnership will welcome a friendly critic who wants to point it in the direction of good practice elsewhere and who makes it face up to facts, albeit sometimes unpleasant facts, if it is not on target to meet its objectives. I welcomed Dr. Tam's contribution to the meeting and the fact that the chief constable spent the morning with the partnership.
In nurturing the partnerships, the Government must work with them and listen to what they have to say, as well as guide them and aid them with resources. The greatest problem in addressing crime in my constituency is to persuade the community that we want to involve everyone. When we refer to partnerships, we do not mean just the agencies in the community—the education and health authorities; we mean the people who live in the community because we need their help most. When they realise that our priorities are their priorities and that we are listening to what they want and passing that on to the Government, we shall have their co-operation. It is essential that crime is not seen to be a problem just for the police or someone else.
My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that he does not need a lot of time in which to reply. He said five or six minutes, but I shall try to allow him more than that. One issue arose at the meeting on which I want him to assure me that there will be wider debate. I know from announcements in Parliament that the Home Office is considering the possibility of part-time or retained police and there could be considerable advantages in such an initiative in the rural environment.
One of our biggest problems in Norfolk has been that, even when a local policeman is assigned to an area—in rural places, the area may be quite large—a major incident requires a huge amount of manpower. The most famous one is the Tony Martin case, but I can remember several other incidents during the past two years while I have been in post, including horrendous murders. It is right that police time and manpower are diverted to such incidents, but we often find that the local policeman is withdrawn afterwards and there is a long period without one.
In Norfolk, we have long experience of a retained fire service with properly trained firemen who do not spend 100 per cent. of their time as firemen, but are employed elsewhere and can be released for specific tasks. At our meeting, there were more than 100 people in the room, but only the police representatives were negative about having a retained service. I understood why, because part-time policing raises difficulties and the Home Office would have to be careful with such an initiative. The working group that I joined for the morning considered specific issues of rural policing. Many suggestions were made, some of which were as simple as ensuring that houses are numbered and thinking about the plants used on the periphery of a residence. It was also suggested that parish councils should co-operate more. There are 64 parishes in my constituency and they sometimes do things separately, rather than co-operating with each other. There are large numbers of retired policemen and others who could be trained to do some of the routine work, leaving serving police officers free to be more actively involved in chasing criminals.
As promised, I have raised the matter in Parliament and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that there is a decent debate on the subject. I bring him an offer from west Norfolk that my constituents would

301WH
be most happy to be involved in piloting, however that is done. They want to co-operate within the partnership and to discover the advantages and disadvantages of some of the suggestions.
5.35 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: This good and important debate on crime and disorder reduction partnerships has shown how important it is that local communities, the police and local authorities are involved in tackling and reducing crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) gave a constructive evaluation of the ground-breaking approach to partnership in his constituency. Barnsley's approach has lessons for every part of the country and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship of such a successful partnership. I will consider his interesting idea of life style centres and let him know what I think about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), in a high-quality contribution, said that crime and disorder partnerships reached parts of the problem that the police alone cannot reach. Crime in the west midlands will best be tackled by the community as a whole, working with the police, rather than by the police working alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) drew attention to the human toll of burglary. She is justly proud of helping to reduce the misery which burglary causes families. She also referred to the tyranny of crime among young people, who are often the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of crime. Although my children are young yet, I expect that the time will come when, like other parents, I will know the fear when they do not put their keys in the latch at midnight as expected, a feeling that my hon. Friend described. I hope that we can help to ensure that young people return from an enjoyable evening out without their parents having to worry.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), who said that reducing the fear of crime is as important as reducing crime itself; my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South made a similar point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) warned us of the need to tackle the causes of crime, including unscrupulous landlords. He also asked about regional crime directors, and I shall speak to him about that. Their job is to assist, advise and monitor. They will not be unwelcome as they will not try to take over. Their objective is to assist; they will ensure that best practice is followed throughout the country. David A'Herne, a former chief superintendant, will operate in Wales from 7 August. He has a great deal of experience and I am sure that he will make a valuable contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said that rising statistics on domestic violence may reflect greater confidence in reporting incidents which were previously Under-reported, rather than increasing crime. He made several other valuable points which I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for
302WH
Upminster (Mr. Darvill) emphasised the importance of CCTV and neighbourhood watch; I was particularly impressed by the local neighbourhood watch schemes in his constituency, one of which had a 100 per cent. response from local people. Areas such as Upminster and Barnsley have lessons for the rest of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk asked me to look at special constables and retained police. I will draw the Minister of State's attention to my hon. Friend's contribution. My hon. Friend can pass to his constituents the message that the Government are listening to the points that they made.
In an excellent and non-partisan speech, the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) welcomed the crime and disorder reduction partnerships. In particular, I appreciated her comment that more progress had been made in the 18 months since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was enacted than in the previous 18 years. Of course, she expected me to welcome that. She is right to say that we have reduced the level of buck-passing between authorities. We are ensuring that organisations co-operate more, but there is much more work to do. I will reflect especially on several of the points that she made towards the end of her speech, which showed that parliamentary secondments work and are valuable.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) gave no commitment to matching the Government's funding to tackle crime. On 18 July, we announced an additional £1.6 billion for the police over three years, which would increase police funding by 21 per cent. to £9.3 billion by 2003–04. The Conservatives have made no commitment on new equipment, such as the public safety radio communications project, which will provide the new airwave communications system that the police need. The Conservatives have made no commitment to extra funding for crime reduction policies and did not suggest that they would match our efforts.
The hon. Gentleman said that he doubted whether such money would be available if a Conservative Government were in power. He thinks that they could not afford such commitments, but he suspects that a Labour Government could. I can tell him that the Labour Government can, and have planned for them. He need not worry about Labour Governments, but clearly his constituents need to worry about Conservative Governments. The Conservatives will not match our future spending commitments on crime and disorder; instead, they will cut spending on crime and disorder.
The hon. Gentleman's other rather incredible point was that Tory Ministers have some inherent super-quality that enables them to perform better than Labour Ministers. He argued that Conservatives would spend money better and have some sort of financial wisdom, managerial skill or other super-human quality that Labour Ministers could not match and that, somehow, Conservative Ministers would get more from less. That argument boils down to "Yah-boo sucks, we can do better than you." That is a laughable argument for any shadow Minister to advance. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, if he and his party are to be serious about tackling crime, they must provide answers on funding. They must do better than he did today, or the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has done recently, because people

303WH
know that the price of electing a Conservative Government will be a cut in funding to tackle crime and disorder.
The Government have ensured that we can tackle crime and disorder. Partnerships represent a long-overdue recognition that crime reduction is not simply a matter for the police. Everyone has a part to play. Through the record levels of investment in crime reduction programmes and the record funding for the police, and by raising the number of police officers by 2003 to its highest level ever, the Government are providing the tools and the structure of national and regional support for partnerships, backed up by localised training and guidance. We have shown our firm commitment to partnership by action and by deed.
304WH
The fight against crime is an integral part of the Government's commitment to making Britain a better place in which to live. The role of crime and disorder reduction partnerships is essential in helping to achieve that most important objective. I am therefore grateful to hon. Members who contributed to this important debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends, who turned up in force. I regret that there were not more Conservatives to support the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I am grateful for the valuable contributions from the Liberal Democrats. Fighting crime is important. We intend to carry that fight forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Six o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Offices
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices are within(a) three miles and (b) five miles of a digital telephone exchange; and if he will make a statement. [131802]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that all but around 500 post offices are within approximately 3 km of a digital telephone exchange, enabling ISDN connections. At those offices where a normal ISDN connection is not possible an equivalent satellite link will be installed.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many offers of regional selective assistance made since May 1997 have received EU approval. [131826]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]Under the RSA scheme the vast majority of offers do not require approval. Of those that do, four have been approved since May 1997.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for which Ford plant regional selective assistance was offered. [131827]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]Bridgend and Swansea.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which non-motor companies have received offers of regional selective assistance; and how many have received their first payment. [131823]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]For reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of offers are not routinely published until after the first payment of grant. Information on such offers of £75,000 or more can be found in "Labour Market Trends".

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the payments of regional selective assistance to Vauxhall Motors Ltd. and Ford Motor Co. Ltd. have received EU approval. [131828]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]Yes.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when Toyota received(a) offers and (b) payment of Regional Selective Assistance as detailed in a press release on 14 June 1999; [131825]

  (2) how much Regional Selective Assistance (a) Rover Group Ltd., (b) Jaguar Cars Ltd., (c) Peugeot Motor Co. plc, (d) Vauxhall Motors Ltd. and (e) Ford Motor Co. Ltd. have received since May 1997; [131822]
  718W
  (3) what payments have been received and grants given to (a) Rover Group Ltd., (b) Jaguar Cars, (c) Peugeot Motor Co. plc, (d) Vauxhall Motors Ltd. and (e) Ford Motor Co. by his Department since May 1997; and which of these received European Commission approval. [133144]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]The policy under successive Governments has been that payments of Regional Selective Assistance are a commercial matter between the company and the Government and are not normally disclosed. Details of offers of grant of £75,000 or more are given in "Labour Market Trends". The offer to Toyoda Gosei Company Ltd. (part of the Toyota group) was made in May 1999 and did not require EC approval. The Rover engine project (Hams Hall) and Jaguar Cars project received EC approval.

  ECGD
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the planned net profit is of the ECGD for each year of the 2000 Spending Review (2001–2004); and how this figure would differ if loans by the ECGD were required to earn a 6 per cent. return; [132452]

  (2) if he will list the net profit or loss for the ECGD in the last three years; and how this would have varied had the agency been required to record returns below 6 per cent. as a loss. [132457]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]ECGD is set the financial objective by Ministers of breaking even over the longer term on its new business account. Given the nature of ECGD's business and the highly uncertain nature of the risks which it covers, it will clearly be many years before the outcome of any particular year's business can be known. In recognition of this, Ministers have set ECGD a more measurable objective of achieving a ratio (Reserve Coverage Ratio) of at least 1.5 between its reserves and estimates of expected losses on amounts at risk under its guarantees.

  ECGD is currently preparing its 1999–2000 accounts, which will be laid before the House in the autumn. The in-year surplus/deficit for the previous three years is as follows:

  £ million

  Surplus/deficit

  Reserve coverage

  1996–97

  1,032.3

  2.4

  1997–98

  (514.3)

  1.0

  1998–99

  136.9

  1.3

  ECGD does not currently operate to a capitalised regime. This will be introduced by April 2002 as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in its Mission and Status Review. The House will have an opportunity to debate the specific proposals for the ECGD Trading Fund including the proposals for the capital-charging regime.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Review of the ECGD to be published. [132795]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on 25 July 2000,Official Report, columns 520–21W.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the assessment made by the UKAEA of the potential routes by which radioactive particles could have reached the beaches on and near Dounreay, Caithness. [132037]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]I am happy to meet this request. UKAEA prepared a report, "Dounreay Particles" for the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) earlier this year. UKAEA has agreed that a copy of this report should be placed in the Library.

  Export Promotion
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the size is of the joint DTI-FCO budget for export promotion referred to in paragraph 15.2 of the Spending Review 2000; and how much was spent by these two Departments on export promotion in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [132453]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]The total budget for 2000–01 for the trade development and promotion activities of British Trade International (branded as Trade Partners UK) is approximately £187 million. This includes administration costs and programmes of support for business, but excludes certain FCO overheads. A breakdown is provided in the answer given to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on 21 June 2000,Official Report. columns 184–85W.

  For previous years the information is:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  DTI

  Programme expenditure

  54

  58

  57

  Administration costs

  24

  24

  25

  FCO

  Administration costs1

  2—

  130

  3139

  1 Including overheads

  2 The FCO did not collate information on budgets for export promotion only prior to 1998–99. Expenditure for commercial work in 1997–98, which was primarily for export promotion, was £156 million

  3 Estimated

  Universal Bank
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role the proposed Universal Bank within the Post Office will play in relation to the sale of financial products, with particular reference to(a) ISAs and (b) stakeholder pensions. [132799]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]We await the Post Office's business plan for the Universal Bank later in the year.

  Wind Generation
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each year since 1995(a) the installed United Kingdom wind generation capacity and (b) the electricity it generated; and if he will make a statement. [132581]
  720W
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]The information required is as follows:

  Year

  Contracted capacity (MW)1

  Electricity Generation (GWh)2

  1995

  76.224

  379.510

  1996

  97.491

  482.953

  1997

  132.288

  656.935

  1998

  137.748

  873.047

  1999

  148.722

  3492.597

  1 The totals for contracted capacity (in Megawatts) are cumulative

  2 One Gigawatt hour (GWh) = 1,000 Megawatt Hours (MWh)

  3 The total for 1999 is less than that of 1998 because the contracts of wind projects supported under the First and Second Rounds of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation ceased at the end of 1998 and the compilation of further statistical data on their operation for 1999 and subsequent years has been discontinued

  The Government have a target of generating 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable sources by 2010, subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable. We expect both onshore and offshore wind to be needed to meet this target. The Government are taking a range of measures to encourage renewables including a proposed obligation on electricity suppliers, exemption of renewable energy from the Climate Change Levy and an expanded research and development programme. We are also considering the scope for limited additional support for more expensive technologies, including offshore wind.

  Parcelforce
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage by volume of Parcelforce's(a) domestic and (b) international mail is (i) under 10kg and (ii) between 10 and 20kg in weight; and if he will breakdown the above categories into (1) business to business post, (2) business to customer post and (3) non-business post. [132796]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]This is a commercial matter for the Post Office. It has informed me that:of UK parcels sent by businesses some 70 per cent. go to other businesses—the remainder go to home address.
  of export parcels sent by businesses some 75 per cent. go to other businesses—the remainder go to home addresses.
  of business-originated parcels within the UK some 80 per cent. is under 10kg in weight—only a fraction of the remainder is over 20kg in weight.
  of export parcels from businesses about 85 per cent. are under 10kg—again, only a fraction of the remainder is over 20kg in weight.

  Rover
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance is being planned for the Rover supply chain during the interruption to production of the Rover 75 while the production line is being moved from Oxford to Longbridge. [133760]

  Mr. Byers
  In April I announced a fund of £12 million to support the Rover supply chain in the West Midlands. This fund will now be available to assist companies in all regions of England who are heavily dependent on the revenue from supplying parts for the Rover 75. Some £5 million remains uncommitted in the fund for this purpose.

  North West Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements exist for his Department to consult the North West Development Agency on matters relating to economic and industrial development in the region. [132048]

  Mr. Caborn
  Monthly meetings take place between Ministers and all Regional Development Agency (RDA) Chairmen, which provide a regular opportunity for discussion and consultation. In addition, RDA Chairmen and Chief Executives meet DTI ministers on many occasions, and RDAs have contributed to written consultations on numerous policy proposals.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions in the last 12 months his Department's officials consulted the North West Development Agency on decisions it is taking in relation to economic development in the region. [132047]

  Mr. Caborn
  My officials in both HQ and the Government Office for the North West are in regular contact with the North West Development Agency, ensuring our policies on regional economic development are tailored to regional needs. Contact has taken the form of individual meetings, seminars and written communication.

  MOX Fuel (Japan)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will exercise his power as sole shareholder in BNFL to ensure that the full costs attributable to the return of the MOX fuel from Japan are clearly indicated on the Company's financial accounts. [132296]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand that BNFL is making full financial provision in its accounts for the MOX Demonstration Facility (MDF) data falsification events.

  Former Miners (Health)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners have attended the full medical assessment process at each of the spirometry centres in Durham and Newcastle; and what the figures are for each of the other centres in Great Britain. [132871]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 17 July, the number of full medical assessments per centre was:

  Centre

  Number of assessments completed

  Ayr

  44

  Barnsley

  7

  Cannock

  5

  Chesterfield

  4

  Coventry

  12

  Durham

  8

  Edinburgh

  83

  Glasgow

  79

  Leeds

  12

  Lochore

  57

  Manchester

  13

  Mansfield

  77

  Mexborough

  32

  Mountain Ash

  130

  722W

  Centre

  Number of assessments complete

  Newcastle

  11

  Newport

  289

  Nottingham

  58

  Pontefract

  45

  Sheffield

  76

  Swansea

  217

  Domiciliary visits

  139

  Total

  1,398

  Healthcall have the capacity to carry out 2,500 assessments per month now, rising steadily by September, but the actual throughput at each centre depends greatly on the speed with which solicitors send in the completed Claims Questionnaires and record holders release medical records. The rate at which solicitors are returning completed Claims Questionnaires and Mandates has picked up, but we still urge solicitors to do all they can to increase the numbers being sent to us. We have the capacity to deal with them.

  Coal State Aid Scheme
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the coal state aid scheme; and if he will make a statement. [133735]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am pleased to announce that on 26 July the UK Government formally applied to the European Commission for their approval to pay operating aid to United Kingdom coal producers over the period to July 2002. This notification follows extensive consultation by my Department with coal producers and purchasers to ensure that the scheme we are proposing meets the Government's objectives spelled out in the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's announcement of 17 April, and complies with European regulations.

  Our application to the Commission comprises an outline of our proposed scheme and a "Modernisation, Rationalisation and Restructuring Plan" as required by the European Coal and Steel Communities Treaty and subsequent decisions. These documents have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The European Commission must now consider our proposed scheme over the next three months.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132967]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Ministerial Duty Roster (Summer)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133065]
  723W
  Mr. Byers
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to publish a daily Ministerial Duty Roster. The Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Companies House
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has reached a decision on the future of Companies House following the review announced by the Minister for Competitiveness on 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 557–58W. [133762]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The first stage of the review of Companies House has now been completed. I am pleased to say that the review has confirmed that Companies House is performing well, both in meeting its own objectives and targets and in contributing to the achievement of wider Government objectives such as our e-Government strategy. Its standards of customer service are high, as shown by the award in 1998 of its third Charter Mark, and customers are generally satisfied with the service they get from Companies House. Companies House is already providing a wide range of services electronically. The CH Direct service offers electronic access to images of all documents dating back to 1995. All the major returns (except accounts) can be filed electronically. Plans are well advanced to introduce facilities to incorporate new companies electronically and to simplify the process for e-filing generally following the passing of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. Companies House is on track to have all services available electronically well in advance of the Government target of 2005.

  The functions carried out by Companies House—the incorporation of companies, registration of information about their continuing operations and provision of information to the public—are and will continue to be essential to ensuring effective, competitive markets. The Review has confirmed that those functions are best delivered by retaining Companies House as an Executive Agency and that there is a continuing role for the private sector in the delivery of Companies House services.

  The issue now is how Companies House can perform even better in future. I want to see Companies House continue to improve the quality of its services, setting and maintaining high standards of customer service and responsiveness to customer needs. Customers rightly look to Companies House as a reliable source of accurate and up-to-date information and we must ensure that it meets those expectations. Companies House will need to continue to modernise to improve the quality, range and flexibility of its services. Its operation is increasingly based on electronic interaction with customers, rather than the processing of paper, and this trend will continue, in line with the increasing use of e-commerce throughout the economy. Companies House's main operating system is now some 15 years old. It lacks flexibility and is not best-suited to supporting such an operation. It will therefore need to be replaced. The transition to a new system will need to be managed carefully and taken step by step to ensure that there is no interruption in the business. Substantial investment in IT will be required over the next three years or so to achieve this. Funding will be available from the cash reserves Companies House
  724W
  has built up during its period as a Trading Fund. This investment will lay the basis for an even more successful next five years.

  The report of stage 1 of the review of Companies House has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Stage 2 of the review is now starting and will be completed in the autumn. As I announced in February, this second stage will consider whether any changes should be made to the way in which Companies House operates, including its aims and objectives, targets and financial controls. It will also consider in more detail the costs and funding of the investment in new systems.

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Coal Authority's report and accounts for 1999–2000 will be laid before Parliament. [133736]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today laid a copy of the report before Parliament.

  Subsidies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will reconcile his answers of 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 27W, Ref. 130308 and 130309/10, concerning regional selective assistance for companies manufacturing cars, with particular reference to the two lists of companies. [133455]

  Mr. Byers
  The answer to Ref. 130308 concerned companies which received payments of grant since May 1998.

  The answer to Ref. 130309/10 concerned offers made since May 1997.

  Two of the companies, Vauxhall and Ford, shown in the list of those receiving payments since May 1998, had offers made before May 1997. They are therefore excluded from the list of offers made since May 1997.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has European Commission Competition Directorate approval to(a) subsidise the coal industry and (b) grant a subsidy to Toyoda. [133066]

  Mr. Byers
  I am seeking approval from the European Commission to a subsidy scheme to help the UK coal industry.

  Toyoda Gosei Company Ltd.—part of the Toyota Group of companies—received an offer of £1.7 million Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) in May 1999. Under the terms of the Motor Vehicle Framework for State Aid, no prior EU approval was required.

  Iran
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if there are trade sanctions against Iran. [133734]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no United Nations trade sanctions against Iran. A UK national arms embargo was imposed on 1 March 1993. It covers all goods and technology on the Military List as well as items entered in Group 0 in Annex 1 of the European Council Decision
  725W
  94/942/CFSP on the export of dual-use goods, as amended. An amendment was announced on 28 January 1998 to clarify that licences would not be approved for any equipment where there was knowledge or reason to suspect that it would go to a military end-user or be used for military purposes. The exception is equipment which would not normally require an export licence but is deemed licensable under the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) end-use control and where WMD concerns are not subsequently substantiated.

  All applications for export licences to Iran are considered by an interdepartmental committee of advisers and representatives from the DTI, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence. This committee meets once a month and makes recommendations on each application which are subsequently submitted to Ministers in the three Departments for approval. This procedure reflects the concerns that the Government has about exports to Iran and ensures that all licensing decisions are consistent with our policy.

  Oil and Gas Licensing
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the outcome of the 9 Landward Round of Oil and Gas Licensing. [133737]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am pleased to announce the award of 37 licences to 21 companies for onshore oil and gas exploration over 123 blocks. Licensees will now need to obtain any necessary consents from local planning authorities, who will take account of any environmental concerns, and to agree access terms with landowners before carrying out any on-site activities on these licences.

  The UK's onshore oil and gas industry has a strong future, as shown by the high level of interest in this round. The areas covered by the awards range from Scotland to southern England, and include acreage never previously considered for oil and gas exploration. It is encouraging to see licences going to new applicants from both the UK and overseas.

  Over 60 blocks are for mines gas and coalbed methane, offering the potential for new jobs in former mining communities. This gas will now contribute to the UK's energy supply rather than being wasted.

  Applications involving five companies are still being considered and I will make a further announcement when any outstanding issues have been resolved.

  Competition Commission
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what way Welsh interests are represented on the Competition Commission; and by whom. [133266]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competition Commission is not set up to represent different geographical areas. Its members are chosen on merit and experience.

  Institute of Arable Crops Research
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance his Department has provided through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to the Long Ashton Research 726W
  Station of the Institute of Arable Crops Research since 1997; and what this financial assistance is intended for. [132854]

  Ms Hewitt
  The main form of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) funding support to the Long Ashton Research Station (LARS) is via the Competitive Strategic Grant, which provides funding for basic and strategic research programmes that map onto BBSRC's priorities and underpins LARS's mission. Unlike university grants, for which the Higher Education Funding Councils provide the infrastructure element of "dual funding", the Competitive Strategic Grant and capital funding meets the full costs of the various programmes. BBSRC has also provided equipment and minor works grants. In addition, BBSRC has awarded funds to LARS for research projects which LARS scientists have won in competition with other scientists from the bioscience community.

  The table shows the funding of the Long Ashton Research Station from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council since 1997:

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Competitive Strategic Grant

  3,415

  3,435

  3,065

  Equipment

  175

  180

  180

  Minor Works

  70

  85

  55

  Research Grants

  675

  980

  875

  Total BBSRC Funding

  4,335

  4,680

  4,175

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132859]

  Dr. Howells
  KPMG was an adviser in one PFI/PPP contract involving the Department and its agencies.

  Gas-fired Power Station, Anglesey
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Burlington Resources (Irish Sea) Ltd.'s proposal to build a gas-fired power station at Rhosgoch on the Isle of Anglesey. [133738]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have received new information on the proposal to build a new 560 MW gas-fired power station at Rhosgoch, Anglesey. This was refused approval on 9 November 1999 on energy policy grounds and a direction under section 14(3) of the Energy Act 1976 to that effect was issued. However, as in all such cases, the Government indicated that they would be willing to reconsider their decision should new information come to their attention that there had been a significant change in circumstances.

  The Government have now received new information which warrants reconsideration of the proposal, not least on local and environmental grounds. After re-evaluating the further information, the Government have concluded that the proposal should not be halted on energy policy grounds and that the direction of 9 November 1999 should be revoked.
  727W
  However, local planning and other clearances are still required under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  I have placed copies of the Press Notice and the decision letter in the Library of the House.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which Minister in his Department has the lead responsibility for data protection in relation to websites; and if he will make a statement; [133053]

  (2) what recent representations he has received relating to the proposed prosecution of electricity generating companies under data protection law; [133070]

  (3) what powers he has in addition to those of the Data Protection Commissioner to prosecute companies in violation of data protection law. [133069]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has no responsibility for the protection of data held at or accessible through websites. My Department has no special powers to mount prosecutions under the Data Protection Act. We have received no representation about prosecutions of electricity generating companies under that Act, but are aware of the public interest in the recent security breach at the website of the supply business of PowerGen. While the standards of security of websites are not regulated, my Department takes seriously its responsibility for promoting good information security to business. This is one of the vital factors in ensuring confidence in e-business. My officials have therefore had discussions with the company to understand the circumstances that led to the security breach, how the company solved the technical issues and how the business community as a whole might learn from their experience. I understand that the company resolved the vulnerability quickly and are making great efforts to learn how their management controls allowed it to happen. They intend to make public the results of their inquiries. Furthermore, we are exploring with the company how best we might disseminate the lessons learnt to improve the performance of all those UK companies who are rising to the challenge of working on-line.

  Advisory Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [131446]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy),Official Report, column 799w.

  Departmental Groups
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list each group that is responsible to his Department, with significant and plural membership from outside the civil service, and to which the Nolan rules on non-departmental public bodies do not apply and for each 728W
  such group, if it (a) is a company limited by guarantee, (b) is a charity, (c) has no formal legal basis, and (d) has some other legal basis giving details. [131238]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office to my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright),Official Report, column 799w. All groups listed for this Department come under category (c).

  Directors' Remuneration
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will introduce legislation to give greater executive responsibility to shareholders in respect of directors' remuneration. [132803]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department of Trade and Industry published a consultation paper on directors' remuneration last year which put forward a number of proposals for improving disclosure of directors' remuneration and boards' accountability to shareholders. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make an announcement shortly on the Government's response to the consultation.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 2000,Official Report, column 174W, if he will list all departmental initiatives between May 1997 and 18 July 2000 requiring bids from voluntary organisations and local authorities for funding together with the total resources allocated to these initiatives, the number of successful bids and the proportion this represents of total bids received; and what data he collects on the average cost of preparing the bids for funding through each initiative. [132668]

  Dr. Howells
  A detailed breakdown of the Department's activities is given in the annual Expenditure Plans Report "Trade and Industry: The Government's Expenditure Plans (Cm 4611)", published by The Stationery Office Ltd.

  The Department of Trade and Industry does not collate information on the types of organisation applying for funding and such information could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. Applicants are not required to provide details of their application costs to the Department.

  Govan Shipyard
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what undertakings the Government gave to Govan Shipyard when it was bought by BAE Systems with regard to environmental liabilities. [130306]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]I have been asked to reply.

  No undertakings in respect of environmental liabilities at the Govan shipyard were given to BAE Systems. As reported to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, however, has entered into an agreement with Clydeport

  729W
  plc, who own the site, in relation to environmental improvements. Any aid will be provided under the European Union conditions applying at the time.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS (Africa)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the value of each project she is currently funding in Africa dealing with HIV/AIDS that would rate as principal expenditure under her PIMS marker system. [131621]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]The Policy Information Market System (PIMS) provides a framework which measures the extent to which DFID's projects and programmes are being targeted on key policy areas. PIMS covers bilateral commitments with a value of £100,000 or over. Contributions to multilateral agencies are excluded because they do not analyse their expenditure in the same way.

  There are 34 policy information markers which are scored according to which policy areas are targeted, either as a Principal or Significant objective. Principal objectives are those which are fundamental to the design of a programme or project, without which it would not be undertaken. Significant objectives are those which, although important, are not one of the primary reasons for undertaking the activities. Scoring against PIMS is an all-or-nothing procedure with the total commitment value or expenditure counting against each of the PIMS awarded to the project. As DFID policy areas are mutually supportive and overlapping, most new commitments contribute, to and are marked against, two or more markers.

  Some 46 bilateral projects dealing with HIV/AIDS in Africa, launched since 1997, are currently being funded that would rate as principal expenditure under DFID's PIMS market system. The total commitment for these projects is £82.9 million. A list will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's expenditure on HIV/AIDS in Africa will be marked as(a) principal and (b) significant under her Department's PIMS marker system; and what proportion is (i) multilateral and (ii) bilateral. [131615]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]The Policy Information Marker System (PIMS) provides a framework which measures the extent to which DFID's projects and programmes are being targeted on key policy areas. PIMS covers bilateral commitments with a value of £100,000 or over. Contributions to multilateral agencies are excluded because they do not analyse their expenditure in the same way.

  There are 34 policy information markers which are scored according to which policy areas are targeted, either as a Principal or Significant objective. Principal objectives are those which are fundamental to the design of a programme or project, without which it would not be undertaken. Significant objectives are those which, although important, are not one of the primary reasons for undertaking the activities. Scoring against PIMS is an all-or-nothing procedure with the total commitment value
  730W
  or expenditure counting against each of the PIMS awarded to the project. As DFID policy areas are mutually supportive and overlapping, most new commitments contribute to, and are marked against, two or more markers.

  The PIMS marker system excludes multilateral expenditure, although DIFD also contribute to HIV/AIDS through multilaterals. Our bilateral expenditure on HIV/AIDS in Africa from 1992–93 to 1999–2000 recorded under the PIMS marker system was as follows:

  £ million

  Principal

  Significant

  1992–93

  2 (50%)

  2 (50%)

  1993–94

  2 (50%)

  2 (50%)

  1994–95

  7 (78%)

  2 (22%)

  1995–96

  11 (79%)

  3 (21%)

  1996–97

  14 (74%)

  5 (26%)

  1997–98

  15 (79%)

  4 (21%)

  1998–99

  15 (75%)

  5 (25%)

  1999–2000

  13 (57%)

  10 (43%)

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent on principal AIDS programmes in Africa in financial year 1998–99 following her departmental PIMS marker system. [131617]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]The Policy Information Marker System (PIMS) provides a framework which measures the extent to which DFID's projects and programmes are being targeted on key policy areas. PIMS covers bilateral commitments with a value of £100,000 or over. Contributions to multilateral agencies are excluded because they do not analyse their expenditure in the same way.

  There are 34 policy information markers which are scored according to which policy areas are targeted, either as a Principal or Significant objective. Principal objectives are those which are fundamental to the design or a programme or project, without which it would not be undertaken. Significant objectives are those which, although important, are not one of the primary reasons for undertaking the activities. Scoring against PIMS is an all-or-nothing procedure with the total commitment value or expenditure counting against each of the PIMS awarded to the project. As DFID policy areas are mutually supportive and overlapping, most new commitments contribute to, and are marked against, two or more markers.

  In financial year 1998–99, £15 million was spent on programmes in Africa of which the principal purpose under the PIMS marker system is to combat HIV/AIDS. A further £5.4 million was spent on programmes which are marked as having a significant contribution to combat HIV/AIDS under the PIMS marker system.

  Nepal
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Nepal regarding the situation of indigenous groups and untouchables who are the victims of bonded labour in Nepal; and if she will make a statement. [132312]
  731W
  Mr. Foulkes
  Our officials have in recent weeks been in dialogue with senior Government of Nepal officials in the Home Ministry and Prime Minister's Office in support of the campaign to make bonded labour illegal in Nepal. I am pleased to report that the Government of Nepal decided on 17 July to make this practice illegal and in so doing cancelled all related debts. The challenge now is how to ensure legislation is enforced, and to support these individuals in securing future livelihood opportunities. In addition to existing UK support to an Integrated Social Development Programme which works directly with bonded labourers and untouchables, we have informed the Government of Nepal that the UK is ready to assist further in the rehabilitation of bonded labourers. We are also working to mobilise the support of other donors.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to ensure that the 1999 annual report of her Department is made available to blind and visually impaired people. [133105]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Given the relatively specialist nature of many of our publications, we have not normally made them available systematically in audio, braille or large print formats. The Departmental Report falls into this category. In the case of such publications, we consider any requests for audio or braille formats case by case and in the light of the provisions of the relevant legislation. We are however looking to continue to improve the accessibility of our publications for blind and visually impaired people, particularly in the case of those publications aimed at a broader public audience. This includes reviewing the scope for making more use of large print and audio formats, as well as ensuring the availability of material in appropriate formats via the internet.

  UN Consolidated Appeals
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the contributions her Department has made to UN Consolidated Appeals over the last three years. [132485]

  Mr. Foulkes
  According to UN figures, in the last three years (1997–1999) the UK contributed some US$170 million (£112 million) to UN consolidated appeals. This is broken down as follows:

  1997—US$51,913,597 (£34.2 million)

  1998—US$51,329,562 (£33.8 million)

  1999—US$66,893,817 (£44.0 million).

  Further details of UK contributions can be found in the tables below. However, these figures are reliant on data received through the UN's reporting systems, and do not necessarily give a full picture of UK funding.

  UK contributions to UN consolidated appeals—1997

  US$

  Country/region

  Amount

  Afghanistan

  8,477,420

  Albania

  291,035

  Angola

  514,317

  Brazil

  168,350

  Bulgaria

  144,355

  732W

  UK contributions to UN consolidated appeals—1997

  US$

  Country/region

  Amount

  Cambodia

  1,065,645

  Caucasus

  3,013,995

  Chechnya

  274,193

  Colombia

  32,200

  Former Yugoslavia

  16,364,746

  Ghana

  300,000

  Great Lakes

  6,728,323

  Haiti

  146,726

  Iraq

  3,794,996

  Laos

  238,710

  Liberia

  2,184,317

  Madagascar

  68,637

  Malawi

  209,677

  North Korea

  798,387

  Peru

  80,645

  Tajikistan

  3,242,774

  Sierra Leone

  318,460

  Solomon Islands

  17,121

  Somalia

  609,732

  Sri Lanka

  1,227,703

  Sudan

  1,589,068

  West Africa

  12,065

  Total

  51,913,597

  UK contributions to UN consolidated appeals—1998

  US$

  Country/region

  Amount

  Afghanistan

  7,693,260

  Angola

  3,190,630

  Eritrea

  285,000

  Former Yugoslavia

  5,532,938

  Great Lakes

  6,450,940

  Kosovo

  1,680,791

  Liberia

  725,333

  Sierra Leone

  753,103

  Sudan

  31,333,716

  Total

  51,329,562

  UK contributions to UN consolidated appeals—1999

  US$

  Country/region

  Amount

  Afghanistan

  3,459,961

  Angola

  8,883,016

  Burundi

  350,000

  Caucasus

  1,450,000

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  550,000

  East Timor

  4,060,492

  Great Lakes/Central Africa

  277,936,549

  Sierra Leone

  242,925

  Somalia

  480,000

  South Eastern Europe

  39,024,792

  Sudan

  7,885,481

  Uganda

  137,150

  Total

  66,893,817

  Ministerial Duty Roster (Summer)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the daily Ministerial Duty Roster for her Department during the summer adjournment. [133071]
  733W
  Mr. Foulkes
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to publish a daily Ministerial Duty Roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment he has made of the impact of cases brought under the European Convention on Human Rights on the work load of the CPS. [131296]

  The Solicitor-General
  The significance of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the work of the CPS was recognised at an early stage, and a high priority has been given to ensure that preparations are well under way for implementation of the Act in October 2000.

  An assessment of the impact of the Human Rights Act was carried out by the CPS in conjunction with other prosecuting agencies, the Home Office, Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury.

  In consultation with other prosecuting agencies and leading external human rights experts, the CPS has developed a comprehensive training course for CPS prosecutors. The training programme aims to reach over 3,000 key staff before the end of July.

  This training programme and the continued guidance and advice that CPS staff will receive will ensure that cases giving rise to Human Rights issues will be dealt with in a wholly professional and effective manner. Initially, we expect that human rights problems will be raised in ordinary cases, and they will be dealt with in the ordinary way. We have anticipated additional costs, and there is no doubt that they will arise.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on measurement of the satisfaction of victims of crime with the Crown Prosecution Service. [131297]

  The Solicitor-General
  A key objective in the criminal justice system Strategic Plan 1999 to 2002 is to meet the needs of victims, witnesses and jurors within the system.

  Victim satisfaction is currently measured by the British Crime Survey, conducted by the Home Office. This focuses on satisfaction with police performance. As the CPS takes on an enhanced role in relation to victim care, an inter-agency steering group will consider how best to measure victim satisfaction with CPS performance.

  A witness satisfaction survey, conducted by BMRB Social Research on behalf of the Home Office, is to take place this month and next. The CPS co-operated with the planning of this survey, which will obtain a broad indication of the level of satisfaction of witnesses with their treatment by criminal justice agencies.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the role of the CPS in ensuring the effective prosecution of incidents of domestic violence. [131298]

  The Solicitor-General
  Violence against women is a serious crime with serious consequences for victims, families and whole communities.

  The Crown Prosecution Service regards violence in a domestic context as particularly serious. Prosecutors will therefore consider the full range of prosecution options, whether or not the victim is willing or able to attend court as a witness.

  The CPS is fully committed to working with its partners in the criminal justice system to fight against domestic violence.

  Treasury Solicitor
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria were adopted in the selection process for the recently appointed Treasury Solicitor. [131299]

  The Solicitor-General
  The essential criterion used in selecting the new Treasury Solicitor was whether he or she could fulfil the role. This means that the successful candidate should, among other things, be able personally to give advice to Ministers on a range of legal issues, often of a highly sensitive nature; be able to act as the Chief Executive of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, which is an executive agency; be able to act as Head of the Government Legal Service with overall responsibility for recruitment, training and career development of some 1,300 Government lawyers; and, finally, be able to implement the Modernising Government programme within the Government Legal Service. Miss Juliet Wheldon, who is the new Treasury solicitor, fully meets all of these requirements.

  Prosecution Times
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the co-operation between the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the courts in reducing the average time taken between arrest and sentencing of criminals. [131300]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is continuing to improve working practices with the police and courts to improve performance, building on recommendations made by both the Narey report and Glidewell. Measures taken include: advance information in every early hearing case; a reduction in the number of first hearings; more lawyer time spent on preparing for trials though the deployment of designated caseworkers; and reducing duplication and delay by moving towards co-locating CPS staff with police staff in joint criminal justice units.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on morale in the Crown Prosecution Service. [131292]
  735W
  The Solicitor-General
  The SR 2000 settlement for the CPS, which was announced last week, was a good settlement and was well received by staff in the CPS. It will provide a much needed boost to hard pressed prosecutors and caseworkers. As a result, the CPS's budget in 2001–02 will be 12 per cent. higher in real terms than now. This is on top of the additional funding of £15.8 million for 2000–01 which I announced on 26 June 2000. These increases will address the concerns about resource constraints which were identified in the recent staff survey and stress audit.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans he has to introduce guidance for the Crown Prosecution Service on decisions to drop cases on grounds of lack of credibility of a witness where the witness suffers from mental health problems. [132903]

  The Solicitor-General
  None. The Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the DPP under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 gives guidance to prosecutors for use when deciding whether or not a case should be prosecuted. The code states that Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction before a case may be prosecuted. When considering this, prosecutors will consider the admissibility and reliability of the evidence. This will include considering the credibility of each witness and any factors which impact on a witness's credibility. The code is presently under review and a revised edition will be published later this year.

  The CPS is working with other criminal justice agencies to take forward initiatives recommended in the report "Speaking Up for Justice". The recommendations of the report aim to improve access to justice for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. These initiatives include measures designed to assist vulnerable witnesses, including those with a disability, to give evidence in court proceedings. The availability of such measures will be a relevant consideration for prosecutors when making prosecution decisions.

  Ministerial Duty Rota (Summer)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will publish(a) the Ministerial Duty Rota for his Department during the summer adjournment and (b) the dates between which (i) the Attorney-General and (ii) the Solicitor-General will be on annual leave during the adjournment and not available for official duties. [133159]

  The Solicitor-General
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish a daily Ministerial Duty Roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code. Likewise, it is not normal practice to disclose Ministers' holiday plans, as this is personal information.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General what official overseas visits the Law Officers plan to make during the summer adjournment. [133160]

  The Solicitor-General
  I am making no official visits overseas during the summer adjournment. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General is visiting the following countries on official business: (i) South Africa, to attend 736W
  the International Association of Prosecutors Conference in Cape Town; (ii) Germany, to see the Army Prosecuting Authority's court system in Bielefeld; (iii) Brazil, to attend the First World Congress for Attorneys-General in Sao Paulo; and (iv) China, to attend, at the personal invitation of the Deputy Procurator General, the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation in Beijing.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132960]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  CPS (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will order an inquiry into the handling by the Essex Crown Prosecution Service of a case of alleged careless driving in respect of a fatal accident at Colchester on 6 May 1999; and if he will make a statement. [131076]

  The Solicitor-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 July 2000, c. 174]The fatal road traffic accident which happened in Colchester on 6 May 1999 was a tragedy. Understandably, the family of the deceased feels let down by the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to continue with the prosecution of the defendant for the offence of careless driving.

  On 10 July 2000, Official Report, column 174W, I informed the hon. Member in a written answer that I would be speaking to the Chief Crown Prosecutor to discuss the circumstances of the case.

  I have now met with the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Essex and the Branch Crown Prosecutor responsible for the prosecution team. I am satisfied with the explanation that I have been given as to why the criminal prosecution in this case was discontinued.

  The history of the proceedings is this: the police were instructed to issue summons against the defendant for careless driving on 21 September 1999.

  The case was listed at Colchester magistrates court for 9 November 1999 but was adjourned by agreement to 7 December to enable the defence to look at the prosecution statements. After the defendant entered a not guilty plea a pre-trial review was fixed for 21 December 1999. At the review the defence requested an adjournment to look into possible defects in the motor vehicle which the defendant was driving when the incident occurred. On 11 January 2000 the defence confirmed that the issue of defects to the motor vehicle would not be pursued. On the same day a medical report was faxed to the court which suggested that the defendant had a medical condition that would have affected her driving.

  As the prosecution had not seen this medical evidence before it asked for the case to be adjourned for the Crown to look at the report and consider obtaining its own medical report. The case was therefore adjourned until 22 February 2000. However, on 26 January the defence made a request to the court that as the date and venue fixed was not convenient for the defence the matter be adjourned until 2 May 2000.
  737W
  Meanwhile, a first medical report obtained on behalf of the prosecution was received at the CPS Branch Office on 14 February 2000. Unfortunately, the report was sent in an envelope marked "personal" so therefore was not opened until the lawyer dealing with the case returned from annual leave two weeks later. Hearing dates which had been fixed by the court (i.e. 4 and 18 April and 16 and 30 May) had to be adjourned at the request of the prosecution, so that points raised in the medical report which had been obtained could be clarified. Further medical reports were obtained by the prosecution on 25 April and 24 May 2000.

  During the week of 1 May there was a case conference with the prosecution team at which it was concluded that it would not be possible to prove the case against the defendant. This was in the light of the evidence that the defendant was suffering an epileptic fit at the relevant time and therefore was not "driving". Consideration was given to proceeding with the case on an alternative basis but alternative charges were statute barred.

  As I said, I have spoken at length with both the Chief Crown Prosecutor and the Branch Crown Prosecutor. Both took this case extremely seriously. Indeed the Branch Crown Prosecutor who had immediate carriage of the case pursued it in what I would describe as an exemplary manner. But the plain fact is that the Crown Prosecution Service could not prosecute—indeed it would have been unlawful to do so—in the face of the medical evidence.

  The Chief Crown Prosecutor for Essex and I, either separately or together, will be happy to meet the hon. Member if he so wishes, to discuss the case.

DEFENCE

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in its strategic environmental appraisal of the Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [133603]

  Dr. Moonie
  The study phase of the Strategic Environmental Appraisal concluded in March of this year and my Department's review of its recommendations has now also been completed. I am able to announce to the House that I am publishing the report and will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Centre for Defence Medicine
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many beds the Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham will house; what the projected size is of its outpatient throughput; what the size is of its civilian catchment area; and if he will make a statement. [132473]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Centre for Defence Medicine (CDM) will have academic teaching and clinical roles and will be a centre of excellence for military medicine. It will be relatively small at the beginning and will develop steadily over a number of years. The clinical element will be similar to the arrangements at the Ministry of Defence Hospital Units, with, initially, one ward of 32 beds staffed 738W
  and managed by Defence Medical Services (DMS) personnel and other DMS personnel integrated throughout the host Trust. DMS personnel will treat both Service and civilian patients. It is envisaged that when the CDM is fully developed its clinical side will have an annual throughput of some 2,700 Service outpatients. The catchment area for civilian patients will be the same as for the host Trust, the University Hospital Birmingham, within the West Midlands region. As a major tertiary care provider, the Trust treats patients from throughout the country and the DMS personnel will also have the opportunity to treat such patients.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what incentives are(a) in place and (b) being planned to improve the retention rates for fully qualified medical personnel in the Defence Medical Services. [132167]

  Dr. Moonie
  A number of measures to improve retention in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) have been taken or are under active consideration. The decision to open the Centre for Defence Medicine (CDM) at Birmingham in April 2001 has been enthusiastically welcomed by members of the DMS. It is intended that the CDM will become, in partnership with its host Trust, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, together with the University of Birmingham, a prestigious centre of expertise in military medicine, which we are confident will encourage retention of DMS personnel.

  The frequency of operational deployments has been reduced for some specialties in Bosnia by the development of a multinational hospital facility at Sipovo, and work is in hand for a similar facility in Kosovo. Distinction Awards were introduced with effect from 1 April 1999 to bring DMS consultants' pay more closely into line with that of their NHS counterparts. Common terms of service have been agreed for medical and dental officers and pay spines based on these were submitted to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in January 2000 for approval in principle. Future pension arrangements for medical and dental officers are also under review; a number of options are under consideration but no decisions have yet been taken. Common terms of service have also been agreed for nurses and work is in hand on the delivery of common terms of service for medical technicians. This year we introduced an annual Continuous Attitude Survey among all DMS personnel which will help inform our work on measures to improve retention.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) medical training facilities, (b) military facilities and (c) field hospitals will be housed in the new Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham. [132549]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Centre for Defence Medicine is envisaged as being the future professional focus for the Defence Medical Services, with academic, research and teaching roles as well as a significant clinical function. The Centre will be accommodated in a mix of facilities which will, as appropriate, either be shared with our civilian partners or run by military personnel. The latter will include a headquarters, wards staffed and managed
  739W
  by military medical personnel, mess facilities and domestic accommodation. There are no plans to locate any Field Hospitals at the CDM. There is, however a Territorial Army Field Hospital at Birmingham, some of whose members are employed by the host Trust, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the recommended manpower level is for consultants in(a) burns and plastics and (b) accident and emergency in the Defence Medical Services; [132165]

  (2) how many consultants are employed in (a) burns and plastics and (b) accident and emergency in the Defence Medical Services. [132163]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Medical Services' post-Strategic Defence Review (SDR) requirement for consultants in burns and plastic surgery and accident and emergency, and the number of consultants employed in these specialties as at 1 April 2000 are as follows:

  Post-SDR operational and retained task requirement

  Manning as at 1 April 2000

  Percentage manned

  General medical practitioners

  437

  208

  48

  Consultant orthopaedic surgeons

  28

  9

  32

  Consultant anaesthetists

  120

  30

  25

  Note:

  Figures include those in Command and Staff posts but exclude trainees.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how the overall recommended manpower strength of the Defence Medical Services has changed since June 1999; and whether there has been an increase in the actual strength; [132551]

  (2) how many field hospitals the Defence Medical Services can deploy simultaneously; [132471]

  (3) how many of the regular personnel to be recruited into Defence Medical Services will be (a) direct entry qualified personnel and (b) trainees. 1132550]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministry of Defence Hospital Units
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of maintaining a single service identity for the Military District Hospital units. [132166]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs) are part of the tri-Service Defence Secondary Care Agency and it is the Ministry of Defence's policy that they should be manned by personnel of the three Services, but that responsibility for recruitment, career management and promotion should remain with the single Services. The MDHUs are located in areas where there were previously single Service hospitals and, in practice, the majority of Service personnel at each MDHU have, so far, been of the same Service as the previous military
  740W

  Post-SDR consultant requirement

  Manning as at 1 April 2000

  Burns and Plastic Surgery

  10

  2

  Accident and Emergency

  23

  3

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of the establishments for(a) general practitioners, (b) orthopaedic surgeons and (c) anaesthetists in the Defence Medical Services are currently filled; [132169]

  (2) what the post-Strategic Defence Review establishments are for (a) general practitioners, (b) orthopaedic surgeons and (c) anaesthetists in the Defence Medical Services. [132168]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Medical Services' post-Strategic Defence Review (SDR) operational and retained task requirement for general medical practitioners, consultant orthopaedic surgeons and anaesthetists, and the numbers employed in these specialities as at 1 April 2000 are as follows:

  hospital and of many of the other local units. This pattern reflects individuals' posting preferences, which the armed forces seek to meet where possible. We recognise the benefits to morale of posting individuals to their preferred locations and they are not posted elsewhere except where this is necessary for manning or operational reasons or for the development of their careers.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average waiting times are for a first appointment for armed forces personnel in each of the single Service Military District Hospital units at(a) Derriford, (b) Frimley Park and (c) Peterborough. [132164]

  Dr. Moonie
  Data on the treatment of Service personnel at the four tri-Service Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs) situated in Derriford, Peterborough, Frimley Park and Northallerton NHS Trusts is not collected in the format requested. In 1999–2000 the MDHUs aimed to offer 50 per cent. of Service personnel a first outpatient appointment within four weeks and 90 per cent. within 13 weeks. Details on their performance in meeting these targets are as follows, except for Derriford for which no information is currently available.

  MDHU

  Percentage seen in four weeks

  Percentage seen in 13 weeks

  Frimley Park

  49

  83

  Northallerton

  41

  79

  Peterborough

  28

  84

  741W
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many beds there are at each of the military district hospital units at(a) Derriford, (b) Frimley Park and (c) Peterborough; and what percentage of these are set aside for the fast-tracking of military personnel. [132470]

  Dr. Moonie
  The four Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs) at Derriford, Frimley Park, Peterborough and Northallerton are fully integrated within their host NHS Trusts and treat both military and NHS patients. Details of the number of beds in military managed wards at each MDHU are as follows. Military patients, however, may be treated on any ward of the host hospital and no beds are allocated for their exclusive use.

  MDHU

  Beds in military managed wards

  Derriford

  35

  Frimley Park

  58

  Peterborough

  29

  Northallerton

  136

  1 54 from October 2000

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the disposals of his Department's land, buildings and property(a) agreed, (b) contracted for and (c) planned (i) in the Surrey Heath parliamentary constituency, of any value and (ii) within the UK as a whole, where the net value exceeds £1 million. [132914]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally in the format requested. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Staff College
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the use of the staff college site at Camberley; and if he will make a statement. [132917]

  Dr. Moonie
  Future use of the former Army Staff College site has been under review for some time. Pending further work on a longer-term option, an alternative short-term use has been found.

  The Army Medical Services Headquarters and the Army Medical and Legal Branch will be relocated at the Camberley site later this year.

  Once a final decision has been made I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Apache helicopters have been delivered to the UK; how many are (i) fully serviceable, (ii) unserviceable and (iii) cleared for public flying; and if he will make a statement. [132851]

  Dr. Moonie
  Three Apache helicopters have been delivered to the UK MOD to date. The first WAH-64 Apache was delivered to DERA Boscombe Down for trials; two further aircraft have been delivered to the Army Air Corps in Middle Wallop, and training sorties are in 742W
  progress. Regarding the point on clearance for public flying, and assuming this meant flying at public displays, such clearance is customarily done on an "as required" basis; any of the three delivered aircraft could be so cleared if required.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) explosive ordnance disposal and (b) contamination clearance will be completed at the RAF Chilmark site. [132174]

  Dr. Moonie
  The explosive ordnance disposal on the Headquarters site at RAF Chilmark is programmed for completion by mid-October 2000. On the Ladydown site it is expected to take 2 to 3 years.

  The extent of contamination which requires clearance cannot be assessed until the explosive ordnance has been completed. A further statement will be made when the timescale is known.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the HQ North and HQ South parts of the RAF Chilmark site must be re-checked for explosive ordnance; and when this will be(a) started and (b) completed. [132173]

  Dr. Moonie
  The HQ North and HQ South parts of the RAF Chilmark site, together with the Proof Yard, are being re-checked for explosive ordnance following the discovery of projectiles in the Proof Yard in May 2000.

  The re-checking started in May 2000 and is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Crichel Down rules apply to the site of former RAF Chilmark; and if he will list(a) the former owners and (b) those who are in negotiation with his Department. [132172]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Crichel Down rules apply to the former RAF Chilmark as they do to all surplus Government land acquired by or under the threat of compulsion. My Department has concluded that the obligation to offer land back to the former owners applies to parts of the site.

  My Department is trying to trace the former owners or successors to establish whether they are interested in repurchasing the land. It is not possible to identify the former owners until this process has been completed. However, my Department is in discussion with Salisbury District Council, Wiltshire County Council, English Nature and the Wiltshire Trust, who are seeking to establish the Chilmark Trust in order to acquire the site. My Department will not be able to conclude discussions until the former owner position is clarified.

  Defence Estates
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from(a) farming unions and (b) the Country Landowners Association in Wales, with regard to transfer of responsibility of the Defence Estates management to the private sector. [132733]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.
  743W
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if agreements reached between his Department and owners of land adjoining land owned by his Department will be fully honoured following transfer of the Defence Estates management to the private sector. [132734]

  Dr. Moonie
  As the hon. Member is aware, the Army are seeking a Strategic Partner to assist with the management of their estate and the provision of training services in Great Britain. In this context, such agreements will be fully honoured.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff will be made redundant as a result of his Department's Defence Estates being transferred to the private sector in Wales, indicating the numbers involved in each defence location in Wales. [132737]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department's Defence Estate in Wales is not being transferred to the private sector. The Ministry of Defence seeks to identify a commercial partner to support the work of the Army in the management of their estate and the provision of training services in Great Britain. The chosen partner will provide all the non-core functions considered appropriate. The strategic partnering project is in a very early stage and it is not possible to say with any certainty what the impact of introducing a strategic partner will be on the existing operation and on the consequent employment opportunities for local staff.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what statutory mechanism will be put in place to settle disputes between adjoining landowners and occupiers of land and the company managing the Defence Estates, following transfer to the private sector. [132736]

  Dr. Moonie
  As the hon. Member is aware, the Army are seeking a Strategic Partner to assist with the management of their estate and the provision of training services in Great Britain.

  In this context, there are no plans to put in place such a statutory mechanism. Disputes will be settled as they arise, as they are now.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is in respect of privatisation of his Department's Training Land Estate. [132738]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department's Training Land Estate is not being transferred to the private sector, although, as the hon. Member is aware, the Army are seeking a Strategic partner to assist with the management of their Estate and the provision of training services in Great Britain.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the current nominal level of rental charges for sheep grazing on his Department's grazings will be secured after privatisation and continued at current levels. [132735]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to transfer the Defence Estate to the private sector, although as the hon. Member is aware, the Army are seeking a Strategic Partner to assist with the management of their estate and the provision of training services in Great Britain. Irrespective of any partnering arrangements that may be entered into, grazing 744W
  charges will continue to be set in the same way as they are now, against a number of factors including annual income trends, stock prices and farm rental comparisons.

  Army Deployment (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the additional Army deployment in Northern Ireland was in July by way of assistance given to the RUC in the Portadown area. [131391]

  Mr. Spellar
  An additional 1,483 soldiers were deployed in the Portadown area in July to support the RUC.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers were assigned to duties under the control of the RUC in Portadown in July. [131392]

  Mr. Spellar
  Soldiers assisted the RUC at Portadown in a variety of roles, but they remained under military command.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers were issued RUC riot equipment and uniforms in Portadown in July. [131393]

  Mr. Spellar
  No soldiers were issued with RUC riot equipment in July. However, six soldiers from the Royal Military Police who were supporting the RUC in evidence gathering teams were issued with police coveralls. The soldiers wore helmets and armbands which clearly indicated that they were military police.

  Static Code Analysis
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if static code analysis for validating software is part of current Defence Standards; and if he will make a statement. [131782]

  Dr. Moonie
  Static code analysis is one of several techniques for analysing software set out in Defence Standards. Reference to static code analysis can be found in Defence Standard 00–55 (Part 2). "Requirements for Safety Related Software in Defence Equipment" and in Defence Standard 00–13 "Requirements for the Achievement of Testability in Electronic and Allied Equipment". These documents are available on the internet at www.dstan.mod.uk.

  Eskmeals Range
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the projects undertaken at the DERA Eskmeals Range in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 2000. [132160]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]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. Robert Key, dated 27 July 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about the work undertaken at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range at Eskmeals.

  745W
  The major projects and trials undertaken at the range during (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 2000 are as follows:
  1997

  155mm AS90 Self Propelled Gun

  105mm Light Gun

  120mm Mortar

  81mm Mortar

  Trials of future armours

  Trials of mines against Armoured Fighting vehicles

  Armour plate proof

  Gun Barrel Proof

  1998

  155mm AS90 Self Propelled Gun

  4.5 inch Naval Gun

  105mm Light Gun

  120mm Mortar

  81mm Mortar

  Disposal of 75mm and 105mm ammunition

  Trials of future armours

  Trials of mines against Armoured Fighting Vehicles

  Armour plate proof

  2000 to date

  155mm AS90 Self Propelled Gun

  105mm Light Gun

  81mm Mortar

  Trials of future armours

  Trials of mines against Armoured Fighting Vehicles

  I hope the above is helpful.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people by(a) rank and (b) grade are employed at the DERA Eskmeals Range. [132158]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]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. Robert Key, dated 27 July 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about the numbers and types of staff employed at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range at Eskmeals.
  There are currently some 135 staff employed at the range, of these 37 are DERA, 3 military (one major and two warrant officers) and 95 contractor staff, principally from SERCO. DERA staff are mainly managers and supervisors, with a small number in administrative support roles. Three quarters of the SERCO staff are skilled or semi-skilled technicians. The remainder are managers, supervisors and manual labourers.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been(a) the client income and (b) the cost of the DERA Eskmeals Range in each year since 1996. [132159]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]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 John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 27 July 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about the financial operation of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range at Eskmeals.
  746W
  The client income and the cost of the range in each year since 1996 is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1996–97

  Client income

  5.2

  Costs

  8.5

  1997–98

  Client income

  8.2

  Costs

  8.4

  1998–99

  Client income

  5.0

  Costs

  7.3

  1999–2000

  Client income

  3.3

  Costs

  5.9

  The above figures in respect of client income exclude a capability retention levy which is paid by the Ministry of Defence to ensure that strategic technical capabilities are maintained.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  Defence Attaches
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at how many British embassies Defence Attaches were stationed in each financial year since 1993–94. [132785]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of British embassies at which Defence Attaches were stationed in each financial year since 1993–94 is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number

  1993–94

  74

  1994–95

  72

  1995–96

  72

  1996–97

  70

  1997–98

  70

  1998–99

  72

  1999–2000

  73

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Defence Attaches were employed by his Department in each financial year since 1993–94. [132787]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of Defence Attaches that were employed by the Ministry of Defence in each financial year since 1993–94 is as follows:

  Financial year

  Employed

  1993–94

  129

  1994–95

  116

  1995–96

  116

  1996–97

  116

  1997–98

  116

  1998–99

  115

  1999–2000

  118

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the functions of Defence Attaches; and if he will make a statement. [132786]
  747W
  Mr. Spellar
  The functions of Defence Attaches are as follows:To develop the bilateral defence relationship between the United Kingdom and the country or countries of accreditation in furtherance of our Defence Diplomacy aims.
  To provide timely and comprehensive defence advice to the Head of Mission (Ambassador or High Commissioner).
  To act as representative of the United Kingdom's Chief of Defence Staff and Single Service Chiefs in the country or countries of accreditation.
  To satisfy tasking requests from the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and the Single Service Staffs.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the overall cost of Defence Attaches in each financial year since 1993–94. [132788]

  Mr. Spellar
  The overall cost of Defence Attaches in each financial year since 1993–94 is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1993–94

  21.640

  1994–95

  21.110

  1995–96

  20.635

  1996–97

  22.471

  1997–98

  22.071

  1998–99

  23.202

  1999–2000

  23.925

  Uniform Manufacture
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those items of the standard uniform worn by members of the armed forces which are manufactured overseas; and if he will make a statement. [128699]

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

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the average cost to public funds is of external advisers in the negotiation of private finance initiative projects in his Department, expressed as a proportion of each contract's value; [130259]

  (2) what the net present cost is of each project undertaken in his Department under the private finance initiative; what the value is of their public sector comparators in (a) pre-risk and (b) risk-adjusted terms; what risks have been identified as having been transferred; and if he will place information on other relevant costs for each private finance initiative project in the Library. [130250]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Missile Defence System
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2000,Official Report, column 409W, on the 1985 Memorandum of Understanding relating to Co-operative Research for the Strategic Defence Initiative, what technologies have been subject to information exchange under that initiative.[132568]
  748W
  Mr. Hoon
  The 1985 Memorandum of Understanding allows for exchange of information and research on a wide range of technologies. Most recently these have been in the areas of radar, tracking, countermeasures, lethality, guidance laws and discrimination.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer, of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 433W, on the Missile Defence System, what missile defence programmes the United Kingdom is involved in. [132565]

  Mr. Hoon
  The only Ballistic Missile Defence Programme in the UK is the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme (TRRAP). The UK is not involved in any US BMD development programmes. The UK is, however, involved in collaborative research and information exchange on the technologies related to Ballistic Missile Defence.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered(a) citing disproportionate cost, (b) stating that the information is not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested and (c) citing commercial or other confidentiality. [132468]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]The Ministry of Defence cited disproportionate cost on 73 occasions between 19 October 1999 and 20 April. The information requested at(b) and (c) cannot be provided as it is not held by the Ministry of Defence in the form requested. That information might be available to the hon. Member through the Library of the House.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 2000,Official Report, column 182W, on parliamentary answers, in which answers his Department has used the mechanism of a pursuant answer. [132567]

  Dr. Moonie
  The three pursuant answers given by the Ministry of Defence can be found in the Official Report as listed:
  Reply to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), 7 July 2000, Official Report, column 340W.
  Reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), 10 July 2000, Official Report, columns 381–82W.
  Reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), 12 July 2000, Official Report, column 574W.

  Military Police
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the differences in the(a) legal powers and (b) effectiveness of (i) his Department's police and (ii) the military police of the three Services. [124932]

  Mr. Spellar
  The roles and responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) and the Service Police are different (though complementary) and this is reflected in their powers. Both have a high level of expertise in their respective areas.

  HMS Wilton
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the disposal of HMS Wilton; what response he has made to the representations from the Maritime Preservation Society on this ship; and if he will make a statement. [125962]

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

  Personnel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women serving in the UK armed forces on 1 July were from ethnic minorities. [132842]

  Mr. Spellar
  Figures for 1 July 2000 are not yet available. As at 1 June 2000, the ethnic minority strength of the armed forces was as follows:

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Percentage of total strength

  Naval Service

  357

  26

  383

  0.9

  Army

  1,579

  154

  1,733

  1.6

  RAF

  554

  51

  605

  1.1

  Total Services

  2,490

  231

  2,721

  1.3

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel, in each service, are unfit for duty due to ill health; and what percentage this represents of the manpower in each case. [132472]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will provide a detailed description of the simulator used by Boeing as part of the Board of Inquiry investigation into RAF Chinook ZD576; [133034]

  (2) if he will provide a detailed description of the simulator used by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency during the Board of Inquiry investigation into RAF Chinook ZD576; [133035]

  (3) if the Boeing simulation undertaken as part of the Board of Inquiry investigation into the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576 was able to determine the precise (a) speed and (b) height of the aircraft prior to the last five seconds before impact. [133038]

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

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of the efficiency savings measures taken in financial year 1999–2000 that resulted in over £100,000 savings per annum with a brief explanation of each measure. [132817]

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

  Ministerial Duty Roster (Summer)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133075]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish ministerial duty rosters. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Armed Forces have cited poor accommodation as among the reasons for their decision to return to civilian life. [133417]

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

HEALTH

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Annual Report and Accounts of the NHS Pensions Agency. [133739]

  Mr. Denham
  We have approved the Report and Accounts, which have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Ministerial Duty Roster (Summer)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for his Department during the summer recess. [133074]

  Ms Stuart
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily ministerial duty roster. The Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  EU Food Hygiene Regulations
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for requiring the registration of food outlets under the new EU food hygiene regulations; if these will apply to charity events; and what level of(a) charges for licences and (b) fines for transgressions he proposes to apply. [132822]

  Ms Stuart
  Food premises are already required to be registered under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991, as amended. The regulations exempt, subject to certain conditions, voluntary and charitable organisations from the requirement to register. There is no charge for registration. Fines for offences on conviction may not exceed either level 3 or level 5 on the standard scale, depending on the offence.
  751W
  The European Commission has presented five inter-linked proposals for regulations on food safety rules and associated animal health controls. These are intended to replace some 16 commodity-specific EC directives and the general food hygiene directive that applies to all other foodstuffs. The initial drafts of these regulations show a proposed coming into force date of 1 January 2004. The first meeting of experts took place on 25 and 26 July where the Commission presented the proposals and laid down its intended plans for tackling the wide range of issues. Regarding registration requirements for food premises, the United Kingdom will seek to ensure continuity with current domestic requirements.

  It is likely that, following the summer break, meetings will take place in Brussels on a monthly basis. In the meantime, we are in the process of consulting with interested parties and stakeholders to seek their views.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question tabled on 11 July by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent on non-executive directorships of National Health Service trusts (ref. 130534). [133140]

  Ms Stuart
  I replied to the hon. Member on 25 July.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the Government plans to trace the food products which may contain oil produced from British oil seed rape affected by the contamination of Advanta rapeseeds by GM rapeseeds; [124154]

  (2) if the Government plans to publish advice to consumers wishing to avoid food containing ingredients produced from crops grown from conventional Advanta rapeseed contaminated with GM rapeseed. [124162]

  Ms Stuart
  No decision has yet been taken as to how crops grown from the contaminated rapeseed will be disposed of but the genetically modified element of the crop does not have the necessary authorisation under the Deliberate Release Directive (90/220) to enable it to be commercially marketed in the EC.

  I am however, advised by the Food Standards Agency that while there is a possibility that some rapeseed containing a very low level of GM seed may have been grown in the UK last year, there is no information available on where this might have occurred. There is thus no way of being able to trace any oil from this source that may have entered the food chain as the oil cannot be distinguished from conventionally produced rapeseed oil by analytical means. This will in any case have been mixed with oil from other sources and dispersed widely.

  The amount of oil from GM rapeseed in any single food product is likely to be extremely small, if it is present at all, but for the reasons given, there is no obvious way for consumers to be able to identify products which might contain traces of the GM derived oil.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2000,Official
  752W
  Report, column 437W, on cancer treatment, if he will estimate the percentage of cancer referrals in the NHS which are seen by (a) a cancer specialist and (b) a general surgeon in the most recent 12 months for which figures for referrals are available. [128593]

  Yvette Cooper
  Data specific to the monitoring of the two-week waiting time breast cancer standard record the waiting time between date of decision to refer and date seen. They do not record the specialist seen by the patient. Data collected on non-two-week specific outpatient referrals and the waiting time to see a consultant are collected only by the consultant's main speciality code. This would not necessarily be able to identify cancer patients.

  Guidance issued to the National Health Service on improving outcomes in breast cancer recommends that patients with breast cancer should be managed by multi-disciplinary specialist breast care teams working to written guidelines. Diagnostic services must be able to provide rapid and accurate information to enable patients who do not have breast cancer to be reassured and treated if necessary, while ensuring that those who do proceed rapidly to treatment.

  Sheep (Spinal Cord Removal)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons underlay the decision to require the removal of spinal cord from sheep at slaughter. [131813]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that specified risk material (SRM) controls on sheep were introduced, on the basis of advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), after it had been demonstrated that sheep could be infected experimentally with BSE, and because it was considered possible that sheep had been exposed to BSE infectivity through feed. SEAC advised that the spinal cord of older sheep could pose a potential risk to human health if eaten, and recommended an extension of the SRM controls to include this tissue once it had been established that there were practical methods for removing it from the carcase. The controls are precautionary, as at present there is no evidence that BSE is present in commercial sheep.

  Communication (Deaf People)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities his Department offers to deaf people in communicating with health trusts, health authorities and primary care groups. [132102]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has issued a range of guidance for the National Health Service on communicating with deaf and hearing impaired people. This includes "Doubly disabled: Equality for disabled people in the new NHS: access to services" together with a training video "When is it my turn?" for training and raising staff awareness of the communication needs of deaf and hearing impaired people. These were issued in April 1999.

  To support implementation of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act across the NHS, the NHS Executive issued guidance in July 1999. This guidance was informed by research conducted by "Disability Matters" on barriers faced by disabled people in the accessing the NHS. Their

  753W
  report, which concluded that the most significant barrier faced by disabled people in accessing the NHS was staff awareness and attitudes, was issued to health authorities, NHS trusts and primary care groups. It also led to the development of a distance learning package, "Welcoming Patients to the NHS" which was launched in November 1999. All these publications included material on communicating with deaf and hearing impaired people.

  Accident Prevention Task Force
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members and terms of reference of the accident prevention task force; when it is expected to meet; what its priorities are; and if he will make a statement. [132109]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]The Task Force to advise on the prevention of accidental injuries, promised in the White Paper, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" will hold its initial meeting on a date to be arranged this autumn. The Task Force will be chaired by the Department of Health and involve other Government Departments as observers. Details of members are given. Its terms of reference are:

  Taking account of "Saving Lives" and other initiatives in hand to reduce the burden of accidental injury, advise the Chief Medical Officer on:
  the most important priorities for immediate action in order to meet the target
  the development of an implementation plan, consulting with other stakeholders where necessary
  whether the necessary delivery structures are in place to take forward the implementation plan
  how progress on the implementation plan should be monitored
  how to develop and publicise a more unified approach to accident prevention across Government and the National Health Service.

  A report with recommendations should be submitted to CMO within one year of its first meeting.

  Accident Task Force Membership
  Wendy Broome—Senior Road Safety Officer, Hertfordshire County Council.
  Professor Yvonne Carter—Professor of General Practice and Primary Care.
  Ashley Martin—Peterborough City Council, Director of the Institute of Home Safety.
  Dr. Stephen Morton—Director of Public Health, East Lancashire HA; Co-ordinator of the NW Regional Accidents Task Force.
  David Moss—Chief Executive, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust.
  Dr. Gabriel Scally—Director of Public Health, South West Regional Office.
  Carol Sherriff—Director of the Child Accident Prevention Trust.
  Dr. Liz Towner—University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Department of Community Child Health.
  John Ransford/Nominee—Local Government Association.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to strengthen the regulation of private care homes for the elderly. [132705]
  754W
  Mr. Hutton
  In November 1998 we published our White Paper, "Modernising Social Services" which included our plans for reforming the regulation of care homes. The Care Standards Act brings about these reforms.

  We will establish an independent National Care Standards Commission to regulate statutory and independent sector care services in accordance with national minimum standards to ensure consistency and improve the quality of life and level of protection for the most vulnerable people in society. The Commission will be accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It will be responsible for the registration and inspection of all residential care and nursing homes, including those for older people. The Commission is expected to be fully operational by April 2002.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases were issued in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) this year to date; and what the total cost of the production and issuing of these press releases was in each year. [132748]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department adheres to the Access to Information Code of Practice and continually reviews the most cost effective methods for issuing press releases. The total cost of producing and issuing press releases cannot be separately identified as many of the costs are absorbed within the expenditure for running the Department's Communications Directorate.

  The table shows the cost of distributing press releases provided by external suppliers in each financial year requested:

  Financial Year

  £ 000

  1997–98

  53

  1998–99

  102

  1999–2000

  107

  2000–01 to date

  44

  The table shows the number of press releases issued each calendar year requested:

  Year

  Total

  1997

  406

  1998

  556

  1999

  742

  2000 to date

  372

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press officers were employed in his Department in(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000; and what the total expenditure on press officers by his Department was in each of the years concerned. [132759]

  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the number of press officers employed by the Department during the financial year 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in Appendix II of the report, "The Government Information
  755W
  and Communications Service" (HC 770), published by the Select Committee on Public Administration (29 July 1998). Copies are available in the Library.

  As at January 2000, the Department employed 16 press officers. Cost of press officers employed by the Department in the financial year 1999–2000 was £590,000.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the extra costs(a) per patient and (b) in aggregate, in prescription charges per year to patients using commonly prescribed generic drugs as a result of the price increases resulting from the introduction of patient packs; what action he has (i) taken and (ii) plans to minimise the costs to patients; and if he will make a statement. [132885]

  Ms Stuart
  The prescription charge is a flat-rate charge. Changes in the cost of medicines to the National Health Service do not therefore affect the charges paid by patients. We have given a commitment not to increase prescription charges by more than inflation (as measured by the retail prices index) for the rest of this Parliament.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Military Convoys (A696)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received about the effect of military convoys on road safety on the A696; and if his Department and the Highways Agency have had discussions with the police authority about the future escorting of convoys to and from the Otterburn Range. [132915]

  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. A. J. Beith, dated 27 July 2000:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the effect of military convoys on road safety on the A696, and the possibility of the future escorting of convoys to and from the Otterburn Range.
  The Highways Agency has received a number of representations from Parish Councils, other community groups and individuals about military convoys on the A696. Officers from the Agency have discussed this on a number of occasions with Northumbria Police. While this is a matter of operational concern to the Agency, at present the movements of the convoys along the highway are largely the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the Police. The Police involvement depends upon the size and weight of the vehicles in the convoy. The Agency has had a number of meetings with the MOD and the Police in an attempt to ensure safety and minimise disruption due to the movements of convoys and their timing.
  Should you require any further information, please contact the Area Manager, Neil Taylor at our Leeds office, on 0113 283 5481.

  Pavements (Wheelchair Access)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average amount spent by highway authorities in England 756W
  in each of the last five years on pavement alterations to enable wheelchair access; and how much each authority spent in that time. [132918]

  Mr. Hill
  This information is not collected centrally.

  My Department does, however, encourage local authorities to make provision for wheelchair users, as well as other disabled people, in the pedestrian environment. This is a central theme in the Local Transport Plan guidance.

  We have also announced in the 10 year Transport Plan that we will be developing measures for evaluating accessibility in transport systems, and in streets and public places, to check that investment is delivering real improvements in the day to day mobility of disabled people.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on recent developments in the uptake of LPG as a road fuel, with reference to the number and cost of Powershift grants and other incentives, and the number of vehicles of different types converted to duel fuelling. [132909]

  Mr. Hill
  The demand for LPG vehicles, in particular for LPG dual fuel cars, is growing strongly thanks in large part to Government fuel duty incentives for road gas fuels and the Powershift programme, which is sponsored by my Department. In recognition of this increasing demand, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston announced earlier this year an increase in the Powershift budget to £10 million—almost a threefold increase on last year.

  Between 1 April and 30 June, Powershift grants totalling £2.5 million were offered towards the purchase of 2,077 LPG vehicles. Over the course of this financial year, Powershift expects to support the purchase of over 5,000 LPG vehicles. This is in addition to the 17,000 gas powered vehicles already registered with the DVLA at the end of 1999.

  Housebuilding (South-East)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by each local authority area in the county of Essex and the unitary authorities of Southend and Thurrock the most recent estimates of the number of houses to be built under the SERPLAN recommendations in each local authority area. [132828]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  SERPLAN made no estimates of the number of homes to be built in each local authority within Essex. The regional housing provision is distributed below county level by the strategic planning authorities through the preparation of structure and unitary development plans. In the case of Essex, Essex county council and Southend unitary authority are responsible for keeping the Essex and Southend on Sea structure plan up to date and Thurrock unitary authority is responsible for preparing a unitary development plan for its area.

  North West Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost has been to the North West Development Agency of consultancy work allocated to outside bodies in the last 12 months. [132039]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The total cost for consultancy work allocated to outside bodies during the financial year 1999–2000 was £1,946,000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that the annual report of the North West Development Agency includes in future information which has been sought by hon. Members on the operations of the North West Development Agency. [132043]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to change the requirements for Regional Development Agencies to publish reports and accounts on the breadth of activities during the year. The North West Development Agency's annual report and accounts for 1999–2000 have now been certified by the National Audit Office and will be laid before the House today. If there are questions that my hon. Friend feels are unanswered by the report he can address them to the Agency or the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost of printing publications from the North West Development Agency was in the last 12 months. [131545]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The cost of printing publications for the North West Development Agency in the financial year 1999–2000 was £135,000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many board meetings of the North West Development Agency were attended by each member of the North West Development Agency in the last 12 months. [131547]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  During the period June 1999 to July 2000 12 Board meetings of the North West Development Agency took place. The number of attendances by individual board members at board meetings were:

  Maggie Chadwick—10

  Councillor Mike Doyle—11

  John Dunning—12

  Felicity Goodey—10

  Clive Jeanes, OBE—10

  Councillor Richard Leese—10

  Alan Manning—12

  Dennis Mendoros—12

  Kath Reade—11

  Councillor Dr. Fred Ridley—11

  Judy Robinson—11

  James Ross—9

  Lord Thomas of Macclesfield—10.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to whom the North West Development Agency is accountable. [131549]
  758W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Regional Development Agencies are accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for all their delegated functions. Regional accountability is outlined in section 18 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost of running the North West Development Agency was in its last financial year; and if he will estimate the cost for the Agency's current financial year. [131551]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The cost of running the North West Development Agency in the financial year 1999–2000 was £13,524,400, and the estimated cost for the current year is £13,771,000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on moving North West Development Agency facilities from Cockermouth to Penrith. [131553]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Lease negotiations with the proposed developer of the new premises at Penrith are expected to be concluded shortly with an anticipated availability for occupation early in the new year.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the last negotiated rental charge per foot secured on premises on the North West Development Agency English Partnership estate at Homewood in Cockermouth. [131555]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The last negotiated letting at the Lakeland Business Park was secured at a principal rental of £7.11 per square foot plus a service charge/ maintenance rent of £1.57 per square foot. This letting commenced on 20 March 2000 and was in respect of premises of 817 square feet.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in the last 12 months members of the Board of the North West Development Agency have stood aside from consideration of North West Development Agency Board business due to conflict of interest. [132041]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Board Members of the North West Development Agency declared an interest and stood aside (left the boardroom) from consideration of North West Development Agency Board business on 9 occasions in the last 12 months:

  Maggie Chadwick—2

  John Dunning—2

  Clive Jeanes—2

  Alan Manning—1

  Dennis Medoros—2

  Felecity Goodey—1

  Richard Leese—2

  Judy Robinson—1.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  759W
  projects the North West Development Agency is supporting in Cumbria where the total project cost exceeds £3 million. [132045]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North West Development Agency is supporting in Cumbria the following projects whose costs exceed £3 million.

  Development work:

  Workington Town Centre

  Maryport Endowment

  Dovenby Hall, Allerton

  Hills of the North, Eden

  Westlakes Science Park

  Kingmoor Park, Carlisle

  Lillyhall Partnership

  Alston Foundry

  SRB projects:
  Heart of Barrow—a five year regeneration project in which capital projects designed to maximise retail investment in the town centre are linked to programmes of business and community support.
  Cumbria Credits—Adult Education and Training scheme, which uses advanced information technology to overcome distance and physical barriers.
  Guided steps to lifetime learning—a five year scheme to provide careers and employment guidance and counselling to adults countywide.
  Regeneration of Maryport, Allerdale—a five year scheme to tackle the decline of the town by upgrading retail space in the town centre and renovating and creating new housing.
  Barrow-Building Bridges—a six year scheme targeting five of the most disadvantaged wards in Barrow.
  Cleator Moor Regeneration—A six year scheme which aims to provide support for new and existing businesses, develop tourism and community infrastructure.
  Cumbria Rural Regeneration—A six year scheme, which aims to break down local resistance to tourism employment through improved training and skills.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the value of assets held by the North West Development Agency is by(a) freehold and (b) leasehold, indicating the locations. [131557]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (a) The valuation of freehold investment assets on 31 March 2000 was £91.7 million.

  (b) The valuation of leasehold investment assets on 31 March 2000 was £316,000.

  The following is a list of both freehold and leasehold (long and short term leases) belonging to the NWDA:

  Taylors Lane, Pilling

  Clayhill Industrial Park, Neston

  Prestwich Industrial Estate, Manchester

  Parr Industrial Estate, St. Helens

  Lamberhead Industrial Estate, Wigan

  Wilson Road Industrial Estate, Huyton

  Love Lane (Tate and Lyle's) Liverpool

  Mercury Court, Liverpool

  Knowsley Industrial Park South, Liverpool

  Lea Green Industrial Estate, St. Helens

  Speke Hall Industrial Estate, Speke

  Gillmoss Industrial Estate, Gillmoss

  760W

  Moor Park, Blackpool

  Martland Mill Industrial Estate, Wigan

  Farrier Way Industrial Estate, Netherton

  Pilsworth Road Industrial Estate, Bury

  Croft Business Park, Bromborough

  St. Michaels Industrial Esate, Widness

  Sandon House, Liverpool

  West Float Industrial Estate, Wallasey

  Wavertree Tech Park, Liverpool

  Bolton Technology Exchange, Bolton

  Salford University Business Park, Manchester

  Hampton Heath Industrial Estate, Hampton Heath

  Skypark, Speke

  St. Chad's Court Rochdale

  Willow Mill, Caton

  St. Helens Technology Campus, St. Helens

  Greenheys Business Centre, Manchester

  Altham Business Park, Altham

  Greenbank Industrial Estate, Blackburn

  Rossmore Road, Ellesmere Port

  Wingates South Industrial Park, Bolton

  Sefton Business Park, Liverpool

  Classic Couverture, The Estuary Business Park

  Glacier Building, Brunswick Business Park

  CMDC Residual portfolio

  Hooton Business Park

  Monsall Hospital

  Martland Park, Wigan

  Ancoats Urban Village, Manchester

  Kingsway, Rochdale

  Twelve Quays, Birkenhead

  Austin Trading Estate, Knowsley

  Portland Basin

  Estuary Commerce Park, Speke

  Edwards Lane, Speke

  Boulevard Industry Park, Speke

  Bickershaw Colliery, Leigh

  Agecroft Colliery, Salford

  Cronton Colliery, Cronton

  Lea Green, St. Helens

  Ashton Fields, Walkden

  Kings Court/HQ Warrington

  Giants Basin, Manchester

  Winckley Street, Preston

  Penrith 40 Business Park

  Muirhhead House, Warrington

  Solway Estate, Maryport

  Leconfield Estate, Cleator Moor

  Cleator Mills Estate, Cleator

  Lillyhall Estate (East), Workington

  Devonshire Road, Millom

  Lillyhall Estate (West), Workington

  Western Bank Estate, Wigton

  Townfoot Estate, Brampton

  Brough Industrial Estate, Brough

  The Sidings, Tebay

  Crosscroft Estate, Appleby

  Maryport Harbour

  Clay Flatts Estate, Workington

  761W

  Park Road, Aspatria

  Lakes Road, Coniston

  George Moore Estate, Fletchertown

  Lakeland Business Park, Cockermouth

  Bridge End Estate, Egremont

  Sneckyeat Road, Whitehaven

  Cross Lane Industrial Estate, Ulverston

  Daltongate Business Centre, Ulverston

  St. Helens Business Park, Workington

  Station yard, Coniston

  Derwent Mills Commercial Park, Cockermouth

  Moor Lane Estate, Flookburgh

  Whitehaven Commercial Park, Moresby Parks

  Furness Business Park, Barrow in Furness

  Skelgillside Workshops, Nenthead, Alston

  The Old Brewery, Craw Hall, Brampton

  Kirkby Thore Industrial Estate

  Borders Business Park, Longtown

  Cross Lane Workshops, Seascale

  Station Road Industrial Estate, Silloth

  Workington Town Centre, St. Johns Precinct

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which organisations in Copeland and Allerdale were visited by which Members of the Board of the North West Development Agency in the last 12 months. [131559]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Alan Manning attended three meetings of the TUC's Cumbria Forum held in Keswick as an RDA Board member.

  Maggie Chadwick visited:

  West Cumbria College twice;

  Cumbria TEC HQ events in Keswick, Wigton and Cockermouth:

  Meeting representatives of local authorities (Allerdale and Copeland) and West Cumbria Partnership;

  The Cumbria Assembly (Policy Group),

  Non-local authority group to meet residents of Allerdale and Copeland.

  John Dunning visited the area several times during the past 12 months. I will write to my hon. Friend with the further information on his visits and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements have been made for the redeployment of staff from the offices of the North West Development Agency English Partnership at Homewood, Cockermouth to Penrith. [131556]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The number of staff currently employed at the North West Development Agency's office at Cockermouth is 12.

  Of these, it is currently expected that eight will transfer to the North West Development Agency's office at Penrith, with four to remain in West Cumbria, probably at Lillyhall, to manage the predominantly West Cumbrian based estate.
  762W
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who owns the title to property(a) owned, (b) held on leasehold and (c) rented by the North West Development Agency. [131558]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:(a) Owned
  The North West Development Agency (as a body corporate) can itself hold freehold land.
  (b) Held on leasehold
  Kings Court. Warrington—owned by Burford Investments Ltd.
  Muirfield House, Birchwood, Warrington—owned by Wellcome Trust Ltd.
  Penrith—owned by F W Allen
  (c) Rented
  None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in the last 12 months the Chief Executive of the North West Development Agency has visited(a) Copeland and (b) Allerdale. [131560]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Chief Executive visited the Copeland and Allerdale areas on one occasion in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his latest estimate is of efficiency gains and financial benefits that arise out of moving the North West Development Agency English partnership offices from Homewood, Cockermouth to Penrith. [131539]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Decisions on location are a matter for the North West Development Agency.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what visits were made by which(a) officers and (b) board members of the North West Development Agency to countries overseas in the last 12 months. [131543]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (a) The following officers of the North West Development Agency visited overseas in the past 12 months.

  Chris Koral—Chicago

  Ian Cordon—Copenhagan

  Nigel Wilcock—Paris

  Nigel Wilcock—Brussels

  Nigel Wilcock—Hanover

  Klaus Gruell—Brussels

  Klaus Gruell—Munich/Dijsseldorf

  Martin Toomey—Vienna

  Martin Toomey—Osaka

  Anne Samson—Verona

  Rae Brooke—Chicago/Boston/New York

  John Kelly—Brussels

  Paul Ferguson—Brussels

  Peter White—Amsterdam

  763W

  Peter White—Brussels

  Sue Adams—Chicago

  Bill Skilkie—Boston

  I. B. Vine—Madrid

  Lynne Taylor—Brussels

  Lynne Taylor—Stuttgart

  Margaret Carr—Helsinki

  Baron Isherwood—Warsaw

  John Cunliff—Boston/Chicago

  Robert Lane—Boston

  Simon Parker—Boston

  Ian Lawrence—Boston

  Linda Magee—Boston

  John Burrows—Germany

  (b) The following board members of the North West Development Agency made visits overseas in the past 12 months:

  Kath Reade—Verona

  Kath Reade—Helsinki

  Mike Doyle—Brussels

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost was to the North West Development Agency of visits overseas by its officers and members in the last 12 months. [131544]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The cost to the North West Development Agency for overseas visits during the financial year 1999–2000 was £36,314.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultancy work has been allocated to outside bodies by the North West Development Agency over the last 12 months by project. [132040]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Consultancy costs for the last 12 months—1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000—are as follows:

  Projects

  £ 000

  Land and property

  Site Plan Studies

  70

  Workington Town Centre

  147

  Other Land and Property

  202

  Legal

  Other Land and Property Programme

  79

  Estates (Letting)

  68

  Other Legal

  52

  IT

  34

  Accountancy

  Internal Audit and Procedures

  23

  Payments to Board Members 1999–2000

  £

  Name

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  M. Chadwick

  —

  —

  —

  885.30

  —

  —

  M. Doyle

  —

  —

  —

  350.80

  —

  169.20

  J. Dunning

  —

  —

  1,122.85

  —

  —

  894.00

  F. Goodey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  C.Jeanes

  15.00

  80.00

  —

  160.50

  —

  —

  R. Leese

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  A. Manning

  —

  111.40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  D. Mendoros

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  764W

  Projects

  £ 000

  Fixed Asset System

  15

  ERDF Audits/Bids

  15

  Opening Balance Sheet

  9

  Daresbury Econ Impact

  8

  Taxation

  10

  General Financial Advice

  75

  Estates

  Building Surveys

  15

  Health and Safety Audit

  10

  Other estates related

  15

  Strategy

  182

  NW Business Leadership

  107

  Accommodation

  Warrington office

  28

  Manchester office planning

  7

  Preston office planning

  3

  Other office planning

  41

  Skills Development Fund Support

  78

  Competitiveness Development Fund

  117

  Corporate Identity

  16

  Marketing Inward

  53

  Marketing RSO

  18

  Other Marketing

  41

  Debt Collection

  18

  Valuation

  15

  Human Resources Evaluation/Planning

  74

  Total

  1,645

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what occasions in the last 12 months the Board or officers of the North West Development Agency have considered matters which relate to the commercial activities of individual members of the Board of the North West Development Agency. [132044]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North West Development Agency have not considered any matters which relate to the commercial activities of individual members of the Board of the North West Development Agency.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what expenses were paid to each member of the Board of the North West Development Agency in each of the last 12 months. [131546]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Expenses paid to North West Development Agency Board Members in financial year 1999–2000 are set out in the analysis.

  The amounts are commensurate with the distance Board Members travel and their participation in other Agency 23 related activities such as Sub Groups and Conferences.
  765W

  Payments to Board Members 1999–2000

  £

  Name

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  K. Reade

  —

  —

  —

  472.50

  —

  —

  F. Ridley

  —

  90.05

  —

  114.35

  —

  —

  J. Robinson

  147.70

  —

  68.75

  —

  —

  —

  J. Ross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lord T. Thomas

  —

  984.65

  1,889.13

  151.00

  —

  —

  Total

  162.70

  1,266.10

  3,080.73

  2,134.45

  —

  1,063.20

  £

  Name

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total

  M. Chadwick

  —

  —

  —

  637.29

  —

  —

  1,522.59

  M. Doyle

  347.20

  —

  176.55

  —

  144.00

  68.85

  1,256.60

  J. Dunning

  269.08

  —

  215.14

  —

  249.55

  297.52

  3,048.14

  F. Goodey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  C. Jeanes

  175.00

  —

  90.00

  —

  129.00

  155.90

  805.40

  R. Leese

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  A. Manning

  563.35

  —

  —

  —

  100.55

  —

  775.30

  D. Mendoros

  1,366.98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  913.94

  2,280.92

  K. Reade

  —

  607.95

  —

  —

  256.50

  —

  1,336.95

  F. Ridley

  92.25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  104.80

  401.45

  J. Robinson

  107.05

  127.95

  —

  —

  —

  178.74

  630.19

  J. Ross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lord T. Thomas

  —

  —

  —

  —

  668.71

  —

  3,693.49

  Total

  2,920.91

  735.90

  481.69

  637.29

  1,648.31

  1,719.75

  15,751.03

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements are in place to secure accountability by the North West Development Agency to the North West Regional Assembly. [131548]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North West Development Agency is not accountable to the North West Regional Assembly. However, the Assembly is designated as a Regional Chamber under the provision of the regional Development Agencies Act 1998 which requires the NWDA to consult the Assembly in the exercise of its functions and to have due regard to any views expressed by the Assembly. The NWDA has also entered into a Concordat with the Assembly and the Government Office for the North West, which refers to the Assembly's role in scrutinising the NWDA's Corporate Plan and monitoring its activity. The role is facilitated through twice yearly meetings between the NWDA and the Assembly at member level, regular meetings at officer level and the NWDA formally consults the Assembly on its Corporate Plan and other key documents.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost of the North West Development Agency was in each quarter since the agency was formed. [131550]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The cost of running the North West Development Agency in the financial year 1999–2000 was as follows:

  Quarter 1—£2,425,000

  Quarter 2—£3,249,000

  Quarter 3—£3,553.000

  Quarter 4—£4.297,000

  766W
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many persons it is proposed will be based as employees at the North West Development Agency premises at Penrith. [131552]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is expected that 15 staff of the North West Development Agency will be based at the agency's office in Penrith with "hot desk" provision for two or three others to work there when necessary.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reverse the decision to consolidate North West Development Agency office premises in Penrith. [131554]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Location of office premises is a matter for the North West Development Agency to decide.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the current arrangements are for the registration and declaration of interests by members of the Board of the North West Development Agency. [132042]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Chairman and other Board Members of the North West Development Agency are required to declare any personal or business interests that may conflict with their responsibilities as Board Members and to make and maintain a public register of such interests.

  The Register of Interests is available for public inspection at the Head Office of the North West Development Agency in Warrington. Significant interests are also shown in the North West Development Agency's Annual Report.
  767W
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what issues the North West Development Agency officials expect to be consulted by DTI officials in relation to economic and industrial development in the North West Region. [132046]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department of Trade and Industry is now consulting the North West Development Agency on all key programmes which relate to economic industrial development, particularly where they relate to the implementation of the Regional Strategy. Some current examples are:

  Cluster development

  Regional Centres of Manufacturing Excellence

  The development of the Small Business Service

  The Regional Innovation Strategy.

  DTI also regularly consults with the North West Development Agency on inward investment activities and on major Regional Selective Assistance cases.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which mobile phone companies have notified him of a change in their policy on selecting sites for mobile phone masts to take account of the Stewart report; what such changes in policy are, in each case; and if he will make a statement; [132934]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with each of the mobile phone operators concerning their policy on the siting of mobile phone masts; and if he will make a statement. [132935]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My officials have met each of the mobile phone operators at least twice since the Stewart report was published on 11 May. They have discussed the range of actions being taken forward by Government in response to the Stewart report's recommendations on planning and the role of the operators in taking forward the recommendations, including those about base stations on and near schools and about mast sharing.

  The Federation of the Electronics Industry (FEI) issued a response to the Stewart report on 11 May. This included an explanation of the policy of the mobile phone operators on the siting of base stations. The response is available on their website at "www.fei.org.uk".

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Health on amending his planning guidance notes to adopt a precautionary approach to health risks from mobile telephone masts; what assessment he has made of the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones; and if he will make a statement. [132582]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (chaired by Sir William Stewart) published its report on mobile phones and health on 11 May.

  The group recommended a precautionary approach, comprising a series of specific measures, to the use of mobile phone technologies until we have more detailed
  768W
  and scientifically robust information on any health effects. The Government accepts the recommended precautionary approach advised by the Stewart report.

  In its response to the group's report the Government said that it was minded to introduce a requirement for full planning permission for all new telecommunications masts, but would need to consult widely before doing so, including on the principle and precise scope of any new arrangements. We intend to issue shortly a consultation paper on this and related guidance which will include consideration of health concerns.

  Discussions have been held with the all relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health, in drawing up the consultation paper and related guidance.

  Planning
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what weighting PPG3: Housing is to carry in relation to local authorities' development plans in determining planning applications as set out in section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Acts. [132919]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance note 1 advises local planning authorities that if there are no other material considerations, the application or appeal should be determined in accordance with the development plan
  but emphasises that plan policies should be relevant and up-to date (para 54).

  PPG3 advises that
  development plans form the framework within which decisions on proposals for development are taken. It is important that plans are kept up to date and properly reflect national policy guidance.

  PPG3 further advises that
  in considering planning applications for housing development in the interim, before development plans can be reviewed, local authorities should have regard to the policies contained in this PPG as material considerations which may supersede the policies in their plan
  (see paras 37–39).

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the performance of the Government Offices for the Regions in 1999–2000 in meeting targets for issuing decisions on called-in planning applications and on recovered appeals following receipt of the Inspector's report; and if he will make a statement. [133689]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is as follows:

  i. Called-in applications
  Target: issue 80 per cent. of decisions in 13 weeks and 100 per cent. in 20 weeks
  Performance 62 per cent. issued in 13 weeks and 72 per cent. in 20 weeks

  ii. Recovered appeals
  Target: issue 80 per cent. of decisions in 8 weeks and 100 per cent. in 13 weeks
  Performance 48 per cent. issued in 8 weeks and 57 per cent. in 13 weeks.

  769W
  The number of call-in and recovery cases—typically, about 150 of each a year—represents a very small proportion of the number of planning applications and appeals dealt with every year. They also tend to be rather more complicated than the generality of planning decisions. Nevertheless, it is clear that, overall, the decision-making process for called-in applications and recovered appeals needs to be expedited. The Department has been reviewing the procedures with a view to improving performance.

  Packaging Regulations
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of companies who are required to register under the Packaging Regulations and who had not done so by 30 June. [133045]

  Mr. Meacher
  The number of businesses which are required to register under the Packaging Regulations, and had failed to do so by 30 June 2000, has been estimated by the Environment Agency at between 400 and 650. Work currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency should help to refine that figure later in the year. The majority of those businesses are likely to be smaller ones with an average packaging tonnage of between 100–150 tonnes per annum.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the(a) maximum and (b) minimum fine imposed on firms for infringing the Packaging Regulations. [133048]

  Mr. Meacher
  (a) The maximum fine was £10,000 plus costs and (b) the minimum was zero (unconditional discharge).

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many firms had been successfully prosecuted for infringing the Packaging Regulations by 30 June. [133046]

  Mr. Meacher
  Sixteen firms have been successfully prosecuted under the Packaging Regulations.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the average fine imposed on firms prosecuted for infringing the Packaging Regulations. [133047]

  Mr. Meacher
  The average fine under the Packaging Regulations is £1,500 plus costs.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the merits of the Central Railway project on its current proposed routing around the south-west quadrant of the M25. [133141]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will meet a delegation of elected representatives from Surrey to discuss the problem of blight created by the proposed Central Railway scheme; [133142]
  770W
  (2) what steps he plans to take to avoid long-term blight of properties located on or close to the route of the Central Railway proposed freight line through Surrey. [133143]

  Mr. Hill
  In answer to a Parliamentary Question today, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), has announced the publication of the report of the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group which, among other things, considers the issue of blight. In his reply, my hon. Friend has invited comments on all the recommendations in the report, and these will then be taken into account in preparing the Government's response setting out our future policy intentions with regard to compulsory purchase issues including blight.

  In the meantime, little could be achieved by meeting a delegation to discuss the specific blight problems caused by the proposed Central Railway scheme in Surrey as there are no statutory powers under which any remedy could be provided at this stage in the development of the Company's scheme.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial strength of the promoters of the proposed Central Railway scheme and of the likelihood of the project reaching fruition. [133157]

  Mr. Hill
  None. I understand that Central Railways plc may intend to submit an application under the Transport and Works Act but no such application has yet been received.

  London Roads
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reduction in hourly capacity has been caused by traffic management changes to the A4 Cromwell road in the last three years. [133175]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the increase in car journey times on the M4 eastbound in the morning peak from the M25 to the start of the bus lane, as a result of the introduction of the bus lane. [133176]

  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. John Redwood, dated 27 July 2000:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question about the increase in car journey times on the M4 eastbound in the morning peak from the M25 to the start of the bus lane, due to the introduction of the bus lane.
  The independent monitoring of the M4 bus lane, which is being undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), has been providing details of the changes in journey times on the M4 between junction 4 and the elevated section. Journey times between the M25 and junction 4 have not been monitored in the same way because traffic conditions here are rarely affected by the introduction of the bus lane. Changes in conditions are due to the general increase in traffic volumes, local increases attributable to growth at Heathrow

  771W
  Airport and Stockley Park, and the consequent operation of the M25/M4 junction, the junction 4 roundabout and the section of road between.
  The TRL monitoring for the first year supports the changes in journey times reported after 3 months and which were given in the leaflet that was widely distributed and placed in the Library of the House. I enclose a further copy for your ease of reference. The figures for reductions in journey times between junction 4 and the elevated section, as recorded by TRL for the equivalent October/November 1998 and 1999 periods, are as follows:

  Minutes

  Time saved per vehicle

  Time of day1

  Buses and taxis

  Other vehicles

  06.30–09.30

  4.1

  1.3

  09.30–17.30

  -0.7

  -0.9

  17.30–20.30

  2.9

  0.6

  20.30–06.30

  -1.2

  -1.0

  1 Weekday

  TRL are currently finalising their report for the first year's operation of the scheme, and I have asked that they divide off the journey time changes to give the information for the section between junctions 4 and 3. To clarify the reasons for changes in conditions between the M25 and junction 4, I have also asked TRL to review all of the data routinely obtained from sensors in the carriageway and to include their conclusions in the report. We expect to receive this within a month and I will write again with this information when it is available.
  In the meantime, should you wish to discuss this matter further Paul Harwood, the Project Manager for this section of the M4 would be happy to speak to you. His telephone number is 01306 878471.

  OSPAR
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlay the decision to delay the submission in draft of the United Kingdom discharge strategy to the OSPAR Commission meeting in Denmark in June; and what considerations led to the decision to submit the document to the meeting. [133454]

  Mr. Meacher
  Publication of the Consultation Document on the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001–2020 was not delayed: it was published as soon as possible after the document was finalised. The document was not submitted to the June meeting of the OSPAR Commission but, after publication, copies were circulated to those attending the meeting, since it was relevant to the discussions at the meeting on the implementation of the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Radioactive Substances.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the UK contribution to the OSPAR Quality Status report for the Celtic Seas Region. [133612]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have today published a "Quality Status Report of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel". This report was prepared for my Department by the Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) as part of the work involved in preparing the "Quality Status Report of the Celtic Seas" which was launched by the OSPAR Commission on 30 June.

  The report published today summarises and evaluates information on the current health of the coastal and marine environment of the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel, and the impact of man's activities upon these areas. The
  772W
  assessment shows that the marine environment of the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel is generally in a good state of health, although it highlights over-fishing, endocrine-disrupting chemicals and the pressure for more intensive use of coastal land as being of particular concern. Its conclusions are relevant to policy considerations and to decisions affecting future developments near the coasts, and to the setting of conservation priorities.

  In addition, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) have today published a "Directory of the Celtic Coasts and Seas". This document was commissioned by DETR to complement the OSPAR "Quality Status Report of the Celtic Seas". The Directory describes the physical characteristics of the coastline of the Celtic Seas, the marine influences which affect it and regionally important habitats and species. It also describes the national, European and international measures which have been adopted to protect the natural resources in the area.

  Rural Buses
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money each local authority received from the Government under the rural bus subsidy scheme in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much each local authority is expected to receive in 2000–01. [132300]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department is responsible only for Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) payments to English local authorities; the figures requested for these authorities are set out in the table. In February this year we announced that RBSG was to continue for a further three years from March 2001. In addition to support under the rural bus subsidy scheme we have also provided £28 million for 104 schemes approved in the first two Rural Bus Challenge competitions in 1998 and 1999; a further £20 million is available for this year's Challenge competition.

  £

  RBSG 1998–99 Payment

  RBSG 1999–2000 Payment

  RBSG 2000–01 Allocation

  Shire counties

  Bedfordshire

  145,860

  383,347

  442,974

  Buckinghamshire

  265,000

  560,903

  561,112

  Cambridgeshire

  790,268

  770,212

  790,268

  Cheshire

  475,000

  474,580

  612,812

  Cornwall

  1,098,045

  1,114,651

  1,221,068

  Cumbria

  957,384

  957,384

  957,384

  Derbyshire

  450,000

  703,001

  714,122

  Devon

  1,409,020

  1,409,020

  1,409,020

  Dorset

  579,362

  579,362

  579.362

  Durham

  604,510

  357,816

  604,510

  East Sussex

  300,000

  559,229

  559,229

  Essex

  693,164

  735,774

  1,050,249

  Gloucestershire

  794,084

  794,084

  794,084

  Hampshire

  685,000

  894,468

  894,468

  Hertfordshire

  345,000

  420,844

  443,714

  Kent

  1,289,989

  1,214,225

  1,289,989

  Lancashire

  319,000

  751,438

  751,438

  Leicestershire

  240,500

  492,610

  556,163

  Lincolnshire

  1,194,385

  1,194,385

  1,194,385

  Norfolk

  1,230,000

  1,594,337

  1,594,337

  North Yorkshire

  567,600

  1,138,648

  1,380,246

  Northamptonshire

  370,000

  685,079

  696,765

  Northumberland

  300,000

  365,809

  476,343

  Nottinghamshire

  522,686

  516,619

  522,686

  Oxfordshire

  647,356

  926.906

  926,906

  Shropshire

  630,354

  630,354

  630.354

  773W

  £

  RBSG 1998–99 Payment

  RBSG 1999–2000 Payment

  RBSG 2000–01 Allocation

  Somerset

  1,017,790

  974,750

  1,017,790

  Staffordshire

  201,300

  661,480

  809,149

  Suffolk

  751,195

  1,163,973

  1,201,593

  Surrey

  576,917

  610,684

  610,684

  Warwickshire

  500,000

  596,387

  596,387

  West Sussex

  293,252

  579,324

  579,324

  Wiltshire

  786,146

  786,146

  786,146

  Worcestershire

  402,000

  642,141

  675,505

  Passenger Transport Authorities

  Greater Manchester

  70,000

  132,231

  132,321

  Merseyside

  62,669

  82,590

  83,474

  South Yorkshire

  338,768

  338,768

  338,768

  Tyne and Wear

  54,151

  43,759

  82,047

  West Midlands

  80,874

  71,025

  86,800

  West Yorkshire

  114,000

  555,733

  555,733

  Unitaries

  Bath & North East Somerset

  139,000

  136,874

  139,970

  Blackburn with Darwen

  15,642

  36,284

  39,026

  Bracknell Forest

  26,245

  18,093

  40,038

  Bristol

  3,559

  4,707

  6,522

  Darlington

  31,912

  31,584

  48,352

  East Riding

  118,336

  534,323

  534,364

  Halton

  5,764

  8,670

  12,685

  Hartlepool

  16,523

  16,019

  16,872

  Herefordshire

  287,400

  519,918

  522,462

  Isle of Wight

  145,273

  159,000

  159,271

  Medway

  87,475

  34,990

  87,475

  Middlesbrough

  7,779

  11,542

  11,542

  Milton Keynes

  52,000

  61,330

  71,496

  North East Lincolnshire

  42,652

  32,331

  42,652

  North Lincolnshire

  133,000

  252,872

  257,450

  North Somerset

  111,000

  116,458

  132,855

  Peterborough

  46,200

  56,286

  84,040

  Plymouth

  9,756

  9,756

  9,756

  Poole

  7,421

  3,705

  7,421

  Redcar and Cleveland

  30,713

  56,497

  56,497

  Rutland

  70,627

  87,257

  107,010

  South Gloucestershire

  191,415

  191,415

  191,415

  Stockton-on-Tees

  22,904

  33,832

  33,832

  Stoke-on-Trent

  5,387

  5,423

  5,423

  Swindon

  36,810

  51,144

  55,773

  Telford and The Wrekin

  52,406

  76,048

  76,048

  Thurrock

  17,188

  38,176

  38,176

  Torbay

  4,192

  8,377

  8,384

  Warrington

  59,644

  59,644

  59,644

  West Berkshire

  89,760

  231,520

  232,602

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  28,000

  34,993

  50,584

  Wokingham

  51,108

  54,351

  77,436

  York

  31,500

  72,731

  73,216

  Total

  124,131,220

  230,510,228

  32,500,000

  1 The total is less than the £32.5 million allocation because the timing of the Budget announcement, and the need to establish a new grant mechanism, meant that the money was spent over less than a full financial year. The balance was transferred to the 1998 Rural Bus Challenge.

  2 Total payments were slightly less than the full total allocation of £32.5 million because unspent grant from the previous year was carried forward and offset against authorities' allocations. Again the balance was transferred to the Challenge competition for that year.

  New Forest
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if, under his proposals for a New Forest national park, the park authority will have to seek the consent of the Verderers Court before proceeding with any recreational development in the open forest; [132012]
  774W
  (2) if the Verderers will retain their existing power to prevent recreational development in the open forest under his proposals to create a national park in the New Forest. [132013]

  Mr. Mullin
  The creation of a National Park in the New Forest would neither repeal nor amend the New Forest Acts, which lay down the powers of the Verderers. A National Park Authority would, therefore, need to obtain any appropriate consent under those Acts before carrying out recreational development. As there would be no change to the New Forest Acts, the Verderers would retain the powers they currently have to prevent development.

  Ministerial Duty Roster (Summer)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133059]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As is the case throughout the year there will be a Minister on duty at all times over the summer.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132868]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  KPMG has acted as financial adviser only to the Highways Agency's A13 Thames Gateway Design Build Finance Operate project, signed in April this year.

  Farm Woodland Management
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the possibility of establishing an intermediary organisation to administer and encourage farm woodland management as a carbon sink to offset the climate change levy for energy-intensive manufacturing companies. [131272]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are already committed to the establishment and sustainable management of woodland for a wide range of public benefits. Advice and grant aid is provided through the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme and the Agriculture Department's Farm Woodland Premium Scheme.

  Government have already stated that—subject to certain restrictions—companies with emission targets under the climate change levy agreements will be able to use traded emission credits to meet their obligations. This is likely to work through the wider UK Emissions Trading Scheme, under which trades are expected to take place from April next year, alongside the launch of the levy. Under the trading scheme there will be scope for creation of emission credits by projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Government are taking a cautious view on the inclusion of forestry projects in the scheme. There are concerns about the security and permanence of carbon fixed in this way, as well as monitoring and verification issues, that will need to be addressed before such projects can be permitted.
  775W
  The climate change levy is designed to be revenue neutral for the private sector and, moreover, expected to be broadly neutral between manufacturing and services.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Regional Development Agencies have prepared annual accounts and reports for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [133601]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Regional Development Agencies' annual reports and accounts for 1999–2000 have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. These cover the period from 1 April 1999 through to 31 March 2000. The Government welcome the continued progress made by Agencies and their commitment to improving the economic regeneration, skills and competitiveness of the regions. The Agencies are producing real benefits for their regions.

  Hedges
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will report on the responses to the consultation paper on high hedges. [133610]

  Mr. Mullin
  We intend to publish the results from my Department's consultation on possible solutions to the problems caused by high garden hedges, and our decision on the way forward on this issue, during August. I will write to hon. Members with further information when the announcement is made.

  Aerodromes and Navigation Facilities
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for changes in the arrangements for safeguarding aerodromes and navigation facilities. [133613]

  Mr. Mullin
  The safeguarding of certain aerodromes and navigation facilities is a process under which local planning authorities are directed to consult the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on development proposals which may have consequences for the safe operation of those aerodromes or navigation facilities. The CAA has no powers to prevent development, but where it considers that a proposed development would affect protected airspace it can advise against it. Planning authorities are obliged to take such advice into account in making their decisions.

  We consider that it would be more appropriate that those aerodromes which are currently safeguarded by the CAA should be safeguarded by the aerodrome operators themselves. Navigation aids which are provided for aerodrome navigation purposes should also be safeguarded by the aerodrome operator. The CAA will provide full training in this task and, as part of its responsibility for aerodrome licensing, will audit and oversee aerodrome operators' performance of the task.

  Where a technical site is owned and operated by NATS, NATS should safeguard the facilities, subject to monitoring by the Authority as part of its regulatory assessment process.
  776W
  We shall be consulting local government and others concerned about the revision of the departmental circular and the statutory direction. Meanwhile, when a local planning authority consults the CAA about a planning application arising within a safeguarded area, the CAA will obtain the views of the relevant aerodrome on that application and, if it agrees with their views, forward them to the relevant planning authority with an indication of its support for them.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the recommendations of the advisory group set up to undertake a Fundamental Review of Compulsory Purchase Laws, Procedures and Compensation and the results of the associated research into the operation of the Crichel Down rules. [133614]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am pleased to be able to announce that my Department has today published two reports. The first sets out the final recommendations of the advisory group set up in June 1998 to undertake a Fundamental Review of Compulsory Purchase Laws, Procedures and Compensation. The second sets out the findings of Gerald Eve and the University of Reading on the operation of the Crichel Down rules. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  We are publishing the findings of the advisory group in order to give interested parties an opportunity to comment before we in Government prepare our own response. The response will also take into account the many views which we have already received, including those from the Urban Task Force, on ways in which the compulsory purchase system might be improved. It is unlikely that any compulsory purchase arrangements could please everyone, but I welcome this opportunity for debate both to help clarify key concerns and to indicate the level of consensus likely to be achievable.

  The advisory group have said that they consider that the current compulsory purchase arrangements are basically sound. However, they have identified a number of ways in which the existing procedures could be speeded up and the compensation provisions made simpler, more equitable and quicker to apply.

  They also explored the scope for using existing compulsory purchase powers for regeneration purposes. The group concluded that, although local authorities could make greater use of their existing powers than most of them currently seem prepared to do, there would be advantage in clarifying the position by making an appropriate specific statutory provision.

  The group found no justification for making any additional blanket payments over and above market value to compensate for the compulsory purchase of all properties, but they do suggest a proposal for "business-loss" payments aimed at small businesses and payable on a similar basis to the current "home-loss" payments. They also propose a power for those whose property is being compulsorily acquired which would enable them to serve the equivalent of a "notice to treat" on the acquiring authority; and one of their suggestions is that acquiring authorities should have explicit powers to ensure that, in tightly defined circumstances in areas

  777W
  where local collapses in the property market have resulted in very low open market values, owner-occupiers can be provided with adequate replacement housing.

  Turning to the operation of the Crichel Down rules, the Government acknowledge the shortcomings which the researchers have identified. They have confirmed the suspicions, which led to the commissioning of the research, that the current arrangements are not working well and, again, we need to establish a dialogue. We therefore invite views not only on the detailed operation of the rules but also on such fundamental concepts as the purpose of the rules, whether they are needed at all and, if so, whether they should be statutory and to which bodies they should apply.

  We look forward to receiving views on the two reports. All comments received by my Department by Friday 13 October 2000 will be taken into account in preparing the Government's response. That will represent the second stage of the Fundamental Review and, as a third stage, we will then consult formally on those proposals.

  Thames Ditton Lawn Tennis Club
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take following the court's decision in the Thames Ditton Lawn Tennis Club case. [133615]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has today issued a consultation paper inviting views on whether to introduce controls over the demolition of sports buildings. The paper proposes that a planning application should in future be required for the demolition of buildings used for sporting purposes and for essential ancillary purposes, where no planning permission exists for the redevelopment of the site.

  The proposals issued today are designed to safeguard local sports facilities. This small but important measure further underlines the Government's commitment to creating sporting opportunities for everyone, as set out in our sports strategy "A Sporting Future for All", which was issued jointly by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment in April 2000.

  The consultation paper is being sent to a wide range of planning and sports bodies. Comments are requested by 27 October 2000. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.

  Planning Inspector's Annual Report
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Planning Inspector's annual report and accounts for 1999–2000. [133616]

  Mr. Raynsford
  PINS has a key role to play in taking forward our modernising planning agenda. I am therefore very pleased to say that the Inspectorate has met all but one of the targets set for its work in England. Its annual report for 1999–2000, which is published today, shows that its performance delivered an improvement upon the timeliness targets for handling planning appeals. It has maintained the high standard for development plan 778W
  inquiries, thereby helping to create a greater certainty for all involved in the planning process as more areas are covered by up to date development plans.

  The agency continues to meet its 3 per cent. efficiency target. On-going investment in staff development and IT systems have improved performance and service to customers. The Inspectorate's website was re-launched in March and now covers a wide range of information to assist users of the planning system. Surveys show that the Inspectorate's handling of appeals and its decisions are widely respected. Its quality target was not just met but exceeded.

  Copies of the annual report have been placed in the Library.

  Supporting People Programme
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make further information available on the structure and resourcing of the Supporting People programme. [133617]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I will on Monday publish a further consultation paper on the Supporting People programme. This paper, "Decision Making and Working Arrangements", is published jointly by my Department, the Department of Health, and the Home Office, and sets out our proposals on how the scheme should work, following discussions with the consultative groups who are helping develop the detail of the scheme.

  The paper sets out:
  The need to provide clear guidance to those authorities who are inexperienced in managing supported housing, in order to prevent undermining the existing good quality services;
  The need to involve the expert authorities and practitioners in the development of this guidance;
  That the Supporting People strategy will have to be agreed by a partnership group including Health, Probation, and in a county, all the districts, and that the county will be responsible for managing this process in two-tier authorities. Elected Members will approve the strategy;
  That sheltered housing tenants, and other tenants in long stay supported accommodation, have a legitimate expectation of security of tenure and continuity of support services;
  That administrative arrangements are very important. We propose a common system of information be held, and are exploring what IT support may be appropriate;
  A schematic project plan which authorities should use to drive the programme forward.

  We are seeking responses to this paper by 15 October 2000.

  I am also pleased to say that we will be providing £140 million of revenue funding over three years to enable authorities to implement the Supporting People programme. We are talking to the LGA and their partners about the detail of how these funds will be distributed, but intend to invite authorities to set out their first year preparation plans as a trigger for the first payments. The table sets out the funding for each of the next three years.

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  2001–02

  20

  2002–03

  55

  2003–04

  78

  London Underground
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish details of London Underground Limited's performance in 1999–2000. [133692]

  Mr. Hill
  The table shows a comparison of London Underground Limited's performance in 1999–2000 with that in 1998–99. It also shows the performance targets that London Underground have been set to achieve by the end of 2000–01.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Capacity (train kms run)

  61.2

  63.1

  267.3

  Reliability (unweighted excess journey time in minutes)

  3.15

  3.21

  33.02

  Customer satisfaction measures (average scores out of 100)

  Train service

  75

  75

  77

  Information

  77

  77

  77

  Customer safety and security

  81

  81

  83

  Staff helpfulness and availability

  68

  70

  70

  Cleanliness

  67

  68

  69

  1 2000–01 target.

  2 Ten per cent, increase on 1998–99 performance.

  3 Four per cent, improvement on 1998–99 level.

  National Bus Company Pensioners
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 2000,Official Report, column 357W, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the court hearing on further interim payments to National Bus Company pensioners. [133761]

  Mr. Hill
  I am pleased to be able to say that I have been informed by the National Bus Company pension trustees that the hearing cleared the way for them to make tax-free interim lump sum payments to some 8,500 pensioners who were members of the BEST pension scheme and who began receiving a Standard Life pension after April 1986. This is of course in addition to the other interim payments referred to in my earlier answer.

  The trustees will be making these payments as soon as possible.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research the Social Exclusion Unit has undertaken on the views of people living in deprived areas towards public services. [133775]

  Ms Armstrong
  Earlier this year, as part of its work on developing the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, the Social Exclusion Unit commissioned MORI to re-analyse the first wave of People's Panel data in order to assess attitudes to various services held by people living in deprived and non-deprived areas. This report will be published through the next People's Panel newsletter, which is due to be issued at the end of August/beginning of September. At the same time, copies of the summary of the report will also be put on to the People's Panel website and full copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries in both Houses.

  Local Government Procurement
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to strengthen local government's capacity to develop modern procurement practices. [133777]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today announced the establishment of a joint DETR/Local Government Association taskforce to review commissioning and procurement in local government in the light of the requirements of Best Value.

  The taskforce will be chaired by Sir Ian Byatt, who is retiring this month as Director General of Water Services; the vice-chair will be Sarah Wood, Director of Finance at Birmingham City Council.

  The review will cover the procurement of goods, works and services. It will address directly the role of modern procurement practice in delivering best value. It is expected to recommend practical measures which local authorities can take to secure real benefits to local people from efficient and effective procurement.

  The review will consider ways of giving effect to the Government's objectives on electronic and green procurement. It will also take into account the findings of the Gershon review of civil procurement in central government, the second Bates review of PPP/PFI, the Construction Industry Taskforce report "Rethinking Construction" and the work of the Public Sector Productivity Panel.

  The taskforce is expected to start work in September and will publish a report and recommendations next spring. In October, the chairman will set out the taskforce's full membership, its working methods and the procedure for making written submissions.

  Nuclear Research
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research has been commissioned by the Environment Agency, in the context of its current review of authorisations of Sellafield discharges, into(a) the use of Magnox fuel in Magnox reactors, (b) the construction of a new head-end plant at Thorp and (c) dry storage technologies. [117164]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding asnswer 11 April 2000]I understand that the Environment Agency has not commissioned research into the use of Magnox fuel in Magnox reactors or into dry storage techniques. However as part of the current Sellafield review, the agency is requiring BNFL to asses whether it would be practicable to modify the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plan (THORP) to enable it to reprocess spent Magnox fuel.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data has been collected from the field trials of genetically-modified crops in respect of(a) cross pollination with (i) non-GM crops and (ii) wild flora, (b) distance measurements of GM drift, (c) impact upon insect life within test and adjacent sites and (d) sub-spoil impact assessments; and in what form the data is available for scrutiny. [119112]
  781W
  Mr. Meacher
  The information is as follows:

  (i) My Department, through a research contract with the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, has been monitoring field trials of GM herbicide tolerant oil seed rape for cross pollination with neighbouring crops and wild relatives since 1995. Last year the two fields of spring sown rape grown as part of the farm scale evaluations were included in this study. Some of the results from earlier years have already been published in scientific journals and a full report will be published later this year.

  (ii) GM pollen drift is being measured between both the GM and non-GM sides of the fields of rape and maize in the farm scale evaluations and fields of these crops growing within a 1000 metre radius of the GM crop. In addition since 1993 all the sites at which research trials of GM crops have been grown and their immediate environs have been checked in subsequent years for 'GM volunteers' Reports of this monitoring are available on the public register held in the Department.

  (iii) and (iv) Data in respect of impact on insect life and the sub-soil are being collected during the farm scale evaluations. The data will be reviewed by the Scientific Steering Committee overseeing the evaluations and submitted for publication as soon as possible in peer reviewed scientific journals. The research consortium has already published two reports on progress with the evaluations and more will follow at six-monthly intervals.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the first results, including interim data, from the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops under way in the UK. [120719]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 May 2000]The design of the farm scale evaluations requires data to be collected over a three-year period to give a big enough sample size to allow statistically valid conclusions to be drawn. The Scientific Steering Committee therefore takes the view that it is unlikely that sufficient data will be available for scientifically reliable results to be published until late 2002 for the spring sown crops and late 2003 for the autumn sown crops.

  The Scientific Steering Committee and the research contractors have agreed that reports on progress with the evaluations should be prepared and published at six-monthly intervals. Two interim reports have already been agreed by the committee and published by the research consortium. A further report on progress with the evaluations will be published in late 2000. This will include analysis and assessment of the study protocols and the validity of data obtained this year.

  The research consortium will also shortly be submitting for publication in a scientific journal information on the design of the evaluations including the statistical power to detect potential differences.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has(a) been, and (b) asked to be, informed of the locations in the United Kingdom where Advanta Seeds UK's conventional rapeseed sown in 1999 and 2000 contained genetically modified rapeseed; and if he will place copies of written information in his possession on such locations in the Library. [126172]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 June 2000]The presence of the GM seed was not discovered until this year and therefore no action has been taken to find out where it was sown in 1999.
  782W
  Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have written to all farmers who have sown the relevant Hyola varieties this year, to clarify the subsidy position and inform them that if they received seed from the specific batches that were affected, their crops must not be marketed in the EU.

  Advanta have put in place their own arrangements to identify and compensate farmers and the Government's inspectors, the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), will audit these arrangements to ensure that none of the affected oil seed rape enters the food chain.

  In light of these measures, and in light of the advice that the growing of these seeds does not pose a threat to human health or the environment, I have not been, or asked to be, informed of the exact locations where the affected Advanta seeds were sown.

  Byker Heat Station, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the annual approved discharge limit and the annual actual known discharge limit of dioxins from the Byker Heat Station, Newcastle for each year since 1985. [125139]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]The plant was not authorised under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 until March 1993 and annual returns were not required by the authorisation until March 1994.

  The Annual Mass Emission Limit for dioxins has remained at 30g since that first authorisation. The actual reported discharges of dioxins against this limit were:

  April 1993-March 1994: 0.147g

  April 1994-March 1995: 0.1g

  April 1995-March 1996: 0.117g

  April 1996-March 1997: 0.131g

  January 1997-December 1998: 0.0955g

  January 1999-December 1999: 0.016g

  The Annual Mass Emission Limit appears higher than needed. However, in practice this limit is not used for day to day regulation of the authorised process by the Environment Agency. In line with current Agency guidance (S2 5.01 on Waste Incineration), the process is controlled and limited by reference to the concentration of dioxins released to the air. The authorisation sets an emission concentration of 1.0 ng/m3 TEQ (Toxic Equivalent), which is a far tighter control parameter than is implied by the 30g mass limit. Tests on the plant in the years 1994 to 1999 have shown concentrations between 0.22 and 0.76 ng/m3.

  The Environment Agency is considering the introduction of a 0.1 ng/m3 limit which could be considered to be BATNEEC (Best Available Technique Not Entailing Excessive Cost) for existing incinerators, and could therefore be achieved under existing legislation. The Environment Agency also advise that they will in future authorisations for industrial plant reduce the limit in the authorisation to 0.1ng/m3, in line with the proposed EC Waste Incineration Directive and their current guidance on new plant.

  Admiralty Arch
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the fixtures and fittings ordered for his residence in Admiralty Arch since May 1997, with particular reference to carpets; and if he will estimate the cost of them; [1293611]

  (2) what refurbishment work (a) is under-way and (b) has been completed in the flat which he occupies in Admiralty Arch; and what is his estimate of the costs of such work since May 1997. [129360]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The flat occupied by the Deputy Prime Minister at Admiralty House was completely renovated and refurbished in 1997 and partly recarpeted this year. The total cost was £99,936 of which £11,139 + VAT was for carpets.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the final cost of the M11 Link Road, separately identifying each consultant's fees relating to the M11 Link Road and indicating the purpose for which these were paid. [131687]

  Mr. Hill
  Responsibility for this scheme, together with the relevant papers, passed to Transport for London on 3 July.

  This is a matter for Transport for London to decide on as the contracts and the consultant's duties are continuing. Until the final accounts for the main works contracts have been settled and the consultant's duties have been completed, it is not possible to give the final cost of fees. It would prejudice the ability to negotiate settlement of contracts if a detailed breakdown of estimated final cost is provided before the negotiations are complete. A detailed breakdown will be available when the final cost of the A12 Hackney to M11 Link Road is known.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the basis was for calculating the £15 million estimate for local compensation in relation to the M11 Link Road. [131688]

  Mr. Hill
  The estimate was made by the Highways Agency's professional adviser using the best information on land and property values available at the time. Responsibility for this scheme, together with the relevant papers, passed to Transport for London on 3 July.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department has taken to ensure that there has not been unreasonable profit-taking in the last 12 months of contracts for the M11 Link Road; and if he will make a statement. [131689]

  Mr. Hill
  Under the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) Conditions of Contracts used on this scheme, the value of the works is determined by an independent engineer, not by the contractor. The Highways Agency's quantity Surveyor makes regular visits to the site offices to ensure the works are being valued in accordance with the contract. Responsibility for this scheme, together with the relevant papers passed to Transport for London on 3 July.

  Paint(Volatile Solvents)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of potential health hazards arising from paints containing a high amount of volatile solvents; and if he will make a statement. [131685]

  Mr. Meacher
  High exposures to any number of solvents can be damaging to health. Most hazardous solvents used at work, including paints, have specific occupational exposure limits set after detailed scientific reviews of their health effects. Employers using any hazardous solvent must follow the requirements of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999.

  The safety of chemical products, including paint, sold to the general public or used at work is regulated by the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994 which require, among other things, that product manufacturers must assess a product for its health effects (for example, toxicity, irritancy). If dangerous, the product must then be labelled with a warning symbol and with phrases indicating the dangers. The particular chemical(s) which causes the product to be classified must also be named on the label.

  The regulations require that all potentially dangerous chemicals supplied to the general public must be in packaging which is properly labelled and contains warning about the potential hazards and giving brief advice on suitable precautions. Manufacturers would also, if relevant, be required to give details of how to use the product safely. Chemicals used at work must be supplied with a safety data sheet.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Elmet of 13 July 2000,Official Report, columns 631–32W, for what reasons (a) the Treasury, Home Office and Department of Social Security were not represented by Ministers at the Green Ministers Meeting and (b) the Cabinet Office, Prime Minister's Office, Department for Education and Employment, Wales Office, Scotland Office, Northern Ireland Office and Ministry of Defence were not represented at the meeting. [132016]

  Mr. Meacher
  Green Ministers from Treasury, Department of Social Security, Cabinet Office, Department for Education and Employment and Ministry of Defence were engaged on official business elsewhere. The Green Minister for the Home Office had an unavoidable private engagement. All but the Department for Education and Employment and Ministry of Defence were represented by officials. The Wales Office, Scotland Office, Northern Ireland Office and Prime Minister's Office receive papers for meetings but only attend on an ad hoc basis.

  Brownfield Land
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many hectares of contaminated brownfield land were identified in the UK in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 2000. [132106]
  785W
  Mr. Mullin
  Estimates of the amount of contaminated land are not available. The amounts of derelict land in England were recorded in the Derelict Land Surveys. These defined derelict land 'land so damaged by industrial or other developments that is incapable of beneficial use without treatment.' Not all derelict land is necessarily contaminated.

  The Derelict Land Surveys show that the area of derelict land in England amounted to 43,273 hectares in 1974, 45,683 hectares in 1982, 40,500 hectares in 1998 and 39,600 hectares in 1993.

  The National Land Use Database provides 1998 estimates for England of all previously developed land that is unused or may be available for redevelopment. The total of 57,710 hectares includes some 19,340 hectares of derelict land. This figure is lower than the 1993 estimate partly because of reclamation and partly due to the exclusion of some derelict land that has blended back into the natural landscape and was considered to have limited development potential.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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 for the magnox reprocessing line at Sellafield. [130871]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 518W.

  Post Offices
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discretion the DVLA has in respect of authorising post offices to issue motor vehicle licences; and if he will make a statement. [132416]

  Mr. Hill
  DVLA's contract with Post Office Network Banking (PONB) requires a 4,000 strong network of motor vehicle licence issuing offices throughout the country. DVLA does not select or authorise the individual offices, that is the responsibility of PONB. DVLA does not have the necessary knowledge of the various catchment areas and characteristics of individual post offices to assess potential demand.

  Road System
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to use quieter surfacing when resurfacing the M3 between junctions five and seven becomes necessary. [132344]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]Our 10 year strategy for transport, Transport 2010—The 10 Year Plan, has been published and sets out proposals for dealing with road noise, including the provision of quieter surfaces on over 60 per cent. of the network, including all concrete surfaces.
  786W
  I have asked the Highways Agency to draw up a programme for all such trunk roads for agreement. Junctions five to seven of the M3 will be included in this programme.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many bypasses will be constructed during the course of the Transport 2010 10 year plan within(a) the strategic road network and (b) other routes; and if he will make a statement; [132507]

  (2) what public funding will be available for the construction of bypasses outside the strategic road network in the next 10 years. [132508]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State announced last Thursday our 10 year plan, Transport 2010, setting out the resources to be made available to fund our integrated transport policies. Included in the plan is funding which will allow 30 bypasses on the core network, at a cost of around £600 million, and over 70 bypasses on the local road network to be built over the 10-year period. Specific schemes will need to be brought forward through the regional planning system in the case of trunk roads or the local transport plan system in the case of local roads. Schemes will also have to be appraised using the New Approach to Appraisal.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the Highways Agency to resurface the A46 at Harvington, Worcestershire, with a low-noise road surface. [131835]

  Mr. Hill
  Our ten year strategy for transport, "Transport 2010—The 10 Year Plan", has been published and sets out proposals for dealing with road noise, including the provision of quieter surfaces on over 60 per cent. of the network, including all concrete surfaces.

  I have asked the Highways Agency to draw up a programme for all such trunk roads for agreement. The A46 at Harvington will be included in this programme.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the Highways Agency to resurface the M5 at Whittington, Worcestershire, with a low-noise road surface. [131834]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]Our ten year strategy for transport, "Transport 2010—The 10 Year Plan", has been published and sets out proposals for dealing with road noise, including the provision of quieter surfaces on over 60 per cent. of the network, including all concrete surfaces.

  I have asked the Highways Agency to draw up a programme for all such trunk roads for agreement. The M5 at Whittington will be included in this programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the nature was of the test carried out on the A30 before the decision was taken to resurface it on account of noise nuisance; and how much the resurfacing work will cost. [132650]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]The tests comprised a period of continuous noise monitoring at six
  787W
  locations agreed with the "Resurface the A30" Campaign Group, in order to compare the actual noise levels with those predicted at the Public Inquiry into the scheme.

  Our 10-year strategy for transport, "Transport 2010—The 10 Year Plan", has been published and sets out proposals for dealing with road noise, including the provision of quieter surfaces on over 60 per cent. of the network, including all concrete surfaces.

  I have asked the Highways Agency to draw up a programme for all such trunk roads for agreement. The A30 Honiton to Exeter Improvement will be included in this programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will carry out noise tests on the A50 at Doveridge, Derbyshire; what estimate he has made of the cost of resurfacing that section of the road; and if he will instruct the Highways Agency to carry out this work. [132651]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]As part of the 10-year Plan for Transport announced last week, we will resurface all concrete-surfaced trunk roads with quieter materials.

  I have asked the Highways Agency to draw up a programme for all such trunk roads for agreement. The A50 at Doveridge will be included in this programme. No detailed estimate of the cost of resurfacing the A50 at Doveridge exists.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce the winning bid for the future of the Millennium Dome at Greenwich. [133774]

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce the winning bid for the future use of the Millennium Dome at Greenwich. [133776]

  Ms Armstrong
  Dome Europe has won the competition to take over the Dome when the Millennium Experience ends on 31 December. We believe their proposals will deliver a high quality, innovative and economically sustainable long-term future for the Dome, of which the people of Greenwich and the United Kingdom can be proud.

  The proposals will build on the remarkable achievements in constructing the Dome and delivering the Millennium Experience this year. Provision of a world-class visitor attraction will continue, and will benefit from Dome Europe's investment of around £400 million in the core Dome site over the next five years.

  In supporting the Dome's transition from the current Millennium Experience to another major visitor destination, Dome Europe is proposing to create an urban entertainment resort, through a combination of uses inside the Dome and on adjacent land. The latter will include hotels, a convention centre, commercial leisure,
  788W
  restaurants, residential units, offices, retail and community facilities. While the proposals are all subject to the granting of planning permission, and much work remains to be done to complete the sale of the site, we are confident that Dome Europe's proposals will deliver an exciting contribution to the continued regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula.

  We have further decided that of the overall consideration for the sale of the Millennium Dome (details of which must remain commercially confidential at this stage), some £53 million should be paid to the New Millennium Experience Company from total expected early payments from the competition of £105 million. There is also provision for additional payment for land value in certain circumstances and a share of profits if and when the business changes hands. The remainder of this total amount, after meeting third party commitments, will go to English Partnerships. In reaching this view we took account of the benefits to the Greenwich Peninsula and the Thames Gateway in terms of continuity of jobs and assured future private investment in the site, building on the substantial public investment already made—more than one billion pounds—towards major environmental, transport and other improvements on the Peninsula.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Wild Salmon
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect wild salmon from the consequences of salmon farming. [131275]

  Mr. Morley
  In the UK salmon farming takes place almost entirely in Scotland. There is no evidence that it is adversely affecting salmon stocks of English origin.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to open the pig industry restructuring scheme to applicants. [131276]

  Ms Quin
  As I have said previously, the outgoers element of the pig industry restructuring scheme will be opened to applicants immediately following European Commission clearance of the scheme.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the European Commission about state aids for pig farmers. [131282]

  Ms Quin
  Ministers and officials in MAFF have frequent formal and informal meetings with European Commissioners and Commission staff. The Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme and the welfare linked pigmeat promotion campaign, both UK state aids in the pig sector, have featured prominently in recent discussions.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many countries have lifted bans on British beef since 1 May 1997. [131277]
  789W
  Ms Quin
  The critical date is 1 August 1999 when the EU ban on the export of British beef was lifted for beef produced under the Date-based Export Scheme. Since then 26 countries have informed us that they have lifted their import bans. We have ascertained that a total of 81 countries do not have import bans.

  Fur Farming Prohibition) Bill
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. [131278]

  Mr. Morley
  In excess of 3,000 representations have been received about the Bill. All but a few have been from members of the public and animal welfare organisations supporting the banning of fur farming.

  Bovine TB
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the report of the independent Husbandry Panel on TB and cattle husbandry. [131279]

  Ms Quin
  We welcome the report of the independent Husbandry Panel on TB and cattle husbandry which was published on 16 May and we are considering its findings in consultation with the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, the TB Forum and other interested parties.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the co-operation among(a) farmers and (b) others in the proactive cull sites in the MAFF bovine TB trial areas with those carrying out the trials. [131762]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]Co-operation by farmers and landowners with the badger culling trial is very good and participation is in excess of 80 per cent. of those approached to participate. There has been some interference with the trial by protesters, which we deplore. The trial design allows for these factors and the Independent Scientific Group overseeing the trial has advised that it remains on course to produce valid conclusions about whether and in what circumstances badger culling can help reduce TB in cattle.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers have been killed in each of the eight identified MAFF trial triplet areas so far identified in the(a) reactive and (b) proactive cull sites. [131760]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]Culling of badgers has begun in five triplets. The data for completed operations as at 20 July 2000 is shown in the table:

  Number of badgers culled

  Triplet

  Proactive area

  Reactive area

  Gloucester/Hereford

  55

  0

  Devon/Cornwall

  323

  73

  East Cornwall

  246

  128

  North Wiltshire

  602

  0

  West Cornwall

  451

  0

  EU Enlargement
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in Central and Eastern Europe concerning the effect of enlargement of the European Union on agriculture. [131280]

  Ms Quin
  Since the beginning of the year, my ministerial colleagues and I have held discussions with our counterparts from Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers applied in each of the last three years for grants from the Organic Farming Scheme. [131281]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of farmers that applied for grants under the Organic Aid Scheme in these years is as follows:

  1997–98: 216

  1998–99: 222

  1999–2000: 3

  The Organic Farming Scheme attracted 1,214 applications between its introduction in April 1999 and its temporary suspension in November 1999.

  Dairy Calves
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the situation relating to male dairy calves. [131284]

  Ms Quin
  The Government recognise that the market for male dairy calves is depressed. Following the ending of the CPAS, (which put an artificial floor to the male dairy calf market at the expense of beef finishers), prices have fallen and remain at a low level. However the Government are supporting a number of initiatives to try to improve the market.

  Livestock Farming
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's economic objectives for livestock farming in the coming year. [131285]

  Ms Quin
  The Government have a strategy which focuses on helping farmers become more competitive and more sustainable in the medium and long term, while it is also providing short-term relief for those sectors which are particularly hard hit by the present economic difficulties in the agricultural sector.

  Dairy Production
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the productive capacity of the dairy industry over the next year. [131286]

  Ms Quin
  The UK's milk production capacity is constrained by the milk quota system. The UK's current allocation of quota is 14.2 billion litres. Although current milk production is running at a little below the seasonal
  791W
  profile, at this stage of the year there is no reason to believe that the UK production will not be close to its quota allocation, as has been the case in previous years.

  Regulation (Farm Incomes and Operating Costs)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of Government regulation on agriculture with respect to farm(a) incomes and (b) operating costs. [131287]

  Ms Quin
  All regulations affecting business costs are subject to a Regulatory Impact Assessment and these are published. Most recently, and in addition to earlier cuts, farm incomes will be saved some £30 million by the removal or freezing of charges imposed by certain regulations announced in the Action Plan for Farming. Operating costs are helped where we can save farmers' time through simplified forms and census requirements, co-ordinated inspections and the move towards electronic forms.

  Dairy Regime
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his priorities are for the next reform of the common agricultural policy dairy regime. [131288]

  Ms Quin
  The Government's priorities for the reform of the dairy regime are clear—we want an orderly removal of milk quotas in combination with a reduction in EU support prices to world levels. We will press the European Commission and our EU partners for this in the run up to the review of the regime in 2003.

  BSE
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in identifying the reason for the most recently announced BSE case. [131289]

  Ms Quin
  Although our investigations are not quite complete, we are unlikely to discover sufficient further information which will lead us to form a definite conclusion on the cause of infection in this case.

  Investigations now indicate that the mother died suddenly on the farm in mid-November 1996 and that it was not slaughtered as a casualty in November 1996 as previously thought. The farm was a mixed dairy and pig fattening enterprise. I am still unable to rule out infection by maternal transmission or infection by accidental exposure to infected feed. In so far as the investigations can determine, the animal had not been vaccinated as a calf or exposed to organophosphates or oestrus synchronisation using pituitary extracts. There is no evidence of any other likely source of infection.

  Any further significant information will, however, be published on the MAFF BSE internet site.

  Fisheries Regulations
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of recent industry proposals for the reform of fisheries regulations. [131290]
  792W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government have welcomed the document issued jointly by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and Scottish Fishermen's Federation, "Zonal management: a new vision for Europe's fisheries" as a helpful and constructive contribution to the debate on how to secure an improved regional dimension to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The document contains a number of useful ideas for ensuring increased involvement by fishermen and other stakeholders in fisheries management and a greater focus on issues at the regional level. It builds upon the recent experience gained with the regional consultations which underpinned the development of the Irish Sea cod recovery programme. The Government will take the industry's ideas fully into account in further developing its approach to the 2002 review of the CFP.

  Dolphins
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many dolphins have been(a) killed and (b) injured as a result of fishing in United Kingdom coastal areas in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [130375]

  (2) what recent estimates he has made of the dolphin population in United Kingdom coastal areas; and what guidelines he has issued to the fisheries industry regarding dolphins and their protection. [130376]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the full extent of dolphin casualties caused by fishing is not available. MAFF is funding a research programme to obtain better information on by-catch figures.

  The Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) estimate, on the basis of 1994 data, that there are some 75,000 Common dolphins and 12,000 White-Sided and White-Beaked dolphins in the Celtic and North Seas. No information is available for populations of Risso's or Striped dolphins in these areas or any of these species elsewhere. Estimates however indicate discrete populations of Bottlenose dolphins of up to 350 in Cardigan Bay and 130 in the Moray Firth.

  Pilot projects are currently being carried out on gear modification and acoustic pingers. Following evaluation appropriate action will be taken.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) representations he has received and (b) meetings he has held on the proposed pesticides tax with the (i) British Agrochemicals Association, (ii) UKASTA, (iii) NOAH, (iv) the National Farmers Union, (v) Country Landowners Association and (vi) agrochemicals companies indicating which companies. [131105]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF Ministers meet from time to time with the organisations listed and discussions typically cover a range of issues.

  The Government have received a number of representations on a possible pesticides tax and on a voluntary package of measures to reduce the environmental impact of pesticides use.
  793W
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) has just completed a period of consultation on a formal set of voluntary proposals published by the British Agrochemicals Association. DETR wished to receive the views of all interested parties on these proposals and their effectiveness in tackling the environmental impacts of pesticides use.

  Animal Carcases (Disposal)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to amend European Commission proposals relating to the disposal of animal carcases on farm land. [131599]

  Ms Quin
  The European Commission has not yet formally presented its proposals for revising the Animal Waste Directive to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. However, in preliminary discussions officials have advanced the view that a complete ban on the burial of fallen stock in all circumstances would not be practicable.

  Farmers' Grants (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total grants paid to farmers in Shrewsbury and Atcham for each year since 1992 for the(a) beef industry, (b) sheep industry, (c) pig industry, (d) poultry industry and (e) arable sector; and if he will make a statement. [131709]

  Ms Quin
  Information at lower than county level is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Farmers (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the type and amount of farm aid which has been given to farmers in the Ribble Valley in each year since 1994. [131644]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]Information at lower than county level is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm holdings there were in the Ribble Valley in each year since 1994. [131671]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]The requested figures are provided in the following table:

  Farm holdings within the Ribble Valley

  Number

  1994

  835

  1995

  802

  1996

  798

  1997

  793

  1998

  809

  1999

  812

  Source:

  The above data were taken from the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census and relate to main holdings only

  Organic Food Standards
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the British Egg Industry Council will be consulted prior to the finalisation of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards standards on organic livestock products. [132639]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that UKROFS has already taken into account the concerns of the British Egg Industry Council about its proposed standards, which will shortly be considered by Ministers.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the British Egg Industry Council was consulted on further proposals concerning the egg industry made by the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards on 30 May. [132637]

  Mr. Morley
  The British Egg Industry Council was included in the list of consultees whose comments were sought by UKROFS on their proposals for implementing Council Regulation (EC) 1804/1999, which were issued on 10 April. In the light of responses to the initial consultation, UKROFS subsequently consulted organic producers, through the organic inspection bodies with which they are registered, on amendments to the proposals.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards has made proposals concerning organic livestock and livestock products for standards which go beyond those required by European Council Regulation 1804/1999. [132638]

  Mr. Morley
  UKROFS has made a limited number of such proposals, which are permitted by Council Regulation (EC) 1804/1999. In some cases UKROFS has done so in order to carry forward existing UK organic standards and in others because it believes it necessary to do so in order to maintain consumer confidence in organic standards.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many written parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 which requested information, pursuant to his previous answers. [132137]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]For the period in question, 35 parliamentary questions were tabled to my Department which requested information pursuant to previous answers out of a total of 1,189 questions.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the date was of the most recent meeting of the Veterinary Products Committee at which the availability of organophosphate sheep dips was discussed. [132450]

  Ms Quin
  [Holding answer 25 July 2000] 15 June 2000.

  Edgware Flood Defence Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on the Edgware flood defence scheme. [132936]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Environment Agency have been considering the responses to their consultation on an Environmental Statement for the Silk Stream flood alleviation scheme, and are now aiming to submit a planning application in September.

  Worcester Regional Service Centre
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff will be employed at the Worcester Regional Service Centre; what functions it will continue to perform; and where it will be located. [132912]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 24 July 2000. When the changes announced in that statement are complete, I expect the total number of staff employed by my Department in Worcester to be about 160. This includes staff of the new national service which will take over functions from the Farming and Rural Conservation

  Spend (£)

  Government Office/County

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  95,538

  141,142

  241,523

  478,203

  Cambridgeshire

  243,675

  269,050

  331,586

  844,311

  Essex

  179,145

  241,625

  293,547

  714,317

  Hertfordshire

  102,391

  123,795

  167,677

  393,863

  Norfolk

  443,087

  578,575

  660,320

  1,681,982

  Suffolk

  265,403

  346,243

  423,396

  1,035,042

  Total

  5,147,718

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  287,515

  476,870

  745,332

  1,509,717

  Leicestershire

  184,024

  243,592

  400,924

  828,540

  Lincolnshire

  255,546

  317,463

  420,430

  993,439

  Northamptonshire

  207,190

  312,546

  385,707

  905,443

  Nottinghamshire

  70,131

  74,257

  142,267

  286,655

  Total

  4,523,794

  North East

  Cleveland

  79,316

  94,998

  94,098

  268,412

  Durham

  169,440

  355,402

  381,953

  906,795

  Northumberland

  631,595

  785,485

  828,826

  2,245,906

  Tyne and Wear

  40,369

  69,010

  35,308

  144,687

  Total

  3,565,800

  North West

  Cheshire

  175,973

  240,667

  313,837

  730,477

  Cumbria

  484,708

  809,589

  935,023

  2,229,320

  Greater Manchester

  54,042

  88,977

  94,097

  237,116

  Lancashire

  395,188

  552,981

  595,487

  1,543,656

  Merseyside

  26,474

  42,999

  41,054

  110,527

  Total

  4,851,096

  South East

  Berkshire

  137,509

  240,918

  295,798

  674,225

  Buckinghamshire

  161,415

  222,016

  268,728

  652,159

  East Sussex

  326,186

  407,802

  596,152

  1,330,140

  West Sussex

  159,533

  182,800

  214,141

  556,474

  Hampshire

  268,436

  345,980

  484,933

  1,099,349

  Isle of Wight

  98,123

  99,745

  120,664

  318,532

  Kent

  323,414

  436,391

  566,637

  1,326,442

  Oxfordshire

  252,979

  314,663

  477,454

  1,045,096

  Surrey

  125,719

  208,835

  277,109

  611,663

  Total

  7,614,080

  796W
  Agency and from Regional Service Centres, staff of the State Veterinary Service and a number of MAFF inspectors.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132860]

  Mr. Morley
  None.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money has been spent to date on the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in England, broken down by(a) county and (b) region. [132301]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the total expenditure on the Countryside Stewardship Scheme by county and Government Office for the period 1996–97 to date. This covers the period during which MAFF has administered the Scheme following its transfer from the Countryside Commission. A regional breakdown of expenditure prior to 1996 is not available.
  797W

  Spend (£)

  Government Office/County

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Greater London

  Greater London

  41,145

  98,403

  118,997

  258,545

  Total

  258,545

  South West

  Avon

  149,534

  192,881

  234,691

  577,106

  Cornwall

  553,357

  485,880

  987,557

  1,936,794

  Devon

  616,003

  881,363

  1,399,623

  2,896,989

  Dorset

  341,601

  512,277

  688,682

  1,542,560

  Gloucestershire

  276,662

  294,328

  380,723

  951,713

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  22,653

  66,357

  89,010

  Somerset

  183,200

  380,039

  362,990

  926,229

  Wiltshire

  328,307

  388,622

  576,395

  1,293,324

  Total

  10,213,725

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  160,031

  354,457

  503,985

  1,018,473

  Shropshire

  133,101

  242,325

  316,923

  692,349

  Staffordshire

  155,899

  232,230

  301,330

  689,459

  Warwickshire

  73,438

  199,174

  196,373

  468,985

  West Midlands

  20,439

  27,871

  32,949

  81,259

  Total

  2,950,525

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Humberside

  239,503

  289,688

  290,481

  819,672

  North Yorkshire

  840,189

  1,026,477

  1,092,241

  2,958,907

  South Yorkshire

  120,036

  191,816

  216,696

  528,548

  West Yorkshire

  68,397

  114,717

  199,516

  382,630

  Total

  4,689,757

  Grand Total

  10,544,906

  14,559,617

  18,710,517

  43,815,040

  The breakdown by region and county for 1999–2000 is not yet available but the total expenditure was £23.13 million allocated in broadly similar proportions to 1998–99.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Intervention Board will publish its 1999–2000 annual report and accounts. [133688]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Intervention Board's 1999–2000 annual report and accounts were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House. Under separate arrangements copies will also be made available in the libraries of the devolved legislatures.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 473, concerning the absence of modified DNA from oil produced from GM oil seed rape, what assessment he has made of (a) whether modified DNA may be present in animal feed produced from GM oil seed rape and (b) the extent to which the elimination of genetically-modified DNA entails the elimination of other molecules not normally produced in conventional oil seed rape but produced in GM varieties. [124158]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that studies on DNA in various commercial materials used in animal feed indicate that DNA is totally degraded in extracted rape seed meal but is present in other rape seed products and by-products. These results are expected to read across
  798W
  to material derived from genetically-modified oilseed rape. When the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes carried out a rigorous safety assessment of the RT 73 GM variety, extensive compositional analysis revealed no significant differences between the GM line and its parental line. This indicates that there are no different molecules in the GM variety.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the capacity of different forms of genetically-modified crop to render various forms of plant, and the organisms dependent on them extinct. [128696]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) routinely assess the potential of any GMO to render a plant species and other organisms dependent on it extinct, whether through becoming more invasive, toxic to animals or through other means. To date no existing GMOs have been identified with the potential to render other species extinct. ACRE' s remit has recently been extended to take into account effects of the ways that GM crops may be grown on biodiversity, compared to use of equivalent conventional crops. ACRE' s work is augmented by a research programme funded by my Department.

  Salvage Meat
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if salvage meat sold by his Department into the human food chain is identified as such to members of the public likely to purchase and consume it. [121413]
  799W
  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that all fresh meat produced in Great Britain for sale for human consumption is subject to full ante mortem and post mortem inspection by meat Hygiene Service inspectors. Only meat that has been passed as fit for human consumption is health marked and allowed to be marketed. These same general rules apply to "salvage meat" produced from tuberculosis reactor cattle and meat produced from cattle which may be infected with Mycobacterium bovis. However, the same rules require the total condemnation of all carcases with generalised TB infection, and in cases where evidence of TB infection is present (but infection is not generalised) the partial condemnation of affected organs or parts of the carcase is required. These requirements are based on harmonised European Commission rules.

  Meat produced from cattle that have reacted positively to the tuberculin test, or from cattle which are found, at post mortem, to show signs indicative of being infected with bovine tuberculosis (M.bovis) is not therefore subject to any special labelling requirements when sold at either wholesale or retail level. The Department does not, in any case, sell "salvage meat" into the human food chain.

CABINET OFFICE

  Advisory Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she 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 her Department; and on what date each body (i) was set up and (ii) is expected to terminate. [131459]

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she will publish the six-monthly update of information on task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews established since 2 May 1997. [133606]

  Mr. Stringer
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House lists containing updated details about those live task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews established between 2 May 1997 and 30 April 2000. The lists also contain details about those bodies that have been wound up since 1 November 1999.

  Departmental Groups
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if she will list each group that is responsible to her Department, with significant and plural membership from outside the Civil Service, and to which the Nolan rules on non-departmental public bodies do not apply and for each such group, if it(a) is a company limited by guarantee, (b) is a charity, (c) has no formal legal basis and (d) has some other legal basis, giving details; [131241]

  (2) if she will list each group that is responsible to her Department, with significant and plural membership from outside the Civil Service, and to which the Nolan rules on non-departmental public bodies do not apply; and for each such group, if it (a) is a private company, (b) is a charity, (c) has no formal legal basis and (d) has some other legal basis, giving details. [131181]
  800W
  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright),Official Report, column 799W. None of the groups for which my Department is responsible has a formal legal basis.

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what performance targets she has set for the Government Car and Despatch Agency for 2000–01. [132832]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have set the Government Car and Despatch Agency the following key performance targets for the year.

  Financial:

  1. to break even on an accruals basis;

  2. to maintain expenditure and receipts within voted provision.

  Efficiency:
  3. to increase income per pound of direct labour cost to £2.08.

  Quality of Service:
  4. (a) to improve customer satisfaction by 2 per cent. against the outturn of the 1999–2000 survey.
  (b) to identify and address causes of dissatisfaction.

  Environmental:
  5. to convert to environmentally friendly fuels 50 per cent. of the cars purchased in the year and capable of such conversion.

  Devolution
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if additional guidance will be offered to show those issues for which Ministers remain responsible, following devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. [133607]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I am today placing in the Library a Devolution Guidance Note (Number 11) on ministerial accountability after devolution, covering Scotland and Wales. The guidance note will also be made available on the Cabinet Office website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk. While the note does not supplant the devolution legislation, it is intended to offer a lay guide to the broad areas which remain the responsibility of UK Ministers, and for which they are accountable to the UK Parliament. The note will be expanded over the summer to include guidance on Northern Ireland.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132970]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien).

  Ministerial Duty Roster (Summer)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will publish the daily Ministerial Duty Roster for her Department during the summer adjournment. [133077]
  801W
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will publish the duty roster for her Department during the summer adjournment. [132974]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily Ministerial Duty Roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Regulations
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will estimate the cost of regulations(a) introduced and (b) repealed since May, 1997 to the (i) private and (ii) public sectors. [132773]

  Mr. Stringer
  Since 1998, the Government have required Departments to publish a thorough assessment of the impact of any regulatory proposal likely to impose a significant cost on business, charities or the voluntary sector. These assessments do not disaggregate the costs to the other groups affected by regulation, for example consumers and the public sector, nor are the cost savings of Deregulation Orders routinely collected. This information would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  For the cost of regulation on business, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 450W.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many sunset clauses have been included in regulations since May 1997. [132693]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government always consider whether sunset clauses are appropriate when bringing forward legislation. Examples of sunset clauses that have been introduced since May 1997 include Part I of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 and the Football (Disorder) Bill. In addition, many road closure orders are limited by statute. However, information about sunset clauses is not routinely collected and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 12 July 2000,Official Report, column 608–10W, on opinion research, what the reasons were for withholding from disclosure the three pieces of market and opinion research. [132007]

  Mr. Stringer
  A report on customers' views on the Central Office of Information was withheld under exception 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Information supplied in confidence). Business research on the Inter Despatch Service was withheld under exception 7 (Effective management and operations of the public service).

  The third report is "Communicating With Women". This is minor research into the appeal of the magazine format of the publication "Voices" and its effectiveness in reaching target audiences. It was considered of limited
  802W
  significance and was not deliberately withheld. However, it is now being placed in the Libraries of the House in response to the hon. Member's request.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to her 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. [131232]

  Mr. Stringer
  The written parliamentary questions tabled to the Cabinet Office between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 which did not receive substantive answers because the information was:

  (a) not held centrally was five;

  (b) not held in the form requested was three; and

  (c) not available was none.

  Knowledge Network Computer System
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what her most recent estimate is of the total cost of the Knowledge Network computer system. [132687]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Phase 1 of the Knowledge Network—an initial period of scoping and piloting—came to an end in July 2000. It was completed on time, on budget and cost £241,000. A report on Phase 1 will be published in the summer.

  The budget for Phase 2 has not yet been agreed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Union Flag
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish regulations for the flying of the union flag on Government buildings in Northern Ireland. [132149]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The flying of flags on Government buildings is in the first instance a matter for the devolved administration in Northern Ireland. I would much prefer the Executive to reach a consensus view on this issue but am ready to use my powers under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 if necessary. I have sought the views of the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly and of the political parties in Northern Ireland about the coverage and content of any regulations. When I have received and considered the responses, I will make my own view known.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases were issued in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) this year to date; and what the total cost of the production and issuing of these press releases was in each year. [132756]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Northern Ireland Information Service issued the following numbers of press releases for
  803W
  the periods as stated. Included are the total production costs in each of the years concerned:

  year

  Number of releases

  £

  1997

  1,180

  33,202.74

  1998

  1,313

  34,427.67

  1999

  1,055

  30,323.49

  2000 to date

  848

  21,222.46

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press officers were employed in his Department in(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000; and what the total expenditure on press officers by his Department was in each of the years concerned. [132769]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland employed the following numbers of Press Offices for the periods given. Also stated are the following

  Date

  Visits

  18 March 1999

  Dublin—Meeting with an official from the Irish Department of Justice

  9 April 1999

  Dublin—Meeting with officials from the Irish Department of Justice

  25–28 October 1999

  USA:

  Boston—Meetings with Irish American leaders, addressed the Kennedy School and a contemporary Irish politics class at Boston College; meeting with Boston Police Commissioner

  New York—Meetings with the Irish Consul General, the editor of the Irish Voice, the National Committee on American Foreign Policy and the Invest in Britain Bureau; delivered a lecture at Fordham University and met legal specialists, human rights groups and Irish activists

  Washington—Meetings with officials in the US Department of Justice, the US State Department of Justice, the US State Department and the FBI; meeting with the Irish Ambassador and key officials at the British Embassy dealing with Northern Ireland

  23 November 1999

  Dublin—Meeting with officials from the Irish Department of Justice and met with Her Majesty's Ambassador to Dublin

  7 March 2000

  Dublin—Meeting with Her Majesty's Ambassador to Dublin and dinner with an official from the Irish Department of Justice

  14 July 2000

  Dublin—Meeting with officials from the Irish Department of Justice

  Chief Electoral Officer Report
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the report of the Chief Electoral Officer for 1999–2000. [133346]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I am pleased to announce that the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer for the year 1999–2000 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library.

  Firearms
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the standard procedures are for removing a firearms licence following misuse of a firearm. [132657]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable has advised that following clear information that a person had misused a firearm, it is police policy to seize the firearm from the person and consider the revocation of his firearm certificate.
  804W
  expenditure figures on Press Officers, by the NIO in each of the years concerned:

  Year

  Number of Press Officers

  £000

  May 1997

  29

  667

  January 1998

  32

  649

  January 1999

  36

  940

  January 2000

  37

  985

  Official Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the visits outside Britain made by his Department's permanent secretary on official business since 1 January 1999, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [132754]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Since 1 January 1999 the permanent secretary of the Northern Ireland Office has made the following visits outside the United Kingdom on official business:

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conditions are placed on the use of firearms by licence holders who have criminal records. [132656]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable has advised that the criminal record of an applicant is, in the first instance, one of the matters taken into consideration in assessing his suitability to possess a legally held firearm. If a person with a criminal record is considered suitable to hold a firearm, no special or additional conditions are applied. Should the holder of a firearm certificate subsequently be convicted of a recordable criminal offence, then his suitability to retain a certificate will be reassessed.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Mr. Richard Monteith first applied for a licence to carry a firearm. [132655]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable considers that it is not appropriate to comment publicly on such a matter.

  Arms Dumps
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate the security services have made of the number of arms dumps the IRA have in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Irish Republic. [132838]

  Mr. Ingram
  No official estimate is made of the number of IRA arms dumps.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of when IRA arms dumps in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic will be inspected by the international inspectors. [132839]

  Mr. Ingram
  Mr. Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari have reported that they have completed their first inspection of several IRA arms dumps. It represents substantial progress and an honouring of commitments given at the beginning of May. I am confident the inspectors will report any further progress that has been made when they deem it appropriate to do so.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132963]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given today to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Drumcree
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the additional police and security costs incurred as a result of Orange Order protests against the ruling of the Parades Commission on parades at Drumcree to date this year; and what estimate he has made of(a) the financial loss for businesses and (b) the damage to persons and property. [131394]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is still too early to give accurate figures for the additional cost of Royal Ulster Constabulary operations during the July period. Preliminary costs resulting from all riot, arson and bomb damage, which occurred across the Province over the period 4 to 10 July 2000, have been estimated at £3.25 million.

  Police Federation for Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the membership is(a) in total and (b) broken down by rank of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland; what subscription is paid by members; and what other sources and amounts of income are available to the Federation, including commission and payments arising from services and facilities for members from commercial and other activities. [131399]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Federation for Northern Ireland represents all police officers below the rank of Superintendent. At 31 March 2000, the total numbers in these ranks was 12,061 broken down as follows.
  806W

  Total numbers

  Chief Inspector

  170

  Inspector

  498

  Sergeant

  1,390

  Constable

  6,163

  Full-Time Reserve

  2,688

  Part-Time Reserve

  1,152

  The current voluntary subscription is £6.51 per month and 11,291 officers currently subscribe. Commercial companies pay no commission on the services they provide as this is used to lower costs for members. Advertising, for example in the Police Beat magazine, does not cover the production costs of the publication. There are no other sources of income.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review the regulations and role of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland to require independently audited direct postal ballots for the election of the chairman and other officers of the Central Committee; and if he will require the Police Federation to circulate periodically its members with audited financial accounts and statements of its affairs. [131396]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to carry out such a review. Officials of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland are elected in a similar manner to those of the Federations of England, Scotland and Wales. The elections are audited by the Chief Constable and the Federation plays no part in the election procedure.

  The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 sets out the financial constraints placed upon the Police Association and regulation 21 of the Police Association Regulations 1991 provides for the accounts to be properly audited and published in a suitable manner (at Conference) and forwarded to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Full accounts are available for inspection by any member and are also forwarded to the Chief Constable and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the next election of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland will be held; and what plans he has to reform its election procedure in line with existing statutory obligations for trade unions. [131397]

  Mr. Ingram
  Membership elections to the Police Federation for Northern Ireland Regional Boards are held triennially. The next scheduled elections are due in January 2001. The Federation is not a trade union and its activities are strictly controlled by regulation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the date of the last election for the Police Federation for Northern Ireland was; how many candidates there were broken down by(a) category and (b) area; how many were returned unopposed; how many contested elections have been held; and what was the (i) actual and (ii) percentage turnout in each case. [131398]

  Mr. Ingram
  The last membership elections of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland Regional Boards were held on 27 and 28 January 1998. It is not possible to provide the remainder of the information requested as ballot papers are destroyed after a period of three months.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full-time reserve or mobilised constables with 25 to 30 years service will be retired from the RUC without pension entitlement. [132951]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is impossible to say because this will depend on the RUC Chief Constable's assessment of when he decides he is in a position to phase out these groups of officers.

  Ministerial Duty Roster (Summer)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133073]

  Mr. Mandelson
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily ministerial duty roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

PRIME MINISTER

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the expenditure incurred on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites that are his responsibility, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics covered, (ii) the average number of hits in the last three months and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [122115]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]My office is directly responsible for only one internet site; the 10 Downing street internet site. The design of the site cost £55,000. A further £20,000 was needed to upgrade computer equipment within No. 10. The total start-up costs for the new site came to £75,000. Pay and running costs of £32,000 have been incurred to date during the current financial year.

  The 10 Downing street internet site currently covers over 20 topics. It can be viewed at http://www.pm.gov.uk. The site has averaged 2½ million hits per week over the last three months. Estimated expenditure for the next three years is not available.

  Government's Annual Reports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how much the difference was between sale receipts and production costs of the Government's Annual Reports in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [131045]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]Under the arrangements entered into by the previous administration when The Stationery Office was privatised, receipts from the sales of Government publications do not usually accrue to the Government but to The Stationery Office: that has been the case with all three editions of the report. Under the same arrangements, production costs are divided between the Government and The Stationery Office.
  808W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the Government's Annual Report 1999–2000; how many copies were printed; and how many copies he intends to give away free of charge. [131047]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]The budget for the Government's Annual Report 1999–2000 was £165,000, compared to £180,000 in the previous year. 49,000 copies have been printed: 39,000 for retail sale and 10,000 for the Government (mainly for internal distribution without charge within the public sector).

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for a Government Annual Report next year. [131044]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]Decisions will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants were involved in preparing the Government's Annual Report. [131043]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]The report was prepared by one civil servant; other civil servants will have dealt with the Annual Report as part of their other duties.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what outlets received copies of the Annual Report in advance of publication; and what profits retailers make on the sale of each copy of the Annual Report. [131046]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]This year's Government Annual Report was published in the same way as almost all Government priced publications. Copies were distributed in advance to the retailers under an embargo preventing further distribution or sale before the report was made available to Parliament.

  The retailers included The Stationery Office and other bookstores as usual, plus Tesco and W H Smith. Profits made by the retailers are a matter for them.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister when the section of the Docklands Light Railway shown on page 43 of the Government's Annual Report was brought into service. [131328]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]The Docklands Light Railway opened in a series of sections between 1987 and 1999.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister when the airline shown on page 43 of the Government's Annual Report commenced services at London City Airport. [131400]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]CityJet started flights from London City Airport to Dublin in January 1994. Since September 1999, the route has been operated by British European Airways using aircraft leased from CityJet.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister when the sections of the Manchester Metrolink pictured on pages 30 and 31 of the Government's Annual Report were brought into service. [131327]
  809W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]As page 31 of the Annual Report says,the new tram system operated by Metrolink was opened in 1992. The specific section shown is the partially-completed extension to Eccles via Salford Quays brought into operation in December 1999.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister what the basis was of the statement on page 15 of the Government's Annual Report concerning the impact of the Agenda 2000 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy on the price of an average four person family's food bills. [131368]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]The statement is based on an assessment of likely benefits to UK consumers from the implementation of the cuts in support prices reached at the Berlin Council, of £1 billion 810W
  a year or 2 per cent. of the retail food price index or 0.25 per cent. of the all items retail price index. The statement in the report contains a drafting error; it should read "annual" instead of "monthly" and "£65" instead of "£50".

  Stealth Bombers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the conditions under which stealth bombers of the US Air Force are to be stationed at Fairford. [132824]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by our hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 21 July 2000,Official Report, column 342W, to our hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Speaker Nominations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Council if she will bring forward proposals to provide for all nominations for Speaker to be considered by the House. [131418]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The procedure for the election of a Speaker is set out in "Erskine May", pp 237–241.

  When the Procedure Committee last considered this issue (1st Report, Session 1995–96, HC386) they recommended no change to the procedure for electing the Speaker.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council if she will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132964]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. O'Brien) today,Official Report, column 895W.

  Duty Roster
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the President of the Council if she will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for her Department during the summer adjournment. [133145]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No. It is not normal practice of Government to publish a daily ministerial duty roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Westminster Hall
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the hon. and right hon. Members who have initiated debates in Westminster Hall since its inception, stating the number of debates initiated by each Member. [132841]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information is as follows from the beginning of the Session to 26 July. It does not include Government Adjournment debates or debates on select committee reports:

  Number

  Ms Diane Abbott

  1

  Mr. David Amess

  3

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  1

  Mr. Norman Baker

  1

  Ms Jackie Ballard

  2

  Miss Anne Begg

  1

  Mr. A. J. Beith

  3

  Mr. Tony Benn

  1

  Mr. Bob Blizzard

  2

  Mr. Crispin Blunt

  1

  812W

  Number

  Sir Richard Body

  1

  Mr. Peter Bottomley

  1

  Mr. Peter Bradley

  1

  Mr. Graham Brady

  2

  Mr. Tom Brake

  7

  Dr. Peter Brand

  2

  Mr. Colin Breed

  2

  Mr. Desmond Browne

  1

  Mrs. Angela Browning

  1

  Ms Karen Buck

  1

  Mr. Paul Burstow

  1

  Dr. Vincent Cable

  4

  Mr. Alan Campbell

  1

  Mrs. Anne Campbell

  1

  Mr. William Cash

  1

  Mr. David Chaytor

  1

  Mr. Christopher Chope

  1

  Mr. Michael Clapham

  1

  Mr. Tom Clarke

  2

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  3

  Mr. Vernon Coaker

  1

  Mr. Harry Cohen

  2

  Mr. Iain Coleman

  1

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn

  3

  Mr. Jim Cousins

  1

  Mr. Tom Cox

  3

  Mr. Tarn Dalyell

  3

  Ms Valerie Davey

  1

  Mr. David Davis

  2

  Mr. Hilton Dawson

  1

  Mr. Andrew Dismore

  1

  Mr. David Drew

  4

  Ms Julia Drown

  1

  Mr. Alan Duncan

  1

  Mr. Clive Efford

  1

  Sir Peter Emery

  1

  Mr. Nigel Evans

  1

  Mr. Michael Fabricant

  2

  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick

  1

  Mr. Howard Flight

  1

  Mr. Paul Flynn

  2

  Mrs. Maria Fyfe

  1

  Mr. Barry Gardiner

  2

  Mr. Andrew George

  1

  Dr. Ian Gibson

  1

  Mr. Christopher Gill

  1

  Mrs. Teresa Gorman

  1

  Mr. Win Griffiths

  1

  Mr. Patrick Hall

  1

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton

  1

  Mr. Phil Hammond

  2

  Dr. Evan Harris

  2

  Mr. David Heath

  2

  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins

  1

  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle

  2

  Mr. Simon Hughes

  2

  Dr. Brian Iddon

  1

  Mr. Eric Illsley

  3

  Ms Helen Jackson

  I

  Ms Jenny Jones

  1

  Ms Helen Jones

  1

  Dr. Lynne Jones

  1

  Ms Sally Keeble

  1

  Miss Julie Kirkbride

  1

  Dr. Ashok Kumar

  2

  Dr. Stephen Ladyman

  1

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait

  1

  Mr. Edward Leigh

  1

  813W

  Number

  Dr. Julian Lewis

  2

  Mr. Peter Lilley

  1

  Mr. Richard Livsey

  1

  Mr. Tony Lloyd

  1

  Mr. Tim Loughton

  1

  Mr. Peter Luff

  1

  Mr. Calum Macdonald

  1

  Mr. Robert Maclennan

  1

  Mr. Denis MacShane

  1

  Ms Judy Mallaber

  1

  Mr. Michael Mates

  1

  Mr. John McDonnell

  1

  Miss Anne McIntosh

  2

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

  1

  Ms Gillian Merron

  2

  Mr. Austin Mitchell

  1

  Ms Laura Moffatt

  1

  Ms Margaret Moran

  1

  Ms Julie Morgan

  1

  Mr. George Mudie

  1

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  1

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls

  2

  Mr. Mark Oaten

  2

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien

  1

  Mr. Richard Page

  1

  Mr. David Prior

  3

  Mr. Bill Rammell

  1

  Mr. John Randall

  1

  Mr. David Rendel

  1

  Ms Joan Ruddock

  1

  Ms Joan Ryan

  1

  Mr. Martin Salter

  1

  Mr. Mohammed Sarwar

  2

  Mr. Malcolm Savidge

  1

  Mr. Jonathan Shaw

  2

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard

  2

  Mr. Marsha Singh

  1

  Mr. Llew Smith

  1

  Rev. Martin Smyth

  2

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman

  1

  Mr. Richard Spring

  1

  Dr. Phyllis Starkey

  1

  Mr. Anthony Steen

  1

  Mr. George Stevenson

  1

  Mr. David Stewart

  1

  Dr. Howard Stoate

  1

  Mr. Andrew Stunell

  1

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  1

  Mr. David Taylor

  1

  Mr. Matthew Taylor

  1

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas

  1

  Mr. William Thompson

  2

  Dr. Jenny Tonge

  2

  Mr. Michael Trend

  1

  Dr. George Turner

  1

  Mr. Stephen Twigg

  1

  Mr. Derek Twigg

  1

  Mr. Bill Tynan

  1

  Mr. Peter Viggers

  1

  Ms Joan Walley

  1

  Ms Claire Ward

  1

  Mr. Charles Wardle

  1

  Mr. Steve Webb

  4

  Mr. Bowen Wells

  2

  Mr. John Wilkinson

  1

  Mr. David Wilshire

  1

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton

  1

  Mr. Tony Worthington

  2

  Mr. Derek Wyatt

  2

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if all the design and construction contracts awarded by the New Millennium Experience Company complied with EU competition rules. [125029]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) voluntarily followed EU competition rules for the key, large-scale construction and design contracts, having considered and taken on board legal advice that it was exempt from compliance.

  All construction contracts to which the EU rules applied were tendered in compliance with them. Those construction contracts whose value fell under the EU threshold were competitively tendered in accordance with non-departmental public body (NDPB) procurement rules. When tendering for design services, NMEC also complied with EU competition rules or NDPB procurement rules whenever possible, however, the nature of these services meant that it was not always appropriate to do so. This was particularly the case when tendering for very specialist and/or unique goods and services, or when the timetable did not allow for a full-scale tendering process. In all cases where services were procured without competition, NMEC complied with Single Tender Action procedures.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 14 June 2000,Official Report, column 648W, what fees (a) have been paid and (b) are estimated to be payable to each of the accountancy firms employed by the New Millennium Experience Company. [127841]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]Over the lifetime of the project to date, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has paid its official auditors, Ernst & Young, a total of £1,132,923 (excluding VAT) for audit services and other operational non-audit duties. Details of these fees have been and will be included in each of NMEC' s Annual Reports and Financial Statements as recommended by good accounting practice.

  Under the terms of the contracts with the other accountancy firms employed by NMEC, the company is obliged to seek permission before disclosing information about terms of employment. NMEC has written to these companies seeking their agreement to the release of the information requested. Should they agree I will write to the hon. Gentleman with details and place a copy of my letter in the Library. Any future fees payable will be dependent on the nature and scope of work to be undertaken and will be negotiated accordingly.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the policy of New Millennium Experience Company is in respect of the speed of payment of bills; and how much money has yet to be paid for bills submitted on or before 31 March. [128398]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]It is the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) policy that payments to suppliers should be made in accordance with those terms and conditions agreed
  815W
  between the Company and its suppliers, provided that all trading terms and conditions have been complied with. In the period from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 1999 over 75 per cent. of invoices, by value, were paid within 30 days of invoice date.

  Of those bills submitted on or before 31 March 2000, there are currently invoices to the value of approximately £1 million awaiting payment (subject to final authorisation).

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if all(a) Government and (b) other papers relating to the New Millennium Experience will be released under the proposed Freedom of Information Act. [132547]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]My Department will respond to any requests for information within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Bill and, until a Freedom of Information Act comes into force, within both the letter and the spirit of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. We expect the Millennium Commission and the New Millennium Experience Company to do the same.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets for the Millennium Dome have been sold from outlets in(a) Wales and (b) the UK; and if he will make a statement. [128161]

  Janet Anderson
  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 difficult to monitor the exact number of visitors from one particular location. Since 1 January 2000, a total of 2.9 million tickets have been sold; 639,693 of which have been sold direct from Lottery outlets across the UK; 7,981 have been sold from Lottery outlets in Wales.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport where the millennium products, on sale in the Millennium Dome, are available for purchase elsewhere. [130290]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) Licensing programme allowed certain companies to sell approved products through their own wide-ranging distribution channels, including the main high street stores, such as WH Smith and Tesco. The Dome merchandising range is a mixture of licensed products, which were made widely available, and exclusive products, which were manufactured for sale at the Dome.

  Funding (Sports Events)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much financial assistance was made available by(a) the National Lottery,(b) the English Sports Council and Sport England, (c) the Government, (d) the UK Sports Council and (e) other
  816W
  public sector bodies to assist with (i) the preparation of the bid by Manchester to host the Olympics, (ii) the preparation of the bid by Manchester to host the Commonwealth Games, (iii) the upgrading of stadiums and other facilities for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, (iv) the running costs of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, (v) the preparation of the bid to host the World Student Games in Sheffield in 2003, (vi) the preparation of the bid to host the World Student Games in Sheffield, (vii) the upgrading of stadiums and other facilities for the World Student Games in Sheffield and (viii) the running costs of the World Student Games in Sheffield. [131793]

  Kate Hoey
  Most Government money specifically allocated to sport in England is channelled through the English Sports Council (Sport England). This is an independent body sponsored by this Department which, within an overall policy framework set by the Department, dispenses these funds according to its own detailed policies and priorities.

  (i) Regarding support for Manchester Olympic bids: Manchester made two unsuccessful bids for the Olympic Games for both 1996 and 2000. The bids received support from central Government in various ways, and much of the infrastructure assistance has been carried over to the Commonwealth Games. The overall cost for completing projects for the Olympic Bid 2000 programme was circa £73 million.

  (ii) No funding has been made available from the sources listed for the hid for the Commonwealth Games.

  (iii) Regarding the upgrading of stadiums and other facilities for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, Sport England have made the following lottery grant: £92 million towards a total cost of £110 million for the Commonwealth Stadium and English Institute of Sport at Eastlands, Manchester, the venue for the Games athletics, cycling, squash, table tennis and rugby 7's events; £1 million to enhance facilities at Belle Vue, Manchester, to provide the venue for the Games hockey event; £6 million towards a total cost of £6.7 million, for the National Shooting Centre at Bisley, Surrey, the venue for the Games shooting events.

  (iv) No funding has been made available from the sources listed to meet the running costs of the Commonwealth Games. The World Student Games in 2003 will be held in Korea and no UK bid was made for these Games. The World Student Games were held in Sheffield in 1991. The English Sports Council and National Lottery did not exist at that time. However, I can say that £3 million was made available through the Sports Council for the 1991 World Student Games.

  Tourism
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the United Kingdom's tourism earnings has benefited the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency, or other similar area for which figures are available, in the last two years for which figures are available; and how many new jobs connected to tourism have been created in this area in each year. [131668]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]Official sources do not provide estimates of tourism expenditure in Shrewsbury and Atcham or any other sub-county local authority areas, due to the lack of reliability of the information at that level. Information is made available at the county level, although due to the
  817W
  small sample sizes for some counties these figures should be treated with caution. Figures for tourism expenditure in the county of Shropshire for 1998 and 1999 are as follows:

  £million

  1998

  1999

  Expenditure by UK and overseas tourists on trips of one or more night1

  Shropshire

  93

  136

  UK

  25,748

  27,821

  Tourist spend in Shropshire as percentage of total tourist spend in UK

  0.4

  0.5

  1 Excludes expenditure by visitors from the Republic of Ireland

  Source:

  UK Tourism Survey (UK tourists)

  International Passenger Survey (overseas tourists—1999 data are provisional)

  It is likely that the inclusion of the spending during tourism day visits would at least double these amounts.

  Information from the Annual Employment Survey shows that the number of employee jobs in the tourism-related industries in Shrewsbury and Atcham stood at 2,500 in 1996, 2,600 in 1997 and 2,900 in 1998, the last three years for which information is available. Information on self-employment in the tourism-related industries is not made available at local authority level on the grounds of reliability.

  BBC Online
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when he will begin his review of BBC Online; [132422]

  (2) on what date his Department was informed of the free trials of BBC news on mobile telephony and ADSL services; [132424]

  (3) if his Agreement with BBC Online permits the distribution of content free-of-charge to commercially-funded Internet portals; [132423]

  (4) if he will publish his Department's 1998 Agreement with the BBC on BBC Online. [132421]

  Janet Anderson
  A copy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's approval to the BBC's proposals for BBC Online has been placed in the Library of the House. The BBC's formal request, to which the approval referred, has not been published because it contains confidential information. In relation to future approvals of BBC proposals for new public services, reasoned decisions will be published, under the new arrangements announced on 21 February.

  Details of the review of BBC Online will be announced in due course.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been requested by the BBC to consider whether the approval given in 1998 for BBC Online permits the distribution of content free-of-charge to commercially funded internet portals. It is for the BBC in the first instance to consider whether any further approval should be sought and for the BBC Governors to satisfy themselves that Charter obligations are being met. My right hon. Friend the
  818W
  Secretary of State is not, therefore, in a position to take a view on the scope of the current approval unless and until such a request, including detailed information, is received.

  The BBC informed the Department of the trials for the provision of BBC News content over mobile phones on 26 January 2000.

  Independent Football Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to advertise(a) the position of Chairman of the Independent Football Commission and (b) other appointments to the Commission. [133137]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I shall shortly announce details of the Government's response to the Football Task Force's report on commercial issues. The announcement will include the membership of the Independent Football Commission. As its name suggests, the Commission will be fully independent of the Government and the football authorities. As the Commission will not be a Government-sponsored body, the position of Chairman will not be advertised. A number of people with the relevant skills and experience are being considered for the position of Chairman. The Chairman will then appoint the members of the Commission.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132962]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department today,Official Report, column 895W.

  World Cup
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 24 July 2000,Official Report, column 599W, on what date the Minister for Sport wrote to the Football Association about the costs of the World Cup bid.[133158]

  Kate Hoey
  As I advised the hon. Member in my answers to him on 24 July 2000,Official Report, column 416W, and 25 July 2000, Official Report, column 599W, 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.

  Public Bodies Reviews
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he intends to undertake reviews of the(a) National Heritage Memorial Fund, (b) National Gallery, (c) National Portrait Gallery and (d) Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. [133733]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As part of the Department's programme of quinquennial reviews of its public bodies, I am today announcing that this summer we will be
  819W
  starting reviews of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery and Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts.

  The reviews will include an evaluation of the role and functions of these bodies and how those functions can best be carried out, and a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the way in which they deliver services to their users. We estimate that the reviews will be completed next spring. A copy of the announcement has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UNITA
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if violations of the United Nations sanctions against UNITA are continuing; and if he will make a statement. [133608]

  Mr. Hain
  Sadly, we have reason to believe that violations of the sanctions against UNITA are continuing. We are aware of reports that UNITA continue to fuel their war effort by selling diamonds, and that such private sales have taken place recently in Libreville, Gabon. We have heard that another private sale may be held in Libreville within the next month. We will be raising these reports

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  September

  2–3

  Evian

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  3–5

  Biarritz

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  4–8

  Strasbourg

  EP Plenary

  11–12

  Paris

  Education (Informal)

  15

  Paris

  EU/Ukraine Summit

  9–10

  Versailles

  ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  18–19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  18

  Brussels

  IGC Ministerial

  25–26

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  26 (tbc)

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  28

  Brussels

  Internal Market/Consumer Council

  28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  29

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  October

  2

  Paris

  EU/US Ministerial Meeting

  2

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  2–7

  Strasbourg

  EP Plenary

  3

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  9

  Luxembourg

  IGC Ministerial

  9–10

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  13–14

  Biarritz

  European Council (Informal)

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN JHA Council

  19–21

  Seoul

  Europe/Asia Summit

  23

  China

  EU/China Summit

  23–24

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  23–27

  Strasbourg

  EP Plenary

  25

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  30 (tbc)

  Paris

  EU-Russia Summit

  November

  3

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  3

  Paris

  EU/Canada Ministerial

  5

  Brussels

  IGC Ministerial Conclave

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  7

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  9

  Brussels

  Education/Youth Council

  820W
  urgently with the Gabonese authorities, and urging them to do everything in their power to prevent this illicit trade. We will also be passing this information to the Chairman of the UN Angola Sanctions Committee.

  We also have reason to believe that Victor Bout continues to supply arms to Angola in breach of the UN arms embargo. We call on all States to fulfil their international obligations to implement and enforce the mandatory sanctions imposed by the Security Council of the United Nations; there can be no excuse for any State to provide support for Bout in his continued flouting of UN sanctions.

  European Union
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for August and the major European Union events for the next six months. [133609]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information is as follows:

  European Calendar: August-January 2001
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  August
  There arc no Councils scheduled for this month.

  821W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  13–14

  Marseilles

  Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial or Summit (possible)

  13–17

  Strasbourg

  EP Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  Research Council

  17

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Brussels

  Culture/Audio-visual Council

  23

  Sochaux

  European Conference Ministerial

  23–24

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Internal Market/Consumers Council

  29–30

  Gaborone

  EU/Southern African Development Commmunity (SADC) Ministerial

  December

  1

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  3

  Brussels

  IGC Ministerial Conclave

  4–5

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  4

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  5

  Brussels

  Energy and Industry Council

  7–8

  Nice

  European Council

  11

  Brussels

  Health Council

  11–15

  Strasbourg

  EP Plenary

  14–15

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  18

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  18

  Not yet known

  EU/United States Summit

  19

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Not yet known

  EU/Canada Summit

  20–21

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  22

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  January

  12

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  22

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  29–30

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  International Criminal Court
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in draft the legislation to enable UK ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [133611]

  Mr. Hain
  The draft International Criminal Court Bill will be published on 22 August for consultation. We are publishing the Bill as soon as it is ready, although this is during the recess, because we are anxious to make progress on legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We hope that the draft Bill will receive support from all sides of the House and look forward to receiving comments from interested parliamentarians, individuals and organisations to whom we will be sending unsolicited copies. Any hon. Members who would like a copy of the consultation document sent directly to them at their constituencies or homes should contact the ICC Bill team, United Nations Department, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Copies will be despatched on the day of publication. Comments should be received by 12 October.

  Single Market
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what civil and police resource is being planned under Article 308 of the Treaty of the European Community in respect to threats to the operation 822W
  of the single market from (a) inside and (b) outside the European Union, as envisaged in Commission document (00) 119; what form of voting will govern the decision on its establishment; and what estimate he has made of (a) how many personnel will be involved and (b) the cost in the first year of operation. [132573]

  Mr. Vaz
  Commission document COM(2000)119 proposes the creation of a Rapid Reaction Facility. This would allow for rapid intervention in the form of money from the community budget in situations of emerging or actual crisis in third countries. It would complement humanitarian intervention and other tools deployed in crisis situations. The proposal's legal base is Article 308 and voting in the Council would therefore be by unanimity. The Commission has proposed a budget of 30 million euro in year one. The proposal is still under discussion in the Council.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government on human rights; and what specific cases were discussed. [132704]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary discussed human rights issues with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ismail Cem, when he visited London in September 1999, and in the margins of the OSCE summit in Istanbul in November
  823W
  1999. Human rights have also been raised in other ministerial contacts, for example by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) when he met the Turkish Ambassador in December 1999, and at my meeting with the Turkish Justice Minister, Mr. Sami Turk, in June this year.

  There have otherwise been regular discussions with the Turkish authorities on human rights issues in contacts between officials, both bilaterally and by the EU Presidency and Commission with our support. Points raised in such discussions included our opposition to the death penalty, the imprisonment of HADEP mayors and Akin Birdal, allegations of torture, treatment of Christians in Turkey, many other individual cases and resettlement and other aspects of the Ilisu Dam project. We have also regularly discussed Turkey's proposals to meet the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership.

  We will continue to make our concerns clear to the Turkish authorities.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many press officers were employed in his Department in(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000; and what the total expenditure on press officers by his Department was in each of the years concerned. [132761]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The News Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employed:

  (a) 10.5 press officers in May 1997

  (b) 14.5 press officers in January 1998

  (c) 16.5 press officers in January 1999

  (d) 16.7 press officers in January 2000; now 17.

  These figures include the management positions of the Head and Deputies in the Department.

  The total expenditure on press officers (salaries and running costs) in each financial year was:

  Financial year

  £000

  (a) 1996–97

  997

  (b) 1997–98

  1,317

  (c) 1998–99

  1,477

  (d) 1999–20001

  1,509

  1 This is an estimate. Exact costings for 1999–2000 will not be available until September.

  These changes were introduced at the initiative of the Department's management in response to rising pressures on the Department.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost of the production and issuing of press releases was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 to date. [132782]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The total cost of the production and issuing of press releases through the Central Office of Information was:

  (a) £19,111.37 in 1997

  (b) £23,488.95 in 1998

  824W

  (c) £19,037.82 in 1999

  (d) £9,469.75 so far this year.

  These figures include a proportion of standing charges as well as per release delivery. In addition, a number of press releases are issued each month direct from the FCO out of hours for which cost and other figures are not available.

  Drugs Control
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what criteria are used by the UN Drugs Control Programme when developing their environmental impact assessments for fungal herbicide field trials; [132545]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 653W, on drugs control, what environmental impact assessment of pleospora papaveracea took place before the field trial project in Uzbekistan began; and what environmental impact assessments are taking place during the field trial project; [132544]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 653W, on drugs control, what evidence he has received which shows that pleospora papaveracea is a control agent specific to opium poppy. [132543]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]The purpose of the United Nations International Drugs Control Programme research project into pleospora papaveracea is to determine its viability as a control agent specific to the opium poppy and to establish whether there are any environmental risks in its use.

  UK funding was made available in 1998 exclusively for this project, which is expected to last a total of 3½ years. Before committing funding, the FCO sought advice from UK agricultural experts at MAFF and at Natural Resources International Ltd (who provide advice to DfID). Their comments, including an assessment of the risks to legitimate cultivated crops, were incorporated into the final design of the project. A British consultant, until recently at the Long Ashton Research Station, has been employed by UNDCP to review and oversee the project and, in particular, to conduct a detailed examination of host specificity of pleospora papaveracea. There has been no direct funding of Long Ashton.

  There are no indications in progress reports from UNDCP so far of any adverse effect on agricultural crops or of any risk of uncontrolled spread. Research has explicitly eliminated effects on 112 different plant species. The research is not yet complete.

  The Government had made it clear that if research into pleospora papaveracea showed it to be harmful to the environment, the UK would withdraw support and press for closure of the research programme.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which chemical herbicide field trial projects his Department supports to combat(a) coca, (b) opium and (c) marijuana. [132546]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]None.

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to remove
  825W
  his unofficial reservation on the siting of the Headquarters of the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty in Buenos Aires when the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting takes place in The Hague in September. [132365]

  Mr. Battle
  The Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting is due to consider only one Agenda Item, the Report of the Committee for Environmental Protection. Discussion on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat is not envisaged.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter of 28 March from the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire regarding his constituent, Mr. Goddard. [132913]

  Mr. Vaz
  I regret that we were unable to trace the letter to which the right hon. Member refers. As he has now kindly provided a copy, I will be replying as soon as possible.

  Missile Defence System
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from(a) EU countries, (b) the United States of America, (c) NATO partners, (d) Russia and (e) China, regarding US proposals for a national missile defence system since the test failure of the system's interceptor rocket on 8 July; and if he will make a statement. [132366]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government continue to consult with the United States and with other allies, both bilaterally and in NATO, on US National Missile Defence plans. We also continue to discuss the issue bilaterally with Russia and China.

  The outcome of the latest test will no doubt be carefully considered in any assessment the US Administration makes this year of the technological feasibility of proceeding with the deployment of such a system.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made regarding the likelihood of an initial nuclear strike on(a) countries of the EU and (b) the United States of America by (i) North Korea, (ii) Libya and (iii) Iran; and if he will make a statement. [132370]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our current assessment is that there is no significant threat that North Korea, Libya or Iran might use nuclear weapons against the UK in present circumstances. We continue to monitor developments in this area closely.

  It is not for us to make such assessments in respect of other countries.

  Israel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to seek to persuade Israel to become a party to the(a) Non-Proliferation Treaty and (b) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and if he will make a statement. [132170]
  826W
  Mr. Hain
  We consistently call on Israel to adhere to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards and to ratify the CTBT. We have raised these issues in both bilateral contacts with Israel and in multi-lateral fora such as the NPT Review Conference.

  Middle East
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations calling for financial assistance following the prospective peace settlement in the Middle East, have been made to Her Majesty's Government by (i) Israel, (ii) the Palestinian Authorities and (iii) Jordan; and if he will make a statement. [132171]

  Mr. Hain
  The Palestinian Authority, Israel and Jordan are naturally keen that any peace settlement in the Middle East should be supported by the international community. The G8, in its conclusions from Okinawa, invited the international community to participate in the efforts to help the parties implement a peace agreement when it is reached. We support that call.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132957]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department today,Official Report, column 895W.

  Ministerial Holidays
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the dates of holidays which are to be taken by him and the other Ministers in his Department. [132939]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is not normal practice to disclose Ministers' holiday plans, as this is personal information.

  Official Trips
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the destinations and the purposes of the official trips which are to be undertaken by him and the Ministers in his Department between 24 July and 23 October. [132940]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I visited Hungary and the Czech Republic on 24–26 July for meetings with my opposite numbers. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), is currently visiting Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Belize and Honduras in connection with his responsibilities for Central and Latin America.

  I shall be accompanying Her Majesty The Queen during the State Visit to Italy in October. As plans are finalised bilateral visits will be announced in the usual way. In addition to regular EU commitments, a number of multilateral events are being arranged for the period in question, including attendance at the UN General Assembly and ASEM.

  Molluccan Islands
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from(a) the Indonesian Government and (b) representatives of the Christian community in Indonesia concerning the conflict in the Molluccan islands; and what response he has given. [133147]

  Mr. Battle
  The information is as follows:

  (a) I discussed the situation in Maluku with the Indonesian Ambassador on 3 July. The Indonesian Foreign Minister also briefed our Ambassador in Jakarta on developments on 10 July. The Head of the Diplomatic Service and our Ambassador in Jakarta have also discussed very recently the situation with President Wahid.

  (b) A delegation of Christian clergy from Maluku called on officials of the South East Asia Department on 18 July. They gave a first hand account of the situation there.

  We continue to keep up diplomatic pressure on the Indonesian Government to take effective action against extremists in Maluku and to guarantee safe access for humanitarian agencies.

  Duty Rosters
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the daily ministerial Duty Roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133072]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is not the normal practice of Government to publish the daily ministerial Duty Roster. This Department will ensure that it has enough cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Zambia
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has urged the Zambian Government to take to maintain the existing state of bilateral relations. [132825]

  Mr. Hain
  Our relations with Zambia are very good. I visited Lusaka from 10–11 May. I discussed governance, economic reform and corruption issues with a wide range of Zambians, including President Chiluba and the Ministers of Finance and Legal Affairs.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the Government of St. Helena and list its members and by whom they are appointed. [132826]

  Mr. Battle
  The Executive Council of St. Helena is the Government of St. Helena, as established by Section 5 of the St. Helena Constitution Order 1988. The Executive Council consists of:

  (a) three Ex-Officio Members,

  (i) the Chief Secretary, Mr. John Styles

  (ii) the Financial Secretary, Mr. Robert Dolan

  (iii) the Attorney-General, Mr. Kurt Delano DeFreitas OBE

  all appointed by the Governor with the approval of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Attorney-General is a non-voting member of Council.

  828W

  (b) Five Members of the Legislative Council who are Chairmen of Council Committees,

  (i) the Hon. Terrence F. Richards, Chairman, Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee

  (ii) the Hon. Robert M. Robertson, Chairman, Education Committee

  (iii) the Hon. William E. Drabble, Chairman, Employment and Social Security Committee

  (iv) the Hon. Eric W. George MBE, Chairman, Public Health and Social Services Committee

  (v) the Hon. Stedson R. George, Chairman, Public Works and Services Committee

  all elected as Council Chairmen by Legislative Council and appointed by the Governor.

  At present two Councillors, the Hon. William E. Drabble and the Hon. Eric W. George, are overseas. The Hon. Mervyn R. Yon, the Acting Chairman of the Public Health and Social Services Committee, and the Hon. Clive R. Duncan, the Acting Chairman of the Employment and Social Security Committee were appointed as Temporary Members of Executive Council by the Governor under section 5(2)(a) of the Constitution.

  As provided for by the Constitution the Governor presides at Meetings of the Executive Council. The President Governor Mr. David J. Hollamby was appointed by Her Majesty the Queen with effect from 24 June 1999.

  Airline Safety
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what advice officials in his Department have offered to the travelling public about the safety of specific airlines within India; [133054]

  (2) what advice officials in his Department have offered to British civil servants and diplomats regarding the safety of specific airlines in India; [133056]

  (3) about which airlines officials in his Department have conveyed safety concerns to British diplomats and civil servants in each of the last 10 years. [133055]

  Mr. Hain
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place copies of the letters in the Libraries of the House.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the explanatory statement in respect of Riffat Begum, Islamabad, reference 15B/G0290, will be forwarded to the Independent Appellate Authority. [133133]

  Mr. Vaz
  The explanatory statement in respect of Riffat Begum, Islamabad reference G0290, was despatched to the Independent Appellate Authority on 7 December 1999.

  Opium
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the UN Drugs Control Programme research into pleospora papaveracea to control the cultivation of illicitly grown opium poppies to be completed. [132852]

  Mr. Battle
  The project is expected to be completed in the last quarter of 2001.
  829W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what financial support his Department has provided to Long Ashton Research Station of the Institute of Arable Crops Research since 1997; and what this financial assistance is intended for; [132856]

  (2) pursuant to his answers of 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 653W, on drugs control, what steps he has taken to ensure that United Kingdom funding of UNDCP research into pleospora papaveracea to control the cultivation of illicit opium poppies is not used for research (a) into other fungi or (b) the control of other illicit crops. [132830]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Long Ashton Research Station of the Institute of Arable Crops Research provides the UN Drugs Control Programme in respect of research into pleospora papaveracea. [132853]

  Mr. Battle
  Two scientists from the Institute of Genetics in Tashkent, who are working on UNDCP sponsored research into pleospora papaveracea, visited the Long Ashton Research Centre in April 1999 to study methods used in the formulation and application of microbial herbicides. A scientist from Long Ashton has been acting as an adviser to the research programme since its inception.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132867]

  Mr. Hain
  KPMG has not been engaged to advise on any PFI contracts.

WALES

  Council Tax
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the council tax reduction scheme in Wales. [115594]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Secretary covering a range of issues, including issues relating to local government finance.

  Any council tax reduction scheme in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly. There is a scheme in operation this financial year 2000–2001 which has cost £17 million. The National Assembly is currently consulting on proposals for a new standard spending assessment formula and in the context of those proposals, a joint local government/National Assembly group is considering options for a transitional reduction scheme, should this be required in the next financial year.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the increases in council tax in Wales in the current year. [115595]
  830W
  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Secretary covering a range of issues, including issues relating to local government finance. Increases in council tax are a matter for the local authorities themselves.

  Elected Mayors
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received with regard to the introduction of elected mayors for the(a) regions, (b) cities and (c) towns of Wales. [115584]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have received a large number of representations relating to the introduction of executive arrangements, including elected mayors, in the Local Government Bill, but these have not been detailed representations relating to mayors for specific regions, cities or towns of Wales.

  The Local Government Bill, which has now completed its parliamentary stages, provides a tailor made framework for executive arrangements including cabinets and directly elected mayors. All local authorities in Wales will need to consider which form of executive arrangement is most appropriate in their areas, and those who consider that a directly elected mayor would be appropriate will need to consult their electorate and hold a referendum on their proposals.

  NHS
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he made of the current state of indebtedness of the 26 health trusts in Wales when preparing his announcement of additional funding to the NHS in Wales. [118411]

  Mr. Hanson
  Additional funding for Wales announced in the budget as a result of increases in health spending in England was determined by applying the Barnett formula.

  Decisions on how this funding is spent, including the effect on the indebtedness of Trusts in Wales, are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the reform of the NHS in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [132379]

  Mr. Hanson
  Over the past year there have been regular discussions about the NHS in Wales between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me and the Assembly First Secretary and Health Secretary.

  Our discussions have covered many issues including reform and modernisation particularly at the time of the three meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Health.

  Any decisions on reform in Wales are however for the National Assembly to decide and their main plans were set out in Jane Hutt's statement to a plenary session of the National Assembly on 12 July.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what talks he has had with manufacturers on the areas in Wales to be covered by regional selective assistance; and if he will make a statement. [124423]
  831W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had a number of meetings with manufacturers in Wales, some of whom have raised the issue of the Assisted Areas map, which determines the areas in which regional selective assistance can be paid. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I were delighted to announce on 26 July that the European Commission has approved the new Assisted Areas map for the UK. I have written to all Welsh MPs and MEPs with details of what this means for Wales.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning paying of moneys from central Government to each local education authority school in Wales for books, with particular reference to the manner of giving the moneys to the schools; and if he will make a statement. [126519]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of matters, including the National Assembly's arrangements for allocating education funds.

  The Assembly provides resources specifically for books through the annual Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme. The Assembly believes that local education authorities are best placed to decide the allocation of these funds locally. They are encouraged to target schools with the greatest need in terms of improving standards of literacy and numeracy.

  Schools may also use their delegated budget to purchase books.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on measures to eliminate child poverty; and if he will make a statement. [129503]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues including children's issues in Wales.

  We are the first Government to have made a commitment to end child poverty in 20 years, and halve it within 10 years. The Government have announced measures this year which will assist child poverty, such as an increase in child benefit to £15.50 from April 2001, 40 per cent. more than in 1997, and an increase in the Sure Start maternity grant from £200 to £300.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had in the past 12 months with Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions concerning the imports into Wales of toxic waste for(a) disposal and (b) treatment. [129972]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have met DETR Ministers to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales, and I have also met the Environment Agency Wales during the past 12 months to discus environment issues including imports and exports of waste. Policies on exports and imports of waste are not devolved and are dealt with by DETR.832W
  Nevertheless, I have taken a keen interest in these issues, especially during the consultation period of a UK-wide set of policies on exports and imports of waste, which the National Assembly for Wales were involved in.

  A55
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the money spent on construction work on the A55 was EU funding, broken down by EU source fund and budget, in each of the last 10 years. [129465]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  During the 10 years up to 1 July 1999, £6.9 million was allocated in 1990 from the EC Transport Infrastructure Fund to the A55 Pen y Clip tunnel scheme. The money was drawn down in instalments over the next few years but information on the size and date of each instalment is not obtainable without incurring disproportionate cost.

  For that part of the A55 in England, the Highways Agency has reported no EU funding in the last 10 years.

  All functions with regards to trunk roads and motorways in Wales were transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999.

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of the Government's Annual report 1998–99 were sold in Wales; and how many were given away. [131070]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]I regret this information is not held centrally.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of New Deal participants in Wales have been(a) unemployed for over six months, (b) unemployed for over 12 months and (c) never worked. [130990]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]The information requested at(a) and (b) could be provided only at disproportionate cost. That requested at (c) is not available.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with(a) the First Secretary and (b) the Rural Affairs Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales as to the impact on farm incomes in less favoured areas in Wales of the reform of the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance regime. [131604]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular weekly basis and I am in continuing contact with my colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales and we discuss a wide range of issues. The new scheme for the Less Favoured Areas, known as Tir Mynydd, forms part of the Rural Development Plan for Wales. It has not been possible to devise a new area-based scheme which exactly replicates payments under the old HLCA headage based scheme, and satisfies the European Commission. The new National Assembly scheme therefore includes a safety net over three years to help farmers who would otherwise lose out, to adjust.
  833W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of the effect on farm incomes in Wales of the reform of the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance regime. [131603]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I speak to my Whitehall colleagues on a regular basis and we discuss a wide range of issues. The National Assembly for Wales' new scheme for the Less Favoured Areas, known as Tir Mynydd, forms part of the Rural Development Plan for Wales. It has not been possible to devise a new area-based scheme which exactly replicates payments under the old HLCA headage based scheme, and satisfies the Commission. The new scheme therefore includes a safety net over three years to help farmers who would otherwise lose out, to adjust.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the average income for hill farmers in Wales for each year since 1994. [131669]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]The average Net Farm Income for hill farmers in Wales for each year in question was:

  year

  £

  1994–95

  7,000

  1995–96

  18,400

  1996–97

  14,300

  1997–98

  8,100

  1998–99

  4,400

  After 1 July 1999 these matters became the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the average farm income in Wales for each year since 1994. [131653]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]The average Net Farm Income for each year in question was:

  Year

  £

  1994–95

  11,600

  1995–96

  23,200

  1996–97

  18,700

  1997–98

  11,400

  1998–99

  5,800

  After 1 July 1999 these matters became the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning prospects for the steel plants in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [132381]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The First Secretary and I meet regularly and have held several discussions on prospects for the steel industry. We have also held meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, with the Chief Executive of Corns and with representatives of the ISTC.
  834W
  I deeply regret recent job losses announced in the steel industry. This is a commercial decision for the company, but the Government and the National Assembly for Wales are working in partnership to do all we can to help those affected. We have put together a package of measures and the First Secretary has confirmed that he is seeking to set up an all-Wales taskforce to help deal with the immediate consequences of the Corns announcement and with shaping a longer-term strategy for assisting the areas affected.

  The best contribution the Government can make to the future of the industry is to secure long-term economic stability based on low inflation and sound public finances. This allows business to invest and plan ahead with confidence. It is this consistent, long-term approach which is the foundation for steady growth.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the prospects for manufacturing in Wales in relation to(a) the strength of sterling and (b) the Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [132380]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The First Secretary and I meet on a regular basis and discuss a number of issues including manufacturing in Wales. Overall, manufacturing output in Wales for the four quarters to the first quarter of 2000 was 2.9 per cent. higher than this corresponding period a year earlier.

  The Government understand the concerns about the fall in value of the euro, but are determined to take a long-term view. Manufacturers who have suffered from the old boom and bust would not want a return to short-term quick fixes which put at risk long-term stability. The Government's careful handling of the economy across the UK will allow business to invest and plan ahead with confidence

  The Spending Review supports manufacturing through a number of routes including the £530 million launch investment for the A3XX, which will be of particular benefit to manufacturing jobs in Wales. There will also be an important role for the Small Business Service and increased funding for commercial exploitation of science in supporting investment and innovation among manufacturing firms, especially SMEs.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases were issued in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) this year to date; and what the total cost of the production and issuing of these press releases was in each year. [132749]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In 1997 the Welsh Office issued 650 press notices, 774 in 1998 and 776 in 1999. So far this year the Wales Office has issued 64 press notices.

  The cost of issuing a press notice in 1999 was something in excess of £40. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press officers were employed in his Department in(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000; and what the total expenditure on press officers by his Department was in each of the years concerned. [132758]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  From 1994 until the start of the National Assembly in July 1999 the Welsh Office Press Office had between eight and nine press officers. The Wales Office employed two press officers in January this year.

  The cost of the Press Office was £319,000 in 1996–97, £318,000 in 1997–98 and £370,000 in 1998–99. Because there were only two press officers in January 2000, in the interests of confidentiality I am unable to disclose salary costs for this year.

  Plaid Cymru
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the files compiled by his Department on the activities of Plaid Cymru between 1958 and 1973 which are filed as restricted in the Public Record Office, file reference BD-25/59; and if he will lift this restriction. [132789]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The file to which the right hon. Member refers is one of a series of files containing general papers on various organisations, including the Welsh Language Committee, the Welsh League of Youth, the Welsh Advisory Committee of the British Council and the Council of Social Services for Wales in Monmouthshire and Plaid Cymru. I am advised that it contains a collection of press cuttings, correspondence with and about Plaid Cymru, and briefings for Ministers in connection with a meeting with the President of Plaid Cymru.

  The file does not have a security marking and contrary to press speculation last weekend is not "Top Secret" and is most definitely not concerned with "political surveillance".

  In common with other retained files the file is stored at the Public Record Office at Kew and will be released on 1 January 2004. If, however, the hon. Member felt the file should be made available sooner, I would be pleased to consider this with the appropriate authorities.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff are employed directly by his Department; how many were employed on 1 July 1999; and how he expects these figures to vary in coming years. [133123]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office currently employs 42.5 staff directly. One member of staff is a part-timer. The Department also employs a further four casual staff who are supplied by an employment agency.

  On 1 July 1999, the first day of its existence, the Wales Office employed 27.5 staff.

  I have no current plans to increase or decrease the current staffing levels, but it is not possible to foresee how things may develop in the years ahead.

  Resource Allocation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what means he intends to report to Parliament on his use of resources other than those which are by way of payments to the National Assembly for Wales. [133124]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The annual Departmental Report, which is presented to Parliament, contains details of the use of resources by the Wales Office.

  Ministerial Duty Roster
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the daily Ministerial duty roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133064]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish daily Ministerial Duty Rosters. This Wales Office will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132969]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department today,Official Report, column 895W.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132863]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department does not have any PFI contracts.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) for what reason discounts were offered to Cardiff County Council on the transfer of land to Ferry Road as a result of the winding-up of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation; [133214]

  (2) who took the decision to discount the land to Ferry Road that was passed to Cardiff County Council as a result of the wind up of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation; [133216]

  (3) what discounts were offered to Cardiff County Council on the transfer of the land to Ferry Road as a result of the wind up of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. [133217]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  These are matters for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Permanent Secretary (Official Visits)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the visits outside Britain made by his Department's Permanent Secretary on official business since 1 January 1999, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [133272]
  837W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Neither the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Office between 1 January 1999 and 30 June 1999, nor the Head of the Wales Office between 1 July 1999 and today, has made any visits outside Britain on official business.

  Rural Bus Subsidy Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was spent in Wales under the rural bus subsidy scheme in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much is expected to be spent in 2000–01. [132298]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Audited expenditure in 1998–99 was £2.17 million. In 1999–2000, the scheme was extended to include urban areas, with a total allocation of £5 million. Actual expenditure in that year and provision for 2000–01 are matters for the National Assembly.

  Hotel Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what Government training schemes are available to those working within the hotel industry in Wales. [132311]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The New Deal programmes, Modern Apprenticeships, GNVQs, and National Traineeships for Work Based Learning are available to those working within the hotel industry in Wales. The Employment Service in Wales has recently put into operation an initiative involving hotels and catering companies encouraging them to recruit New Deal clients in its Cardiff District. Also, until very recently, the Wales New Deal Advisory Task Force included a member representing the hotel industry and an approaching review of the Task Force's membership will hopefully ensure that the hotel industry continues to be represented.

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines Ministers should follow if their Department deals with a matter affecting their own constituency. [133215]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Section 6 of the "Ministerial Code", published by the Prime Minister in 1997 and setting out detailed guidance for Ministers on how they should conduct business, deals with Ministers' Constituency and Party Interests.

  Paragraph 64 of the Code states that,
  Where Ministers have to take decisions within their Department which might have an impact on their own constituencies, they should, of course, take particular care to avoid any possible conflict of interest.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  All-work Test
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) failed the All Work Test, (b) appealed against the decision and (c) had their appeal successfully upheld broken down by each benefit applied for, in each of the last 10 years. [132931]
  838W
  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows. The All-work Test (AWT) was introduced in 1995.

  Information on disallowances following the AWT (which was replaced by the Personal Capability Assessment from April this year) is in table 1. Disallowances include claimants who have failed to return the All-work Test (AWT) questionnaire or to attend for medical examination.

  Data on appeals are in table 2. The time lags between disallowance, lodging an appeal and hearing an appeal means there is no direct relationship between data on decisions to disallow benefit and appeals made and heard in each calendar year.

  Table 1: Total AWT disallowances

  Incapacity Benefit1

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  19952

  54,080

  1,619

  1996

  189,571

  6,294

  1997

  208,545

  5,415

  1998

  219,007

  4,380

  1999

  196,928

  3,140

  1 Includes credits only claims and claims for Income Support on the grounds of incapacity

  2 From the introduction of IB on 13 April 1995

  Source:

  Information taken from a 100 per cent. count of adjudication decisions from the benefit computer system

  Table 2: Number of appeals and outcomes against All-work Test decisions

  Incapacity benefits1

  Number of appeals lodged

  Number of appeals cleared at hearing

  Number of appeals found in favour of the Appellant

  19951

  18,966

  3,616

  1,690

  1996

  70,578

  48,047

  21,533

  1997

  81,394

  64,646

  26,898

  1998

  60,844

  62,607

  25,175

  1999

  54,889

  57,586

  23,789

  1 Incapacity Benefits are Incapacity Benefit, credits only cases (where there is no entitlement to Incapacity Benefit but National Insurance contribution credits are awarded on the grounds of incapacity),Severe Disablement Allowance, Income Support claimed on the grounds of incapacity.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for year ending December 1999 are provisional and may be subject to revision.

  2. Figures from the GAPS system are subject to updating on a quarterly basis and may differ from previously published figures.

  Sources:

  1. April 1995 to December 1997, 100 per cent. extract from Independent Tribunals Service computerised records.

  2. September 1997 to December 1999, 100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service Generic Appeals Processing System (GAPS).

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what documentation is needed to proceed with an appeal against an All-work Test decision; and if he will make a statement. [132933]

  Mr. Bayley
  The only documentation required from a person who wants to appeal against a decision on an All-work Test (replaced by the Personal Capability Assessment from April this year) is a written statement
  839W
  setting out the reasons for the appeal. Appellants may provide additional evidence to support their case if they wish, but there is no requirement for them to do so.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines he issues on GP charging for the documentation needed to proceed with an appeal against an All-work Test decision; and if he will make a statement. [132932]

  Mr. Bayley
  None. The only documentation required for an appeal against a decision on an All-work Test (replaced by the Personal Capability Assessment from April this year) is a written statement setting out the reasons for appeal. If appellants wish to provide additional medical evidence in support of their appeal, it is open to them to do so and the provision of such evidence is a private matter between the appellant and their doctor. The British Medical Association issues a list of suggested fees which GPs may charge patients for providing medical reports in general.

  MENCAP Study (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his findings of the MENCAP in Wales study, conducted by the Wrexham Welfare Rights Unit, regarding the non-take-up of benefits by disabled people, a copy of which has been forwarded to him. [132904]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will write to the right hon. Member next week.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the National Insurance Fund balance would be and how far above the minimum level recommended by the Government Actuary, at the end of each of the years 2002–03 and 2003–04, if the basic pension and linked benefit rates remained at their present level in 2000–01 and were uprated in line with prices thereafter. [133067]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have accepted the Amendment laid by our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Castle to the Child Support and Pensions Bill to supply such figures in respect of uprating by earnings. We have said that we will publish these in the next available scheduled report by the Government Actuary which is due to be published in January 2001. We shall also publish the figures requested in that report.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132966]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. O'Brien) today,Official Report, column 895W.

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate for(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 how many men turning 65 will be entitled to (i) an occupational pension and (ii) a personal pension; [132947]

  (2) if he will estimate for (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 how many women turning 60 will be entitled to (i) an occupational pension and (ii) a personal pension. [132946]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available on which to make an estimate.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of(a) single pensioners and (b) married pensioners who would gain (a) £15 per week or above, (b) £10 to £14.99, (c) £5 to £9.99, (d) £3.50 to £4.99, (e) 0.01 to £3.49 and (f) nothing from a package comprising an increase of £5 per week in the basic pension, the introduction of age additions of £5 for those aged 75 to 79 and £10 for those aged 80 or above, taking account of any offsetting loss of means-tested benefits or rise in income tax liability. [133250]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available.

  Duty Roster
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133057]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily ministerial duty roster. The Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a disregard for Working Families Tax Credit when assessing an individual's entitlement to Housing Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [133150]

  Angela Eagle
  Limited situations exist where Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) is partly disregarded in the assessment of Housing Benefit (HB). People who work 30 hours a week or more and who have children may get a partial disregard of WFTC if their earnings are very low. In addition, people with relevant child care costs which cannot be fully met from earnings can have the balance of those costs deducted from WFTC. We have no plans to introduce a wider disregard of WFTC.

  SERPS
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate for(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 the number of men turning 65 years who will receive (i) 0 to 25 per cent., (ii) 26 to 50 per cent., (iii) 51 to 75 per cent. and (iv) 76 to 100 per cent. of the maximum SERPS pension; [133044]
  841W
  (2) if he will estimate for (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 the number of women turning 60 who will receive (i) 0 to 25 per cent., (ii) 26 to 50 per cent., (iii) 51 to 75 per cent. and (iv) 76 to 100 per cent. of the maximum SERPS pension; [133043]

  (3) if he will estimate for (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 how many (i) men turning 65 and (ii) women turning 60 will receive a SERPS pension. [132952]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available in the tables.

  The tables are based on current statistics for recently retired pensioners.

  Numbers of women aged 60 and men aged 65 with the relevant percentage of the maximum SERFS pension payable in their own right, including cases with a zero entitlement to a SERPS pension

  Thousand

  All men aged 65

  All women aged 60

  All cases

  256.9

  242.6

  0 to 25 per cent.

  97.2

  206.3

  26 to 50 per cent.

  74.4

  24.4

  51 to 75 per cent.

  66.3

  9.4

  76 to 100 per cent.

  19.0

  2.5

  The numbers of women aged 60 and men aged 65 receiving a SERPS pension in their own right, excluding cases with a zero entitlement to a SERPS pension

  Thousand

  All cases

  370.1

  Men aged 65

  227.6

  Women aged 60

  142.5

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 1999

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the monetary value of 25 per cent. of the maximum SERPS pension for each of the years 2000 to 2003. [133042]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Estimates of the monetary value of 25 per cent. of the maximum SERPS pension for each of the years 2000 to 2003

  Maximum additional pension (£ pw)

  25 per cent. of maximum

  2000–01

  124.95

  31.23

  2001–02

  130.96

  32.74

  2002–03

  134.55

  33.64

  2003–04

  138.08

  34.52

  Notes:

  1. Figures beyond 2001–02 are based on projected changes in earnings and prices.

  2. The upper earnings limit for National Insurance contributions is assumed to rise in line with prices beyond 2001–02.

  Source:

  Estimates provided by the Government Actuary's Department

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of group personal pension plans. [132943]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not collected.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132858]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has two PFI projects; PRIME (Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate) and ACCORD (Access to Corporate Data).

  KPMG are providing input into the Network and Office Services project (NOSP) strand of the ACCORD programme. The NOSP stand is at the Invitation to Tender stage and is not yet a formal contract. Charterhouse are providing overall strategic direction across the ACCORD Outsourcing, CSR and NOSP strands.

  KPMG have not provided advice to the PRIME project.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many occupational pension schemes are in existence; and how many of them were(a) defined benefit and (b) defined contribution in each of the last five years. [132944]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested as the information is not collected on an annual basis. Such information as is available is as follows.

  At the end of 1995 there were around 151,000 occupational pension schemes. 37,980 defined benefit, 109,440 defined contributions and 3,580 schemes which have elements of both defined benefit and defined contribution.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  State Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women who turned 60 years in each of the last three years had a full basic state pension(a) in their own right and (b) by virtue of their husband's national insurance contribution. [132972]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.

  Retirement pensioners—women aged 60 with full amount of basic state pension based on their own and/or their late husband's contributions

  Thousand

  March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  All cases

  54.8

  56.6

  49.8

  Based on own contributions

  32.9

  35.2

  30.3

  Based on own and/or husband's contributions

  21.9

  21.5

  19.6

  843W

  Retirement pensioners—women aged 60 with 60 per cent, of basic state pension based on their own and/or their husband's contributions

  Thousand

  March

  All cases

  1997

  35.4

  1998

  36.1

  1999

  35.5

  Note:

  The figures are rounded to the nearest hundred

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 30 September 1999

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate for(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 how many women turning 60 will receive (i) 0 to 25 per cent., (ii) 26 to 50 per cent., (iii) 51 to 75 per cent. and (iv) 76 to 100 per cent. of the basic state pension; [132949]

  (2) if he will estimate for (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 how many men turning 65 will receive (i) 0 to 25 per cent., (ii) 26 to 50 per cent., (iii) 51 to 75 per cent. and (iv) 76 to 100 per cent. of the basic state pension. [132950]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Women aged 60 and men aged 65 with the relevant percentage of the basic State pension 1

  Thousand

  All men aged 65

  All women aged 60

  All

  256.9

  242.6

  0 to 25%

  2.7

  21.6

  26 to 50%

  9.4

  56.1

  51 to 75%

  10.9

  83.4

  76 to 100%

  233.9

  81.5

  1 As Government Actuary's Department does not produce forecasts for the future we have produced estimates on current data

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest hundred, and include cases with a zero entitlement to the basic State pension

  2. Married women with a 60 per cent. Category B pension are shown in the 51–75 per cent. bracket

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 30 September 1999

  Statutory Maternity Pay
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of women's average earnings flat rate Statutory Maternity Pay constituted in each year since 1970. [133139]

  Mr. Bayley
  Statutory Maternity Pay was introduced in April 1987. The table shows the percentage of women's average earnings that the flat rate of statutory maternity pay has constituted in each year from that date.

  Ratio of women's earnings to flat rate of Statutory Maternity Pay

  Percentage

  April 1987

  28.5

  April 1988

  27.7

  April 1989

  26.8

  April 1990

  26.5

  April 1991

  28.0

  844W

  Ratio of women's earnings to flat rate of Statutory Maternity Pay

  Percentage

  April 1992

  27.2

  April 1993

  27.1

  April 1994

  26.8

  April 1995

  27.9

  April 1996

  27.9

  April 1997

  27.7

  April 1998

  27.4

  April 1999

  26.8

  Note:

  Average earnings figures are for full-time female manual employees and come from the New Earnings Survey, taken in April each year.

  Industrial Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many former miners who have been compensated for industrial injury involving vibration white finger under the DTI scheme have been refused a pension by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [132439]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not held.

  Payment of compensation by an employer does not automatically mean that someone is entitled to industrial injury benefits. In considering a benefit claim, the decision maker will consider any supporting evidence before applying the appropriate Social Security law to the facts of the case.

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pneumoconiosis awards have been made in the last three months for which figures are available, broken down by coalfield area in respect of(a) working miners and (b) former mineworkers. [132506]

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

  The number of new awards of industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIB) for pneumoconiosis in the 3 months ending 31 March 2000, made to people employed, or formerly employed, in the coal industry by government office region and by age

  Government Office region

  All Ages

  Under 60

  60–64

  65 and over

  All regions

  91

  11

  10

  70

  North East

  2

  —

  2

  —

  North West

  3

  1

  2

  —

  Yorkshire & Humber

  26

  4

  1

  21

  East Midlands

  33

  2

  2

  29

  West Midlands

  11

  2

  1

  8

  East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Wales

  13

  2

  2

  9

  Scotland

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Overseas

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Industry is based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of economic activities 1992.

  2. Code 1010 has been used to identify the coal industry.

  Source:

  Information Centre, figures based on a 100 per cent. count.

  Household Income Statistics
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide the estimates of the proportion of the population in each county with income below 60 per cent. of median income which underlay Figure 3.6 of his Department's report, "Households Below Average Income". [131749]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]Figure 3.6 presents information for counties ranked into five equal sized groups. Although the underlying data were used in the production of the maps, DSS statisticians advise that precise results for individual counties are not robust enough to be presented separately. Results for individual counties are affected by sampling error and response biases and by the fact that the Family Resources Survey, from which HBAI estimates are drawn, has a sample stratified at regional, not county, level.

  Care Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what enhanced payments independent sector organisations which provide care services receive; and what assessment he has made of the implications of this for local authority social service departments. [132419]

  Mr. Bayley
  Independent sector organisations which provide care services do not receive enhanced payments of Social Security benefits. A resident in an independent sector care home who was there on 31 March 1993 remains entitled by way of preserved rights to higher levels of Income Support as a contribution towards the fees charged by such homes which the resident is responsible for meeting.

  Number of families, in households below contemporary half average income, that are dependent primarily on selected Social Security benefits

  Million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  BHC

  AHC

  BHC

  AHC

  BHC

  AHC

  Families below half average (mean) income

  5.1

  7.2

  5.2

  7.1

  5.4

  7.3

  Those dependent primarily on:

  National Insurance pension benefits

  1.4

  1.8

  1.5

  1.8

  1.6

  1.9

  Other National Insurance benefits and Child Benefit

  0.3

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  Income Support

  0.9

  1.1

  0.8

  1.0

  0.7

  0.9

  All benefits

  3.5

  5.0

  3.4

  4.8

  3.6

  4.9

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from HBAI which is based on the Family Resources Survey. All estimates are subject to sampling error and response bias.

  2. 'Dependent primarily' has been defined as income from benefits exceeding 50 per cent. of the family's total gross weekly income. HBAI counts the number of families/benefit units in receipt of Social Security benefits, not the number of households. Therefore figures are quoted on family/benefit unit level. An individual household may consist of more than one family/benefit unit therefore figures presented in the table will be higher than counting the number of households.

  3. National Insurance pension benefits consists of the Retirement Pension (including SERPS). Other National Insurance benefits include Jobseeker's Allowance (Contributory based), Incapacity Benefit and Widows Benefit. Income Support includes the income based element of Jobseeker's Allowance.

  4. The 'All benefits' line relates to the number of families with income below half average that are dependent primarily on income from Social Security benefits.

  5. All figures include the self-employed.

  6. Figures are presented for families in households below half average income before the deduction of housing costs (BHC) and after (AHC), in line with HBAI conventions.
  846W
  A person who took up residence in such a home from April 1993 under community care arrangements would receive Income Support, including appropriate premiums in broadly the same way as they would if they remained at home, with the addition of a Residential Allowance as contribution towards their housing costs. The relevant local authority is responsible for meeting the fees and collecting a contribution from the resident; subject to the resident retaining from their income at least £15.45 per week for personal expenses.

  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health announced today in the context of the NHS plan that the preserved rights scheme will end in April 2002 and cases will become the responsibility of local authorities with an appropriate transfer of funding from this Department to local authorities, and that the funds for the Residential Allowance will also be transferred to local authorities.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households among those having less than half average income in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, depended primarily for their income on (i) National Insurance pension benefits, (ii) other National Insurance benefits and Child Benefit, (iii) Income Support or the Minimum Income Guarantee and (iv) other types and combinations of benefit. [131958]

  Mr. Bayley
  The following table shows the number of families with less than contemporary half average income that receive Social Security benefits which account for more than 50 per cent. of their gross income. The figures come from Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series and cover the period up to and including financial year 1998–99 for Great Britain. Figures for 1999–2000 are not available.

  Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many people in households in the bottom two deciles of household income whose hourly earnings were below the minimum wage level, deflated from the 1999 rate, were receiving each social security benefit, and in what combination, using data from the Family Resources Survey 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [129955]

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

  The number of individuals who were in the bottom two equivalised income deciles and where the hourly earnings of the head of the family in which they belong would have been below the national minimum wage had it existed in 1997–98, deflated from the 1999 rate is 800,000. The estimate is calculated using data from the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey. Of those 800,000 individuals it is estimated that 290,000 were in receipt of Council Tax Benefit. The sample size of the Family Resources Survey is not large enough to allow reliable estimates to be made of the number within the 800,000 who were in receipt of other benefits.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security(a) when his Department withdrew leaflet N1272 on asbestos, (b) for what reasons it was withdrawn, (c) what plans he has to issue a new leaflet covering this subject and (d) when replacement literature will be available. [132489]

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he intends to replace or reissue leaflet N1272 relating to diseases caused by asbestos; [132641]

  (2) for what reason leaflet N1272, relating to asbestos-related diseases, has been withdrawn. [132642]

  Mr. Bayley
  Leaflet N1272 was withdrawn on 1 November 1999 as part of a review of all the Benefits Agency's leaflets. The review was carried out following extensive research with customers to find out what they wanted from leaflets. The research showed that customers did not find leaflets the best source of detailed information.

  For those who would use a leaflet, the research showed that customers wanted the leaflets based on specific life events rather than covering specific benefits. They also wanted the leaflets to contain basic information about all the help they could get in that circumstance and they wanted the information to be just enough to help them to decide whether to claim. Based on the research we withdrew leaflet N1272 and replaced it with a less detailed leaflet SD6 "ill or disabled because of a disease or deafness caused by work".

  There are no plans to issue a new leaflet specifically on asbestos-related diseases. However, the Benefits Agency issued replacement literature on 1 November 1999. Its leaflet SD6 "ill or disabled because of a disease or deafness caused by work" is aimed at customers and gives brief details of the Industrial Injuries scheme. It also issued a technical guide, DB1 "A guide to Industrial Injuries scheme benefits", on the same date. This gives
  848W
  detailed information about the scheme, including asbestos-related diseases. It is freely available to the public although it is primarily aimed at customer advisers.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make arrangements for the payment at post offices of Winter Fuel Payments for men aged 60 to 63 years. [132418]

  Angela Eagle
  The majority of men aged 60–64 who are newly eligible for Winter Fuel Payments as a result of recent changes to the qualifying criteria, will have to make a claim for Winter Fuel Payments in respect of either past winters, or this coming winter or both.

  Customers are given a choice as to the method of payment they prefer and payments can be paid directly into a bank or building society account or by Girocheque—which can be cashed at their local post office. Claims are currently being processed and payments for past winters are being issued just as soon as entitlement has been determined.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the visits outside Britain made by his Department's Permanent Secretary on official business since 1 January 1999, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [132774]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Permanent Secretary visited the USA in October 1999 to meet the senior management of EDS and see some of their large scale partnerships in operation. She visited Northern Ireland in September 1999, and her predecessor visited Northern Ireland in February 1999. Both visits were to meet with staff at the Benefits Agency and Child Support Agency.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many press officers were employed in his Department in(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000; and what the total expenditure on press officers by his Department was in each of the years concerned. [132767]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to Appendix 11 of the Report on the GICS by the Select Committee on Public Spending (29 July 1998), where Appendix 11 lists the number and cost of press officers per Department 1997, 1998 and 1999. Information for 2000 is as follows:

  January 2000

  Total number of Press Officers—11

  Total expenditure—£373,000.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many press releases have been issued so far this year; and what the total cost of the production and issuing of press releases was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 to date. [132771]
  849W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  The total cost of the production and issuing of press releases between January 1997-June 2000

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  DSS

  Issued

  291

  311

  270

  212

  Cost (£)

  29,990

  32,052

  27,826

  21,849

  Benefits Agency

  Issued

  60

  42

  48

  29

  Cost (£)

  6,184

  4,329

  4,947

  2,989

  Contributions Agency (CA)

  Issued

  50

  10

  3

  —

  Cost (£)

  5,153

  1,031

  309

  —

  Child Support Agency (CSA)

  Issued

  10

  4

  —

  —

  Cost (£)

  1,031

  412.24

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. The Contributions Agency transferred to the Inland Revenue on 31 October 1999.

  2. Figures for CSA in 1999 and 2000 come within the total figure for DSS.

  3. Figures rounded to the nearest £.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to answer the letter of 25 May, sent by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, regarding Mrs. Boaden of Deeside, Flintshire. [133127]

  Mr. Rooker
  A reply was issued on 27 July 2000.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff. [129102]

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

  The number of New Dealers within my Department and its executive agencies represents four per cent. of total staff.

  Teachers' Pension Fund
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the contribution from public funds to the teachers' pension fund; and if the contribution is estimated(a) to rise, (b) to fall or (c) to remain the same in real terms over the next 20 years. [129304]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Teachers' pensions in England and Wales are mainly funded through taxation. Pension contributions from teachers and their employers in the public sector provide most of the cash income. The table gives cash forecasts for the four years to 2003–04. No further cashflow figures are available.
  850W

  £ million

  Financial year

  Gross expenditure

  Gross income

  Net expenditure

  2000–01

  3,680

  2,030

  1,650

  2001–02

  3,850

  2,150

  1,700

  2002–03

  4,200

  2,420

  1,780

  2003–04

  4,550

  2,570

  1,980

  A longer term view of the financial position of the Teachers' Pensions Scheme is given in the 1996 Valuation Report laid before the House on 30 March 2000. This compares the notional assets of the fund, derived from past pension contributions, with current and future pension liabilities. Every five years the Government Actuary reviews this position and specifies a pension contribution rate which will eliminate any surplus or deficit identified in the report over 40 years.

  Grants
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give a breakdown of the costs involved in the transfer of responsibility for grants for four year olds referred to in the DfEE press release of 18 July 2000 entitled, "Schools to get up to £70,000 each in direct grants"; and what is the total cost involved in the transfer in each year to 2003–04. [132404]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The SSA increase for 2001–02 of 5.5 per cent. covers the £125 million paid in grant to LEAs in 2000–01 for four year old nursery provision. The total of Education SSA for 2002–03 and 2003–04 also includes funding for the increased pressure on local education authorities resulting from this transfer.

  Sixth-form Curriculum
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of progressive implementation of the broader sixth form curriculum in each year in the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review. [132405]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have provided £35 million in the Education Spending Settlement for 2000–01 to help meet the costs of the broader curriculum. The figure for 2001–02 will be announced in due course.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the additional responsibilities resulting in(a) cost and (b) additional costs which he expects to be met by schools in the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review; and what estimate he has made of the total of such costs broken down for (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools. [132406]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Schools will be responsible for boosting standards of attainment at the relevant Key Stages over the period of the Spending Review. Full details of these additional responsibilities and the extra resources we are making available to help schools meet them will be announced in due course. We have already announced that headteachers in England will be given £540 million in special grants next year as part of an increase in education spending in the UK of nearly £12 billion from 2000–01
  851W
  to 2003–04 and that the Year 2000 Spending Review means a real terms increase of some £370 per pupil over the three years bringing the total to almost £700 per pupil in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Education SSA
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the change is for each year from 2000–01 to 2003–04 in(a) the education SSA and (b) the education SSA plus direct grant from Government to schools, adjusted using the GDP deflator in both cases. [132407]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In addition to SSA and direct grant increases, funding for schools through the Standards Fund and specific grants, including class size grant, and for schools capital will be increased as a result of the Spending Review. Full details of the extra resources we are making available to schools for these aspects will be announced in due course. On SSA and direct grant, the information requested is set out in the following table:

  Real terms year-on-year increase in education SSA (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  Real terms year-on-year increase in education SSA plus direct grants to schools (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  2001–02

  525

  2.4

  760

  3.5

  2002–03

  749

  3.4

  751

  3.3

  2003–04

  744

  3.3

  745

  3.2

  We have already announced that headteachers in England will be given £540 million in direct grants next year, and that this will be sustained with 2.75 per cent. increases over the following two years. This is part of an increase in education spending in the UK of nearly £12 billion from 2000–01 to 2003–04. The Year 2000 Spending Review means a real terms increase of some £370 per pupil over the three years bringing the total to almost £700 per pupil in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Connexions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the spending total for the Connexions programme in the year 1999–2000; what are the planned spending totals for each to 2004; how much of these totals is further spending following the Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will give a breakdown of the costs of the programme, including administrative costs. [132408]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Connexions Service will be progressively introduced from April 2001. Following the Year 2000 Spending Review settlement, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will make an announcement in due course about the outcome for individual programmes in 2001–02 and beyond, including the new resources for the Connexions Service.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the spending totals are of each of the grants administered under the Standards 852W
  Fund for 2000–01; what are the planned totals for each year to 2004;and how much of the total in each case is further spending allocated under the Comprehensive Spending Review. [132409]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Total expenditure allocated, and taken up by local education authorities, for each of the grants administered under the Standards Fund for 2000–01 are shown in the following table. Figures include both Government and local authority contributions to the Standards Fund. Planned totals for future years will be determined as part of detailed decisions to be made following the outcome of the Spending Review.

  Grants administered under the. Standards Fund spending totals

  £ million

  School Improvement

  289.2

  School Leadership: National Professional Qualification for Headteachers

  20.4

  School Leadership: Serving Headteachers

  8.1

  Qualifications

  18.0

  New National Curriculum

  17.1

  Training Schools

  2.5

  Advanced Skills Teachers (AST): Introductory Phase

  1.7

  Advanced Skills Teachers (AST): National Programme

  13.6

  Beacon Schools

  8.0

  Specialist Schools

  55.0

  Early Years Training and Development

  13.1

  Early Excellence Centres

  5.9

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  48.1

  National Numeracy Strategy—Primary

  49.8

  National Numeracy Strategy—Intensive Training

  9.0

  Summer Literacy and Numeracy Schools and Literacy and Numeracy at Key Stage

  18.9

  Key Stage 3 Numeracy: Secondary Schools Conference

  2.7

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  42.0

  Family Literacy and Numeracy

  6.8

  Playing for Success

  3.2

  Study Support

  17.1

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement Grant

  162.5

  Special Educational Needs

  55.0

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  137.3

  Teenage Pregnancies

  5.0

  Access Fund for pupils aged 16–19 Year Olds

  9.0

  Education Maintenance Allowances

  77.4

  Excellence in Cities: City Learning Centres

  33.3

  Excellence in Cities: Gifted and Talented Children

  18.0

  Excellence in Cities: Learning Support Units and Learning Mentors

  34.3

  Protecting Local Authority Music Services

  30.0

  Expanding Local Authority Music Services

  20.0

  Lifelong Learning Development Plans

  17.7

  Education and Health Partnerships

  5.7

  Parent Governors Representatives

  0.2

  Teaching Assistants

  130.0

  Small School Support Fund

  16.8

  Working Environment Fund

  20.0

  Performance Management and Threshold Assessment Training

  20.0

  Support for Performance Management and Threshold Assessment arrangements

  20.0

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  56.0

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  10.0

  Adult: Pupil Ratio in Reception Classes

  12.3

  Excellence in cities: Best Practice Research Projects

  0.2

  Excellence in Cities: Innovation Projects

  1.0

  Small Education Action Zones: Development Plans

  0.2

  Small Education Action Zones: Implementation

  2.9

  Adult Ethnic Minority Achievement

  1.2

  Gifted and Talented Summer Schools

  3.6

  Transforming Key Stage 3

  10.0

  Literacy and Numeracy Strategies—Catch Up

  18.6

  Excellence in Cities: Development costs

  1.0

  Reducing Infant Class Sizes

  137.7

  Reducing Infant Class Sizes: Capital Grant

  70.6

  Formula Capital

  161.3

  Seed Challenge Capital Fund

  31.0

  School Laboratories

  30.0

  Learning Support Units

  11.0

  Nursery Capital

  5.0

  853W

  Grants administered under the Standards Fund spending totals

  £ million

  National Grid for Learning

  198.0

  School Security

  22.0

  New Deal for Schools Capital

  558.0

  Total

  2,804.2

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the cost of administering Standards Fund grants in(a) his Department and (b) local education authorities over the period of the Comprehensive Spending Review. [132410]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No figures are available of the administrative costs of the Standards Fund. The Government have recognised the need to restrict the burden on schools as the size of the Fund has grown. The Department is reviewing the arrangements for the Standards Fund in consultation with schools, Local Education Authorities and other interested parties. As a result of the review changes will be made to simplify the operation of the Standards Fund from April 2001, details of which will be announced in the Autumn. The main changes resulting from the review will involve reducing the paperwork by simplifying the mechanics of payment and accounting; encouraging an approach focused on outcomes; giving schools and local authorities greater spending freedom; sharing timely management information, and spreading best practice.

  Education Policy
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for each year since 1979, how much his Department, and the previous Department of Education, spent in real terms on(a) focus groups, (b) opinion polls, (c) press releases and (d) television and radio advertising relating to education policy. [132411]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department for Education and Employment does not undertake focus groups or opinion polls of the public. However it has sampled and consulted on views of teachers, Heads and other groups affected by the Department's policies on specific issues; for example literacy and numeracy strategies.

  Expenditure on press releases is not available in a form which would enable comparable figures for each year (1979 to 2000) to be compiled without disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure on television and radio advertising relating to education policy from 1979–80 to 1999–2000, was as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure 1

  Expenditure (£000)

  1979–80

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  1988–89

  40

  60.8

  1989–90

  11.8

  16.7

  1990–91

  1,197

  1,574.1

  854W

  Financial year

  Expenditure 1

  Expenditure (£000)

  1991–92

  800

  991.2

  1992–93

  —

  —

  1993–94

  29.2

  34.1

  1994–95

  —

  —

  1995–96

  165.7

  185.6

  1996–97

  822.8

  893.1

  1997–98

  190

  200.6

  1998–99

  3,998.5

  4,100.6

  1999–2000

  2,525.7

  2,525.7

  1 Cash terms

  2 Real terms 1999–2000 prices

  The expenditure in 1998 onwards is largely accounted for by the Department's campaigns on literacy and numeracy.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total of Departmental HQ and the Employment Service, gross running costs in 1997–98; what are the planned totals for gross running costs for the years up to 2004; and if he will give the total of administration costs referred to in Table 7.1 on Page 48 of the Spending Review 2000. [132412]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The gross running costs of the Department and the Employment Service since 1997–98 are as follows:

  £000

  1997–98 1

  1998–99 1

  1999–2000 2

  2000–01 2

  DfEE

  255,175

  269,309

  267,927

  269,403

  ES

  823,986

  795,326

  830,704

  841,672

  Total gross

  1,079,161

  1,064,788

  1,099,474

  1,111,075

  1 Outturn figures

  2 Estimated outturn

  The planned totals for gross running costs for the years up to 2004, and the total of administration costs within the Year 2000 Spending Review settlement have not yet been finalised.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Employment Service Annual report and Accounts for 1999–2000 will be laid before Parliament. [133690]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have today laid before the House the Employment Service's Annual Report and Accounts for 1999–2000 which gives full details of the Agency's performance and expenditure for that year.

  The Annual Report records an excellent year's work by the Employment Service. For the first time since 1994–95 it has achieved and in many cases significantly exceeded all its targets for helping unemployed people into jobs. Jobcentres have also been giving record levels of customer service to jobseekers.

  During the course of an extremely challenging year, the Employment Service:
  placed directly into work more than 1.33 million unemployed people, including over 220,000 who had been unemployed for six months and just under 97,000 people with disabilities;
  handled 2.7 million job vacancies; and
  helped 191,000 young people through the New Deal for Young People and directly placed over 111,000 into jobs.

  855W
  This has been achieved against a background of major change and new challenges. During 1999–2000 the Employment Service also:
  built on the continuing success of the New Deals, including the national implementation of the New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People and the launch of pilots for New Deal 50plus;
  worked with partners in the public, private and voluntary sectors to launch 12 pilots of the ONE service to provide a work-focused, one-stop entry into the welfare system and, as part of the Working Links partnership, to bid for, and run, nine of the 15 Employment Zones;
  introduced a programme to improve the service it gives to its employer customers, including a set of explicit service delivery standards; and
  prepared the ground for its ambitious Modernisation programme which will see touch-screen kiosks in every Jobcentre, place all vacancies handled by ES on the Internet and introduce a single, national telephone number for employers to register job vacancies.

  The Employment Service missed only one of its targets last year, for the correct application of the Jobseeker's Allowance process. It ended the year on 90 per cent. against a target of 96 per cent. Even here, however, there was a substantial improvement in performance during the course of the year.

  1999–2000 was a very good year for the Employment Service. Its success was down to the effort and enthusiasm of everyone working in it. I am very grateful to them for that effort, commitment and determination to succeed. I look forward to building on this success in the year ahead and in setting up the new agency to deliver work-focused services to people of working age. I know that people in the Employment Service will rise to the new opportunities and challenges involved in making it a success.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the spending outturn for the Sure Start programme for 1999–2000; what are the planned spending totals for the programme for each year to 2004; how much of this spending is further spending following the Comprehensive Spending Review; if he will give a breakdown of the cost of the programme, including administrative costs; and when he expects to have an evaluation strategy for the Sure Start programme in place. [132413]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The requested spending figures are set out in the following table with supporting notes. The Sure Start evaluation strategy is almost finalised. Tenders are currently being invited to carry out the national evaluation and a contract should be in place by the autumn. The national evaluation should begin soon after.

  Sure Start Spending

  £ million

  Of which:

  Sure Start spending 1

  Spending review

  Administration costs 2

  1999–20004

  5

  —

  1.1

  2000–015

  184

  —

  1.6

  2001–025

  284

  —

  3.4

  2002–035

  449

  265

  4.1

  2003–045

  499

  315

  4.2

  856W
  1 Includes the baseline, plus spending review allocations and administration costs. The baselines for 2001–02 onwards are on a resource rather than cash basis.

  2 For 1999–2000 and 2000–01, Sure Start running costs were included in the DfEE's gross running costs limit, from 2001–02 onwards there will be a separate limit.

  3 The total for 2001–02 includes a projected carry forward of £100 million from previous years.

  4 Provisional outturn.

  5 plans

  Circulars
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for each year since 1979, how much his Department, and its predecessors, spent in real terms on circulars relating to education. [132414]

  Mr. Wills
  Information on the Department's circular communications relating to education is not available in a form which would enable comparable figures for the expenditure on those circulars for each of the years 1979 to 2000 to be compiled without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Pathfinder Projects
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 2000,Official Report, column 556W, on pathfinder projects, how many expressions of interest have been received regarding city academy pathfinder projects. [132415]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received several expressions of interest from potential sponsors and are having further discussions with them about the scope for developing more detailed proposals.

  Children (Mental Health)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that teachers receive training about the mental health of children and young people; and if this will form part of their(a) initial or (b) in-service training. [132484]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  All teachers, as part of their initial teacher training, are trained in how to identify and deal with special educational needs. In order to gain Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) trainees must demonstrate that they meet all of the standards for the award of QTS which include specific references to special educational needs. All teachers must also meet induction standards, which cover special educational needs, at the end of their induction year.

  With regard to in-service training in special educational needs for teachers, the Department is supporting expenditure of £26 million under the Standards Fund for 2000–01. In addition, £6 million is being supported through the Standards Fund for work on emotional and behavioural difficulties, including projects to identify and provide for the learning needs of children with mental health problems. Good practice arising from these projects will be widely disseminated, alongside other guidance on child mental health issues currently being prepared by the Department.
  857W
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of children in mainstream schools have mental health problems; and what steps he proposes to take to provide them with support. [132548]

  Jacqui Smith
  Based on the survey of 10,000 children conducted by the Office for National Statistics, and published in March 2000, it is estimated that 10 per cent. of children aged 5–15 years have a mental disorder. This includes emotional disorders—anxiety and depression—conduct disorders and hyperactivity. The majority of children with these mental ill health problems are being educated in mainstream schools.

  My Department, working closely with the Department of Health and taking advice from experts in the child mental health field, is preparing good practice guidance, based on existing case studies, for a range of school settings. This will help teachers work effectively with pupils with emotional and mental health problems. It will be followed by further guidance next year, including examples of effective working between schools and local Child and Adolescent Mental Health services.

  The Special Educational Needs element of the Standards Fund grant for England provides scope for funding projects for identifying and providing for the learning needs of children with mental health problems. A number of projects currently underway involve schools working with health services and educational psychologists, including projects with a specific focus on child mental health. We aim to include examples of good practice from these projects in our guidance and make them available on the Department's Internet site. In addition, the support provided under the Standards Fund for Special Educational Needs training may be used for training in relation to children with mental health problems.

  Overseas Pupils
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2000,Official Report, column 306W, regarding the exclusion of overseas pupils from performance tables, ref. 132063, what criteria are to be used in determining which pupils are to be excluded; and what estimate he has made of the number of pupils likely to be so excluded. [132658]

  Jacqui Smith
  Pupils will qualify for exclusion from the school roll for the purpose of calculating school and Local Education Authority level results in the performance tables, if they:are eligible for Key Stage 2 assessment (for primary schools) or are in their final year of compulsory schooling (for secondary schools);
  are from overseas and were admitted to an English school for the first time on or after the start of Year 5 (for primary schools) or Year 10 (for secondary schools); and
  do not have English as their first language.

  These changes will have no impact on national level information, against which the Government's performance is measured.
  858W
  We do not expect the number of children of asylum seeker or refugee families excluded from the performance tables under these arrangements to exceed 1,000. The total number of pupils likely to be excluded is expected to be very small in relation to the total number of pupils included in the tables.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment following the Government's decision not to appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Jackson regarding performance-related pay, what his estimate is of the additional costs which will be incurred as a result of Mr. Justice Jackson's judgment. [132659]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is not possible to say at this stage what, if any, additional costs there may be.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the operation of data collection methods in advance of schools' OFSTED inspections, with particular reference to the working of(a) pre-inspection and school context indicator and (b) performance and assessment reports. [132671]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector and I have therefore asked Chris Woodhead to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has undertaken on the relationship between pre-inspection and school context indicators and performance and assessment reports and(a) SATS and (b) teacher assessment. [132673]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not undertaken any research on these relationships.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average(a) primary and (b) secondary school class size was for each school year in the Ribble Valley since 1994. [132720]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]The requested information is shown in the following table.

  The Government are well on target to deliver its infant class size pledge. Some £620 million is available to support the pledge and allocations so far to Lancashire LEA amount to some £15 million. This has helped to reduce the average infant class in Ribble Valley constituency to 24.8. In January 1997 the figure was 28.0. Over the same period, the average size of junior classes in the constituency has fallen from 30.5 to 30.4. Average secondary class sizes in the constituency have remained broadly stable over this period. Secondary classes nationally have been rising steadily for the last 12 years. In 1988 the figure was 19.9. In the budget, secondary headteachers received between £30,000 and £50,000 each to spend as they choose. If they spent it on teachers, they could reduce the secondary pupil:teacher ratio by 0.4.
  859W

  Average size of one teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools in the Ribble Valley parliamentary constituency area:1994–2000 1

  Position as at January each year

  Key Stage 1

  Key Stage 2

  Primary 2

  Secondary

  Average class size

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Average class size

  Average class size

  Average class size

  2000

  24.8

  300

  30.4

  27.8

  22.3

  1999

  25.9

  771

  30.2

  28.1

  22.3

  1998

  28.0

  1,518

  30.3

  29.0

  22.4

  1997

  28.0

  1,428

  30.5

  29.1

  22.3

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = Not available

  1 Provisional

  2 Includes nursery classes and mixed key stage classes

  Sixth-form Students
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of students continued into the sixth-form in the Ribble Valley between 1994 and 2000. [132721]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently launched a major £3 million advertising campaign aimed at encouraging this year's school leavers and others to stay on in some form of learning. The "Don't Quit Now" campaign is particularly aimed at those who left this year with few, if any GCSEs and are in danger of dropping out of education and training. Latest figures show that the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training fell by 28,000 from 185,000 in 1998 to 157,000 in 1999.

  We are committed to improving participation and attainment rates for 16 and 17-year-olds. The Connexions Strategy sets out a range of existing and new initiatives aimed at achieving this. We have announced details of the new Connexions Service which will provide advice, guidance, information and support for all 13 to 19-year-olds, whatever their needs and circumstances, to keep them learning.

  Data on the percentage of students continuing in post-compulsory education at age 16 are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs. Figures for Lancashire LEA, which covers the area of the former county of Lancashire, are given in the table for the years 1994–95 to 1997–98 (the latest year available):

  Participation of 16-year-olds in full-time education, Lancashire LEA, 1994–95 to 1997–98

  Percentage of age group

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  School

  17

  16

  16

  17

  Sixth-form college

  10

  11

  10

  11

  Other further education

  33

  39

  37

  37

  Total full-time education

  60

  65

  64

  64

  Notes:

  Totals may not add due to rounding

  Source:

  Statistical Bulletin 14/99: Participation in education and training by young people aged 16 and 17 in each local area and region, England, 1993–94 to 1997–98

  University Entrants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of students leaving secondary school in Ribble Valley(a) went straight to university and (b) deferred university entrance for one or two years between 1994 and 2000. [132728]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 July 2000]There is only one secondary school in the Ribble Valley constituency which has a sixth-form containing potential applicants to higher education. The Department's policy does not routinely allow the release of data for individual schools unless schools have been given the opportunity to confirm or amend their data, and there has been prior ministerial approval for such releases. UCAS do not release data without the prior permission of the school. In any case, it is not possible to make unequivocal links for individual students between school-based and UCAS data.

  Birmingham LEA
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the net present cost is of the Birmingham LEA schools rebuilding project under the Private Finance Initiative; what the value is of the public sector comparators in(a) pre-risk and (b) risk-adjusted terms; and what risks are identified as having been transferred at (i) outline and (ii) final business case stage; and if he will make a statement. [132836]

  Jacqui Smith
  The net present cost of the Birmingham schools' rebuild package is estimated by the local education authority to be £78 million, which includes the value of the risks transferred.

  The net present value of the risk adjusted public sector comparator is approximately £87 million. The value of the risks transferred to the private sector is estimated by the local education authority to be approximately £6 million.

  The risks identified for transfer at outline business case stage were: detailed planning permission; design; construction; financing; availability (of the school buildings); operating performance; operating costs; repairs and maintenance; damage and vandalism; security; new legislation; obsolescence of plant, furniture and fittings; and revenue from dual use and commercial activities.

  The risks identified as having been transferred at final business case stage were:
  planning—detailed planning permission;
  design and construct—satisfaction of design brief, quality and fitness for purpose, design development, cost increases, satisfaction of commissioning tests;
  delays—construction delays, insured perils, contamination from military use, unexploded ordnance, failure of utilities or other public sector bodies to carry out works or provide services, failure or shortage of power, fuel or transport up to 90 days, blockade or embargo up to 90 days, industrial action affecting the facilities management industry up to 90 days, site conditions at contract close, responsibilities under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and other health and safety responsibilities;

  861W
  operate—facilities management costs (including the risks associated with the repair, maintenance and security of the assets), responsibilities under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981(TUPE), unavailability, under-performance, furniture and fittings, IT cabling, laboratory and workshop fixed equipment, energy and water consumption (part transferred), sub-contractor default;
  contract generally—vandalism, health and safety, equal opportunities and discrimination legislation generally, general change in law giving rise to revenue expenditure; and
  financial—insurance, third party claims, interest rates after year 20, third party income, inflation (part transferred), severance costs for staff employed in facilities management services at the end of the contract, force majeure (shared), contractor default.

  The key principle of risk transfer within PFI schemes is that risks are placed with the party best able to manage them. Local education authorities must always ensure that, in transferring any risk to the private sector, they are achieving value for money.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2000,Official Report, column 291W, if he will quantify the contribution of each of the three stated causes of the increase in the estimated cost in net present value of the Birmingham LEA schools rebuild package PFI scheme between the outline business case and final business case; and what reasons underlay the reduction in the discount rate used. [132844]

  Jacqui Smith
  The approximate contribution to the increase in the estimated cost in net present value of the Birmingham schools' rebuild package arising from each of the three causes given in my answer of 20 July is:

  (a) improvements to the output specification—45.7 million;

  (b) technical changes to the calculation of the cost of the scheme—£3 million;

  (c) an underestimate in the outline business case of the cost of operation of the new and refurbished schools—£6 million.

  In addition, a combination of minor cost increases over the life of the project total £2.1 million.

  The rate of discount used is set by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions for all local authorities. It is fixed each year and reflects the cost of all local authority borrowing. The rate changed between the outline and final business cases due to changes in the overall cost of local authority borrowing.

  Capital Allocations
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will break down the capital allocations to school in(a) Westminster and (b) Kensington and Chelsea since May 1997. [132886]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following table shows the schools in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea which have benefited from allocations of New Deal for Schools grant. Schools also benefited in 2000–01 from Devolved Formula Capital of £423,000 in Westminster and £252,000 in Kensington and Chelsea, which is allocated by Local Education Authorities. In addition, capital allocations were made through the annual capital round to local education authorities for the benefit of schools.
  862W

  New Deal for schools—grant allocations to schools in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea

  £

  Schools

  Total grant allocated under NDS

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Bousfield Primary, Ashburham Primary

  244,000

  Sion Manning

  46,647

  Avondale Park

  54,000

  The Latimer Centre1

  201,349

  Package of five schools2

  145,125

  Holland Park

  275,940

  Bousfield Primary

  90,054

  Thomas Jones Primary

  206,664

  Marlborough Primary

  52,745

  Our Lady of Victories Primary

  140,500

  Oratory RC Primary

  61,800

  Total for Kensington and Chelsea

  1,518,824

  Westminster

  Quintin Kynaston Secondary

  312,000

  St. Gabriel's CE Primary

  54,821

  College Park

  92,448

  Wilberforce Primary

  126,240

  Edward Wilson Primary

  55,000

  North Westminster Community—Penfold Street

  209,000

  St. Peter's CE

  22,625

  North Westminster Community—North Wharf Road

  427,500

  Westminster City

  328,511

  Queens Park

  323,121

  Hallfield Infants and Junior

  885,661

  Quintin Kynaston Secondary

  187,412

  St. Marylebone CE

  204,345

  St. Augustine's CE VA Primary

  38,765

  Christ Church Bentinck CE Primary

  109,134

  Total for Westminster

  3,376,583

  1 Including St. Anne's Nursery and the Pupil Referral Unit.

  2 A total of £145,125 was allocated to a package bid for five schools to undertake a programme of works in connection with the prevention of Legionellosis. Details of schools to which funding was allocated are held by Kensington and Chelsea Local Education Authority.

  Credit approvals issued to Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea Local Education Authorities through the annual capital round

  £000

  Year

  Westminster

  Kengsington and Chelsea

  1997–98

  669

  109

  1998–99

  219

  163

  1999–2000

  233

  147

  2000–01

  365

  229

  Total

  1,486

  648

  Vacation Work
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the proportion of(a) mature students and (b) non-mature students who are (i) employed, (ii) unemployed and searching for work and (iii) not searching for work during university vacations. [133104]

  Mr. Wicks
  This information is not routinely collected. However, some information on the employment of students during vacations will be available from the Student Income and Expenditure Survey later this year.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of the money announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review for higher education, what the money not specifically allocated for access and academic staff is to be used for. [133110]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 18 July that the purposes of the additional funding for higher education include: recruitment and retention of top-quality academic staff and improvements in staff management; widening access to students from a broader range of social backgrounds; the development of Foundation Degrees; the e-universities project, and higher stipends for research studentships in the arts and humanities.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the money announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review for summer schools and measures to widen access for higher education will be allocated between institutions; and who will be responsible for the provision of those measures. [133111]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced an additional £20 million from the Comprehensive Spending Review to be spent on widening participation in higher education in 2001–02. Further details of this package will be given in due course.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding is to be available for higher education in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 which will be additional to sums announced before the current year. [133119]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has yet to announce the allocation of funding for higher education for 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on trends in applications to higher education institutions for the academic year 2000–01. [132906]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service on applications to full-time and sandwich courses were issued on 21 July. These indicate that the number of applications is very close to the equivalent point in the application cycle last year; it looks likely that the final applications figure will show that demand for higher education is still buoyant.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the use of the money allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review to recruit and retain higher education academic staff will be decided; if it will be ring fenced for that purpose; and how its distribution between institutions will be decided. [133112]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is responsible for distributing the funding given to it to support higher education institutions, including the extra funding announced on 18 July. In line with previous years, it will do so in the light of the annual guidance letter the Secretary of State sends the Funding Council each autumn.
  864W
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the amount of funding per student in higher education is to be in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [133113]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week announced an extra £100 million for higher education in 2001–02 on top of the increase announced in November 1999. Compared with 2000–01 and in line with current student number targets, the projected unit cost per full time equivalent student in 2001–02 will be about 0.5 per cent. in real terms above that in 2000–01. My right hon. Friend has yet to announce the allocation of funding for higher education for 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are his Department's projections for the expansion of higher education places in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04; and what proportion of this is accounted by (i) foundation degrees and (ii) traditional degrees delivered in higher education institutions. [133114]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Foundation Degree Prospectus issued by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) this month states that in 2001–02, HEFCE plan to allocate around 2000 places between the Foundation Degree prototype providers, with a guarantee to make an additional 1,000 places available to these providers if demand increases. HEFCE have also undertaken to make further Foundation Degree places available to good quality bids from other Higher Education Institutions through their standard annual bidding exercise. My right hon. Friend has yet to announce funding and student number targets for higher education in 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Student Debt
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average level of debt per student was in the different cohorts leaving higher education each year over the last five years; what proportion of it is owed to(a) the state and (b) the private sector; and on what terms debts to the state are owed. [133116]

  Mr. Wicks
  Information on student loan accounts is held by the Student Loans Company, and relates to debt owed to the state or to the private sector following the two Government debt sales. Published figures relate to the average value of student loan accounts for borrowers entering repayment at the start of the financial year: £1,660 in 1996–97; £2,180 in 1997–98; and £2,680 in 1998–99.

  Information on private sector debt such as overdrafts and other commercial loans is not available centrally.

  Figures for all three years relate to mortgage style loans which are repaid in accordance with the terms of a credit agreement signed by the borrower and attract an interest rate equivalent to the annual RPI. This typically means that these loans are repayable over a period of five years in equal annual instalments if the borrower's income is above 85 per cent. of national average earnings. Students entering higher education from 1998–99 are instead offered income contingent loans. Like mortgage style loans these are offered at a zero per cent. real terms interest rate but are repaid in accordance with Regulations in force at the time. The current Regulations require

  865W
  borrowers to repay 9 per cent. of their gross income over £10,000 a year. This means that repayment of these loans will rise or fall in line with income and there is no fixed term for repayment.

  Career Development Loans
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the cost of career development loans in terms of(a) interest rate subsidies, (b) administration costs and (c) other costs; and what default rate exists. [133118]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested is as follows:

  April 1999 to March 2000

  £

  (a) Interest rate subsidies

  15,382,173.00

  (b) Administration costs

  0.22

  (c) Other costs2

  141,260.00

  1 Per trainee week

  2 Other costs consist of TEC endorsement fees of £48,778 and programme support costs of £92,462.

  The default rate at the end of the period was 13.00 per cent.

  City Academies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list by local education authority area all those expressions of interest in the establishment of a City Academy he has received during July, with the date of receipt, names of those expressing support and dates for hoped opening in each case; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each expression of interest; [133173]

  (2) when he expects to announce his first (a) decisions of support for and (b) agreement to particular City Academy proposals; and if he will publish the most recent criteria for approval as a City Academy. [133174]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received several expressions of interest from potential sponsors and are having further discussions with them about the scope for developing more detailed proposals. It is too early to say when the Secretary of State will announce the first decisions of support and agreement for funding for particular City Academy proposals. We will shortly be making available details of the criteria against which we will be assessing proposals. I will ensure that these are sent to the hon. Member. Copies of all supported proposals will be placed in the Library.

  University for Industry
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what effect UFI Ltd's change to charitable status has had on the framework, including controls, within which the Department provides financial support. [133691]

  Mr. Wicks
  Further to my reply dated 11 January 2000,Official Report, column 146W, in order to achieve charitable status, UfI Ltd. has split into two companies: one, the charity "UFI Charitable Trust", which wholly owns the second, its trading subsidiary "Ufi Limited", which is the operating company.
  866W
  The controls exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been adjusted in the light of the new company structure.

  Each company's Memorandum and Articles of Association were approved by the Secretary of State and the Department continues to exercise similar controls over the companies, although the Secretary of State's right to appoint the Chairman and between 30 and 49 per cent. of Ufi Limited's Board Directors/members is now time-limited to 31 March 2005. The Secretary of State's control over appointment of the Chairman and Directors of the charity is not time bound.

  The previous Funding Agreement between the Department and Ufi Ltd. has been superseded by one with both companies which provides for a number of checks and controls on the spending of public funds. It specifies the requirement to submit an annual Financial Plan for the approval of the Secretary of State. The Funding Agreement and the Financial Plan provide the basis for financial support.

  Ufi Limited will own the assets it creates (mainly intellectual property rights on learning products) and retain any receipts from the disposal of assets. The Department will take account of any income received by Ufi Limited as a result of Government investment, including asset disposal proceeds, in fixing the level of future financial support. This regime will apply only so long as Ufi Limited receives Government support.

  If the Funding Agreement is terminated due to breach of contract or insolvency the intellectual property rights will pass to the Secretary of State if he so requests. The Memorandum of the charity provides that if it is wound up or dissolved the Secretary of State has a right of veto over the disposition of any remaining assets. The charity cannot dispose of any of the shares of Ufi Limited without the prior authority of the Secretary of State. The charity cannot alter the constitution of Ufi Limited in so far as this affects the Secretary of State's controls.

  Graduates
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that the quality of graduates is not impaired by policies of wider access. [132531]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]The Government are committed to maintaining and enhancing standards in higher education as access is widened.

  The A-level point scores of entrants is the same now as it was 10 years ago when participation was much lower. Details are given in the table.

  Home domiciled students entering full-time and sandwich first degree courses in England

  Year

  Average A level points score

  1990–91

  18

  1991–92

  18

  1992–93

  18

  1993–94

  18

  1994–95

  18

  1995–96

  18

  867W

  Home domiciled students entering full-time and sandwich first degree courses in England

  Year

  Average A level points score

  1996–97

  19

  1997–98

  19

  1998–99

  19

  1999–2000

  18

  Notes:

  1. Scores related to those obtaining two or more A level passes subject to a maximum score of 30 points which is equivalent to three grade A passes at A level or AS level or combinations of A/AS level passes, treating AS level scores as half the equivalent A level score. The points for each A level grade are as follows: A = 10, B = 8, C = 6, D = 4, E = 2.

  2. Figures from 1994–95 are based on UCAS entrants only, figures prior to that are based on all entrants.

  Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to expand maximum allowed student numbers for higher education institutions to accommodate the planned expansion of student numbers towards a participation rate of 50 per cent. of young people. [132665]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]The additions to publicly planned funding for higher education in 2001–02 are compatible with achieving the Government's goal that 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds should have the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the end of the decade. Current plans allow for an increase of 21,000 full time equivalent student places between 2000–01 and 2001–02. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has yet to announce the allocation of funding for higher education for 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Teachers' Salaries (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the implications of the High Court judgment of 14 July on the standards for the teachers' performance-related pay scheme on the structure of teachers' salaries and terms of employment in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [132792]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My officials are in frequent contact with officials in the National Assembly for Wales and I meet with the Assembly Secretary for Education and Children. The implications of Mr. Justice Jackson's judgment for the threshold standards and for the structure of teachers' pay and conditions in Wales are the same as in England.

  Cycling Lessons
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has for schools to provide cycling lessons for pupils; [132812]

  (2) how many schools in the United Kingdom provide cycling lessons for young people. [132811]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authorities already provide cycling proficiency classes in schools. They are funded to do so through their annual revenue allocations. In addition, Road Safety is included in the Personal, Social and Health Education curriculum at Key Stages 1 and 2.
  868W
  Information on the numbers of schools providing cycling lessons is not collected centrally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132866]

  Mr. Wicks
  None.

  Teachers (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers were employed in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in the City of York local education authority in each year since its inception. [132872]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The full-time equivalent of teachers employed on the third Thursday of January in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 in City of York unitary authority is as shown.

  January

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1997

  700

  600

  1,300

  1998

  700

  600

  1,300

  1999

  700

  600

  1,300

  2000

  800

  700

  1,400

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100. Totals may not sum to component parts because of rounding.

  There has been a growth of 6,900 full-time equivalent regular teachers in the maintained school sector in England between January 1998 and January 2000.

  The answer includes teachers in occasional service (short-term supply) on the survey date, teachers on secondment for a period of a term or more and unqualified teachers.

  Access Funding
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much each higher education institution paid out to students in access funding in 1998–99; and how many individual payments by each institution exceeded £1,000. [132905]

  Mr. Wicks
  This information is collected by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. I have asked the Council to respond directly to the hon. Member.

  Teachers (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers were employed in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in North Yorkshire local education authority in each year since 1990. [132902]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The non-metropolitan county of North Yorkshire was reorganised at 1 April 1996 to form the unitary authority of City of York and the smaller non-metropolitan county of North Yorkshire. The fulltime equivalent of teachers employed on the third Thursday in January in each year from 1990 in North Yorkshire are as shown.
  869W

  January

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1990

  2,600

  3,000

  5,600

  1991

  2,700

  2,900

  5,700

  1992

  2,800

  3,000

  5,800

  1993

  2,800

  3,100

  6,000

  1994

  2,800

  3,000

  5,800

  1995

  2,800

  3,000

  5,800

  1996

  2,900

  3,100

  6,000

  19971

  2,200

  2,400

  4,600

  1998

  2,200

  2,400

  4,600

  1999

  2,200

  2,500

  4,700

  2000

  2,300

  2,600

  4,900

  1 From 1997 the figures exclude the unitary authority of City of York.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100. Totals may not sum to component parts because of rounding.

  There has been a growth of 6,900 full-time equivalent regular teachers in the maintained school sector in England between January 1998 and January 2000.

  The answer includes teachers in occasional service (short-term supply) on the survey date, teachers on secondment for a period of a term or more and unqualified teachers.

  Primary Schools (Swimming)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on compliance by primary schools with the requirements of the national curriculum in connection with swimming and on the trend in the estimated proportion of those at Key Stage 2 who can swim 25 m. [132907]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Curriculum entitles all children to learn to swim unaided for a distance of 25 m by the time they leave primary school. In 1999, 82.99 per cent. of pupils were able to swim 25 m by the end of Key Stage 2, according to preliminary findings of an Ofsted report on swimming at Key Stage 2 to be published in the autumn. In 98 per cent. of observed lessons pupils made satisfactory progress or better.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans his Department has to produce supplementary guidance to the document entitled, "Working Together to Safeguard Children", on female genital mutilation. [132941]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no plans to produce any supplementary guidance to "Working Together to Safeguard Children" on female genital mutilation. The guidance in this document clearly sets out the action to be taken by a local authority if it has reason to believe a child is at risk from abuse, including female genital mutilation.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132956]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Duty Roster
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the roster for ministerial duties in his Department from 29 July to 22 October. [133050]

  Mr. Wills
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily ministerial duty roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer adjournment in line with the requirements of the ministerial code.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answers of 12 April 2000,Official Report, columns 222–23W and 5 June 2000, Official Report, columns 149–51W, on judges, when he will make a further announcement on part-time judicial appointments to tribunals. [133763]

  Jane Kennedy
  Following the earlier announcements about new arrangements for a number of part-time judicial appointments, similar arrangements have now been put in place for an additional range of part-time tribunal appointments for which the Lord Chancellor is jointly or solely responsible and for appointments made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to Employment Tribunals.

  These changes will come into effect immediately.

  The Lord Chancellor is placing in the Libraries of both Houses joint statements signed by himself and/or the Secretary of State and by the Lord Chief Justice covering the following fixed-term appointments to Tribunals:

  Lord Chancellor
  Part-time Chairmen of Employment Tribunals
  Part-time Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Copyright Tribunal
  The "appointed person" to hear appeals under the Trade Marks Act 1994
  Reinstatement Committees and Umpires
  Part-time members of the Restrictive Practices Court
  Chairmen and ordinary members of the Reserved Forces Appeal Tribunals
  Part-time Chairmen of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

  Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
  Part-time lay members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
  Part-time members of the Employment Tribunals.

  Immigration Appellate Authorities
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultation has taken place about new procedure rules for appeals to the immigration appellate authorities; and when the new rules will be laid before Parliament. [133732]

  Jane Kennedy
  A paper highlighting the main issues was laid before Parliament during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Recently, a wide range of users across the United Kingdom, and the
  871W
  Council on Tribunals, were consulted about draft new rules. Changes are being made following that exercise. A cross section of users has been kept closely in touch throughout development of the rules and that dialogue is continuing. Once this consultation is over, the rules will be laid during the Recess.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132961]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department today,Official Report, column 895W.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will assess the recent report published in Commercial Lawyer on the recruitment and promotion of lawyers in relation to his policy on equal opportunities in the judicial system. [132823]

  Mr. Lock
  The report concerns a survey of newly made partners in solicitors firms. The Lord Chancellor has made it clear on many occasions that he wishes to appoint judges from the widest possible field of candidates and, in particular, he encourages women and ethnic minority lawyers to apply. But he can only appoint from among those in the legal profession who are suitably qualified and who apply. Therefore the Government support the legal profession in the work it is doing to ensure that there are equal opportunities for all those who wish to pursue careers in the law.

  Court Dress
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment he has made of the balance of opinion on the issue of changing court dress. [133134]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor has made no such assessment. He will discuss changes in court dress with the higher judiciary later this year. However, given the many important and pressing issues relating to reform of the justice system that the Government are addressing, changing court dress is unlikely to have a high priority in his Department's programme of work.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132861]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not used KPMG as an adviser on any of its PFI contracts nor have they worked as advisers on any local authority sponsored magistrates' courts PFI contracts supported by the Department.

  Ministerial Duty Rota
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish(a) the
  872W
  ministerial duty rota for his Department during the summer adjournment and (b) the dates between which each of the Parliamentary Secretaries and the Lord Chancellor will be on annual leave during the adjournments of their respective Houses of Parliament and will not be available for official duties. [133171]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is not the normal practice of Government to publish the Ministerial Roster. This Department will ensure it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code. Neither is it normal practice to disclose Ministers' holiday plans, as this is personal information.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gander
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what official overseas visits(a) the Lord Chancellor and (b) the Parliamentary Secretaries plan to make during the parliamentary adjournments. [133172]

  Jane Kennedy
  During the parliamentary adjournments the following overseas visits are planned:My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will visit Australia, Hong Kong and Japan.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) will visit India and Sweden.
  I will visit Canada.

  Advisory Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [131450]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy).

  Immigration Adjudicators
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total number of immigration adjudicators was on 1 July. [132629]

  Mr. Lock
  On 1 July there were 43 full-time and 295 part-time immigration adjudicators.

SCOTLAND

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110153]

  Dr. Reid
  The Scotland Office aims to conserve resources and minimise waste by reducing the use of materials from non-renewable resources and ensure that any products derived from nature, such as paper and timber, come from sustainable resources and comply with
  873W
  EU and international trading agreements such as the Convention on International Trading in Endangered Species (CITES).

  My Department participates in a number of contracts established by the Scottish Executive. Guidance is issued to contractors to ensure that our purchasing policy takes full account of environmental considerations.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source. [110154]

  Dr. Reid
  The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification is accepted by buyers as demonstrating that timber and timber products come from sustainably managed sources. However, it is not practicable to require that all paper and timber products purchased by my Department are certified by the FSC because this might discriminate against equally valid schemes and therefore be against public procurement rules.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111606]

  Dr. Reid
  No information is currently collected on the proportion of recycled paper used by my Department. Arrangements are in place in buildings occupied by the Department for the collection and recycling of much of the waste paper produced.

  My Department will be developing a strategy for waste management based on the three "Rs", with "Recovery" (i.e. recycling, composting and energy recovery) following "Reduce" and "Re-use" as the preferred options for reducing waste sent to landfill.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123813]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]Full information on market and opinion research carried out by the former Scottish Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, between May 1997 and June 1999 has not been collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Decisions relating to the publication of research results were taken on a case by case basis; some of the material was provided on the basis that it remained confidential. Some results of market and opinion research were made publicly available, either by publishing the reports or placing them on the appropriate website. I shall arrange for copies of the published material to be placed in the Library.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department has not carried out any market or opinion research since that date.

  Special Advisers
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of Special Advisers, including salary, transport and other costs, employed by his Department in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 1999. [125572]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 14 June 2000]Special Advisers' salaries are negotiated individually within the three-band range announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 354. Individual salaries and pension contributions are confidential. No information is available about the costs of Special Advisers in 1992. Other costs of Special Advisers in the Scottish Office in 1997–98 were £35,000; and an estimated £57,000 in 1998–99.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The other costs of Special Advisers to 31 December 1999 was £10,246.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the PFI contracts entered into by the Scottish Office prior to July 1999, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if the Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in the savings arising from refinancing. [129056]

  Dr. Reid
  The details relating to PFI contracts entered into by the then Scottish Office prior to July 1999 are as follows.

  Project name

  Skye Bridge

  M6 DBFO

  Kilmarnock Prison

  Date of commencement

  July 1992

  December 1996

  November 1997

  Capital Value (£ million)

  23.6

  103

  32

  Subject to refinancing

  No

  No

  Yes

  Claw-back arrangement

  No

  No

  No

  National Science Centre
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his recent visit to the National Science Centre in Govan. [130954]

  Dr. Reid
  I visited Glasgow Science Centre on 7 June 2000 to launch the Health and Safety Strategy Statement demonstrating that the Government and the Health and Safety Commission are determined to work together to revitalise health and safety in the UK. I very much welcome the birth of the Glasgow Science Centre as an example of economic and cultural regeneration not only for Govan and for Glasgow but also for Scotland. I hope that it will fulfil its potential of being a showcase for science and linking to other science centres in Scotland and beyond. I am sure that the policy of recruiting locally will be welcomed by the local population. The centre represents an investment of £75 million and will bring 120 new jobs.

  Advisory Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the(a) task forces, (b) action teams, (c) policy reviews and (d) other temporary advisory bodies

  875W
  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. [131448]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has no groups or bodies in the categories mentioned.

  Departmental Groups
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each group that is responsible to his Department, with significant and plural membership from outside the Civil Service, and to which the Nolan rules on non-departmental public bodies do not apply and for each such group, if it(a) is a company limited by guarantee, (b) is a charity, (c) has no formal legal basis, and (d) has some other legal basis giving details. [131242]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]There are no groups or bodies in the categories mentioned for which my Department has responsibility.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [131428]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999 and it is still building up to its agreed staffing level of between 110–130 staff. The Department currently has 25 vacancies for permanent staff. This represents 22.3 per cent. of current staffing plans. The monthly cost of filling the posts (at average cost for the grade) would be £45,365.

  The Department employs seven staff on a temporary basis from employment agencies; this represents 6.3 per cent. of the current staff. Since July 1999, my Department has paid £69,733 to employment agencies for temporary staff. The amount to be paid next year will depend on progress made in filling vacancies.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press officers were employed in his Department in(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000; and what the total expenditure on press officers by his Department was in each of the years concerned. [132768]

  Dr. Reid
  In the report on the Government Information and Communications Service (GICS) by the Select Committee on Public Administration (29 July 1998), the number of press officers in the Scottish Office in 1997 was given as 30, with expenditure of £713,000; in 1998 as 30 with expenditure of £803,000; and in 1999 as 33 with expenditure estimated at £822,000.
  876W
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. On 1 January 2000 the Department had two press officers based in Scotland and two press officers based in London. The total salary cost of press officers from 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000 was £44,078.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press releases were issued in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) this year to date; and what the total cost of the production and issuing of these press releases was in each year. [132747]

  Dr. Reid
  The Scottish Office issued 2,141 press releases in 1997 and 2,757 in 1998. Between 1 January 1999 and 30 June 1999, the Scottish Office issued 1,397 press releases. The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Between 1 July and 31 December 1999 the Department issued 98 press releases and has issued a further 171 this year.

  Exact information on the total cost of the production and issuing of press releases could only be obtained at disproportionate cost, though from the quantitative figures above the total cost has already decreased considerably.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132965]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) today,Official Report, column 895W.

  Duty Roster
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the daily Ministerial Duty roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133078]

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the daily ministerial Duty Roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133146]

  Dr. Reid
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily ministerial Duty Roster. My Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Rural Bus Subsidy Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was spent in Scotland under the rural bus subsidy scheme in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much is expected to be spent in 2000–01. [132299]

  Dr. Reid
  Responsibility for the rural bus subsidy scheme in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

TREASURY

  2000 Community Budget
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the statement on the 2000 Community Budget. [132686]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have today laid before Parliament the Statement on the 2000 Community Budget, entitled "European Community Finances". This White Paper is the twentieth in the series. As in the past, it covers annual budgetary matters and includes details of recent developments in European Community financial management and in countering fraud against the Community Budget. It also describes the Community Budget for 2000 as adopted by the European Parliament, and the United Kingdom's contributions to the Community Budget between 1995 and 2000.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132968]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. O'Brien) today,Official Report, column 895W.

  Family Tax Credits
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to maximise the take-up of Working Families Tax Credit and Childcare Tax Credit; and if he will make a statement. [133149]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has been running a major campaign to publicise the Working Families Tax Credit since September 1999. There have been two waves of concentrated promotional activity so far. The first ran for some eleven weeks. Television and press advertisements were supported by posters and leaflets in Job Centres and Post Offices, and Treasury Ministers led a series of roadshows that took place throughout the United Kingdom. This was followed by a second wave of television advertising in April 2000. Planning for a third wave of publicity is underway.

  All advertising has been backed up by a 24-hour freephone response line. Between waves of publicity, WFTC information has been available from a range of sources—including Post Offices, Inland Revenue Enquiry Centres, and the Tax Credit Office helplines in Britain and Northern Ireland.

  The Childcare Tax Credit is publicised as a key component of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families(a) nationally and (b) in Enfield were claiming (i) Working Families Tax Credit and (ii) the Childcare Tax Credit at the last date for which figures are available. [133148]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at the end of May 2000 is provisionally estimated at 1,056,000. It is 878W
  estimated that 3,100 of these were in the Enfield local authority, although this is based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards and is subject to sampling error.

  Nationally, it is estimated that about 110,000 awards current at the end of May 2000 included the Childcare Tax Credit within WFTC. There are too few such awards to families in Enfield falling into the sample to provide a reliable estimate for Enfield.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Northampton, North have received the Childcare Tax Credit. [133136]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Nationally, it is estimated that about 10 per cent. of awards of the Working Families Tax Credit include the Childcare Tax Credit. There are too few awards falling into the 5 per cent. sample used for these analyses to provide a reliable estimate for Northampton, North.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families were eligible for Family Credit in the year immediately preceding its replacement by Working Families Tax Credit; and how many families received it. [132699]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Estimates of numbers entitled to Family Credit in 1998–99 will not be published until the autumn.

  Information on the number of families receiving Family Credit each year is contained in Table 10 of the Social Security Departmental Report (CM 4614), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Duty Roster
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the daily ministerial Duty Roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133060]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish daily ministerial Duty Roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Fuel Taxation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce fuel taxation on biodiesel and bioethanol to a rate broadly comparable with that charged on LPG. [132910]

  Mr. Timms
  The levels of duty on all fuels will be decided on a Budget-by-Budget basis taking into account economic, social and environmental considerations. The potential contribution of biofuels to meeting the Government's environmental objectives is being kept under review.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132862]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  None.

  Children's Poverty Fund (Northern Ireland)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional funding will be made available for the creation of a children's poverty fund in Northern Ireland; and what(a) conditions and (b) ring-fencing of expenditure will apply. [132977]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This is a devolved matter. It is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether and how to establish a Children's Fund for Northern Ireland within their overall provision.

  Public Sector Pension Schemes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many public sector pension schemes are in force; and how many members each scheme has; 1132948]

  (2) how many public sector pension schemes are (a) pre-funded and (b) pay as you go schemes. [132945]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There is a large number of such schemes many of which have only a small membership. Information is not held centrally on all of these schemes and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if an elderly person living with relatives will have their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee means-tested in relation to the total household income; and if he will make a statement. [131502]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]I have been asked to reply.

  Claims to income related benefits are assessed on the basis of a benefit unit not a household as a whole. A benefit unit consists of a claimant, his or her partner and any child dependents. Therefore an elderly person living with relatives would have their minimum income guarantee assessed on their individual circumstances rather than that of the household.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons and Probation Services
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for future inspection arrangements for the prisons and probation services. [133619]

  Mr. Straw
  I want to open the debate on what the future inspection arrangements should be. I intend to publish a consultation paper setting out a choice of options for drawing the work of the two inspectorates closer together. I would expect to reach a decision before the end of the year taking full account of the consultation exercise.

  Prison Service
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to take to help prisons' Boards of Visitors to be more effective in the way they monitor Prison Service establishments and report on their findings. [133622]
  880W
  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I value very highly the important role Boards undertake as the watchdog of the Secretary of State and the independent and impartial advice they are able to provide, on the standards of fairness and humanity with which those placed in custody by the courts are treated. The majority of Boards work very effectively and provide a good service to Ministers and the public. However, in the light of changes within the Prison Service since the last major review of the role of the Boards of Visitors five years ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I have decided that the time is right for a further review of the Board's role and I am pleased to announce that the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir Peter Lloyd) has agreed to chair a Working Group to take the review forward. Sir Peter is currently the Chairman of New Bridge, a charity which recruits and trains volunteers to visit prisoners and provides an employment service for ex-offenders.

  A Board of Visitors is a body created by statute, and there is one attached to every Prison Service establishment in England and Wales. Board members are lay people appointed by the Secretary of State, who are empowered under the Prison Act 1952:
  at any time [to] enter the prison and … have free access to every part of it and to every prisoner and hear any complaints which may be made by the prisoners and report to the Secretary of State any matter which they consider it expedient to report.

  The Prison Rules, made under the Prison Act, set out general and specific duties. We are looking currently at ways in which to improve performance management in the Prison Service and how to ensure a greater involvement of the voluntary sector in prison issues. Against this background, it is right that we should look again at the context in which Boards operate and see what can be done to improve the overall effectiveness of the system.

  I have agreed with Sir Peter the following terms of reference for the Working Group.
  The Working Group has been established to review the legal context in which the Boards of Visitors (BOV) operate and the effectiveness of the existing structure, and to develop proposals for enhancing the performance of the system.
  The review will take account of the relevant recommendation made in the final report of Lord Laming's Targeted Performance Initiative Working Group. The main work of the review will be to consider in depth issues relating to:
  the composition of and appointments to Boards, including whether there should be any limitation on the overall period of service by members;
  the duties, commitment and levels of performance expected of Boards, the way in which they function and whether existing powers enable them to undertake their work effectively and raise with Ministers issues they need to be aware of;
  the level of funding required to enable Boards to operate effectively;
  the amount and quality of training provision for Boards, and whether it is sufficiently well focused;
  the most appropriate agency through which Boards should be accountable and report to Ministers; and
  the way in which Boards views should be represented to Ministers and the nature and amount of support they require at national level.

  881W
  The membership of the Working Group will include the following:
  Helen Edwards—National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Officials (NACRO)
  Barbara Stowe—Office of the Prisons Ombudsman
  Professor Michael Marland—Former Head Teacher, North Westminster Community School
  Dr. Rennie Porteous—Chairman, National Advisory Council
  Tom Weisselberg—Member, Wormwood Scrubs BOV
  Steve Wagstaffe—Governor, Her Majesty's Prison Hull.

  The full membership has still to be finalised.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of funds allocated the spending review 2000 available to the prison service in each year will be allocated to(a) prison places and (b) constructive activity and offender behaviour programmes; and if he will make a statement. [133180]

  Mr. Boateng
  The 2000 Spending Review settlement provided an additional £140 million/£246 million/£303 million for the Prison Service over the three financial years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. Final decisions on the allocation of these funds will not be taken until later this year. But provisional plans include £103 million/£105 million/£69 million to be used to provide an increase in prison capacity of 2,660 places, £25 million/£34 million/£29 million on enhanced drug treatment and prevention, £8 million/£40 million/£75 million on other prisoner programmes and enhanced healthcare.

  Target Performance Improvement
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations were made by Lord Laming's working group on Target Performance Improvement; and if he will make a statement. [133621]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the establishment of Lord Laming's working group in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) on 31 January 2000,Official Report, column 426W. Lord Laming has completed his report, and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library and in the Vote Office.

  I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and his colleagues on the working group, for their analysis and recommendations. They provide a welcome guide and underscoring of the important programme of modernisation upon which the Director General and Ministers have embarked. I accept all the recommendations made in the report, save where Lord Laming, or the Director General, have advised me that further work is required in order to assess how best to take the recommendation forward.

  I have therefore, today, announced that the right hon. Member for Fareham and Chairman of New Bridge (Sir P. Lloyd) has agreed to chair a review of the role of prisons' Boards of Visitors (Recommendation 16). Mr. Patrick Carter, a non-executive Director of the Prison and Probation Services, has agreed to lead a review of the Prison Service's programme of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) prisons and market-testing (Recommendation 8).

  I have asked the Director General to report back to me, at the latest, by October 2000, with a more detailed action plan in response to Recommendations 4, 5, 9,
  882W
  13 and 14. I have also asked the Director General and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons to take forward Recommendation 12.

  I welcome the report's focus on up-dating personnel policies, and the importance placed on succession planning, and the effective management of sickness absence and poor performers. These underscore the importance of major programmes of work already under way within the Prison Service. Lord Laming has noted the leadership being given by the Director General and the Deputy Director General, and the report's recommendations regarding managerial accountability and the pivotal role of the area manager in improving performance built on recent reforms relating to regionalisation. I expect the pace and extent of those reforms to be accelerated.

  The Service is in the process of modernising its Information Technology systems, and will be introducing service level agreements into all public sector prisons by April 2001. Work is also in hand to develop a more sophisticated means of linking performance with the allocation of resources. The Quinquennial Review of the Prison Service, conducted in 1999, reaffirmed its status as an Executive Agency.

  His recommendations are:

  1. The Prison Service must give the highest priority to developing succession management in order to avoid frequent changes of governors. They must ensure that governor posts are filled as quickly and appropriately as possible.

  2. The personnel policies and practices of the Prison Service should be brought up to date. Sickness absence should be robustly challenged. Mechanisms to deal with poor performance should be improved.

  3. Staff training should be improved and be linked to quality standards and performance targets.

  4. A critical examination of information routinely circulated and gathered should be undertaken. In future, information should not be gathered or sent unless its use has been defined and justified.

  5. It is recommended that all instructions to governors, and requests for information should be directed through the management line and should be prioritised.

  6. The Prison Service should be clearly defined as an Executive Agency and be required to perform as such.

  7. The allocation of increased resources should be linked to defined objectives and outcome measures—systems must be in place so that every prison governor can demonstrate that resources are being used flexibly and to good purpose.

  8. The programme of PFI prisons and market testing should be reviewed to advise Ministers on how best to use the financial and management resources of the private sector to provide both greater choice and additional capacity to the Prison Service.

  9. We believe that service level agreements should be developed for every establishment in the public sector. In each of these establishments a contract compliance officer should be appointed to monitor day-by-day application. In many prisons the extra cost would be covered by the better use of resources.

  10. The Prison Service should operate to agreed national standards which are put into practice in each establishment. It is not a "federal" service and these core standards should be the basis for all evaluation of performance.

  11. The highest priority should be given to modernising the management information systems of the Prison Service and ensuring the successful implementation of the new contract with Electronic Data Systems.

  883W

  12. The Prison Service and the Chief Inspector should work to produce an agreed set of standards, to be approved by Ministers, against which the performance of prisons will be evaluated. The methodology for the inspection of prisons should be developed in relation to these standards. It should facilitate both objective assessment and comparison covering both value for money and quality of service delivered.

  13. The principle of managerial accountability must permeate the service and inform all practice and decision making.

  14. The principle of managerial responsibilities of area managers should be clearly defined and they should be held personally accountable for the performance of each prison in their areas. Specialist staff should be relocated from headquarters to the areas to enable area managers to fulfil their new and demanding duties.

  15. Links between prisons and community based agencies should be strengthened and coordinated more effectively. Prison and community based agency staff should be provided with training to enable them to work together more effectively. Community based agency staff should be able to convey any concerns they have about the prison to the governor or area manager.

  16. There should be a review of the role, resources and responsibilities of Boards of Visitors.

  Community Development Foundation
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the next quinquennial review of the Community Development Foundation will take place; and if he will make a statement. [133618]

  Mr. Boateng
  The next review will start in the autumn and is due to be completed by April 2001. It will be conducted under the terms of guidance for reviewing non-departmental public bodies (NDPB'S) included in the Government's Modernising Government White Paper. The review, which will be carried out by external consultants, is in two stages, in which the organisational options are considered first. Then, if NDPB status is confirmed, a forward-looking examination will be undertaken as to how to help develop and improve performance. An announcement of the results of stage one will also be made to Parliament. The senior officials responsible for the review will be the head of the Government's Active Community Unit based in the Home Office.

  Police Information Technology Organisation
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the Annual report of the Police Information Technology Organisation. [133620]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In accordance with the requirement of the Police Act 1997, I have received, from the Police Information Technology Organisation, a report on the discharge of its functions during the year 1999–2000. I am arranging for copies to be laid before Parliament and placed in the Library.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the results of the review of penalties for road traffic offences. [133623]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government aim to publish a consultation paper on proposals arising from the review of penalties for road traffic offences during the summer recess.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of the home detention curfew scheme(a) how many prisoners were released on the scheme, (b) how many prisoners convicted of each specific offence were released on the scheme, broken down by the offences committed, including the specific offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults, and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) what the average sentence was (i) received and (ii) served, and what average period was spent on the scheme, in respect of each specific offence, (d) how many prisoners were released on the scheme, broken down by offences committed, who (i) breached the conditions of the curfew, (ii) disappeared and were recaptured, (iii) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (iv) had their licences revoked, and for what reasons, (e) what specific offences were committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) what specific offences were committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [131382]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 19 July 2000]The information provided in this answer is for the period up to 30 June 2000. As of that date, a total of 22,777 prisoners had been placed on Home Detention Curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999.

  The original offences committed by prisoners released under the scheme during the period, the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence, the average sentence received and served for those offences, and the average period spent on the scheme in respect of the prisoners convicted of each specific offence are shown in Table 1. The data are taken from the Prison Service's inmate information system based on the data recorded by each prison. The table provides as detailed a breakdown of offences as is possible from central records.

  A total of 806 prisoners released on the scheme during the period breached the conditions of their curfew. A breakdown of this number showing the original offences committed is shown in Table 2.

  Information on curfewees whose licences are revoked and who disappear before being recaptured is not held centrally. However, information is held on the number of curfewees unlawfully at large at any one time. On 30 June there were 41 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large. This represents fewer than 4 per cent. of the total number of revocations.

  Details of the offences originally committed by those 41 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large on 30 June 2000 can be found in Table 3.
  885W
  As of 30 June 2000, 1,095 curfewees had their licences revoked, using the powers available to the Secretary of State under Sections 38A(1) and 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The reasons for revocation were as follows:
  a breach of the curfew (section 38A(1)a of the Criminal Justice Act 1991);
  the curfewee's whereabouts could no longer be electronically monitored (section 38A(1)b of the Criminal Justice Act 1991);
  it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm (section 38A(1)c of the Criminal Justice Act 1991); and
  the curfewee had committed an offence or breached any requirement of probation supervision (section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991). Curfewees who are charged with new offences may also be recalled on any of the preceding grounds depending on the circumstances of the case.

  A breakdown of the original offences the 1,095 recalled curfewees committed together with a breakdown of the reasons for recall is at Table 4.

  Table 5 gives a breakdown of all offences committed by prisoners placed on Home Detention Curfew while on the scheme. Where a curfewee has been charged with more than one offence, these have been shown separately.

  Table 6 gives a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners placed on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme which was similar in character to the most serious offence for which they were originally convicted.

  The scheme is designed to ensure a better transition for short-term offenders between custody and the community. Prisoners are placed on Home Detention Curfew only after a careful risk assessment and the safety of the public is paramount at all times.

  Tables 1–6 have been placed in the Library.

  Police (Palace of Westminster)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000,Official Report, column 496W, what the basis was for his statement concerning the overcoming of recruitment difficulties relating to Metropolitan Police security officers at the Palace of Westminster; [130756]

  (2) what, for the recruitment advertising campaign for Metropolitan Police security officers at the Palace of Westminster over the last 12 months, were (a) the budget, (b) the timescale of the most recent recruitment campaign and (c) the number of suitable recruits; and what actual and projected vacancies were, based on existing retirement policies; [130721]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the difficulties encountered in attracting suitable candidates for posts of Metropolitan Police security officers at the Palace of Westminster; what posts elsewhere compete for the same candidates; and what their rates of pay and conditions of service are; [130757]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000, Official Report, column 496W, concerning the retirement age of Metropolitan Police security officers at the House, (a) on what dates discussions took place with the security officers' trade union representatives, (b) when the trade union representative was shown the letters, prior to their
  886W
  dispatch to security officers declining to extend their period of service and (c) when those letters were dispatched; and if he will make a statement; [130706]

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000, Official Report, column 496W, concerning Metropolitan Police security officers stationed at the House, if he will place in the Library a copy of the minutes or notes taken at the meeting between the Metropolitan Police management and the security officers' trade union representative; [130722]

  (6) on what dates Mr. G. Roylance met the Metropolitan Police security officers' trade union representative (a) prior to the dispatch of the letters declining an extension of service to those officers due to retire and (b) after the letters' dispatch; and if he will make a statement; [130758]

  (7) pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000, Official Report, column 496W, when the decision was taken, and by whom, that the availability of recruits for Metropolitan Police security officers at the Palace of Westminster had improved; and on what basis an assessment was made that this situation would be sustained; [130723]

  (8) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on age discrimination in relation to the recruitment and retention policy of Metropolitan Police security guards at the Palace of Westminster. [131111]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the Principal Security Officer and a member of the senior management team of the Palace of Westminster Security Force meets monthly with the Public and Commercial Services Union which represents the security officers. The minutes of these meetings are available to all staff. We are seeking the approval of the Public and Commercial Services Union to release the minutes of the meeting on 5 April 2000, at which the Principal Security Officer (PSO) informed the union representatives that it had been decided not to offer any further extension of service to staff over 60 years of age.

  In the reply I gave on 24 May 2000, Official Report, column 496W, I acknowledged that the Metropolitan Police had experienced difficulties in recruiting security officers for the Palace of Westminster but that these have been overcome as a result of an external recruitment campaign.

  Chief Superintendent Roylance of the Metropolitan Police (the officer in charge of policing the Palace of Westminster) met with the security officers' trade union representatives on 19 April after sending the letters on 13 April to those officers where a further extension of service had been declined. He did not meet them prior to the despatch of letters.

  Internal selection within the Metropolitan Police Service is carried out at regular intervals by the local personnel unit at no additional cost. The recent external recruitment campaign for security officers was funded by the Metropolitan Police Service Central Recruitment Branch budget. The cost of the campaign advertisements was approximately £33,086. Planning for the campaign began in February 2000 and the advertisements were placed in May. Consideration of the applications and candidate interviews are now in progress. Some 212 applications were received in response to the campaign

  887W
  but it is not yet possible to say how many of the applicants are suitable. The total number of anticipated vacancies is 68, of which 17 were anticipated to be retirements of staff at or beyond the contractual age of retirement in 2000.

  The Metropolitan Police compares favourably with other employers of security officers in terms of both salary and working conditions. The starting salary of a security officer is £10,911 per annum and, in addition, Palace of Westminster officers receive £1,622 per annum London Allowance and a Shift allowance.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment issued a publication: "Age Diversity in Employment: A Code of Practice" in 1999, a copy of which is in the Library. The code covers good practice in six aspects of the employment cycle, including retirement. I have no reason to believe that the retirement policy operated by the Metropolitan Police Service is not fairly applied in accordance with the advice given in the code.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in the Metropolitan Police Area for violation of bus lanes in each of the last three years. [132840]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The very few court proceedings brought for violation of bus lanes cannot be distinguished, in centrally collected statistics, from other offences connected with neglect of traffic directions or obstruction, waiting and parking.

  However, the overwhelming majority of bus lane offences are dealt with by fixed penalty notice, and information obtained from the Metropolitan Police shows that 14,936 fixed penalties were issued by them for driving in a bus lane in 1997, 14,107 in 1998 and 12,527 in 1999 (an estimated figure which includes 3,247 detected using video technology and dealt with by way of conditional offer of fixed penalty).

  Travel Documents
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will set a target time for dealing with all new travel document applications; [132895]

  (2) what the average length of time taken to process a travel document application was in the last 12 months; [132897]

  Number of working days lost due to assaults on police officers

  Assaults—days lost

  Percentage of police working days lost to assault

  Average police strength

  Total working days assuming 228 per officer based on average strength

  Avon and Somerset

  416

  0.06

  3,012

  686,736

  Bedfordshire

  211

  0.09

  1,041

  237,407

  Cambridgeshire

  412

  0.14

  1,295

  295,260

  Cheshire

  331

  0.07

  2,111

  481,308

  City of London

  1—

  1—

  790

  180,120

  Cleveland

  285

  0.08

  1,471

  335,388

  Cumbria

  129

  0.05

  1,160

  264,480

  888W
  (3) how many post-September 1999 travel document applications have still not been processed; and if he will set a date for clearing the backlog; [132894]

  (4) if he will assign additional staff to the Travel Document Section as a temporary measure to help clear the backlog of applications; [132845]

  (5) how many of the backlog of travel document applications left over from the period January to August 1999 have not been processed. [132896]

  Mrs. Roche
  The target for processing new travel document applications is six to eight weeks. This is already being met, on average, with applications submitted after September 1999. Applications submitted before this date, between January and August 1999, were taking in excess of nine months to process. However, there are now fewer than 300 of these applications left to process, all of which should be cleared over the next few weeks.

  Since Autumn 1999 the number of staff in the Travel Document Section has increased from 20 to more than 90. These extra staff were needed to handle the increasing numbers of new applications and to process the older ones. There are approximately 5,000 new applications still awaiting consideration with staff currently processing those received in early June. The aim is to clear the bulk of these by the end of September.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces are not equipped with CS gas; and if he will make a statement. [132887]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Two forces in England and Wales do not issue CS spray to officers: Northamptonshire and Sussex.

  I understand that Nottinghamshire police are currently making arrangements for the use of CS spray by their officers.

  Police (Injuries)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of police officers were injured on duty in the most recent year for which figures are available, broken down by police force. [132888]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. The table shows:the number of police working days lost in 1998–99 due to injuries sustained by police officers as a result of assaults; and
  the percentage of working days lost in that year due to injuries sustained by police officers as a result of assaults.
  889W

  Number of working days lost due to assaults on police officers

  Assaults—days lost

  Percentage of police working days lost to assault

  Average police strength

  Total working days assuming 228 per officer based on average strength

  Derbyshire

  356

  0.09

  1,777

  405,224

  Devon and Cornwall

  974

  0.15

  2,946

  671,592

  Dorset

  198

  0.07

  1,303

  297,084

  Durham

  258

  0.07

  1,552

  353,856

  Dyfed-Powys

  198

  0.08

  1,044

  238,032

  Essex

  760

  0.11

  2,936

  669,408

  Gloucestershire

  312

  0.12

  1,113

  253,764

  Greater Manchester

  1,803

  0.11

  6,913

  1,576,164

  Gwent

  501

  0.18

  1,250

  285,000

  Hampshire

  63

  0.01

  3,470

  791,160

  Hertfordshire

  717

  0.18

  1,752

  399,456

  Humberside

  332

  0.07

  2,021

  460,788

  Kent

  306

  0.04

  3,269

  745,332

  Lancashire

  1,127

  0.15

  3,331

  759,468

  Leicestershire

  424

  0.09

  2,037

  464,436

  Lincolnshire

  174

  0.07

  1,171

  266,988

  Merseyside

  926

  0.09

  4,373

  996,930

  Metropolitan police

  6,324

  0.10

  26,566

  6,057,048

  Norfolk

  202

  0.06

  1,426

  325,128

  North Wales

  1,036

  0.32

  1,416

  322,848

  North Yorkshire

  97

  0.03

  1,360

  310,080

  Northamptonshire

  211

  0.08

  1,167

  266,094

  Northumbria

  2,685

  0.31

  3,854

  878,598

  Nottinghamshire

  748

  0.15

  2,248

  512,544

  South Wales

  2,511

  0.37

  2,989

  681,492

  South Yorkshire

  329

  0.05

  3,165

  721,506

  Staffordshire

  441

  0.08

  2,279

  519,498

  Suffolk

  30

  0.01

  1,195

  272,460

  Surrey

  84

  0.02

  1,680

  383,136

  Sussex

  514

  0.08

  2,962

  675,336

  Thames Valley

  164

  0.02

  3,822

  871,491

  Warwickshire

  163

  0.08

  925

  210,786

  West Mercia

  438

  0.09

  2,033

  463,524

  West Midlands

  3,326

  0.20

  7,250

  1,653,000

  West Yorkshire

  3,210

  0.28

  5,053

  1,152,084

  Wiltshire

  141

  0.05

  1,169

  266,532

  England and Wales Total

  33,866

  0.12

  125,696

  28,658,568

  1 Not available

  Cyclists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is in respect of police prosecutions of cyclists(a) going through traffic lights at red, (b) going the wrong way down one-way streets, (c) using footpaths designed for pedestrians, (d) riding on pavements, (e) exceeding the speed limit and (f) failing to carry lights. [132095]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Enforcement of the law in respect of cycling offences is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. The hazards caused by cyclists who break road traffic laws are recognised by chief officers and appropriate action is taken where such offences are detected.

  Public Safety Radio Communications System
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the value for money represented by the full funding of the 19 year contract for the Public Safety Radio Communications System in all police forces. [132377]
  890W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Public Safety Radio Communication Service is designed to replace the current range of force-specific radio systems with a national service which meets the needs of modern-day policing.

  Throughout the planning stages, as well as the contract negotiations, every effort has been made to keep the costs of the service down. The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which is responsible for managing the Police Service Radio Communications Project (PSRCP), has regularly challenged and validated earlier assumptions and plans. Mechanisms such as benchmarking have been built into the main service contract to help ensure that both initial and future services remain Value For Money. Both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities have concluded that the PSRCP meets technical requirements and offers value for money at a national level.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2000,Official Report, column 538W, on xenotransplantation,

  891W
  what happened to those primates who were not euthanased; and if he will make a statement. [132081]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Xenotransplantation 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.

  As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 11 July 2000, Official Report, column 538W, almost all of the primates used in xenotransplantation research in the years 1995 to 1999 were euthanased. The majority were killed when they began to show clinical or biomedical evidence of terminal organ failure or when their clinical condition began to give rise to concern and some were euthanased when the procedure reached its pre-determined time point for completion. I understand that a small number of animals died unexpectedly before reaching the planned end point of the xenotransplantation procedure.

  Neighbourhood Warden Schemes
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with local authorities about neighbourhood warden schemes. [132503]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 457–58W.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with police about neighbourhood warden schemes in the north west. [132494]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Black Police Association are represented on the Advisory Committee of the Neighbourhood Warden's Unit which has been jointly established by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and which administers the Neighbourhood Wardens fund. The Advisory Committee meets quarterly. The five police forces in the North West region also benefit from having a police representative seconded to the Government Office for the North West, who has been closely involved in the development of town centre neighbourhood warden schemes and the recent bidding round for funding from the Neighbourhood Warden's Fund.

  Fruit Pickers
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the permit system and the restrictions on the numbers of Eastern European students legally working as fruit pickers. [132578]
  892W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]Under the Immigration Rules, the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme already enables non-European Economic Area (EEA) students between the ages of 18 and 25 who are in full-time education to enter the United Kingdom to do some seasonal work in agriculture. The scheme is organised through seven approved operators who issue work cards to the students to gain entry into the United Kingdom to participate in the scheme. There is an annual quota which was raised from 5,500 to 10,000 in 1996.

  I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether the present quota is adequate.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [131432]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]Agency staff are used to fill vacancies in the short term for a variety of reasons. These could include absences due to long-term sick or maternity leave, the need to provide particular skills for a short project or to cover vacancies that are waiting to be filled from recruitment exercises. Casual appointments, normally for less than 12 months are also made for similar reasons. It would not therefore be appropriate to draw a direct relationship between the use of Agency staff and vacancies in the Home Office.

  The additional posts that have been made available to tackle the Asylum backlog in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) have provided opportunities for staff throughout the Home Office. But the vast majority of these additional posts are being filled by recruitment. I am committed to filling all permanent vacancies with permanent staff as soon as possible and a wide range of recruitment exercises have been taken place and are ongoing. For example, in IND, where there is the greatest number of vacancies, 30 recruitment campaigns are taking place and staff are currently joining IND at the rate of about 300 per month. However, until the staff have been selected and are able to join the Home Office, there will be an ongoing need for some vacancies to be covered by Agency staff.

  All parts of The Home Office have delegated authority to manage resources, including staff numbers within agreed cash limits. Information on the use and cost of Agency staff is not collected centrally or accounted for separately and could be provided only at disproportionate costs. The best available information is set out in the following table.
  893W

  Table 1. Staff vacancies and Agency Staff across the Home Office on 1 April

  Staff in Post

  Home Office Vacancies

  Total (Staff in Post and Vacancies)

  Vacancies as a percentage of total Home Office staff positions

  Agency staff

  Percentage of total Home Office staff positions

  Main Home Office

  2,975

  440

  3,415

  12.8

  144

  1.3

  IND

  6,399

  3,093

  9,472

  32.6

  100

  3.2

  Prison Service HQ

  2,228

  199

  2,427

  8

  3—

  UKPA2

  2,800

  400

  3,200

  12.5

  21

  0.6

  FSS

  1,761

  250

  2,011

  12.4

  140

  6.9

  FSC

  186

  8

  194

  4.1

  4

  2

  Total

  16,349

  4,390

  20,719

  413.7

  309

  42.8

  1 As at June 2000

  2 Figures as July 2000

  3 Not available

  4 Average

  Official Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the visits outside Britain made by his Department's Permanent Secretary on official business since 1 January 1999, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [132746]

  Mr. Straw
  The Permanent Secretary at the Home Office visited Paris on Wednesday 6 October 1999 and Berlin on Friday 3 December 1999 for discussions with his counterparts.

  Marsham Street Buildings
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his policy not to retain the former Department of the Environment Marsham Street buildings for use by the Civil Service; [132426]

  (2) for how long the former Department of the Environment building in Marsham Street has been empty; what its floor space is; and if he will make a statement on his Department's disposal action for the building through his Central London Accommodation Strategy. [132425]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The building has been empty, apart from some temporary uses, including use as a shelter for the homeless, since 1997. It has 920,000 square feet (85,468 square metres) of floor space at ground level and above. It is proposed to retain part of the site and use it to construct offices for the Home Office, after demolition of the existing buildings. The rest of the site will be sold for residential or other uses. Bids from two private sector consortia are being evaluated and I expect it to be in a position to announce the outcome shortly.

  Passports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend to all post offices the authority to issue passports. [132417]

  Mrs. Roche
  No. To ensure international acceptance of the British passport, its integrity and the security of the issuing process, the authority of the issuing process needs to remain with the United Kingdom Passport Agency. The Quinquennial Review of the Agency the report on which my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, published on 28 June confirmed that the Government should continue to be responsible for the issuing of the British passport.
  894W
  The Passport Agency does have arrangements with Post Office Counters Ltd which enable applicants for a small additional fee to have their applications checked for completeness and sent on to one of the Agency's offices for return within 10 days. This service is currently available from 1,500 main post offices, and the Post Office aim to extend this to a further 500 offices by early 2001.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the family from South Africa, about whom the hon. Member for West Chelmsford wrote to the Minister of State on 21 July, will have their passports returned. [132827]

  Mrs. Roche
  The family from South Africa had their passports returned to them, suitably endorsed, on 26 July.

  Witness Protection
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 598, on witness protection, when he referred the comments of the hon. Member for Workington to the Chief Constable of Lancashire. [131541]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My officials did so on 16 February.

  Telephone Harassment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Inspector of Constabulary on the efficiency of the Lancashire Police in pursuing inquiries into telephone harassment. [131540]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No, but if my hon. Friend lets me have details of any specific case, I shall look into it.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables as to the incidence of success in tracing phone calls on prepayment call mobiles. [131542]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have no plans to do so.

  Air Rifles
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate further the sale of air rifles; and if he will make a statement. [I32295]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are currently preparing their response to the Report of the Home Affairs Committee on Controls over Firearms, which makes a number of recommendations concerning the regulation of air rifles and other air weapons. The Committee's proposals in this regard will be considered carefully.

  Circus Animals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in relation to improving the welfare of circus animals with particular reference to winter quarters. [133135]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are already laws covering the welfare of circus and other captive animals. It is an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to cause them unnecessary suffering. Under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925, the police and local authorities have inspection powers and can take action through the courts if the training or exhibiting of any performing animal is accompanied by cruelty. The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 safeguards the welfare of animals when they are being moved between sites.

  The Government have no current plans to introduce other statutory measures for the welfare of animals in travelling circuses. It is, however, helping the Association of Circus Proprietors to prepare a related Code of Practice.

  We have accepted that circus winter quarters should be subject to licensing controls to ensure basic standards of animal welfare. There is at present little prospect of a slot for this in the Government's legislative programme.

  Any Private Member's Bill brought forward on the subject—such as that introduced this Session by the hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)—will be carefully considered.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day. 3 September. [132959]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will fly the Red Ensign from its headquarters building on 3 September. There are no plans to fly the Red Ensign from other Government buildings.

  Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners tested positive for illicit drugs in each British prison during the last year for which figures are available. [132953]

  Mr. Boateng
  Random mandatory drug testing (MDT) is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for the Prison Service. The rate of positive tests as a percentage of all 896W
  random drugs tests for the year 1999–2000 for each prison in England and Wales is shown in the table. The target for the Prison Service overall last year was 18.5 per cent. Performance was 14.2 per cent.

  Only prisons that were operational for the full year 1999–2000 have been included.

  Prison name

  Percentage positive MDT

  Acklington

  13.6

  Albany

  0.0

  Altcourse

  10.4

  Ashwell

  27.9

  Askham Grange

  8.3

  Aylesbury

  12.7

  Bedford

  17.3

  Belmarsh

  10.5

  Birmingham

  20.0

  Blakenhurst

  25.1

  Blantyre House

  0.7

  Blundeston

  10.4

  Brinsford

  22.7

  Bristol

  16.3

  Brixton

  12.7

  Brockhill

  21.2

  Buckley Hall

  20.9

  Bullingdon

  20.2

  Bullwood Hall

  12.7

  Camp Hill

  24.5

  Canterbury

  13.2

  Cardiff

  27.6

  Castington

  14.8

  Channings Wood

  3.9

  Chelmsford

  23.0

  Coldingley

  12.2

  Cookham Wood

  0.6

  Dartmoor

  3.0

  Deerbolt

  15.3

  Doncaster

  10.2

  Dorchester

  20.1

  Dover

  12.1

  Downview

  2.5

  Drake Hall

  16.6

  Durham

  13.1

  East Sutton Park

  0.9

  Eastwood Park

  14.2

  Elmley

  13.5

  Erlestoke

  22.0

  Everthorpe

  21.9

  Exeter

  25.0

  Featherstone

  35.8

  Feltham

  21.2

  Ford

  10.8

  Foston hall

  8.2

  Frankland

  11.5

  Full Sutton

  5.8

  Garth

  14.9

  Gartree

  9.7

  Glen Parva

  14.7

  Gloucester

  23.9

  Grendon

  10.7

  Guys Marsh

  25.8

  Haslar

  1.0

  Hatfield

  9.0

  Haverigg

  13.9

  Hewell Grange

  15.3

  Highdown

  16.7

  Highpoint

  11.6

  Hindley

  18.6

  Hollesley Bay

  25.9

  Holloway

  15.5

  Holme House

  10.3

  Hull

  11.3

  Huntercombe

  24.9

  897W

  Prison name

  Percentage positive MDT

  Kingston

  17.8

  Kirkham

  17.9

  Kirklevington

  2.0

  Lancaster

  18.9

  Lancaster Farms

  3.2

  Latchmere House

  5.2

  Leeds

  19.5

  Leicester

  29.1

  Lewes

  18.1

  Leyhill

  16.2

  Lincoln

  15.4

  Lindholme

  26.8

  Littlehey

  10.1

  Liverpool

  17.3

  Long Lartin

  7.3

  Low Newton

  16.7

  Lowdham Grange

  15.6

  Maidstone

  7.2

  Manchester

  14.3

  Moorland

  3.3

  Morton Hall

  11.7

  Mount

  12.9

  New Hall

  5.8

  North Sea Camp

  23.5

  Northallerton

  13.3

  Norwich

  19.9

  Nottingham

  21.6

  Onley

  9.4

  Pare

  22.5

  Parkhurst

  1.6

  Pentonville

  28.0

  Portland

  8.8

  Preston

  22.0

  Ranby

  9.2

  Reading

  16.6

  Risley

  15.4

  Rochester

  3.2

  Send

  12.5

  Shepton Mallet

  19.9

  Shrewsbury

  11.1

  Stafford

  14.9

  Standford Hill

  12.2

  Stocken

  19.5

  Stoke Heath

  8.9

  Styal

  18.2

  Sudbury

  9.6

  Swaleside

  13.2

  Swansea

  25.3

  Swinfen Hall

  2.8

  Thorn Cross

  22.7

  Usk

  4.0

  Verne

  3.5

  Wakefield

  1.8

  Wandsworth

  6.1

  Wayland

  14.4

  Wealstun

  23.9

  Weare

  14.2

  Wellingborough

  23.4

  Werrington

  4.0

  Wetherby

  9.2

  Whatton

  0.9

  Whitemoor

  7.4

  Winchester

  25.6

  Wolds

  11.9

  Woodhill

  14.0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  15.9

  Wymott

  12.3

  Police Operations
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the maximum percentage 898W
  of a police authority's total budget that he would regard as a sum too small to be reimbursed by his Department as an extraordinary operational expense; [133186]

  (2) on what grounds the request by Surrey Police for reimbursement of costs relating to the Pinochet operation was rejected by his Department. [133184]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Surrey Police were awarded a special payment of £200,000 in March 1999 as a contribution towards the additional costs of protecting Senator Pinochet. A further special payment of £550,000 requested by the Surrey Police in December 1999 was refused.

  Their supplementary application was not approved because it was decided, in view of the limited funding available to meet an increasing number of grant applications, to draw up clearer criteria. These conditions require that the burden on the force should be unforeseen; commit them to exceptional additional expenditure, and directly impact on the force's efficiency. Additionally, we will consider special payments, subject to the availability of funding, to cover all or most of the extra costs for events of a national and international dimension that impose a burden on the resources of a force as a consequence of a decision by the Government.

  Grant applications would normally be considered to the extent that they exceed 2 per cent. of the force's current revenue budget. In the case of Surrey, 2 per cent. of their budget for 1999–2000 was £1.9 million.

  Surrey's request for extra financial assistance had to compete with other more pressing needs, such as the Stansted hijack. We decided that those other demands had first call on the remaining available resources, particularly as some financial assistance had already been provided to Surrey for the protection of Senator Pinochet.

  The total additional costs for protecting Senator Pinochet were estimated at £750,000. They were estimated at around 0.8 per cent. of the budget of the Surrey Police.

  Once account is taken of the special payment of £200,000 made in March 1999 the proportion of the additional costs that fell on the Surrey Police was reduced to 0.6 per cent. of the force's 1999–2000 budget.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sell Oak (Dr. Jones) of 20 July 2000,Official Report, column 326W, on departmental initiatives, what is the estimated administrative costs to those bodies making bids for each of the initiatives; and if he will make a statement. [133178]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested on estimated administrative costs to those bodies making bids for Home Office initiatives is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by contacting every body that has made a bid since May 1997.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made in the public service agreements made for his Department
  899W
  between the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review and the Spending Review 2000; what are the reasons for those public service agreements which have been discontinued for being so discontinued; what progress has been made against each of the targets in the agreements made in 1998 included those which have been discontinued; and if he will make a statement. [133151]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly publish a comprehensive list of new public service agreements (relating to the Spending Review 2000) for all Government Departments. However, these public service agreements will not come into effect until April 2001.

  The Public Service Agreement (PSA) relating to the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review covers the period 1999–2002. No targets contained in that PSA have been discontinued, although some have already been met. The Home Office continues to work towards delivery of outstanding targets. Details of the targets, and performance against them up to December 1999, are recorded in the Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000 (copies of which are available in the Library). Information on progress will be provided in subsequent Home Office Annual Reports—the next of which is expected to be published around April 2001.

  Crime Reduction Initiatives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the real terms increase under the spending review 2000 on crime reduction initiatives in each of the next four years and in total; and if he will make a statement. [133181]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the spending review, the amount of additional funding for Home Office-led crime reduction initiatives is likely to increase by at least 20 per cent. in 2001–02. However, the exact figures and the final breakdown between the crime reduction and police initiatives will not be finalised until September.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives will be undertaken by the Home Office as part of the National Strategy on Alcohol Misuse; and if he will make a statement. [133182]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Health publishes the Strategy this will give a full account of the action being taken by Departments, including the Home Office, to support the strategic aims and objectives.

  Duty Roster
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the duty ministerial roster for his Department for the period 29 July to 22 October. [132976]

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for his Department during the summer adjournment. [133076]
  900W
  Mr. Straw
  It is not the normal practice of a Government to publish the daily ministerial duty roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department paid in grant to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service in each financial year since 1978–79; how much he proposes to pay as grant to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service in each of the financial years covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will express(a) and (b) in both cash and real terms [132938]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures are not available prior to 1985–86. Grant paid from that year onwards is shown in the table. The table shows the grant in cash terms and adjusted to 1978–79 prices.

  £

  Financial year

  Grant in cash terms

  Grant adjusted to 1978–79 prices

  1985–86

  4,600,000

  2,456,500

  1986–87

  4,833,000

  2,503,155

  1987–88

  15,257,000

  2,585,161

  1988–89

  5,132,000

  2,363,767

  1989–90

  5,353,000

  2,299,857

  1990–91

  5,539,000

  2,207,209

  1991–92

  5,802,102

  2,178,277

  1992–93

  6,109,000

  2,221,041

  1993–94

  6,247,000

  2,212,520

  1994–95

  6,500,000

  2,270,179

  1995–96

  6,200,000

  2,104,895

  1996–97

  5,840,000

  1,920,888

  1997–98

  5,548,000

  1,774,512

  1998–99

  5,298,000

  1,646,412

  1999–2000

  5,048,000

  1,529,645

  2000–01

  4,798,000

  1,421,897

  1 Includes £332,000 to cover the one-off costs associated with the 1988 change of premises

  The amount of grant for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 will be determined in the light of decisions on use of resources within the Home Office's programmes.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on payments of grant to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. [132937]

  Mr. Boateng
  Payment of grant to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service was formally reviewed in 1997. The review found that grant from the Home Office supported services which had the potential to recover costs in full from local purchasers (ie local authorities, health trusts and emergency services) and through fund-raising.

  The Review recommended that the grant should gradually be reduced over 10 years to a level equivalent to that of our other largest voluntary sector grant recipients, which is currently around £700,000 to £900,000 a year.

  Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who attended the 5 to 7 July European Regional Expert Group Meeting in Warsaw to assist
  901W
  preparations for the World Conference Against Racism; what were the decisions of this meeting; and what plans he has to publicise the conference. [131395]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The meeting in Warsaw was one of a series of five Experts Fora convened by the Secretariat of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

  Invitees were selected from independent organisations knowledgeable in the field, rather than from Governments. The United Kingdom-based Minority Rights Group attended.

  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues surrounding the protection of minorities and other vulnerable groups and the strengthening of human rights capacity at national level. The meeting was not supposed to make any decisions.

  These five Experts Fora are not part of the preparatory process in which United Kingdom Government officials will continue to play an active part.

  Until the preparatory process is further advanced, it would be premature to commence with publicising the World Conference.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many of his Department's PFI contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132865]
  902W
  Mr. Boateng
  One. Between July 1996 and August 1998 KPMG provided advice on the Prison Service Quantum Information Technology project.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions the Data Protection Commission has carried out; and what have been the penalties imposed. [133068]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Data Protection Commissioner was known until 1 March 2000 as the Data Protection Registrar. Details of all prosecutions carried out by the Registrar/Commissioner up until 31 March 2000 are contained in the Registrar's 5 to 15 Annual Reports to Parliament and in the Commissioner's first such report. Copies of these are available in the Library.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Minister in his Department has the lead responsibility for data protection in relation to websites; and if he will make a statement. [133052]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office is responsible for data protection policy. The Data Protection Act 1998 sets out the requirements which individuals and bodies processing personal information must satisfy. The Act came into force in March, and we are keeping its operation under review.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Manchester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Church of England: Disestablishment
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to disestablish the Church of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government would not contemplate disestablishment of the Church of England unless the Church itself wished it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that is a very disappointing Answer from my noble friend. How can that position be sustained when only 30 per cent of the population are members of the Church of England and only 20 per cent of them attend church regularly? In addition, does he agree that there has been a fundamental change in religious beliefs in this country, in that Catholics, non-conformists, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists and those who have no religious belief at all now constitute a majority? Should they not be given a status equal to that of the Church of England?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is a long Christian tradition in this country and it is our belief that that should not be thrown away lightly. There is no suggestion in what I have said that there is discrimination against different religions, faiths, creeds and so on. We do not see any good reason for disestablishment. It is entirely a matter for the Church to consider.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the Government do not wish to disestablish the Church of England, will they do something to rectify the injustice caused by the large number of Bishops—26 of them—who sit in this House? The figures I have obtained from the Library show that they represent only 2 per cent of the Christian population, leaving aside the Sikhs, the Muslims and the Jewish population. Would the Government therefore be prepared to create around 80 new Bishops to correct that imbalance?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I mean, of course, 80 new Lords, not Bishops.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that that will be government policy.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, far from wishing to see an end to
572
the establishment of the Church of England, many other denominations and faiths support its continuance as the surest religious reference in our national life against an otherwise purely secular state?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that that is absolutely the case.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, in the discussions taking place about a new House of Lords, there seems to be a predominance of view that the Church of England should always be represented in the House. Should there not be a wider casting of the net to bring other faiths into this Chamber? Will the Minister pass on to those who are perhaps more directly concerned in this matter that a large body of opinion in this country is non-believing and that that body of opinion is of equal worth in society? Therefore, in the discussions about the future of the House of Lords, would it not be a good idea to include as well as the Churches the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord said has great relevance. No doubt, in any discussions on the future composition of your Lordships' House, those views will be taken into consideration.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the true importance of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington is that it demonstrates that we have become a multi-cultural society? If we are to be an inclusive, as distinct from an exclusive society, the constitutional challenge that faces us all is how to give the pluralism in our society a greater presence in our political and national institutions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on a very good point. We must encourage a much more inclusive society and find ways in which all sections of our different multi-faith and multi-ethnic communities can be represented in all our national institutions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us look on Prayers before the start of business as the right way to start our day? Those who cannot or do not want to take pant a re entitled to remain outside, as they do.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the discussion he has with the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society will be easy as they occupy the same office?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am indeed grateful for that piece of information.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, for the Church of England, establishment is not about privilege but about service and responsibility in offering pastoral care and guidance to everyone, regardless of their religious adherence or none? By "everyone" we mean people living not only in suburbia but in some of the most difficult urban areas of the land and some of the most isolated rural areas as well.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is right. During the course of my lifetime, I have greatly benefited from exactly that kind of pastoral care and support. I pay great tribute to the Church for the important work that it does.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on reflection, does the Minister agree that it was a little unfair to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, of throwing out the Christian tradition as the noble Lord's record of respect for the rights of minorities is beyond reproach? Does he further agree that the right reverend Prelates do a great deal of good in this House?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with both of those statements.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope it does not do the Minister's reputation any harm if I say how much I agree with his response to this Question. I agree also with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said. Does the Minister agree that the whole debate about disestablishment was not helped when during the proceedings on the Learning and Skills Bill the Government chose to have partisan discussions with the Church of England without including the Official Opposition?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that helpful observation. There is no great debate about disestablishment. It appears to be something which is very much off the political agenda.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, have the Government given thought to the fact that 33 per cent of Grade I listed buildings are under the control of the Church of England, which pays for their maintenance? How would the Government deal with that situation if the Church was disestablished?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's second question is that disestablishment would make no difference at all. But as disestablishment is not part of the Government's agenda, it is not an issue on which I can possibly comment.

NHS: Allergy Specialists
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to alleviate the shortage of allergists in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Health): My Lords, the new allergy specialty was established in June last year. We are currently assessing how many consultants the National Health Service will need in this specialty, in discussion with the relevant Royal Colleges and NHS management.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that of the 100 so-called allergy clinics, only six are currently run by those who have been specially trained to cover the breadth of allergic disease, which is quite considerable? Is my noble friend also aware that one in 200 four year-olds suffers from a peanut allergy which is the cause of the commonest food-induced fatal or near fatal reaction? Of those people who die unnecessarily, none has been seen by a specialist allergist. Because allergy is so common, having increased twofold or threefold over the past 20 years, why are so few allergists available?
Lord King of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly recognise the rising trend in the number of people affected by allergies. So far as concerns the new clinical specialty of allergy, it was established only last year. The Royal Colleges have advised us that we shall need one allergy specialist per regional centre—there are six regional centres in England. Three allergy specialists are already in post. We are training more and the centres will be fully staffed by 2005. It is also worth making the point that many other specialists are involved in the treatment of allergies, including dermatologists, gastroenterologists and immunologists. We need to look at the picture in the round and not consider only the number of specialist allergists.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that since 1994 the Department of Health has had an opportunity to assess how many specialists are needed in this area? Perhaps I may refer him to the report entitled Good Allergy Practice, published in 1994 by the Royal College of Pathologists, with a foreword written by his noble friend Lord Turnberg. The document recommended,
"at least one specialist in clinical immunology and allergy for every three health districts".
Is not that the correct test here?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for referring to that report. I understand that currently 106 consultants in immunology are in post. That figure is expected to rise to 135 by 2006. I believe that we have seen an expansion in that field. We are also seeing increases in

575
the numbers of dermatologists and gastroenterologists as well as in other specialties. I recognise that there are still issues surrounding waiting times for people to be seen at such clinics. It is clear that we shall need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we are aware of the demands being made on those services. I can assure the House that we shall be doing that.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there exists a large range of intolerances and sensitivities to foods, air and water which lie outside the classical definition of allergy, but which, similarly, appear to be on the increase and for which patients are not receiving the help they need within mainstream medicine? In particular, is the noble Lord aware of the allergy unit which has been doing good work at the Middlesex Hospital, but which is likely to close down on the retirement of the present incumbent?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is my understanding that, as regards food intolerances, the Committee on Toxicity yesterday produced a report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients which strongly recommended raising awareness of such problems in the food industry. I shall be happy to send a copy of the report to the noble Earl. As regards the general issues, we need to ensure that our research programme is comprehensive. I should be glad to discuss that programme with the noble Earl.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, does the Minister recall the case of Mr Patrick Webster, the serial sneezer, who sneezed several hundred times a day for 35 years? He consulted more than 60 doctors, but it was not until he saw an allergist that his treatment was successful. It turned out that he was sensitive to oats. What steps are being taken by the Minister to ensure that general medical practitioners are made aware of the work undertaken by allergists?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this issue needs to be addressed on a number of levels within the health service. We already have in place 100 clinics, along with six regional specialty clinics which can provide the type of comprehensive service that is needed. However, I certainly accept the noble Lord's point that we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that those working in primary care—GPs and nurses—are able to deal with allergy issues. The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pathology have been involved in producing standards of care which will be of great assistance to the primary care sector.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. Can the Minister ensure that the maximum possible co-operation takes place between allergy specialists in the private sector and the NHS? I speak as one who was sceptical in the extreme until approximately six
576
months ago when, on the advice of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, I visited an allergy specialist. I am now totally cured of the allergy from which I suffered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. Of course I believe that where the private sector has specialist services to offer, it is right that the NHS should look to see whether that is relevant. I also believe that, when seeking to ensure effective services, local health authorities, in producing health improvement programmes, need to ensure that they have considered the full range of services available for allergy sufferers.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord opposite was not the only sceptic? Many working in the medical profession have been sceptics for years. For example, multiple sclerosis was regarded as the "idle man's disease". Following on from the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has the Minister considered the problem of multiple chemical sensitivities? Because this condition is now accepted in many states in America, can the Minister say what is being done in the United Kingdom to confirm that multiple chemical sensitivities exist and that they can be treated?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is certainly the case that many explanations have been put forward for the rise in allergies in this country. We need to ensure that our research programme is sufficiently geared so that we are able to identify all the causes of allergies. So far as concerns the use of complementary and alternative therapies outwith the NHS, it is absolutely clear that where the NHS and individual clinicians feel that such therapies would provide the appropriate treatment, they are able to refer patients on to those services.

Special Needs Action Plan: Stammering
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What account they will take of the needs of pupils who stammer in the new Special Needs Action Plan.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the existing code of practice gives guidance on policies and procedures aimed at enabling pupils with special educational needs to reach their full potential. In the SEN Programme of Action, we declared our intention to establish a working group to look into the provision made for children with communication difficulties, including stammering. That work is now almost finished and a report on speech and language services will be published in the autumn.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware of the analysis made by the British Stammering Association—I

577
declare an interest both as a member and as a long-term practitioner—which showed that 95 per cent of the teachers surveyed knew nothing about how to help a disfluent child at school? Can she ensure that the work of the British Stammering Association, which welcomes the initial interest shown by the department, is used to good effect in teaching?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, all newly qualified teachers must be able to demonstrate that they can identify pupils with special educational needs and then refer them on to appropriate services. They must also know how to give the positive and targeted support that such pupils need, and they have to be familiar with the code of practice. More specialist knowledge is provided through various forms of in-service training. The department is now spending some £26 million a year under the Standards Fund on such in-service training. However, we very much welcome the training resources that are being developed by the British Stammering Association. We shall do our best to publicise them.
Lord Rea: My Lords, bearing in mind that 95 per cent of teachers do not have the skills or training to cope with such speech or language problems, are the Government satisfied that there are enough trained practitioners for every secondary school, so that all children can receive the treatment that they need when they need it, if teachers can identify those with difficulties? If the Government are not satisfied, what is being done?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my department and the Department of Health have been examining the issues surrounding the recruitment and retention of speech therapists. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has set up a review to examine the difficulties in recruiting and retaining such specialists. The review will report later this year.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. There is an acute shortage of speech therapists. The reason for that is their abysmally low pay. Is there anything that the Government can do to help?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking at issues of pay as well as other matters relating to terms and conditions of service and the recruitment of specialists in this area.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can help me if I broaden the issue slightly. In the past two years I have visited a number of special educational needs schools and units. As well as being very impressed by the work that they do, I have been alarmed to note that decisions as to whether children should be excluded or included seem to be taken largely on an anecdotal and personal basis—one might even describe it as prejudiced. Can my noble friend
578
assure me that sufficient resources will be made available over the next few years so that judgments can be made on a far more secure basis with regard to whether special educational needs children should be educated in special schools or in general schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this matter is very much on the Government's agenda. The Government are committed to attempting to increase the number of children with special educational needs who can be educated in mainstream schools. But it is vitally important that sufficient and appropriate specialist resources and back-up are provided for those children.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one of the categories of people who are most helpful for children who have this condition are the speech therapists who work in and with schools. Are they included in the threshold payments? It seems to me that there may well be tension now between speech therapists and the teachers alongside whom they work, given that teachers will enjoy the benefits of the threshold payments.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, speech therapists are employed by the health service. They are occasionally attached to schools, but for the most part they work outside schools, and pupils are sent to them in the clinics where they work.

House of Lords: Scrutiny of Legislation
3.23 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent recommendations by the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, they believe that the House of Lords should be given more power to scrutinise and possibly delay or reject primary and secondary legislation.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I understand that the recommendations of the All-Party Modernisation Committee in another place are intended to allow Members there to make more effective use of parliamentary time in scrutinising primary legislation. They are not intended to reduce the time available for scrutiny. The recommendations are a matter for Members of another place and do not affect procedures in this House.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. However, does she agree that most serious commentators believe that the proposed changes would curtail debate in another place and make it much easier for all governments to force their measures through? That would strengthen the executive at the expense of all opposition parties, and also at the expense of independent-minded Back-Benchers of all parties. To restore the balance, is it not

579
essential for this House to be given the powers to prevent any possible slide towards an elective dictatorship?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as each House has control over its own procedures, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on changes that are made in another place. As I understand it, the proposals for timetabling, which were the burden of the modernisation report, are intended to make a fair division of available time relevant to each part of every procedure in another place. There are no proposals that would affect proceedings in this House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in the past two Sessions government legislation from another place has reached us in an unprepared state and a very heavy task has fallen on Members of this House in attempting to put it right. To what extent would the modernisation of the other place as proposed in this plan overcome that problem?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said, I do not think it appropriate for this House to comment on the procedures of another place and how they may or may not affect the scrutiny of legislation. As regards the time spent on legislative scrutiny, the figures that I have, which compare the 1995 Session with the past year, indicate that in the 1995 Session 43 Bills received 121 hours' scrutiny at Second Reading in another place, while so far in this Session 40 Bills have received over 150 hours of scrutiny at Second Reading. So, clearly, the questions of timetabling and scrutiny are not falling into disrepute.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, it is not our business to worry about the procedures of another place except in so far as they result in legislation of the kind that has arrived here recently, ill-prepared and ill-considered. But surely we should think more about our own procedures. Is there any barrier to this House rejecting secondary legislation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as has been demonstrated in this Session, we have had one rejection of secondary legislation. That was an outcome that the Government did not welcome. I believe that it was only the second time that such a thing had occurred in a very long time, probably since the Second World War. The issues of secondary legislation and how it should be scrutinised were addressed in proposals in the report on the reform of the House of Lords by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. They would probably be appropriate matters for consideration by the Joint Committee of both Houses when it is set up after the Recess to examine the parliamentary aspects of reform.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that what concerns many of us is not scrutiny but control? Does she further agree that, over the past 30 years or so, the controlling of ill-considered legislation
580
has been slowly passing from Parliament to the courts? While I do all honour to the courts, ought we not to try to keep our end up?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as always, the noble Earl makes an interesting observation, but it is somewhat wide of the Question.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that an increasing number of Bills that come to this House seem to have been badly scrutinised by another place? That may not just he the fault of Members of another place but may be the result of directions given by Ministers to the parliamentary draftsmen. When it comes to giving more power to delay legislation, are not the Government doing a rather good job all on their own? The Freedom of Information Bill had its Second Reading in this House on 20th April, and the Political Parties and Referendums Bill had its first day in Committee on 11th May. What has happened to those Bills?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we have not completed every part of every Bill. However, I was very pleased to report to the Cabinet this morning that we have reached Royal Assent on every single one of the Bills to which we gave agreement by the end of July. That is a long list of Bills; it will appear in the Official Report tomorrow. It is entirely consistent with the projections that we have given over the past few months. The two Bills mentioned by the noble Lord will be addressed in the overspill.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the comments of the Speaker of the House of Commons that parliamentary reform should be in order to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of government—that it should strengthen Parliament in calling government to account—and that that should take precedence over any changes designed for the convenience of Members?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am always pleased to hear the noble Lord's comments on these matters. They are extremely authoritative and we have all benefited from his thinking in this area. These are general questions which may well become appropriate when the Joint Committee is set up to discuss the relationship between the two Houses.

Millennium Dome Sale
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether an agreement to sell the Millennium Dome has been reached; and, if so, to whom and on what terms.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, Dome Europe has won the competition to take over the Dome when the Millennium Experience ends on 31st December. It has now signed heads of agreement with the Government. We believe that its proposals will deliver a high quality, innovative and economically sustainable long-term future for the Dome of which the people of Greenwich and the United Kingdom can be proud. In supporting the Dome's transition from the current Millennium Experience to another visitor destination, Dome Europe proposes to create an urban entertainment resort through a combination of uses inside the Dome and on adjacent land. The latter will include hotels, a convention centre, commercial leisure, restaurants, residential units, offices, retail and community facilities. Although all of the proposals are subject to the granting of planning permission and much work remains to be done to complete the sale of the site, we are confident that Dome Europe's proposals will deliver an exciting contribution to the continued regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula.
Further, the Government have decided that of the overall consideration from the sale of the Millennium Dome, some £53 million should be paid to the New Millennium Experience Company from total expected early payments of £105 million. In the agreement with Dome Europe there is also provision for additional payment for land value in certain circumstances and a share of profits if and when the business changes hands from Dome Europe. The balance of that total amount, after the payment to NMEC and meeting third-party commitments, will go to English Partnerships.
In reaching this view, we took account of the benefit to the Greenwich peninsula and the Thames gateway in terms of continuity of jobs and assured future private investment in the site, building on the substantial public investment already made—more than £1 billion—towards major environmental, transport and other improvements on the peninsula. The Dome company's agreed entitlement to that share of the proceeds of sale means that it will continue to operate within its approved lifetime budget of £758 million. The Millennium Commission has agreed to consider how it may assist the Dome company in realising its share of the proceeds of the sale to underpin the company's finances in the period before Dome Europe take over the Dome.
The Government have always supported and believed in the long-term legacy which will be achieved on the Greenwich site because of the investment of lottery funds in the Dome. The Millennium Dome has brought benefits to the national and local economy. It has been a hugely innovative public sector enterprise that has harnessed private sector money. It is a project which will be a model for future regeneration schemes, with £160 million of private sector sponsorship secured.
During 2000, over 5,000 people will be employed at the Dome, and 6,000 long-term jobs will be created through all of the peninsular developments. The Greenwich Millennium Village will provide 1,377 mixed-tenure homes and a further 1,600 elsewhere.
582
The first people will move into the new houses by the end of the year. Greenwich council estimates that 30,000 jobs will be created as a result of the Dome.
Successive governments and the Millennium Commission have always supported and believed in the long-term legacy which will be achieved on the Greenwich site because of the investment of lottery funds in the Dome. We are delighted that a successful outcome has been achieved and that it has been possible to unlock the new value in the site as a result of the commission's investment. This good result means that the Dome has secured its future and can plan and deliver the next five months with confidence.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to table this Question. I also thank the noble and learned Lord for coming to the House to reply. First, can the Minister tell the House how much of the proceeds will reach English Partnerships? From the response of the Minister, it sounds as if English Partnerships, which represents the taxpayer, is at the end of a very long queue of creditors. Secondly, from the response of the Minister am I right to believe that in order to stay open until the end of the year the Millennium Commission is being asked to make available either a loan or a facility to keep the Dome project afloat until Nomura takes it over at the end of the period?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to how much English Partnerships will receive, for reasons of commercial confidentiality I cannot set out in full the details of the agreement reached with Dome Europe. However, I have indicated that early payments of £105 million are to be made. Of that, £53 million will go to NMEC and the remainder to English Partnerships. The amount that goes to English Partnerships will be totally unencumbered and will reflect a fair split of the money with the Dome company. The Dome company and English Partnerships each owns part of the Dome, and there has been a sensible and fair split between the two.
The noble Baroness asked whether for the Dome to stay open the Millennium Commission is to provide a loan facility. The present position is that the Dome company has the asset; namely, the expectation that it will receive its share of the proceeds. The Millennium Commission has indicated that it will agree to consider how that asset may be realised between now and when Dome Europe takes over.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we welcome his Answer today which is a very satisfactory outcome, remembering as we do that the whole Dome project was conceived with all-party support? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that what has been, and will be, done in Greenwich will do a great deal to assist the local economy?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for reminding the House of the all-party support for the scheme by successive

583
governments. I am also very grateful to him for reminding the House of the very substantial contribution that the Dome has made to the regeneration of Greenwich and the whole Thames gateway. We are all aware that that was one of the reasons why the Millennium Commission decided to go ahead with the Dome project and place it there.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend inform the House who is Dome Europe, what it intends to do with the Dome once it has acquired it, and how it managed to acquire such an unfortunate name?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Dome Europe is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nomura. I do not know how it secured its name, but it chose it. As I indicated in my initial response, it proposes to create an urban entertainment resort through a combination of uses. The latter will include hotels, a convention centre, commercial leisure, restaurants, residential units, offices, retail and community facilities.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the recent tattoo on Horse Guards Parade, finishing as it did with impressive scenes of young servicemen caring for children in disadvantaged parts of the world, represented everything that was finest in the traditions and heritage of this country which, by contrast, the Dome has from its inception failed to address? Will the Minister do all that he can to rectify that situation in the future use of the Dome?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Viscount about the tattoo. I believe that if the noble Viscount goes to Greenwich and sees the effect that the Dome has had on regeneration, employment and people who previously could not get work, he will conclude that the project is a very worthwhile legacy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on having got shot of a project which I am sure has been a total anxiety to him and everyone else from the point of view of its capital costs, running costs and disposal. The noble and learned Lord must be very glad to be rid of it, because it has not been a great success, has it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have genuinely been proud and privileged to be involved in the project which is now the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a project which the British Tourist Authority believes will bring approximately £1 billion-worth of tourism to this country this year. It is also a project which has transformed the derelict and unusable north Greenwich peninsula into an area which now has hope
584
and the prospect of 30,000 new jobs. I believe that that is a legacy that has been well worth fighting for and sticking by throughout the life of the Dome.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord believe that the Japanese will make a better job of running the Dome than he and his friends?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the popularity of the competition, and the number of strong commercial enterprises which entered it, indicated that they thought that what had been created was a good commercial operation. I think that they will build on the good progress we have made.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I fully understand that we cannot go into the detail. However, can the Minister tell the House whether there are also warranties and indemnities in the contract?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there are to be negotiations. It would be wrong for me to comment.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, last Thursday the Minister three times gave absolute assurances of his confidence that the company would reach its financial objectives. Only the next day the annual report spoke of significant risks and uncertainties. One was the arrival of satisfactory funding from the sale. Others were the reductions of costs and maintaining adequate revenue. Can the Minister explain why his confidence was so much greater than that of the company? Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that it will be essential for a significant tranche of that sale, in one form or another, to be available by November?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the noble Lord had read it, he would have seen that the annual report indicates confidence, and, quite properly, the risks. I remain confident that the Dome will complete the year up to 31st December 2000 within its lifetime budget of £758 million. If it needs to realise before December the asset it now has, namely the sale, the Millennium Commission will consider how best to realise that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the Government undertake an inquiry into the history of the project? Will the results of that inquiry be published? In particular, will that inquiry cover the question which has exercised a number of us about whether the Government overruled objections from the Millennium Commission about the propriety or otherwise of its continuing to support this project in view of its financial difficulties?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no, I shall not give such an undertaking. The issue was raised the week before last by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in an Unstarred Question. In the course of that debate it was established that there have been five Select Committee inquiries, in excess of 1,000 Questions, and a National Audit Office inquiry into the specific

585
question to which the noble Viscount refers. In those circumstances, it does not seem appropriate that there should be any inquiry—far from it. This is an issue which requires parliamentary scrutiny, which it has had.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have reached 12 minutes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Companion indicates that a PNQ taken after Question Time normally takes 10 minutes. That is the time for what one might call a fifth Question. In this instance, given the length of the detailed response to the Private Notice Question which my noble and learned friend gave with great courtesy to the House, the Chief Whip and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition signalled to each other that 12 minutes should be taken. Those 12 minutes have now passed.

National Health Service Plan
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is on the health service and is as follows:
"The NHS was the greatest achievement of the post-war Labour Government. It was based on one solid founding principle: that healthcare should be given on the basis of a person's need not his wealth. Some objected to that principle then. Some would like us to abandon it today. But this side of the House will never abandon what was one of the greatest civilising acts of emancipation this century has ever known. Our task is instead to provide both the money and the reform to make the NHS and its founding principle live on and prosper in the 21st century.
"As to investment, in March we took a profound decision as a government. We had sorted out the public finances. Debt service payments were down. Spending on unemployment benefits was down. It was the tough decisions we took on the economy that gave us the opportunity to make an historic commitment to the NHS—an average real terms increase in spending of 6 per cent. Over five years the NHS will grow by a third in real terms, the largest ever sustained increase in its funding.
"The plan shows, first, how that money will make up for years of under-investment. Over the next four years, it will provide 7,500 more consultants, a rise of 30 per cent; 2,000 extra GPs; 450 more GP
586
trainees and more to come after that; in time 1,000 more medical training places each year—on top of the 1,000 already announced—a 40 per cent increase since 1997, and more than 20,000 extra qualified nurses, to add to the 10,000 extra already in post making 30,000 in total.
"For decades the NHS has failed to invest sufficiently in modern building and equipment. The plan will mean 3,000 GP premises modernised and 500 new one-stop primary care centres, 250 new scanners for cancer and other illnesses, modern IT systems in every hospital and GP surgery, 100 new hospital schemes in the next 10 years; and 7,000 more hospital beds in hospitals and intermediate care including the first rise in acute hospital beds in 30 years.
"This is only possible because we are making this historic investment in the NHS. Caring better for NHS staff will mean better care for NHS patients. That is why this plan sets out new facilities for staff, starting with 100 on-site nurseries; and money for training for all staff not just the professions but the support staff as well. Our task is not just to tackle years of under-funding but years of low morale too.
"We know money alone is not the solution. Over the past few months, myself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—to whose work I pay tribute today in drawing up the plan—have had scores of meetings with NHS staff and professionals, visited hospitals and GPs and spoken to providers and users of the NHS. Because the issue of funding has been alleviated, at long last people have been able to lift their heads and look at the system in which they operate.
"The NHS staff are magnificent. They are the greatest asset the service has. They are the basis of the trust British people put in the NHS. But in truth they have been, often still are, working flat out in a system that is still organised as it was in the 1940s, when today patients and staff expect and demand a wholly different type of service for the new world in which we live.
"What amazes me is that this is the first time that Government have looked long and hard at all aspects of the NHS: the absurd demarcations between staff that keep patients waiting; the splits between social services and the NHS that make life misery for many elderly people; the consultants' contract unchanged since 1948; the issue of private practice and NHS work left unresolved; GPs' contracts being based too much on quantity not quality; and a stand-off between the private sector and the NHS that is not in the interests of NHS patients. All difficult issues, all a relic from 1948. All addressed in this plan.
"In this plan, each of these issues is faced up to and fundamental reform proposed. The aim is clear: to redesign the NHS system around the needs of the patient.
"First, the role of nurses will be radically enlarged and old barriers to modern working removed. A qualified nurse has had at least three years' training.

587
It is wrong that in many places nurses are unable to make and receive referrals, admit and discharge patients, order tests, run clinics and prescribe drugs. In future these old rules will be swept aside and nurses in every hospital will have that opportunity.
"Secondly, in respect of GPs, the vast majority do a superb job. They are highly respected and rightly so and we should never allow publicity given to the few exceptions to undermine the excellence of the GPs' reputation. But the GPs' contract again is outdated and inflexible. GPs can do more, even some work presently undertaken by consultants, and should have far more freedom in how they use the money they have. Over time, without compulsion but with clear incentives, we aim to move GPS on to a new system of contractual arrangements—the Personal Medical Service contract—which will reward doctors on the basis of quality of care as well as numbers of patients and will give them within it far greater flexibility to innovate and change. There will be more salaried doctors. This will be the most significant change to the way GPs operate since 1948 and can literally transform primary care in this country.
"Consultants do an extraordinary job for the NHS. Their expertise and immense skill are key to the future of the NHS. That is why we are increasing consultant numbers by a third and giving leading clinicians a greater role in the setting of national standards. But the consultant contract has remained largely unchanged since 1948. And though most consultants work extremely hard for the NHS beyond their contractual commitments, there is no proper management of their time. So for the first time we will make sure that all consultants have proper job plans setting out their key objectives, tasks and responsibilities. Consultants will also have their performance regularly reviewed.
"But most of all, we want to reward those who make most commitment to the NHS. First, to encourage high standards of performance and the use of the new national service frameworks. In this case, the consultants, along with others, will have access to the new £500 million performance fund which will give extra money to those meeting the highest standards of service.
"Secondly, we will merge the existing distinction awards and discretionary points schemes and increase the funding of them. By 2004, we will increase the number of consultants in receipt of a superannuable bonus from under one half of all consultants at present to around two-thirds and double the proportion of consultants who receive annual bonuses of £5,000 or more.
"Thirdly, we offer the consultants a deal. From now on, once someone is newly qualified, then for the first few years of their service they will be contracted to work exclusively for the NHS. Again, these will be the most substantial changes to consultants' contracts since 1948.
"The next major reform is to remedy the incredible situation where at one time thousands of older people are in the wrong place for their needs;
588
stuck in hospital when they could be better cared for in their own homes. So for the first time, social services and the NHS will in every area use pooled budgets and new arrangements which ensure they work together for the good of the patient. And where local councils and primary care trusts want to go further and merge into one organisation we will enable them to do so, creating new care trusts that will deliver one-stop care with an entirely unified budget. Where partnerships persistently fail to deliver, we will require local health and social services to join together in a new care trust.
"I would like to thank Sir Stewart Sutherland, who chaired the Royal Commission for Long Term Care, and the other members who sat on it. A full response to the commission's report is published alongside the Health Plan.
"Today we are correcting a major injustice in the system. The NHS provides nursing care free of charge for people living in their own home or in hospital. But until now nursing provided in a nursing home has been charged for. This will now change. From October 2001, subject to parliamentary approval, nursing care in nursing homes will be treated as nursing care elsewhere in the NHS; free at the point of use.
"In addition, we are investing in a major expansion of intermediate care, prevention and rehabilitation services for the elderly. By 2004 spending on new services and facilities will rise to £900 million a year. Also, as the commission proposed, we will expand respite care for services benefiting 75,000 carers and those they care for.
"This package amounts to an extra £1.4 billion per year for older people, more investment than the Royal Commission itself called for.
"Next, there is a series of reforms aimed at preventing ill-health and improving the nation's health, including measures to reduce smoking and improve diet.
"Central to this are measures to reduce health inequalities. The truth is that there are gaps between the health of the poorest and the better off in our society which are completely unacceptable in a modern Britain. And it is children who pay the biggest price. That is why programmes like Sure Start, like the enhanced maternity grants, increased child benefit and the New Deal for Communities are so vital and why we should fight so hard to protect them against those who would abolish them.
"Next, we will reform the treatment of the most serious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. Up until now, there have been no national standards and patchy treatment. Some get drugs, others do not. Some are seen quickly, others are not. For each of the main conditions, there will be a national framework of standards which will lay down minimum standards of access and care to which patients should be entitled. For cancer, for example, this means maximum waiting times covering not just referral to diagnosis but also diagnosis to treatment; a big expansion in cancer screening and cancer

589
specialists; and an end to the postcode lottery in prescribing cancer drugs. Four hundred thousand patients every year will benefit from new equipment for diagnosing and treating cancer. For coronary heart disease there will be an extra £230 million a year by 2004; a 50 per cent increase in cardiologists; and shorter waits for heart operations.
"These national service frameworks will reflect a fundamental change in the relationship between central government and the local NHS. The centre will do what it must do: set standards; monitor performance; support modernisation; put in place a proper system of inspection; and, where necessary, correct failure. The new Commission for Health Improvement will inspect and report on hospitals, primary care groups and primary care trusts. This information, like Ofsted on schools, will be available to the public. If necessary, the worst performing trusts will have new management put in. The 3,000 non-executive board members of trusts and health authorities will not in future be appointed by the Secretary of State but by an independent appointments commission. There will be a new independent panel to advise the Secretary of State on proposed reorganisations of local hospitals and health services.
"There will be maximum devolution of power to local health professionals. Primary care groups will over time move to being primary care trusts offering minor surgery, physiotherapy and diagnostic tests and minor operations in the local primary care centre. And for all PCTs, health authorities and hospital trusts there will be a new system—what is called "earned autonomy"—which will radically reduce the amount of central intervention where performance is high. Patients put their trust in frontline doctors. So do we.
"The best performers will be given greater freedom and flexibility and all will get access to additional funds tied to clear outcomes in performance.
"This will include a new framework, a concordat, with the private sector. There should be and will be no barrier to partnership with the private sector where appropriate, as the PFI hospital building programme shows. Where the facilities of the private sector can improve care or help fill gaps in capacity, we should use it. But let me make one thing clear. We will never permit people to be forced out of the NHS for non-urgent care. That would destroy the NHS. Where the private sector is used, it will be fully within the NHS service-free at the point of use to the patient.
"We also examined in detail alternative methods of funding the NHS. We concluded that the proposals of some to expand healthcare through tax incentives for private health insurance were massively inefficient and took vital resources out of the NHS and that moving entirely to a continental European type of social insurance system, while less inequitable than many other suggested alternatives, would cost an extra £1,000 to £1,500 per employee
590
per annum. We also estimated that through the NHS, administrative costs are hugely reduced compared with other systems. We were therefore confirmed in our view that modernisation of the NHS was what was required not its dismantling.
"At the heart of these reforms is the idea of re-designing the system round the patient. Too often, whatever the quality of actual care, the patient is catered for in dirty wards, rundown premises with standards of food and basic amenities far below what would be tolerable in other services. Part of the reforms outlined go to remedy this situation. Clean wards and better hospital food will become central to trusts' work, with new resources to back it up. This will get under way now. By 2002, 95 per cent of mixed sex wards will have gone. NHS Direct will be available in all parts of the country. In time, we aim to have the ability to link all parts of the system through technology so one call will put the patient immediately to the right place.
"By 2005, booked appointments will take the place of old waiting lists. As a first big step towards this, all hospitals will by April 2001 be using booking for two of their major conditions. By 2003–04, two-thirds of all appointments will be pre-booked.
"By 2004, there will be an end to long waits in accident and emergency and people will get an appointment with a GP within a maximum of 48 hours. Plus, if an operation is cancelled on the day it is due to take place, other than for medical reasons, patients will get another one within 28 days or have their treatment funded somewhere else.
"Patients will also have more say and more choice with a patient advocate and forum in every hospital to give patients immediate help with sorting out their complaints and a voice in how the hospital is run.
"Over time, these changes, plus the money and staff, will allow waiting to come down substantially. By 2005, the maximum waiting time for an outpatient appointment will be three months and for an in-patient six months, rather than the present 18 months with urgent cases being seen the most rapidly. Average waiting times will, as a result, also come down from seven weeks to five weeks for outpatients and from three months to seven weeks for operations. That means reduced waiting times for all conditions—not only some. And our eventual objective, provided that we recruit the staff and that the NHS makes the reforms, is to reduce the maximum waiting time for any stage of treatment to three months by end of 2008.
"Many other proposals for change are set out in the plan. It will mean, over time, a very radical change in the NHS. But I emphasise to the country that it will take time. Some changes will be fast; others are crucially dependent on new investment in staff and facilities. Staff are crucial to this process. Uniquely, the principles that underpin the plan command the wide support of professions and staff across the NHS, as will be seen from the signatures to these principles at the start of the plan.

591
"But there is another cause for optimism. At every level of the NHS there are already examples where change and reform have made a difference. We know that the plan is achievable because somewhere in the NHS it is being achieved. The challenge has been to remove the outdated practices and perverse incentives that have prevented the best from becoming the norm. And I make this clear to NHS staff: we shall continue with the same system of co-operative working and partnership that has characterised the past four months. This is the beginning and not the end of that process.
"The challenge is to make the NHS once again the healthcare system that the world most envies. Now, with the money being invested, the reforms can follow. Therefore, we can proclaim loud and clear that the idea of decent healthcare, based not on one's wealth or position but on one's need and suffering, is not an old-fashioned principle that has had its day but is, rather, a timeless principle that this generation has found the courage to reinvigorate for the modern world. I commend the plan to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made earlier today by the Prime Minister. As the House knows well, over the course of the past few weeks, the noble Baroness and I have dealt with a number of such Statements emanating from the Prime Minister. I have to say that this is the first one of any real substance. Compared to the banalities of the annual report or even the one about the G8 Summit earlier this week, this Statement is very much worth dealing with.
Of course, that is why the Prime Minister elbowed aside the Secretary of State and decided to make the Statement himself. Therefore, I express my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. The House has come to appreciate his deep knowledge of healthcare and I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity to make the Statement today.
In essence—and I know that the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying this—much of the Statement atones for and, indeed, repudiates the policies pursued in the first years of this Government, for which the noble Baroness herself bears some responsibility. In that sense, it is particularly appropriate that she should be making the Statement this afternoon in this House. This must also be one of those eye-catching areas, referred to in the infamous leaked memo, with which the Prime Minister wanted to be associated as closely as possible.
The Statement deals with our most important national service. The last Conservative government gave the NHS record levels of support and the next Conservative government will do the same. We have made clear that we shall match whatever spending the Government commit to the support of healthcare in Britain. Therefore, the debate is not about how much we shall spend but about how it will be spent. We are
592
becoming familiar enough with this Government to know that we shall need to study the small print with great care before we can reach a final conclusion on that.
Is it not extraordinary that this Statement was not the Statement made three years ago? During the election the Prime Minister said that there were 24 hours to save the NHS. Since then we have seen three wasted years in which many of the best initiatives of the last government have been torn up for narrow political reasons and precious little else has been done. One has only to look at the present day realities. Waiting lists to see a consultant are up by 154,000; 80 per cent of health authorities report that more patients are waiting over a year for their operations; the number of heart bypass operations has fallen for the first time in 25 years; and, as the Prime Minister's Statement acknowledged, morale among staff in the service is exceptionally low.
As we now know, the Prime Minister's closest adviser has written:
"TB has not delivered. He said he would improve the NHS but instead things have got worse".
Quite! Therefore, we must all think that this Statement marks a new beginning—a real break away from the course plotted in 1997 and 1998—and, so far as it does, it will have our strong support.
We welcome, for example, the help given to older people in nursing homes—a measure that we had been calling for. We congratulate Professor Sutherland and the Royal Commission, who are the real authors of this proposal. However, will the noble Baroness explain where the boundaries are drawn between personal care, for which the NHS will not pay, and nursing care, for which it now will? For example, how much care for an Alzheimer's disease patient is classed as personal care and how much as nursing care? Will bathing or feeding a dementia patient be personal and paid for, as the Royal Commission suggested, or will it be disallowed as nursing care? Has a decision been taken by Her Majesty's Government on where the line will be drawn?
We welcome other aspects of this Statement. We welcome the additional responsibilities given to nurses. Professionals, such as pharmacists, nurses and members of the professions supplementary to medicine, have long been under-used in the NHS. We welcome the renewed commitments to care for serious conditions, such as cancer and heart disease. We welcome the additional resources for healthcare. And we hope that the money is used wisely and that better patient care will be the result.
However, the Prime Minister seemed unclear about his attitude to the private sector. On the one hand, he extends a ban on trained consultants working in the private sector; on the other, he talks of co-operation in treating patients. Is it not about time that the Government got over their schizophrenia with regard to private health and acknowledged and embraced it as part of our national resource, to be used wherever it is of service to NHS patients, always free, of course, at

593
the point of use? Bluntly, can the noble Baroness tell us unequivocally this afternoon that she welcomes the existence of the private sector in health in this country?
Now that there is no argument about lack of resources, will the Government restore GPs' freedom, abolished last year, to send patients to the hospital of their choice? And will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the waiting list initiative remains a core of the Government's policy on health? And when the Prime Minister declares an end to what he calls the "postcode lottery for drug prescribing", can the noble Baroness confirm that that will apply to the prescription of drugs for patients of chronic conditions, such as, specifically, MS?
We shall wait to see how the plan works. If it is to work, it will do so only because of the skill and dedication of the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the NHS. We on this side of the House share in paying our tribute to them. However, if I have one nagging worry about this Statement and about this policy, it is that the Government trust them too little in some respects and trust centralisation too much.
The Government abandoned local initiatives when they scrapped GP fundholding and the autonomy of NHS trusts. Yet many of the best initiatives in the NHS have come from local innovation. I hope that the noble Baroness can confirm that it is not the Government's aspiration to move to an entirely salaried GP service. I hope, too, that she can confirm that, in centralising GP and consultant contracts, they will not lose their personal concern for the individual patient and freedom of action that has always characterised the best in healthcare.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister, and the noble Baroness in this House, made an important statement of intent. It requires examination and further debate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to indicate her approval—if not definitely conclude that it will happen—for a debate to take place in this House when we return in the autumn so that the Statement can be properly judged. It is very important that this House, particularly with the great expertise that exists within it, should be allowed to take a view.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made elsewhere by the Prime Minister. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in only one major respect: it is a pity that this Statement was not made two or three years ago. History will say that the great error was that the Chancellor committed himself to the spending plans that he inherited. Over the past two or three years, the National Health Service has deteriorated as a result of inadequate spending.
However, the tone of my remarks, which I hope will be echoed elsewhere, is that the Statement and the plan deserve a generous welcome. It is the best statement of policy that I have seen from this Government. I hope that it will receive wide support. We are all in the
594
business of politics and I fully understand that there will be argument about the detail. It will be the duty of this House and another place to monitor the progress of the plan. I shall return to that point. Having said that, however, I hope that there will be a genuine attempt to find a consensus among all parties that will enable the national health service staff at every level to get on with the job.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, effectively gave an undertaking on the quantum—in other words, he said that the Conservatives would not spend less—but he went on to imply that there might be major changes in the direction of the spending. Of course, one cannot deny the right of any opposition party to think of alternative ways of spending, but it would be a great mistake on this occasion to look for reasons to disagree with the proposals, rather than reasons to go along with them. Agreement will give the National Health Service the stability that it requires.
Of course, we can argue about the past. For a quarter of a century, from 1948, we believed that our national health service was the best in the world. We were living on sentiment, because no government did enough to give it a proper future. In the end, it was limping and falling behind. Then there was another quarter of a century of positive neglect. I do not want to argue about who was responsible. Political parties did not give the necessary leadership in saying that it is impossible to maintain the quality of the National Health Service that the nation requires unless the costs are met. Those costs ultimately fall on the taxpayer and on no one else. It would have been far better if we had been honest about that throughout that long period.
I say that because successive governments have fiddled with management and structure to avoid the central issue. However justified some of the changes may have been, as are further changes now, there is no escaping the fact that the National Health Service cannot be put on a proper basis and meet its agreed objective without the resources being made available to it. I ask for consistency over a considerable period of time in the availability of resources, and some consistency in objectives and the means of delivering them.
Let us recognise that mistakes will be made. Some priorities may change. That is the nature of medicine. There will be advances and events in medicine and technology that we shall need to take account of. However, within that framework, there will still be a great deal of room for giving the NHS support on all sides. I hope that that will be done.
No one should seek to restore the past and move back to 1948, more than half a century ago. I take it from what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said that the principles set out in the Statement are endorsed on all sides. Those objectives—that need, not wealth should determine the availability of healthcare and that that care should be the very best—should be common to us all. They are repeated at the end of the Statement, with reference to the poorest and the better-off. It is shaming that the poorest in this country

595
have a worse standard of healthcare than those who are comfortably off and know where to go to get considerably better care. We must apply ourselves to that issue. That means that a great deal more must be done in the areas of most need.
It might be said that we find it easy to support the plan because, for the most part, it is consistent with Liberal Democrat policies. However, even if it were not, we should try very hard to examine each issue on its merits and see whether we can support the plan.
I have two points to make. The first is on long-term care—an issue that is familiar to the Leader of the House and on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We believe that the Royal Commission's majority report was right: we should not separate nursing from personal and social care. More to the point, we do not believe that the policy will work. That is one of the proposals in the plan that, in the end, will come unstitched.
The second point that needs to be looked at carefully is the role and effectiveness of public/private partnerships. We should remain sceptical about their effectiveness and about whether they are the best and cheapest way of getting the money required for the investment on which I hope that we are agreed.
Apart from sharing the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that an early debate would be welcome, despite our heavy programme, my only question for the noble Baroness is how the Government intend to monitor and audit the process that they have begun today. We all want it to succeed. How can we ensure that it does and how will progress be reported to Parliament?
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome for the Statement. In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made his own point by saying that it was a Statement of substance. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, went further, saying that it was the best policy programme put forward by the Government since the election. I endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the knowledge and understanding of my noble friend, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but with all due respect to my noble friend, the serious and substantive nature of the policy statement makes it worthy of the Prime Minister's involvement.
Both noble Lords have to some extent ignored the opening paragraphs of the Statement, which deal with the economic situation and the reasons why the Government are coming forward with the Statement now. As we have said many times, including at the time of the recent Comprehensive Spending Review proposals, the Government have now enabled this level of public investment in the health service, which was agreed at the time of the Budget, by achieving a stable economic platform.
The past four months have been spent in a collaborative process, as was mentioned in the Statement, with members of the professions,
596
members of the public, members of the voluntary sector and people representing NHS staff, to produce this comprehensive plan. It has been brought forward now rather than in 1997 because of the state of the economy that we inherited, in which 42 per cent of public expenditure went on financing debt and on social security payments. We have changed that to the extent that the figure is now 17 per cent. That has enabled a real-terms rate of investment in the health service of 6 per cent a year, making it possible for us to make substantive and important changes.
The questions of detail about GP contracts and the way in which consultants and others are employed are relevant, but the point about the relationship with the private sector is clearly set out in the Statement and in the detail of the report. The Government have said that where there is extra capacity in the private sector that can enable health service patients to be treated quickly and appropriately, particularly at times when the health service is under pressure, such as in the winter months, that extra capacity should be used.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used the word "schizophrenia". There is nothing split-minded about the question of the private healthcare industry and the concerns that the Government have about consultants. I think that most people will understand that that is a pragmatic approach to using the resources of the private healthcare system within the overall healthcare economy. On the other hand, if one considers the enormous expenses invested by the taxpayers to train doctors in the health service and take them on beyond undergraduate education to the point at which they achieve consultant appointments, it seems to me perfectly legitimate to say that they should then invest their time for a period of years exclusively in the health service. If they then have opportunities to take on private practice, that is something which they can in turn enjoy. But the concept of a return on the taxpayers' investment in this extremely long and complicated training, in the form of a reinvestment of their very high skills into the health service, is generally acceptable to both members of the public and to the medical profession itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about issues related to prescribing and individual types of disease and medical conditions to which these would apply. Of course, under the national service frameworks and the development of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and its work on recommending ways in which treatment should be applied in every part of the country, all conditions will over time be able to achieve this uniform part of treatment and care. One of the criticisms most vociferously expressed by patients all over the country is that their expectations of what they will receive in one particular postcode will not be the same as in another. The development of these national service frameworks will, of course, lead to much greater stability and uniformity of treatment and care in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked me how these new standards will be monitored. That is a rather complicated question, which I am delighted to answer

597
in précis. However, it is a question to which we may usefully return. The current measures of performance are contained within the so-called performance assessment framework. These will be extended, because they presently apply basically to health authorities and it is thought appropriate that they should be extended to all NHS trusts, which would, of course, include all district general hospitals as well as primary care trusts. That system will therefore be extended.
As I said in the Statement, it will be monitored by the Commission for Health Improvement, and the Audit Commission will work with the Commission for Health Improvement to achieve that monitoring. We hope that in time this will result in a progression to a situation in which the very best of NHS practice, which certainly occurs in many parts of the country, can be extended throughout the whole of the system. One sadness about the NHS at the moment is that there are often pockets of extraordinarily good practice that are not spread around throughout the system. Monitoring by an organisation such as the Commission for Health Improvement, working on the basis of the system which I previously described, with national service frameworks in place to enable particular standards of care and treatment to be expected and provided by all hospitals and general practitioners, should enable proper benchmarking and proper dissemination of good standards throughout the system.
A number of questions were asked about the details of the organisation, including the questions relating to prescribing to which I have referred. Overall, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about prescribing is "yes".
With regard to the question about the relationship between personal care and nursing services, the issue of agreeing how one defines a service that is delivered under the nursing care arrangement and one which, as the noble Lord rightly said, could possibly be described as personal care, has always been a grey area. What has now been rather sensibly decided is that, instead of trying to demarcate between different services, it should be understood that all care provided by a registered nurse should be eligible for the free treatment arrangements. That defines it more by way of the person who is giving the care rather than by some artificially demarcated system of services, and I know that the Government and the health service together feel that that is a more useful way in which to approach it.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke as he did about the overall and universal way in which we hope that this will be taken forward to improve healthcare and to improve the situation in which we have gross inequalities in standards of health in various parts of our community. In my view, one of the most hopeful and inspiring parts of the report is that which contains the signatures right at the beginning of this document. They cover everybody who is involved in the provision of healthcare and the leaders of health services in this country, all of whom have put their signatures to this document, which very clearly sets out
598
the core principles and the NHS mission statement, to use that inelegant word, which lie behind the health service and which will continue to represent its values in the modern setting of the 21st century. They range from the President of the Royal College of Physicians to chief executives and chairpersons of individual, voluntary organisations. That creates a universal accord for the virtue of continuing, delivering, promoting and improving publicly-funded healthcare in this country, which I am sure the vast majority of our citizens want and expect.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, on a day when we have heard much about improvements to the health service, can the noble Leader of the House assure us that, in the abolition of postcode prescribing, NICE will not result in a levelling down rather than a levelling up? In particular, can she comment on the imminent announcement of the multiple sclerosis Beta Interferon NICE decision? Can she assure me that that will not be slipped out quietly in the shadow of this report?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot comment on the noble Baroness's final point. As I understand it, the Government have not yet received this. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment on it.
On the noble Baroness's overall point regarding levelling down, of course that will not be the case. The whole point of the national clinical frameworks, as devised and set out by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, is precisely to incorporate both clinical excellence and cost-effectiveness when considering the matter of prescribing.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. I also welcome the commitment now demonstrated by the Government to making the NHS responsive to the needs of patients and helping NHS staff to deliver the care. These are radical reforms, and I support much of what is contained in the plan.
Consultant and specialist registrar expansion is most welcome. We know from today's Question Time that more consultants are needed in the service. However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness if a stop will now be put to the current round of reductions of specialist registrars in training that is recommended in respect of some of the specialities. If a stop is not put to it, there will be difficulty in filling consultant expansion.
I also welcome the recommendation in the plan for the funding of specialist registrars from central funds. The current arrangement of 50 per cent of the funding coming from postgraduate deeds and 50 per cent from the trust is not working satisfactorily. Many specialist registrar posts are not currently being filled.

599
In relation to specialist registrar training, I was, as the current chairman of the Specialist Training Authority, a little surprised to read the proposal to establish a medical education standards board to replace the current Specialist Training Authority and the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Education in General Practice. Nevertheless, although I welcome the proposal to establish a board with a wider representation from the professions, the NHS and the lay public, I hope that the Minister will agree that an opportunity will be provided to those currently responsible for running the two competent authorities on postgraduate medical education to take part.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his authoritative thinking about some of these issues. As he will be aware, all the concerns about registrar training and training for particular specialties are being looked at by the overall workforce planning initiative of the NHS. As I understand it from the document, it is proposed that there should be 1,000 more specialist registrars by 2004 and those will be targeting key specialties. That will obviously deliver a further acceleration in the number of consultants later in the decade.
As I said in the Statement, one of the advantages which those who have written the Statement and worked on it in government have experienced is the enormously co-operative and collaborative part played by the medical profession and the different specialists who have taken part in developing that plan. As I also said when repeating the Statement, the Government regard that as the beginning, not the end, of that process. It is our intention that this matter should be taken forward on a collaborative basis.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, those of us who hold at heart the best interests of the NHS and, indeed, do not believe that private medicine is the route for its salvation will support the broad thrust of the plan before us today. There will be some disappointment, however, in terms of the treatment of older people, as my noble friend indicated, and the failure to accept the recommendations on personal care.
There is one particular issue in addition to that in terms of the limits on means testing for those entitled to accommodation costs in nursing and residential homes. Will the noble Baroness comment on that? There is also a considerable gap in terms of the treatment of those in hospices. There seems to be no mention of palliative or terminal care. That is an essential part of our health and social care. I wonder why that particular gap should exist.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invites me to repeat what I said in reply to the two noble Lords who spoke first. The Government are making an unprecedented new investment over the next three years in improving old people's services by making them more responsive and more fairly funded. The Government's investment will
600
cover the costs of the Royal Commission's recommendations and there is no shortfall in the proposals which the Government have made against those made by the Royal Commission. But the Government have decided that making personal care universally free is not the best use of those resources.
I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the question of hospices. I too am not familiar with any detailed recommendations on that work but I recognise its importance. If there are proposals in the report which I have not yet read about or ancillary proposals, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government deserve warmest congratulations on a highly constructive and tremendously impressive set of proposals? She must have been very proud to announce them. They are great.
I have just one reservation. Is my noble friend aware that there is a great deal of anxiety among certain disabled people about charging for personal care, mentioned earlier? In point of fact, there is no real difference between nursing care and personal care because people need that personal care because of their sickness or disability. There is no real difference whatever. Will the Government reconsider that point?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his first comments. I was very proud to be able to repeat the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, I realise that I have walked into a situation which should properly be for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, given the enormous amount of work which he has done in this field in the past two years. It is a great privilege for me because, as the Statement said, this is part of the fundamental principles of a civilised society: to try to make the reforms of the health service work in the way which this outline report will now do when it is developed in detail. The Government's reputation will last on this for many generations.
On the point about charging people, I must repeat to my noble friend the point which I made to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Government decided that while making a major investment in the care of old people, which goes beyond that recommended by the Royal Commission, it was not the best use of resources to try to demarcate in the way which I hoped I explained earlier between the types of care being offered, one category being personal care and the other being nursing care.
I know that that is not entirely satisfactory and may be difficult to implement on the ground. But if we identify those services which are offered free as those being offered by registered nurses in whatever environment and surroundings they offer those services, then that is a major step forward which I know my noble friend will welcome.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too hope that these proposals will succeed. There is one proposal which I do not think the noble Baroness mentioned but which was mentioned on television this morning; namely, that newly qualified consultants employed within the National Health Service should for the first seven years not take private patients. If that is not the proposal, that is splendid.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the reason that I shook my head is that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was not here when I gave a very detailed answer to that point when it was raised on an earlier question. I shall be delighted to repeat it. It seems that I am invited not to repeat it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that assurance.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood on both occasions. The point I was making was that I had answered the questions about the way in which consultants would be asked to work only for the health service immediately after they qualified. I was not responding to the point that the television programme was inaccurate. As far as the noble Lord described it, the television programme was accurate.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I welcome the plans and the report and I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I want to make two points.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am sorry, I want to ask two questions. I welcome the fact that nursing care—looking after old people—will now be free at the point of delivery, wherever the person is. But could not that be defined sufficiently broadly to encompass care which needs to be given or supervised by a fully qualified nurse? As the numbers of old people increase, there will have to be some instances of delegation to people who are not fully state registered. We do not fall into little boxes, particularly as we age. Many people suffering from multiple pathologies get weaker and stronger as they are cared for during treatment and rehabilitation.
The other point is about children. The RCN, among other bodies, has pointed to the urgent need for children and young people to have an explicitly key focus at all levels of health policy.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government agree with the point which the noble Baroness has just made about the need for a special focus on children and young people's services.
602
On the previous point, I fear that I am becoming repetitive. I can only repeat what I said to my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Perhaps the noble Baroness will refer to paragraph 2.9 on page 11 of the report which states:
"In the future, the NHS will meet the costs of registered nurse time spent on providing, delegating or supervising care in any setting. This is a wider definition of nursing care than proposed in the note of dissent to the Royal Commission report which suggested that it should include those tasks which only a registered nurse could undertake".
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the debate has focussed on care of the elderly. Have maternity services been considered at all? The Statement said that for each of the main conditions there will be a national framework of standards. The National Service Framework for Mental Health has been successful. In the debate that took place with members of staff in the National Health Service, were maternity services rated as a high priority in the order of national frameworks that will be established?
I welcome the idea of care trusts, where local councils and primary care trusts merge. Will those be new organisations? If not, where will the corporate governance, the accountability, lie?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not believe that maternity services as such are contained in the national plan. I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Baroness what private discussions were held with National Health Service staff. My suspicion is that if National Health Service staff had wanted to focus on those services and had wanted to advocate them with great vigour, they would have been contained in the plan. That is not to say that they did not advocate something that it is worth while looking at, but it was not something that emerged as a major national priority. That is probably because, on the whole, maternity services are rather good.
The next national service framework, as the noble Baroness may be aware, will be in relation to older people. The Government have not made a decision about the national service framework to be developed after that. It probably would be useful if other priorities were set out and perhaps in that context maternity services would be included.
I understand that one way of looking at the care trusts—this may be familiar to the noble Baroness with her great knowledge of the organisation of health and social care in the United Kingdom—relates to the way in which social care and health boards are organised; for example, in Northern Ireland there is an integrated provision of services and governance seems to be satisfactory.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this afternoon is a very moving occasion for me. I sat in this House, which was then the House of Commons, while the entire National Health Service Bill was passed. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the way in which the plan and programme, which I have now read, have been put before the House. I also

603
congratulate the Opposition on the honourable part that they have played this afternoon in sustaining the Government who will need all the help they can get from all quarters of the country in order that the plan may be achieved. What Aneurin Bevan started in 1948 now has the strong probability of being furthered to the good of the country as a whole.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I strongly welcome the Statement, particularly the significant increase in expenditure of more than a third over the next few years. However, I do not agree with the comments that National Health Service expenditure should have been greatly increased three years ago because, when the Government came into power, there was a deficit of £28 billion. Nevertheless, the Government have had three years to consider these proposals. Included in the proposals is an increase of 7,000 in the number of doctors. Will the Government and the noble Baroness consider what the public should be told about the fact that it will take between five and seven years to train 7,000 new doctors and, therefore, they must not expect quick results under these new plans?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. I believe that I said in the Statement that such matters must be related to the time for training and the time for improving the labour force, if one can describe it that way, of the health service in all professions and in all healthcare areas. We are building on a situation where already more doctors and nurses are in training and more doctors and nurses are being recruited into the health service than three years ago. The additional number that has been announced this afternoon is based on a position that is already strong.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred in the Statement to 100 new hospital schemes over the next 10 years. Are they to be funded under the PFI initiative or centrally? In relation to her reference to run-down premises—I draw on my own experience as a chairman of an NHS trust in London for several years—can she tell the House whether the system of capital allocations will be changed to allow those that may have to last for 10 years or more to be suitably built, rebuilt, added to, or adapted in a way that meets the aspirations to which the Statement refers?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the expansion of buildings and facilities, to which the noble Lord rightly draws attention, will be achieved by a combination of the schemes that are exclusively PFI and other methods of funding. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that within the plan, although not within the Statement, was the fact that this autumn £30 million will be given to hospitals to clean up wards and so on—in other words, to have a spring clean in October.
Lord Winston: My Lords, the whole nation will be deeply grateful to the Government for the increased spending on the health service, for their focus on the
604
fabric of the health service and for their focus on, and, above all, their support for, the staff of the health service. It is greatly cheering to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, make the point that this should not be a political football and that we should try to find an accord on all sides so that we can establish the best way of managing the health service.
Perhaps I may make a specialised plea for one group of patients who are rather neglected, who are subject to the postcode lottery and who, in many cases, are subject to inordinate waiting lists and a great unevenness of practice. Given the Government's commitment to family values and the importance of the family, can my noble friend the Leader of the House give us some assurance that people with reproductive difficulties will be better catered for in the forthcoming health service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for the plan overall. On his special pleading point for his own specialty, which we understand, I am sure that he realises that some of the arrangements that are being made for the commissioning of specialist services should iron out the problems that he has described to your Lordships' House relating to "postcode treatment" of people who have particular problems. That is something that could be addressed by a national service framework and, as in the case of maternity services mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, this could be a good candid ate for future work in that area.
I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point that this must be a collaborative effort by everyone involved in healthcare. I recommend to the entire House the statement of principles at the beginning of the plan which sets out, in the most sensible and clear way, the basis on which the plan will be taken forward. As I said originally in answer to another question, it is signed by all those who have a particular responsibility for delivering healthcare, not only on a non-political basis, but also on a professional and a patient-centred basis. We all hope to achieve that.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
4.47 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.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first four items in the report were first put to the House in the committee's last report which was debated on 21st June. At the end of the debate I withdrew the Motion to approve the report, partly in response to complaints that the report did not contain enough information. At its most recent meeting, the committee reaffirmed its approval of these items, which are now reported back to your Lordships but in greater detail. The final four items in the report

605
are put before the House for the first time. I do not intend to speak to any of them now but I shall try to answer any questions Members may have about them.
As I believe the House will expect, I now turn to item 5, the proposal to appoint a consultant to lead a review of the management structure of the House and the structure for taking decisions about its services. After this proposal was criticised during the debate on 21st June, both the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee reconsidered the matter at great length. For the reasons set out in the report, the committee remains convinced that a review is necessary. But as your Lordships will have seen from the report, the terms of the proposal have been revised and, in addition, we recommend that it should take place under the supervision of a small steering group of Peers.
The financial management structures of the House have not been reviewed since they were put into place in the early 1990s when the two Houses assumed control of all parliamentary expenditure. In the last financial year, the budget for this House alone was £45 million. A review would help to assure the House that its services are being delivered efficiently and that its procurement procedures are robust enough to avoid the threat of litigation.
As the report notes, the House of Commons may change the way in which it supervises the services which are shared between the two Houses, such as the Parliamentary Works Directorate. It seems sensible for this House to take any changes into account and to respond to them if necessary.
I should also like to say a word on behalf of the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has been charged with the responsibility for delivering services for the House. He would welcome advice on these matters and, if for no other reason, Members may wish to permit him to seek the advice that he requires in order to discharge his responsibilities to the House. That is not intended to imply that the House is badly managed at present. However, although it is clearly the case that we have great expertise within the House, I would hope that we would not regard ourselves as the sole repository of all wisdom and knowledge on these matters or that we are not capable of benefiting from outside advice. A review would benefit from the involvement of someone with knowledge of modern management practices and who could approach the task without any preconceived views. That is why the committee recommends the appointment of Mr Braithwaite to conduct the review.
As the report emphasises, the final decision on whether or not to implement any recommendations will be made by the House and its committees. But I appreciate the desire within the House to keep any review under its control, especially after the criticism of this proposal last time. The committee therefore proposes that a small steering group of Members of the House be appointed to supervise the review. I do not believe that the House has anything to fear from what is proposed, since decisions remain within the control of the House. On the contrary, I believe that
606
improvements to our management structure can only be to the benefit of individual noble Lords and the House as a whole. I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That the sixth report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 97) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Pay proposals for fast stream clerks and library clerks
The Committee's fifth report informed the House that the Committee had agreed to new arrangements, developed in conjunction with the House of Commons, for paying clerks (recruited through the Civil Service competition for administrative grade civil servants) and library clerks. The report was criticised for lacking detail, which is as follows: the old pay range was £16,306 to £28,336 and the new pay range will be £20,000 to £27,500. Progression will be by three annual increments, subject to satisfactory performance. Promotion should normally be after four years, subject to satisfactory performance.
2. Salaries of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Committees
The Committee's fifth report informed the House that the Committee had approved revised salaries for the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. The report was criticised for lacking detail, which is as follows: the salary of the Chairman of Committees is increased from £64,429 to £66,294; and the salary of the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees is increased from £60,032 to £61,773. Both of the increases are with effect from 1 April 2000, and are in line with changes to the salaries of Ministers and other paid office holders.
3. Lords' reimbursement allowances
The Committee's fifth report informed the House about changes to the motor mileage allowance and the bicycle allowance. From 1 April 2000 the motor mileage allowance was uprated in line with the retail price index to 52.5 pence per mile for the first 20,000 miles and 24.2 pence per mile thereafter (up 1.3 pence and 0.6 pence respectively); and the bicycle allowance was uprated to 6.7 pence per mile (up 0.2 pence).
4. Commercial activities
As stated in its fifth report, the Committee has agreed that the House of Lords should not be used by Members as a business address nor the name used for the promotion of any commercial activity.
5. Appointment of a management consultant
Previous recommendation
In its fifth report the Committee recommended the appointment of Mr Michael Braithwaite "to undertake a review of the management structure and the structure, including the Committee structure, for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, which were introduced in the House of Lords in 1991–92 following the Ibbs reforms in the House of Commons".
During the debate on the Committee's report on 21 June there was considerable criticism of the proposal. In particular, it was argued that not enough information had been provided about the proposal; that there was no need to look outside the House for advice; and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. The Chairman of Committees withdrew the Motion to approve the report, and said that the proposal would be reconsidered.
At its meeting on 19 July the Committee considered the matter at length. For the reasons set out in this report the Committee remains convinced that a review is necessary, but it has revised its original recommendation to the House.
Reasons for a review
The proper resourcing of the House is of fundamental importance to its effectiveness. As the activities of the House continue to change and grow, and the expectations of Members increase, the Committee believes that a review would help to ensure better strategic planning for the future and effective management of the House's resources.

607
The House's financial management structures have not been reviewed in detail since they were put in place nearly 10 years ago following the Ibbs reforms in the House of Commons. The reforms gave the two Houses much greater control over parliamentary expenditure, especially in relation to the maintenance of the parliamentary estate and printing. In the financial year 1999–2000, total expenditure by the House was £45 million. Many savings have already been achieved (especially in relation to printing) and better services provided, but the Committee considers that more could be done.
In his role as accounting officer the Clerk of the Parliaments must be certain that value for money is secured in the provision of services for the House; and that the existing system of budgetary control is satisfactory. In his role as corporate officer of the House, he must also be sure that procurement and contracting procedures are sufficiently robust to avoid the threat of litigation1. A review would provide additional assurances to the Clerk of the Parliaments in the discharge of his responsibilities.
None of this is intended to suggest that the House is poorly managed at present. But a review would ensure that the House's management structure operates to the very highest standards and that it is responsive to the increasing demands being made upon it.
The House of Commons have already undertaken a review of their management structure, assisted by Mr Braithwaite, and the recommendations which resulted are now being implemented2. Additionally, Mr Braithwaite has just completed a second review for the House of Commons into the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate. While there are significant differences between the two Houses, this House should not ignore changes in the way the Commons may manage shared services such as the Parliamentary Works Directorate, which is responsible for works and the maintenance of the parliamentary estate, and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, which is responsible for the telephone network and the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN). Both are part-financed by the House of Lords.
Furthermore, many Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the House's "domestic" committee structure3 and their apparent failure to deliver all the improvements which Members would wish to have. A review should ensure that the House and its committees retain effective control over the delivery of its services and that the entire structure is responsive to the needs of Members, for example in relation to accommodation, which is the source of widespread dissatisfaction.
Obtaining a fresh perspective, while retaining control of the review
The Committee considers that a review would greatly benefit from the involvement of someone with in-depth knowledge of modern management practices and who could approach the task with an open mind and without pre-conceived views. The Committee therefore recommends that Mr Michael Braithwaite be appointed to lead the review. The final decision on whether to implement any recommendations will, of course, belong to the House's committees and ultimately to the House itself. There is no question that reforms affecting the House will be made without its prior approval.
However, the Committee understands the desire to keep the review under the control and supervision of the House. The Committee therefore proposes that a small steering group of Members be appointed to supervise the review, and to act as a channel for comments from Members (the review will, in addition, involve interviews with Members). If the Committee's proposal is agreed to, such a steering group will be appointed before the start of the review. The Clerk of the Parliaments also proposes that two senior officers of the House (Rhodri Walters, the current Establishment Officer, and Brigadier Hedley Duncan, the Yeoman Usher) form part of Mr Braithwaite's team (a similar arrangement was made in the Commons).
Costs
The final cost of the review will depend on the time it takes to complete which, in turn, will depend largely on the number of interviews the review team is required to carry out. However, the cost of employing Mr Braithwaite is likely to be lower than other consultants with his experience because of the knowledge of
608
Parliament he has acquired during his two reviews in the House of Commons. This knowledge will be particularly useful in relation to the services which the House shares with the Commons.
Recommendation
The Committee recommends that there should be "a review of the management structure and the structure for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, including the impact on the domestic Committee structure"; that the review should take place under the supervision of a small steering group composed of Members of the House; and that Mr Braithwaite should be appointed to lead the review.
6. Steps of the Throne
On 9 December 1999 the House agreed that hereditary Peers who are no longer Members of the House should be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne, but that the privilege should be reviewed before the end of the Session.
The Committee found that between 10 January and 12 July, 46 hereditary Peers made use of the privilege on a total of 104 different occasions. There were 102 sitting days in the period in question, meaning that the privilege was used, on average, a shade over once per sitting day. The Committee concluded that the privilege was not being abused and that there was no reason at the present time to end it.
The Committee recommends that hereditary Peers should continue to be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne. The privilege can be reviewed in the future.
7. Judicial Fees and Security Money
The Committee has agreed to increase the flat rate taxing fee, introduced at £25 on 1 April 1983, to £50; to increase the amount of security for costs set at £18,000 in April 1994 to £25,000; and to increase the other judicial fees payable (last set in 1995) by the following amounts:

Current

New

Fee

Fee

Petitions for leave to appeal - mandatory fees

Presentation

£500

£570

Entering appearance

£100

£115

Petitions of appeal - mandatory fees

Presentation (following successful petition for leave to appeal)

£500

£570

Presentation (not following petition for leave)

£1,000

£1,140

Entering appearance

£200

£230

Lodging statement and appendix and setting down

£3,000

£3,420

Petitions of appeal-occasional fees Waiver of security

£100

£115

First petition for extension of time

£200

£230

Second petition for extension

£300

£340

Third petition for extension

£500

£570

Fourth or subsequent petition for extension

£1,000

Other interlocutory petition, if agreed

£200

£230

Any interlocutory petition, if opposed

£500

£570

8. Accommodation
The Committee expressed its concern at the lack of progress which had been made in providing further office accommodation for Members. The occupation of 7 Little College Street in December 2000 and Millbank House in August 2001 will provide 180 new desks for Members, and staff of the House will also move into Millbank House, creating more office space for Members within the Palace.
The Committee is well aware that this is only a start. At our next meeting, we will review the disparity in the accommodation available to the two Houses within the Palace itself on the basis of information provided by Black Rod on the amount of office accommodation and other facilities available to the two Houses.
9. Smoking policy in Millbank House
The Committee agreed that smoking should only be permitted in private offices if all of the occupants of a room agree; and that smoking should not be permitted in any of the communal areas of the building (including the entrance lobby, the library, the refreshment facility, the conference room and corridors, staircases and lifts).

1. The House of Commons has incurred damages and costs following litigation over the tender for the facade of Portcullis House.

2. Review of Management and Services, Report to the House of Commons Commission by a team lead by Mr Michael Braithwaite (July 1999, HC 745).

3. The "domestic" committees are the Offices Committee, its four Sub-Committees on Finance and Staff; Administration and Works; Refreshment; and Library and Computers, and the Advisory Panel on Works of Art.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for that statement. Before I turn to the main issue of the consultant, perhaps I can put two main points to the House on paragraph 1 and the pay proposals for fast-stream Clerks. I strongly agree with that and am delighted to support it. We need good quality Clerks and I am very happy with that proposal.
In paragraph 2, under salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman, I have a specific question which was not answered last time. We are now told that the increase is from around £64,000 to £66,000, back-dated to 1st April 2000. That is a perfectly reasonable increase, which I support. But, according to the annual report and accounts, a year earlier the Chairman's salary was £54,000. So the increase during the course of the year was £10,000. I do not know whether that is an oversight but I shall be glad to know how that happened. I see the Leader of the Opposition nodding, indicating he too seeks a reply. It may be that there is some special reason for that £10,000 increase. If so, perhaps the committee could find a special reason for increasing the expenses for your Lordships.
Let me turn immediately to the main issue, which I raised last time; that is, the question of the consultant. I am obliged to the Chairman of Committees for the further information. We have now heard, and read in the report, the case for a review. Let me say at once that I strongly agree with that; after 10 years there can be little doubt about it. The case for a consultant, however, is an entirely different matter. The last time we discussed this, my impression was that most, if not all, of your Lordships agreed with me that we did not need a consultant.
We now see in the report that the main case put forward for a consultant is that the House,
"would greatly benefit from the involvement of someone with in-depth knowledge of modern management practices and who could approach the task with an open mind and without preconceived views".
I hope the committee will not mind my saying that that is an insult to your Lordships. We are now told, as a way out of this difficulty, that we are to set up a small
610
steering committee—presumably made up of Members of your Lordships' House with open minds. I shall be glad to know how they will select that type of Peer.
We are told that the consultant will lead the review. What will he do? One thing he will do is consult. That is what most consultants do. They then tell us what those they consulted recommend. That will be the case here. Except, as we saw from the House of Commons report, the Members will be consulted. So presumably the consultant will consult noble Lords with or without open minds; then the consultant and the committee will come back to your Lordships' House with the result.
But the Offices Committee does not simply recommend a consultant; it recommends a specific consultant—Mr Braithwaite. Let me make it clear that I do not know the gentleman. I imagine he is a good consultant; he gets paid reasonably well. So the Offices Committee will appoint him, despite the fact that it has not used the rules that normally apply; namely, the Nolan rules. The committee recommends we appoint that gentlemen with or without the Nolan rules. Why? Because he did a great job in the Commons.
I understand that we want to begin the review as soon as possible. But the gentleman concerned was appointed in the Commons in October 1998. He reported one parliamentary year later and that report was debated in January 2000. If we have such a review, with or without the consultant, can the Chairman of Committees ensure that some of the interim decisions are brought before your Lordships' House rather more quickly than happened in the other place?
We are asked to support this review without being told what it will cost. The committee cannot tell us because it does not know how long it will take. Perhaps we could be told how much an hour or a day will be paid. I can tell your Lordships that the cost to the other place of employing Mr Braithwaite was £77,000, "of identifiable expenditure". That is a new phrase. So £77,000 was "identifiable", but we have no idea what was unidentifiable. No one could tell us that. But that figure included the cost of printing a 179-page report. So the amount we are being asked to agree to will be in that region. The report in the other place was actually drafted in its entirety by a senior Clerk. So perhaps that will stand as a warning to the Clerk of the Parliaments to consider who will draft this report here if we agree to it.
Unless noble Lords have changed their minds from what was implied the last time we discussed this matter, the setting up of a steering committee, with or without a consultant, is crucial. If that committee was appointed by your Lordships—the Leader of the Opposition shows surprise that I suggest that—it could employ a consultant or an adviser, but that should be for that committee to decide.
Judging by the way that these matters progress, this is likely to finish up being dealt with by the usual channels. I hope, therefore, that we shall at least be

611
given an assurance that the committee will consist of senior Back-Benchers. They are the Members upon whom we can rely to speak for us—that is to say, for your Lordships' House. If I may say so, with the greatest possible respect, this should not be a matter for the usual channels, or even the usual authorities. The committee must represent us.
So I hope that we shall be given an assurance that, whatever happens, we shall have a speedy interim report that can be dealt with properly, and which includes, for example, the question of accommodation referred to in paragraph 8 of this report. We know that there are some 40 rooms in this House that are still used by the House of Commons, despite the fact that the other place now has 200 extra rooms at a cost of £1 million a piece. I hope that we shall not be reminded of the terrible cost about which we are talking, when the other place still has—and will not give up—40 rooms that should be available to us. I trust that that matter will be dealt with quickly by the proposed committee.
I rest there what case I have. I hope that we shall receive assurance that, whatever happens, we shall have an early debate on these matters. I also hope that I shall receive support from all parts of the House for what I have said.
5 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has put the case far better than I could have done. However, I should like briefly to support the burden of his remarks as regards paragraph 5 of the Select Committee's report. It seems to me to be rather perverse for this report to suggest that there should be a committee whose job would be to steer this review. If that committee has as its purpose the job of steering the review, it seems at least curious that part of that steering exercise should be taken from it and determined before its members have even been appointed. If the job of the committee is to steer that review, would it not be much more sensible for its members to be appointed and for consideration to take place thereafter on who should be appointed to undertake the nuts and bolts of the review, so that that person can report to the committee? In that way, we would have some assurance that the committee is not just a piece of window dressing to enable the powers that be—whoever they may be nowadays—to get through their pre-agreed solution.
It was extremely helpful of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees—indeed, the House should be most grateful to him—to take into account to such a degree the concern that many of us expressed on the previous occasion such a report was debated on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether the noble Lord will be able to consider the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett; namely, that, if the steering committee is to perform its task properly, it would give a number of us a considerable amount of reassurance that the House is in control of its own affairs if the proposed committee were commissioned to examine who might best help it to carry out the review.
612
It may well be that Mr Braithwaite will be the right man for the job. In fact, there is a good argument for that because, I dare say, a good deal of what another consultant might be required to do would duplicate the work that Mr Braithwaite has already accomplished for another place. Indeed, we might economise on his services in that respect. I believe that this House would be well served if it were possible for the steering committee to be set up first. The committee should then consider who best to appoint to assist it in this task. Thereafter, as is the way with modern appointments, the committee should, if it thinks it right, hold a suitable beauty parade. In that way, we would be assured that the committee had exercised due diligence in deciding upon the appointment.
As I said, the House should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who, as we know, is vigilant in such matters. Indeed, his experience as a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, let alone as Chief Secretary to the Treasury under a previous government, affords him a considerable amount of authority in matters financial.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I speak as a relatively new member of this committee. As a simple soldier, I have found myself somewhat perplexed by its proceedings and its organisation. I believe that this is the time for me to say so. The committee seems to have sub-committees that are, apparently, totally autonomous. They do not report, and are not subordinate, to the Offices Committee. Moreover, up until now, it seems to me—and I speak with the greatest respect to the Chairman of Committees—that the Offices Committee has been acting as little more than a rubber stamp as regards certain proposals that come before this House.
The last time that the Select Committee reported to the House I had some reservations about the report, but I kept them to myself. However, when I heard the somewhat acrimonious exchanges that took place at that time in the Chamber, it seemed to me that some of these matters needed to be reconsidered. Those matters have now been looked at and a fuller report is before the House which I hope is more acceptable to your Lordships than the earlier one.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the matter about which everyone is most concerned; namely, the proposed appointment of a management consultant. I have to confess that I, too, have had reservations about this and have made them clear in the committee. I am dubious about the need for outside advice. It seems to me that there are people in this House who have the kind of qualifications that are needed to make the sort of recommendations required to improve the structure, the management, and the committee structure of this House.
The argument about the outside consultant having experience of the House of Commons is not entirely persuasive to me. The House of Commons is art entirely different place with a completely different history and traditions. I do not believe that we should place too much emphasis on the experience of a consultant as regards his activities in another place.

613
However, the majority of the committee decided that this appointment was desirable. Being a good democrat, I went along with that decision. Indeed, I am persuaded that there should be a review of some kind. If the majority of the committee want to appoint a management consultant, I am persuaded that that is the proposal and the recommendation that should be made to your Lordships.
However, my only reason for being so persuaded at this stage is because of the two important qualifications that have now been introduced into the report. The first is that the review shall look at the management structure. It may be helpful to the House if I mention the exact words in the report. The recommendation states that there should be,
"a review of the management structure and the structure for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, including"—
this is the part that I wish to emphasise—
"the impact on the domestic Committee structure".
That is rather different from the original idea that the management consultant should look at the committee structure. Noble Lords will notice that this qualification is an important one. Whatever else the consultant looks at, it will stop short at,
"the impact on the … Committee structure".
The second, and most important, qualification is the one that we have already discussed; namely, the matter of the steering group. I am persuaded that that will ensure that the House has control of whatever organisation is established to carry out the review. I should like to echo the feeling expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that this should be a committee of Cross-Benchers—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Chalfont: I am sorry, my Lords; I meant to say Back-Benchers. However, as I am not a candidate for the job, I am sure that noble Lords will accept that as a slip of the tongue. But that is not to say that I believe that such a committee of Cross-Benchers would not be a good one. The committee should comprise Back-Benchers; it should not consist of either Front-Bench Members or others from the usual channels.
Having made that point, I should stress that I am persuaded that such a review is needed. I hope, therefore, that we can find a way of going ahead and agreeing on how it should be done. It is important for us to know when and how this steering group is to be selected and appointed. I very much hope that the views of the noble Lords who have already spoken, as well as those of noble Lords who will speak shortly, are taken fully into account.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I wish to pursue points raised by my noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I am sure that Mr Braithwaite is an excellent man and I do not wish anything I say to impugn him in any respect. However, he has carried out a study of the House of Commons
614
and there are certain matters that we should consider. My noble friend mentioned the report which Mr Braithwaite produced. The House of Lords' Offices Select Committee report states on page four that Mr Braithwaite,
"has just completed a second review for the House of Commons into the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate".
The "Parliamentary Works Directorate" is "parliamentese" for accommodation. Mr Braithwaite has carried out a review of accommodation in the Commons. I understand that that report will be published in September. With the best will in the world, I am sure that all the work that he has carried out has given him a mindset almost as a House of Commons person. I am sure that if he undertakes the job that we are discussing, he will find it difficult to adopt the flexibility which is needed.
I inquired about 7 Little College Street and Millbank House which have been acquired for parliamentary use. I was informed in a Written Answer of 10th July that the annual rent over the road is £33.50 per square foot. The building has a 15-year lease; that is not terribly long. I then tabled a Question to ask how many square feet were involved. I was informed that the area comprised 28,500 square feet. That means that a rent is being paid of £1,035,000.
My noble friend Lord Barnett said that there are 40 rooms in this House which are being used by Members of the House of Commons. I do not like to correct my noble friend but I walked along the second floor corridor this morning and discovered 43. There are 43 offices in our own premises occupied by Members of Parliament from the Commons and yet Portcullis House across the way is being opened up. All this has been examined by Mr Braithwaite. We are in a new situation now. We are becoming more accountable and, in many ways, more representative. We are no longer the poor relation of the other place. In our fight for more resources and better facilities we shall have to come to grips with the House of Commons over a number of matters. I should have thought that one of the first should be the issue of 43 Members of the Commons in offices on our own premises when we are looking for accommodation all over the place and paying rent over the way of £1 million a year.
There is much public scrutiny now of that kind of expenditure. We have a duty to protect ourselves in this regard. I wonder whether a man who is so deeply immersed in the study of all aspects of the House of Commons can bring to bear the total objectivity which is needed. For once, we should think about ourselves and our reputation with the public.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I rather regret the trend of employing outsiders to inquire into our affairs. As far as concerns Parliament, this is a comparatively novel innovation. Many of us expressed reservations about the work of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. It is not that we object to the nature of the work that he is carrying out, but he is doing it from outside the House. Some of us thought that that was not the right way to proceed. I wonder whether appointing a consultant

615
from outside the House is the right way to proceed in the matter we are discussing. Is it not better for noble Lords to conduct their own inquiries and look after their own affairs in these matters?
On the question of accommodation, the plain fact is that we are appallingly provided for in this House. Most noble Lords do not even have a desk, never mind a room. Most Members of the Front Benches do not have a room. They are lucky if they share a desk in a room with others. Those shortcomings must be looked into and, I hope, addressed firmly and effectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has suggested, let us start with the 43 rooms within our building which I hope the other place will make available when it moves into the new, grand place over the road.
I raise another point which is not directly mentioned in the report but which I believe comes within the description of facilities for Members of your Lordships' House; that is, the medical facilities available to Members of your Lordships' House. I believe that there are good medical facilities available to Members of the other place. I am told that the staff who man those facilities have specifically been told that they may not, except in exceptional circumstances, attend to noble Lords. Will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees confirm that that is the case? If that is the case, what is the rationale for that? It is not satisfactory, if that is the case.
Finally, I mention one other point which arises from the report which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has brought before us. The report refers to the decision of the committee to allow our non-parliamentary colleagues—our former hereditary colleagues—to continue to sit on the Steps of the Throne, as was originally provided for. That is entirely right. However, will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees tell us what work is now being done to review the other facilities available to our former hereditary colleagues? I am one of those who felt that we did not do enough for our departing hereditary colleagues. I know that there is more than one respectable view on that but my view is that we ought to do more. I hope that we can do more. I hope that what is presently provided for will be reviewed on an urgent basis.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I hope that I may add a few words of support for the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I missed what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, called the acrimonious debate which took place on 21st June. However, having considered the report, I fully understand how it arose. I do not think that in retrospect any Member of the Offices Committee should feel at all upset or surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, raised these matters in the way that he did. However, I must confess that I was surprised that the issue arose in that way. I reflected on the debate of 10th May initiated by
616
the noble Lord, Lord Peston. There was a large measure of agreement in the House on that occasion in two respects. The first concerned what I might refer to as management. I said on that occasion:
"I hope we can adopt a more efficient system for the management of our part of the Palace of Westminster. I have seldom sat through more unsatisfactory meetings than those of the Offices Committee of this House.—[Official Report, 10/5/00, col. 1587.]
I think that the view was widely held in the House that something ought to be done about the way we manage our day-to-day affairs.
The second respect concerned policy and scrutiny; that is, whether we were looking after our affairs in the proper way and, in particular, whether we were moving forward on the appointment of Select Committees and whether there were the resources available. The view that I mentioned, which was widely reflected in the debate on 10th May, I thought was reflected in the decision first of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee and then of the Offices Committee. It was a genuine attempt on the part of those present to address the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, had raised with the general approval of the House.
Perhaps it was unfortunate—however, sometimes things work out this way—that the meeting of the Liaison Committee which addressed the question of committees took place on 26th June, but the report did not appear before the House until, I believe, 17th July. In a sense we got the cart before the horse. The House was not aware that progress was being made on the substance of the matter at a time when it was being asked to endorse the appointment of a consultant.
I believe that lessons have been learnt from this matter. I am sympathetic—I cannot say more than that—to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the steering group should comprise Back-Benchers.
I hope that the House will not itself attempt the role of management. We are not here as managers; we are here as legislators, as Members of Parliament. It is important that those who are appointed to manage the place are allowed to get on with the job. If this means the appointment of a management consultant, so be it—the decisions will still be made by this House., to which eventually his report will come.
We are nearly at the end of the Session; I hope that we can now get on with it in the spirit of the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Of course there will be some doubt, some unease—we all admit that—but let us get on with it; let us not delay as so often, I am afraid, we are prone to do.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I have been a member of the Offices Committee for only a short period of time. It is one of the most remarkable committees that I have ever sat on in my life. If I were to disclose to your Lordships everything that went on, I doubt if you would believe me. However, I am not about to do that. What I will say is that your Lordships would benefit from a scrutiny of the minutes of that committee, in addition

617
to the report it produces and the minutes of the subcommittees of that committee. When I went to the Library to ask for the minutes of the sub-committees, no one there knew if it had them—which shows how many Members of the House are aware that the minutes of the sub-committees are available to them, at some delay.
As a result of that, I have learnt several things about the committee. First, members of that committee are far better informed, in my experience, than other Members of this House. Extraordinarily, they do not seem to realise that they are much better informed than other Members of this House. We have a serious problem in ensuring that information about the workings of the Offices Committee become available to all Members of the House.
The second thing that I find interesting about the Offices Committee is that I am never sure what is decided. Under the benign, elegant and gentle chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, we discuss things—but nothing is ever put to a resolution or to a vote. I have therefore taken as a guiding principle that if anything I say is not contradicted by anyone, it is thereby to be endorsed by the whole committee. At least I hope that is right; we shall find out. The third thing, as I have said, is that the reports do not do justice to the committee.
I confess that when I was first on the committee this proposal for a management consultant went through. I was a new boy; I was very diffident—as your Lordships will know—and I said nothing on the subject. I then read the report of the debate on the Floor of the House and I came to the view that the proposal could not be justified. I therefore spoke to that end at the previous meeting of the Offices Committee, where I was argued out of my position. I think I lost the argument in the committee and I now accept that it would be of value to this House to have the objective views of an outsider—to whose recommendations none of us is bound in any way. It would be beneficial to us to have a fresh, outside view, provided it is a guided scrutiny of our affairs.
In my view, the most important part of the report produced by the Lord Chairman of Committees is contained in the very brief paragraph on accommodation. I am sure we all agree that the conditions in this House are simply intolerable. I have my views—I shall give them briefly—of what should be the minimum standards of accommodation in this House. First every Minister should have an office to himself or herself of a size appropriate to the status of that Minister. I can say that because I shall never be one again; I know that perfectly well. In other words, a Minister of State who has to entertain visiting ambassadors and visiting defence ministers should have an office of appropriate proportions.
Secondly, all Front-Bench spokesmen of all opposition parties should have an office to themselves, if they want one, on the premises and accommodation for at least one secretary/researcher for each spokesman, as close as possible—it may not be possible—within the Palace of Westminster.
618
As to the remainder of us, the humble Back-Benchers, many will want separate offices. I should tell the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that this is where I take issue with the minutes of the previous meeting of the Offices Committee. I raised then the need for a survey to be taken of all Members of the House to discover who wanted individual offices. Not everyone of course will want one— some Members are more gregarious than others—but until we know how many Peers want individual offices, how many want provision for secretaries or researchers, we shall not know the extent of the problem. I hope that that lacuna in the minutes of the previous meeting of the Offices Committee will be rectified at the next meeting; if it is not, I shall make sure that the issue is raised.
It is very unlikely that we shall meet even the first two criteria that I have set out for improving our accommodation without a redistribution of the accommodation within the Palace, as was very forcefully adverted to by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. It is difficult to know precisely what is the division of the Palace of Westminster between this House and the other place. I have armed myself with a floor plan of the House of Lords, covering all floors, which is dated July 1998. I am glad to tell your Lordships that, on the principal floor at any rate, at least part of the Central Lobby is marked down as belonging to the House of Lords. It is my view that, as a starting point, the division of the two Houses should be on a line through the Central Lobby on the axis of St. Stephen's Chapel. That produces some very interesting consequences, which go far beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said about a few offices on the second floor. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the consequences, I should be very happy to lead a guided tour and explain what we might get based on that formula.
In addition to obtaining a floor plan of the House of Lords, I have asked the Library how the line was drawn between the two Houses following the reconstruction after the fire of the 19th century. I also asked the Library to prepare me a document showing every single alienation of Lords' territory into the care of the House of Commons since that time, together with any supporting documents there may be by way of Statements on the Floor of the House, White Papers and so on. I shall be happy to make those available to your Lordships when I get my hands on them.
Your Lordships will be interested to know that when it comes to the question of resources and how we acquire the resources we need, there is more than one view. I was told within the past couple of weeks by a very senior person in this establishment—who I will not embarrass by identifying—that, of course, we have to get the approval of Treasury officials. I said that I was afraid that that line disclosed a great rift between us as to the view of the relationship between this House and Treasury officials. I do not know whether the House of Commons got a £¼ billion just by talking to Treasury officials; I should be very surprised if it did. It is my view that we tell Treasury officials what we want; they provide it; and if there is any dispute it is between

619
this House and Treasury Ministers—the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor—and not with Treasury officials.
I do not think that we need anything like £¼ billion to accommodate ourselves properly and to a standard equivalent to that of the House of Commons, but I am quite clear that we have to do something drastic. When I first arrived in the other place some 30 years ago, I went into a room where there were six colleagues and six desks, with one telephone on top of a filing cabinet at the other end of the room. The Commons has improved its accommodation since then. I left the Commons to come to this place; I became a Minister of State for a time; and I found that I had to share an office with two colleagues—one of whom was not even a member of the Government—whereas, as an opposition Back-Bencher, in the other place I had a comfortable office to myself, with a chair in which I could sleep and room for all kinds of other amenities. I was told that I was very lucky to have an office as a Minister and that it would not be very long before I would have one to myself. Of course, I never did get one. When I ceased to be a Minister I was told how lucky I was that I was going to get a desk. I went back to a room with six desks—this time shared with seven people—with some of the most congenial people one could ever meet in one's life. I was delighted to be among them. We had a telephone on each desk. We had one television set with two remote controls. The trouble was that the remotes had insufficient power to operate the television set from my desk. So whenever my colleagues had left the room and I wanted to change the channel, I had to get up with the remote control and operate it from about half way across the room. So noble Lords can see the deprivation that some of us suffer.
I know how fortunate I have been compared with other noble Lords. I know I speak only for myself on these recommendations with respect to accommodation, although, from conversations with colleagues, I have a feeling that my views are not entirely unshared. I have told the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that after the Recess I think it will he of value to test the opinion of the House. I propose to come back and table a substantive Motion to test noble Lords' opinion on the Floor of the House on the standard of accommodation they want. That will be very helpful for those who have been negotiating on our behalf. It is high time that we moved beyond talking about these things and did something very firmly, very quickly.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I remind the House that we have two extremely important Second Readings to follow, with 33 speakers. We should try to wind up this debate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip pre-empted me. I have sat on the Front Bench for the past two and a half hours. Although some useful work has been done, we have not yet started what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of
620
Quarry Bank, called our main duty as legislators. There are these hugely important and highly controversial Second Readings to follow.
I am a member of the Offices Committee, so I declare an interest. I attended the first two committees when we looked at the matter. I am a member also of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee and played a part also in that. Most of the report is uncontroversial; it is—as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said—managerial material. I cannot believe that it will not be approved.
Other questions have been raised, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Gilbert, on accommodation, and by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on medical matters. It was entirely correct for them to be raised, but perhaps the best place to consider those matters is in the subcommittees. If the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in the spill-over tables a substantive Motion to discuss accommodation on the Floor of the House, I shall welcome that and encourage the Government to give him the time, because clearly there is a great deal of concern on the matter.
There are points that need to be clarified on the issue of the appointment of a consultant. I was part of the committee that looked at that. Having heard the arguments several times over, I am convinced that we should appoint the consultant, Mr Braithwaite. We should get on with that as soon as possible after return from the Recess. If it is the wish of the House—as I think it is—that the steering group should be made up of Back-Benchers, I support that too.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said and indeed the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I am aware, as the Chief Whip said, that we have not yet reached the substantive business for this afternoon. Indeed, the debate has continued longer than the one on the National Health Service Plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, the proposal has been approved by those committees, of which we are both members. We have been taken through the matter on two occasions and we have both been convinced, as were other members of the committee, as noble Lords have said, that that is an entirely meritorious proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and other noble Lords have raised points which are of general interest and which sit comfortably within the framework of the debate raised by my noble friend Lord Peston. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has said, those of us who listened to the presentation of the proposal by those who came from the subsidiary committee to the main committee believed that it was a continuation of the discussion on some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, so usefully raised in his debate, and to which other noble Lords spoke. But this comes back to the basic point, which many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have re-emphasised, as did my noble friend Lord Barnett, that these matters will always ultimately rest with the decision of your Lordships' House. None the less, I am

621
persuaded that the time has come to appoint a consultant to assist the Officers of the House. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who said that it was a novel and perhaps not entirely happy idea, that it was 10 years ago, when the management procedures were first reviewed, that an outside accountant was brought in to help precisely with that review. Those of us who support the appointment of Mr Braithwaite in the present context see it as a continuation.
So far as concerns the point that Mr Braithwaite may be dominated by House of Commons concerns, I say simply that I am sure that he is very well aware of the many important differences between the Houses. He has a working knowledge of the services which are shared between the Houses, without being dominated by a House of Commons perspective. Therefore, he is uniquely qualified to help us with this particular task. For those reasons—very briefly put because both the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, have explained the position arrived at by the committee very clearly already—I advise your Lordships to accept the Motion and, as the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Gilbert, have said from slightly different positions—get on with the proposal.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I am reluctant to stand up after my noble friend, but too many noble Lords have so far participated in the debate in private. Some Back-Benchers want to say something in public, because this is the only time that we shall have the opportunity to give any expression of view.
First, I refer to paragraph 8 on accommodation. I do not want to go into detail because it has been extremely well explained, but one begins to get some measure of the irritation being felt by Back-Bench Members. We had a debate in May, much of it about accommodation, in which we expressed our concern about the lack of accommodation. We received a report back from the people who are supposed to address that concern. They told us that they are concerned about the lack of progress. So we have had a reciprocal expression of concern about lack of progress, but no progress. We need better channels of communication between those in the committees who purport to represent us and those who feel that at the present time our views are not being represented.
We had the opportunity of an extremely good debate in May. That debate seems to have sunk into the sands. Other people are making decisions without the communication process happening.
Secondly, so far as concerns smoking policy at Millbank House—a point which has not been mentioned thus far—I should like someone to explain to me the precise logic of having a smoking policy in the public areas of Millbank House which is a different policy from the smoking policy of public areas in the Palace. They are both places of work and I should like someone to explain the logic of having different policies in two places of work.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I rise to say that I never agree with the noble Lord, Lord
622
Tomlinson, but this is one occasion when I do! We have not been given the opportunity to put our views. For that reason I intend to speak briefly. First, I do not like to appoint any consultant on what I call a taximeter basis; that is, one pays according to how long he takes. I cannot see why we cannot have a beauty contest, as noble Lords suggested, and ask people to quote a fixed price for the job. That would be a more efficient way of doing it.
Secondly, I support the point made about the 43 offices. I waited 12 years to get a desk in a room with eight other noble Lords. It is scandalous to have to manage one's work in the House on that basis.
Finally, I understood that when we put down the red carpet in the Pugin Room it was because we were about to get it back. The red carpet is beginning to look worn and we still have not got it back.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should like to ask a brief question about paragraph 9 of the report entitled "Smoking policy in Millbank House". Is it contemplated that there will be some kind of smoking room for the use of poor, wretched, smoking Peers who are not allowed to smoke in the common areas and whose stablemates in their office object to smoking; or will they be forced out into the street? I do not smoke myself but I did for 40 years of my life. I have great fellow feeling for them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do intend to speak. I am becoming extremely angry. Perhaps I may say—I can say it to my noble friend Lord Carter as we are very old friends—that I object very strongly to being told that we must get a move on because there is other business of importance to be discussed. I intend to speak for the length of time I wish to speak.
When I raised this matter some weeks ago, I said that one of the problems of debating these matters is that we are always told that we must get a move on because there are much more important things that need to be done. I was assured by the Chairman of Committees that there was no such pressure on us and that we could speak and debate these matters as fully as we wished.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must intervene because I think my noble friend may have forgotten that he had an extensive five-hour debate on precisely these subjects in May. That is one of the reasons why those of us who have supported the Motion before the House today feel that that is a way of taking forward those matters, which we agree are important and were so very well discussed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I shall explain to her in a few moments why I disagree with her about as strongly on that as I do on everything else.
I feel that I have a moral obligation to speak because I am a devoted Member of your Lordships' House and this is a chance to begin to get your Lordships' House right. However, I believe that I am completely wasting

623
my time and probably that most other noble Lords are wasting their time. If noble Lords ask why that is so, I have two answers. First, my noble friend the Leader of the House, the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and, for all I know, the Convenor have already agreed on this matter. They think that this is a good idea; they are the most distinguished and able Members of our House and this is what they want. I cannot believe that we would stop them. None the less, those of us who disagree have an obligation to go on the record about these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was most kind about the debate that I introduced. But that debate was not on anything of this kind. That debate was about this House improving its role in scrutinising and criticising legislation. The other reason why I am completely wasting my time today, as I now realise I did when I introduced that debate, is that nothing has happened as a result of what I had to say then—absolutely nothing. I now believe that nothing will happen. Perhaps I may add that I do not single out anyone for that. I blame all those who lead the House on all sides for the fact that nothing has happened. But I do believe that I have wasted my time. We have not moved forward and I see no sign of us remotely moving forward on that matter. I do not believe that the debate I introduced in May has anything to do with what we are doing today.
Everyone has been rather gentle. I do not feel gentle about this at all. Everyone else is well balanced. I am not. I read the document:
"Furthermore, many Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the House's 'domestic' committee structure and their apparent failure to deliver all the improvements which Members would wish to have".
I feel obliged to go into an American mode here and say, "You're darn right they are dissatisfied about this". But what most amazes me is the sentence:
"None of this is intended to suggest that the House is poorly managed at present".
Perhaps no one else thinks that the House is poorly managed at present. But in a House where for years we have lacked resources, for years lacked accommodation and everything else that is required for us to be a proper legislature, what else can we say but that there has been a failure of management? I do not wish to talk about anyone as an individual person, but who is taking responsibility for this state of affairs?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is not a failure of management. It is, as he said, a failure of resources. If one does not have the resources, one cannot provide the facilities. I do not blame the management. I think that the place is well run within totally inadequate resources.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord that his concept of management may be different from mine. Who is responsible for getting the resources? I am not; nor is the noble Lord. We have no role in this matter. If I am asked why we do not have
624
the resources, I must say that those who are in positions of authority—those who are part of what we call the management—have not provided them.
We cannot carry on in this gentle mode of saying, "Really, we want a few changes but we don't want to criticise anyone. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings". It is all nice and cosy, as your Lordships love it to be. But there is something wrong about what has been going on in your Lordships' House. It is not something wrong that has emerged since the Labour Party became the Government. It has been going on all the time I have been here. The reason I am in an angry mood is that what is particularly wrong is the wish for us not to expose these matters and demand that something be done. Having said I think that we are wasting our time—I do believe that —I agree with the notion that the committee should consist entirely of Back-Benchers.
I have another point. What we are getting, as always, is talk and no action. That is what this debate is about and that is what we have had for years. What we want is action and no talk. What we are not remotely told is how long what is proposed will take. I am entirely sympathetic to the view of my noble friend Lord Barnett that this is an attempt to make sure that it takes a long time. I cannot see it being done in time for some of us to live to see it, but that may be unduly cynical on my part. I should like to have seen in the report that someone would say to the consultant, whoever he is, "We would like the job done by that date. Will you do it?" If the consultant said, "That is not enough time", we could say, "We will find another consultant. He will do it by that date".
I really do wish to introduce a nasty note into this discussion. I think I have succeeded in doing that. I really do wish to offend the powers that be, because I regard them as the target for criticism. They are responsible. They should have taken the necessary steps. They should not be hiding behind consultants and committees. I do want to criticise people. But what I really want is for the resources to be made available soon and for something to happen.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wish to ask the Chairman of Committees a question. I have been trying to ask it for the past three-quarters of an hour. On page five of the report, the paragraph entitled "Costs" reminds one of Alice in Wonderland. It states:
"The final cost of the review will depend on the time it takes to complete".
We are responsible to the taxpayer for the cost of the House. When the Chairman of Committees comes to reply, can he say whether the committee has put a cap on the cost of the review—at any rate, a cap on the cost of Mr Braithwaite? We would be failing in terms of our responsibility to the taxpayer if it has not. That follows on from the question asked by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to spend a couple of minutes supporting my noble friend Lord Peston and other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, except perhaps those who

625
constitute the usual channels. I want to say in my noble friend's support that he is absolutely right that the resources available in this place are deplorable. They are a disgrace. If they were applied in any outside industry, they would be illegal.
My noble friend has a very good point. But I want to make this point, too. If noble Lords have read Hansard and have read the Written Answers, they will have seen that this House is now sitting for more hours than the House of Commons, it is sitting on more days than the House of Commons and it is doing much of the legislative work of scrutiny that the House of Commons, unfortunately, is not doing. If it is to continue to do that—to sit late at night, at all the hours God sends—then it needs very much better resources.
I shall also say this. If noble Lords have been reading their Written Answers in Hansard, they will have seen that it costs £45 million a year to run this House, whereas the House of Commons costs £270 million a year. That is six times more than the House of Lords. The amount of money available to us is only one-sixth of that available to the House of Commons, even though we are doing the job—the job that we should be doing, of course—of revising and scrutinising legislation on an ever-increasing and far more important scale.
For those reasons, I believe that my noble friend Lord Peston was right to be tough. I hope that his tough talking will be taken on board by the Offices Committee and by the usual channels.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House, who represents the interests of all Members of this House, if, during the spillover period, she would be kind enough to put down a Motion for this House to agree that we require back the office accommodation on the second floor currently being used by the House of Commons at the end of the next Session of Parliament. That will give them plenty of time to make alternative arrangements.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I shall speak briefly because I contributed to this debate on the last occasion. I should like to point out that the House should set an example in connection with procurement and contracting procedures.
If a local authority had appointed a consultant on the basis that the next-door local authority thought that he was a "good egg", that authority would find the Audit Commission and every other agency jumping down its throat. I am not persuaded that one needs a management consultant, but if that is to be agreed, then one of the roles of the corporate officer of the House, as it states in the report, is to ensure that,
"procurement and contracting procedures are sufficiently robust to avoid the threat of litigation".
Litigation was pursued in another place. I suspect that that was because the members of that committee decided to "Buy British" and did not comply with the rules on public procurement.
626
I can see no reason why, if the House wishes to employ a consultant, it should not comply with the rules covering public procurement by putting work out to competitive tender and considering alternative proposals. The House should set an example and follow the procedures that would be expected of all local authorities and other public agencies.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by agreeing with one of the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon; namely, the point he made on the length of the Sittings of this House. For quite some time I would tell people from outside of the House—especially visiting parliamentarians—that another place was the longest sitting Chamber in the world, while this one was the second longest. The noble Lord is quite right to say that your Lordships' House has now overtaken another place. I agree that that is something to be borne very much in mind when we discuss resources. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, along with other noble Lords.
I should like to go on to say this. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if, after our detailed debate, I do not attempt to respond to every point that has been made, or to every individual speaker. Indeed, I believe that some of the contributions spoke for themselves. A further point develops from that comment. I am grateful for the contributions made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. They have already dealt with some of the points of detail which would otherwise have fallen to me.
Before addressing the main point made in the debate, I was asked a specific question by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He asked about paragraph 2 of the report covering the salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. He asked in particular whether there was a special reason for the increase awarded last year. I feel bound to reply to that. Yes, the answer is that there was a special reason. I shall quote a memorandum from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee written in July of last year. I shall quote only a part of it:
"Following a review by the Senior Salaries Review Body, the Prime Minister announced on 31st March 1999 that the pay of Lords Ministers below Cabinet level and other paid office holders would increase from 1st April 1999. The SSRB recommendation was that the salary of each post should be increased by £8,500 a year, in addition to the 4.31 per cent that other ministerial posts have received. The Chairman of Committees and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees are not covered by the order, but the SSRB recommended, and the Government accepted, that the salaries of these two posts should receive equivalent increases".
I hope that that provides an answer to the specific question. I hope also that your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I do not think that it would be seemly for me, in the circumstances, to join in a debate about these salaries. Indeed, when the first occasion to discuss the increases arose in the committees of your Lordships' House, I offered to withdraw. However,

627
the members of those committees declined to accept a withdrawal. On every occasion since, I have reminded those committees of my offer to withdraw.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I do not wish to debate this matter, but I should like to know when noble Lords were told of this.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it was reported last summer to the meeting of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee when the Clerk of the Parliaments presented the memorandum from which I have quoted. That was duly approved and those details (the Clerk of the Parliaments will correct me sotto voce if I am wrong) were made publicly available.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it might be my own misunderstanding, but the matter is still not clear to me. When did your Lordships' House approve this?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in July of last year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I wish only to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett. So far as I am aware, the minutes of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee are not available to the House and not available even to the Offices Committee.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It was in fact in the Offices Committee, whose minutes are available in the Library. The Offices Committee receives reports from this sub-committee as well as from its other sub-committees. That was the position on that matter.
Perhaps I may turn to the main matters which have been debated this afternoon. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for their kind words about the further consideration which has been given to those matters. However, those thanks are not due to me, they are due to your Lordships' committees, which have given their further consideration.
As regards the proposal for the appointment of a management consultant, perhaps I may say that, if your Lordships approve this matter, I cannot tell the House this afternoon who would be the members of the steering group. Until this matter is passed by noble Lords, it will not be possible to go into the matter. If one were to approach it the other way round, then I believe that your Lordships would be forgiven for thinking that we were taking noble Lords for granted.
However, points have been made from all sides of the House as regards the wish expressed by a number of Members for Back-Benchers to be considered to serve as members of the steering committee. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I go only this far this afternoon—it is all the power that I have—and say this. I shall ensure that those quite strong expressions of view are brought to the attention of those who will participate in the consultations which will take place,
628
as is usually the case with appointments to our committees and recommendations to your Lordships' House. There will be no way after the matter has been raised this afternoon that that point will be ignored.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and touched on by other noble Lords that it should be for a committee of the House to decide and give its recommendations on the question of a management consultant, that has in fact been done. Committees of this House considered these matters and decided to recommend that proposal to the House. So that hurdle has already been overcome, which is why this recommendation has been put forward to your Lordships.
6 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in mid flow. Will he also consider the question of whether it is sensible to divide the responsibility for supervision between unspecified other committees of the House and the Steering Committee which is now to be appointed? Would it not be more sensible for the role to be undertaken as a whole by the Steering Committee and for the Steering Committee to consider whether a management consultant should be appointed and, if so, who should be appointed?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I understand the noble Viscount's point. But that kind of consideration was gone into thoroughly in the course of lengthy deliberations in the committees, both before the previous recommendation was put forward to your Lordships on 21st June and again in the reconsideration of this matter. It was clear that the Offices Committee wished to put this recommendation before your Lordships. So while I understand the noble Viscount's point, those considerations have already been taken into account, which is why the proposal is before the House.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees tell the House how many candidates were considered? Also, will he assure us that Mr Braithwaite has not already been appointed?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, certainly he has not been appointed. He cannot be appointed until your Lordships have, if your Lordships do, approve this Motion.
A number of points have been raised on the matter of procurement, tendering and so on. If noble Lords will forgive me, I shall wrap up all the contributions in one in my reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
It was decided that the tendering process was not necessary. There must be a tendering process if the expected amount is approximately over 100,000; that must, for one thing, be in accordance with European Union rules. Alternatives to Mr Michael Braithwaite were considered. I can go so far as to say that a distinguished and very experienced Member of this

629
House who is very knowledgeable in these matters was consulted, and two other possibilities were considered. However, the outcome, which was overwhelmingly accepted by the Offices Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, was that because of Mr Michael Braithwaite's extensive experience and qualifications, and in particular because of the two inquiries that he had carried out on behalf of another place, he had in the first place a considerable head start over any other possible candidates and it would be a comparatively short period of time before he could, to use a colloquialism, "get up to speed" so far as this House is concerned. The committee was convinced that that was a substantial reason for pacing him as the strong contender.
The other point—
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Chairman of Committees, but I thought that the figure of £ 100,000 related to a requirement to advertise tenders in the European journal. Surely, for orders or procurement under that value, if a local authority gave a consultancy contract to someone for £50,000 or £70,000, could it do it simply on the say-so of someone else? Would it not need to obtain competing proposals?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I understand that the way in which the Offices Committee approached the matter is perfectly acceptable. I do not think that I can take that matter further now.
I was in the process of explaining a point on the question of cost. If Mr Michael Braithwaite is appointed, because of the other work that he has done and because of the length of time that he would need to spend on an inquiry into this House, his fee would be substantially lower than it otherwise would have been. I have been left in no doubt that the fee is less than it has been in another place, and substantially less than the £100,000 that I quoted.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords—
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may just finish this point because it is relevant to the sentence that I last delivered. Another quotation that we received was between £120,000 and £150,000, plus expenses. In terms of qualifications, that was one of the contenders who was also considered suitable.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Perhaps I may quote from the minutes of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee, which are not available to the House. I proposed that,
"the terms and conditions of engagement of any consultant should be made known".
I believe that that is right, and the House should know those terms and conditions.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I quite understand the point that the noble Lord makes. It is
630
not advisable for me to deal in a public way with any negotiations that may have to take place. The costs will, of course, be made known in due course if your Lordships go ahead with this proposal. But it would not be right for actual amounts to be settled in a public way like this. I suggest that it is much better for the matter to be settled in a less public way. Indeed, we do not know the number of days that will be needed if Mr Michael Braithwaite is appointed. Indeed, it is for the Clerk of the Parliaments, as our accounting officer, to settle the daily terms. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go further than that this afternoon.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Mr Braithwaite comes to us with great experience of these matters. Is he not able to say how many days this will take him?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that depends on a number of factors—not least, if he is appointed, on the number of interviews with noble Lords and members of staff whom he finds it necessary to consult. If noble Lords will forgive me, it is simply not possible to put a figure on these matters this afternoon. If the House decides to go ahead with this proposal, it must be left for later negotiation and to see how long the inquiry will take.
Another matter raised by a number of noble Lords is the speed of the inquiry and the possible need for an interim report. I give noble Lords an assurance that, if the Motion is passed, this matter will be pursued with all due speed. I should not be happy about a great deal of time being spent on it. We need to get on with further action. A great deal has already been done, and insufficient credit has been paid to your Lordships' staff, the Parliamentary Works Department, and others who have dealt with the matter. However, I shall not be satisfied if we spend too long on these matters. While I cannot say until the inquiry gets under way, if it takes place, whether it will be absolutely necessary, there is no reason why an interim report should not be made to your Lordships to show how things are going.
Two noble Lords referred to the medical service. I can confirm that a nurse and occupational health physician are available to Members and staff of both Houses. That is kept under a great deal of scrutiny by the Offices Committee. The Offices Committee was criticised for being something of a rubber stamp. Those noble Lords who raise that kind of point are not alone in believing that, as at present constituted, the Offices Committee is perhaps not the right vehicle to carry forward these matters. I agree that that is something that we must look at, not in the present context although it arises out of it.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the point I raised in the Offices Committee about the need for a survey of the

631
needs of all Members of the House, including secretaries and researchers, will be considered as soon as possible?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall bring back that proposal to the Offices Committee. I do not believe that it is for me to commit your Lordships' committees to something until they have had an opportunity to consider it. I am sure that the point made strongly by my noble friend, not only this afternoon but elsewhere, will not be overlooked.
I deal with one other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. Some kind of smoking room is proposed for Millbank House and 7 Little College Street which would be usable by both staff and Members. The reason why Millbank House, which encompasses 7 Little College Street, has been considered separately in this way is because that is new accommodation which is becoming available. It was thought appropriate to deal with it straight away as one proposal. The other matters relating to the Palace of Westminster are to be returned to later. That was the reason why it was thought to be a good opportunity to deal with the matter in one go.
I am conscious that noble Lords who have raised other points that I have not dealt with this afternoon will be disappointed. I hope that I shall be forgiven if, following this quite lengthy debate, I leave the matter there. Together with other noble Lords who have made this recommendation, I very much hope that, in the light of the significant changes which have been made since 21st June, your Lordships will pass the Motion this afternoon.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I apologise for taking up a little more time before the Question on the Motion is put. It was not I or any other Member of your Lordships' House but the usual channels who decided that the matter should be debated today before the two major Bills. We could have had this debate a few days ago. The report from the Offices Committee was published on 19th July. The last time that we had this degree of confusion, if I may put it as mildly as that without being provocative—as my noble friend Lord Peston always is—the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I simply asked whether the appointment of this consultant could be made by the steering group. I believe that there was general agreement that that should be so. Incidentally, contrary to what has been suggested, that steering group should not be composed of some, but all, Back-Benchers. That was what I asked for, and that is what I hope will happen.
The last time this matter was debated and there was a degree of confusion, at my suggestion the Chairman of Committees withdrew the report. We are now told that if we approve the report we shall approve the appointment of Mr Braithwaite as consultant. That is not confusing but quite simple. Mr Braithwaite may be a lovely man—like me—but that is not the issue. We are being asked to appoint him now on a simple
632
resolution. I hope, therefore, that the Chairman of Committees will listen to the Clerk of the Parliaments; better still, perhaps the Clerk of the Parliaments can speak to us.
It is clear that the mood of the House is that, once again, noble Lords today are not willing to support the appointment of Mr Braithwaite. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees will consult the usual channels. We can adjourn during pleasure, which is the normal procedure, and deal with the two major Bills tomorrow morning.
6.15 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords. I see no reason why the proposal for the proposed management consultant should not be put before the steering group when it is set up, if your Lordships pass this Motion this afternoon. For obvious reasons, the steering group cannot be set up until the spill-over. There would, therefore, be delay. But if it is the view of noble Lords that that delay is worth while so that the steering group can consider the matter, I take it upon myself to give that assurance.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps as a simple Back -Bencher I may ask the Chairman of Committees for a degree of elucidation on this matter. Does the noble Lord propose that we should pass the Motion before us to approve the existing report, which includes provision for the appointment of the consultant but that that consultant should not be appointed, or that we should reword the resolution in order to accept every part of the report except for the appointment of the consultant which should be left to the steering group? If it is the latter, I am with the noble Lord; if it is the former, I am not.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is the latter.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees saying specifically that if we pass this resolution we shall not be appointing Mr Braithwaite?
Lord Gilbert: Or anyone else, my Lords?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I hoped I had made clear when I responded to the point earlier, if the Motion is passed this afternoon, it will be put to the steering group and it will be for the steering group to make the appointment.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, would the steering group have the right to say "No" to Mr Braithwaite or anybody else, or would it be stuck with Mr Braithwaite?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, of course it would if the matter was referred to it in the way that I suggested. But if your Lordships pass the Motion this afternoon, it will be for the steering group to settle the matter. I do not suggest that the matter should again come back to the House before we can proceed. The

633
matter should be left to the steering group; otherwise, we shall never get on with the serious work which really needs to be done.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have succeeded only in becoming more confused. We have a report which, it is proposed by the noble Lord, should be accepted in its entirety with the verbal reservation that that report does not apply in its entirety. Is it open to this House to pass a Motion which does not represent what we intend?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is not without precedent. Assurances have been given. They are given on a variety of matters when your Lordships are considering proposals. I should have thought that such an assurance from this Dispatch Box would have meant something and would have been acceptable to your Lordships. Surely we can proceed in the way I have suggested and leave it for the steering group to deal with this point.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he quite sure about this? If the House passes a Motion which appoints Mr Braithwaite and subsequently a sub-committee of a committee of the House decides not to appoint him, is it not likely that Mr Braithwaite would have a good case to sue for breach of contract? It is proposed today that we make a contract to appoint Mr Braithwaite. Surely we are not saying that a sub-committee of a committee of the House can then reverse that decision.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there is no contract involved.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may introduce a note of conciliation. I understood the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to say precisely that there would be a steering committee. He heard our views on its composition. He has given us—it is acceptable to me—his personal assurance that that steering group would have the final say. He has said that twice and placed it before this House. He says that that is what passing the resolution means. If he says that as Chairman of Committees—he has so declared and no one has said that he cannot do so—I can live with it. I have heard what he said and he is an honourable man. The Chairman of Committees has stated that the steering committee will decide. If that is what he says, that is good enough for me.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston—
Lord Ackner: My Lords—
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I was in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to complete the point.
634
In order to place the matter beyond peradventure—some noble Lords have qualms despite the helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—I propose that if your Lordships agree to pass the Motion today the report will be minuted to exclude the words in the final sub-paragraph of paragraph 5,
"and that Mr Braithwaite should be appointed to lead the review".
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content"—
Noble Lords: Order! Ackner!
Lord Carter: My Lords, a Motion has been put before the House that the report of the Offices Committee shall be accepted with the deletion of the words that refer to the appointment of Mr Braithwaite. There has also been a clear assurance from the Chairman of Committees that the steering group will be responsible for the appointment of the consultant. There is no contract with Mr Braithwaite. This will delay the work that needs to be done. There is a clear Motion before the House which removes from the report the appointment of Mr Braithwaite.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, we are seeking to perform totally unnecessary gymnastics which convince no one who is prepared to consider the terms of the report that we are doing anything except passing the report.
I respectfully submit that all that is necessary is to bring back the matter tomorrow with paragraph 5 redrawn. Then we shall see precisely what we are voting for and the gymnastics that are going on will be entirely unnecessary. I suggest that it is a thoroughly bad precedent to pass a clear resolution with secret or collateral provisos.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I understand the noble and learned Lord's point. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to trouble your Lordships by bringing back the matter tomorrow. If the Motion for the approval of the report is put to the House with the deletion of the words I have quoted, and for complete clarity I again quote the words to be deleted,
"and that Mr Braithwaite should be appointed to lead the review".
that will meet what I believe to be the requirements of your Lordships. Accordingly, I commend the Motion with the deletion of those words.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, with the deletion of the words as stated by the Chairman of Committees, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.

635
I have to advise the House that Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 53. Therefore a Division cannot take place, and I declare the "Contents" have it.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
6.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill comes from the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, which has its basis in the Good Friday agreement. The Government have committed themselves to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are beginning the debate of an extremely important Bill. I would ask noble Lords who wish to converse with each other to leave the Chamber.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Bill comes from the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, which has its basis in the Good Friday agreement. The Government have committed themselves to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. One of these, and an extremely important one, is a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland.
In this context, it would be helpful to remind the House of what the agreement says on this issue. It is important because the agreement gives the Government and should give all democrats in Northern Ireland, a message of what is expected of us.
The agreement states:
"We should recognise the sacrifices that have been made, including by the RUC, GC. This Government does recognise all the sacrifices, but in particular when considering a Bill dealing with policing I would like to pay tribute to the work and courage of the RUC in defending democracy, to the 302 men and women who lost their lives and the many thousands injured".
The Government recognise the trauma and suffering caused to individual officers and their families as well as police widows. The Patten report drew further attention to that and the Government accept the case for a substantial fund to help police widows, injured officers, injured retired officers and their families. That matter has been raised in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, who has asked oral Questions about the matter and who has bombarded me with Written Questions because of his particular concern in relation to the issue. It is time for progress to be made.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State appointed the former senior civil servant, the director of security and policing in the Northern Ireland Office, John Steele, OBE, to conduct a review into Patten's recommendation for a substantial fund to be set up to help injured police officers, injured retired officers and their families as well as police widows. He was
636
appointed yesterday, 26th July, with the aim of presenting a report to the Government by the end of October. This should make recommendations on the purpose and administration of such a fund. This is a means of making progress on an issue which the noble Lord has pressed for a considerable time.
The Good Friday agreement also recognises that policing is a highly emotive subject. No one who knows anything about Northern Ireland could deny that. But there is an opportunity for a new beginning to policing. An opportunity which I know the police want to embrace. They are ready and willing to change and have already begun the process of doing so. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in recognising their positive approach.
In the context of the agreement, what does a new beginning mean? It means an opportunity to create a police service which is representative and, to quote from the agreement,
"capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole".
Perhaps I may dwell on two parts of that for a moment or two. The first is a call for a new beginning. We all have an opportunity to contribute to that and I know we will act accordingly. Indeed, the people of Northern Ireland have overwhelmingly told us to do So.
The second point is on the support of the community as a whole. There is no doubt that in looking at the recommendations in the Patten report the Government have faced very real challenges when measuring the proposals against this test. The debate on the name and symbols of the police service exemplifies this. But the Government believe that they have sought to deal with this issue in a sensitive manner; in a way that recognises the linkage between the RUC and the new police service that we want to see and in a way which should command the support of all.
Furthermore, we should not lose sight of the fact, as the Chief Constable has said, that,
"the vast bulk of the recommendations in the Patten report are about good and effective policing".
The police want to move forward. They want to become more representative of the community they serve. They want to be able to modernise and normalise their approach to policing.
I note in this context the very helpful comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, when he said in this place in response to the Government's Statement on the Patten report, that while he had a
"few criticisms of a huge report … it is worth saying that much of the report was lifted from the Chief Constable's own review",
and that his party,
"share the Government's objective of changing the policing environment".—[Official Report, 19/1/00; col. 1168.]
On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said,
"we recognise the need for fundamental change of the kind that Patten proposes".—[Official Report, 19/1/00; col. 1169.]

637
I look forward to hearing and responding to the views of noble Lords, but would ask them to consider what the Government are hoping to achieve and what they are looking for in the new policing service for the people of Northern Ireland. The key elements are, first, a police service which is effective and efficient. It should be one capable of dealing with the public order situation and with terrorism, which we are sadly still facing, as well as dealing with what are known as "normal policing functions". I want to emphasise that the Government recognise the significance of the security environment. They have made clear, as indeed did Patten, that certain recommendations—for example, on phasing out the reserve—are security dependent. I can assure noble Lords that they will not gamble with the lives of people or officers.
The second element is a police service which is accountable to the community it serves and responsive to its needs. The Bill has considerable focus on this. The third is a police service which is representative of the community. As the Chief Constable said in April, the RUC is,
"greatly under-representative and anything which can put right that under-representation is to be welcomed".
Fourthly, we also want a service which is focused on a human rights based approach. The Human Rights Act, which applies to the police, comes into force in October. Fifthly, we want a service to be delivered in constructive and inclusive partnerships.
All of those issues are found in the Good Friday agreement. The Bill before your Lordships lays the foundations for this approach.
When the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill was introduced in another place on 16th May, the Government acknowledged that it would need some changes, some adjustment. They said that they would readily accept changes if they added to the aims of the Bill and the Good Friday agreement but not otherwise.
My right honourable friend in another place repeated the point at Third Reading on 11th July. He said that the Government remained,
"open to argument, to further debate and change, which no doubt will take place … That is because I recognise the historic importance of this opportunity and of this legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/00; col. 819.]
I can tell noble Lords, therefore, that while the Government believe that the Bill meets the key elements or objectives that I have set out—it will modernise and enhance policing in the interests of all in Northern Ireland—we remain open to persuasion and prepared to consider constructive changes.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on the detailed provisions in the Bill. Part I, which I hope will not obscure our vision of the Bill as a whole, deals with the name. The Government thought long and hard on the name and have established a link between the RUC and the new police service.
638
As my right honourable friend said in the other place at Third Reading on 11th July,
"The body of constables known as the RUC will form part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it will be incorporated in the new police service. At the same time we have introduced a new name—the Police Service of Northern Ireland … [This] will be used for all operational and working purposes, wherever and in whatever circumstances when the police interface with the public".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/00: col. 818.]
The Bill has very many other important measures. Part II creates the Northern Ireland policing board in place of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and sets out its general functions. Schedule 1 sets out the arrangements for appointments to the board. Part III provides for district policing partnerships and other local consultative arrangements, with Schedule 3 governing appointments to district policing partnerships.
Part IV provides for the police planning process. Part V introduces measures to require the policing board and the Chief Constable to secure continuous improvement in the efficient and effective exercise of their functions. Part VI sets out the general duty of members of the police and the duties of the Chief Constable. It deals with recruitment and severance arrangements. It also covers the new declaration, the registration of interests of police officers, the code of ethics, a regulation-making power on police flags and emblems and arrangements for co-operation with the Garda Siochana.
Part VII sets out the policing board's power to request reports from the chief constable on any aspect of policing and to cause inquiries to be held. Safeguards are set out in the part, although the Government propose to make further changes to those in Committee. Part IX provides for the appointment of a commissioner to oversee the implementation of changes in policing in Northern Ireland and enables the Secretary of State to establish a Royal Ulster Constabulary GC foundation to mark the services and sacrifices of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Government are committed and determined to create a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland and one in which we all have a stake. They want to see reciprocation from others through support of the new arrangements. As my right honourable friend said in another place on 6th June, the Bill sets out,
"a radical vision of modern civic policing that is rooted in the whole community—and will draw its legitimacy and strength from its support in all parts of the community".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col. 177.]
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
6.41 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the measures in this important Bill. For the past 30 years the RUC has stood as the thin green line between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy and, in doing so, has borne the brunt of the most wicked and vile acts of cowardly terrorism.

639
Without the RUC, the opportunities for a lasting peace created by the Belfast agreement would, quite simply, not exist. It is largely thanks to the RUC, supported by the Armed Forces, that we can be confident that the future of Northern Ireland will be determined only by democracy and never by violence.
The RUC has responded to that violence with the highest standards of discipline and professionalism, and I utterly reject the claims of those who describe it as a sectarian force. In our view, the RUC has more than demonstrated its even-handedness and impartiality. Most recently, it stood literally in the middle between loyalists and nationalists at Drumcree. All of us should be profoundly grateful for the way in which the RUC has policed the situation at Drumcree in the past few weeks, often in the face of the most appalling provocation.
The contribution of the RUC has been apparent not only in Northern Ireland itself; it has stood as the first line of defence against terrorism here in mainland Great Britain and in the Republic, where it has thwarted many potential loyalist atrocities.
The sacrifice of the RUC is without equal. That is why the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty in a deeply moving ceremony at Hillsborough in April was so richly deserved. No one is more deserving of our praise and no one stands to gain more from the establishment of a lasting peace. It has been a real force for stability in Northern Ireland. The RUC is a police force that after 30 years can truly walk with its head held high.
This Bill, of course, gives effect to the recommendations contained in the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. One of the most serious deficiencies of the report is its failure to give all but the most cursory recognition of the achievements and sacrifice of the RUC. Overall, the bulk of the Patten proposals formed a useful basis for what policing in Northern Ireland could be like when the main terrorist threat is finally over. However, there are other areas, such as the scrapping of the RUC's royal title, to which we are implacably opposed, and those such as the security-sensitive recommendations that should be considered only when there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
Much of the Patten report was foreshadowed in the Chief Constable's fundamental review of policing, initiated following the first IRA cessation in 1994. That review was predicated on three scenarios: first, a continuing high level of terrorist activity; secondly, an end to bombings and killings, but with the terrorist organisations remaining fully armed and engaging in shootings, beatings, mutilations and racketeering; and, thirdly, an end to terrorism, with the terrorist organisations dismantling and decommissioning their weapons. Only in that scenario was it envisaged that there should be a fundamental change to policing and, importantly, significant reductions in the size of the RUC.
Regrettably, we are still a long way from scenario three. Despite the re-establishment of the Executive and the Assembly, coupled with the offer of the IRA
640
to put its weapons "completely and verifiably beyond use" and to engage in a confidence-building measure, there has been no decommissioning and the main terrorist threat remains. Even in the event of a permanent end to violence by the main terrorist organisations, the threat from the dissidents— especially on the republican side—will remain potent. We know that they are currently recruiting members; that they have access to more sophisticated weaponry; and that it is only through the skill of the police and the Army that recent attacks have not resulted in more serious damage and loss of life.
While any of those groups remain active aid retain their capability, it would be absolute madness to introduce any of the controversial security-sensitive measures recommended by Patten. That is why we do not believe that the time is right to make cuts in the strength and capability of the police, or at this stage to begin phasing out the full-time reserve; nor do we believe that it is right to tamper with Special Branch in a way that could undermine its intelligence efforts and effectiveness.
Above all, no changes must be made for political reasons; changes must be made only with the full support of the Chief Constable. Nothing must he done that in any way undermines the ability of the RUC to uphold the rule of law and to protect the people of Northern Ireland. We believe emphatically that the continued operational independence of the Chief Constable is vital. Operational independence remains the single most important feature of policing in the United Kingdom. The Chief Constable must be allowed to run the police service without interference from any politician or group of politicians. That goes, too, for the new policing board that the Bill sets up to replace the existing Police Authority.
The new policing board will consist of a majority of politicians from parties represented in the Executive. As we said in our submission to Patten:
"We do not in principle set ourselves against the greater representation of locally elected politicians on the Police Authority, though with safeguards".
However, we have grave anxieties about the scope for political interference by the board that could result from Patten's recommendations, especially when we consider that they will include parties which even now cannot bring themselves to support the police. The problems will be even more acute on the district policing partnerships (DPPs), especially in areas where one political party or tradition might be dominant. Rather than satisfying Patten's aim of taking the politics out of policing, they could have had exactly the opposite effect and politicised the police to a greater extent than at any time since before 1970.
We remain totally opposed to the inclusion on the policing board of members of political parties who remain inextricably linked with terrorist organisations that have not even begun to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. We find it completely unacceptable that the Bill will not provide explicitly for the disqualification from the board of political or independent members who have been convicted of terrorist offences.

641
Similarly, we are concerned about the district policing partnerships to be established by the Bill, which mirror the reorganisation of the police into districts based on the existing local government boundaries. We welcome the fact that they will have only a consultative role, but we remain concerned that they will still seek to interfere in the operational decisions of a district commander. We oppose the Secretary of State's decision to leave open the option of increasing their powers, including the possibility of giving them the ability to raise money to buy in additional policing services.
We believe that it is wrong for any party—loyalist or republican—to be represented on the DPPs if their paramilitary associates have not decommissioned a single gun or an ounce of Semtex. The provision to disqualify any person from sitting as an independent member if they have been convicted of a scheduled offence should also apply explicitly to any political members with previous terrorist convictions.
Patten's proposals to rid the RUC of its proud name and cap badge are, of course, the most controversial aspects of the report. They have caused significant hurt and anger, and are wholly without justification. We profoundly disagree with the assertion that the police service should be free of any association with the symbols of the state, particularly as acceptance of the Belfast agreement means acceptance of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's constitutional status.
On the cap badge, I can only repeat what has been said many times before: it would be difficult to come up with anything that better encompasses the British and Irish traditions than the current one.
In Committee, the Secretary of State accepted a Unionist amendment that incorporates the name of the RUC in the so-called title deeds of the new police service. That amendment went on to say that for operational purposes the name used would be the "Police Service of Northern Ireland". That goes some way to addressing our concerns about the royal title being lost, although we should have preferred it to have gone further and established a dual title—the "Police Service of Northern Ireland-Royal Ulster Constabulary".
On Report in the other place, the Secretary of State proposed a further amendment that defined operational purposes in such a way as to make it impossible ever to use the name RUC again. That amendment was not moved. If the Government seek to bring it back in Committee here, we shall implacably oppose it.
We all agree that there has to be change in the RUC. The RUC, under Sir Ronnie Flanagan's fine leadership, recognises that. It is wrong that the force is so overwhelmingly Protestant. The RUC has for many years sought to recruit more Catholics. But let us be clear; the biggest single disincentive to Catholic recruitment remains intimidation and the threat of murder. Anybody who doubts that should recall how
642
the number of Catholic applicants to the RUC doubled after the first IRA ceasefire in 1994, only to fall back again when the ceasefire broke down.
The situation has not been helped by the refusal of nationalist politicians and members of the Catholic clergy to recommend that young Catholic men and women join the police force. I very much hope that will change. There can be no justification for it.
We all share the objective of seeing the composition of the police more accurately reflect the make-up of the community in Northern Ireland. We all want the RUC to be routinely unarmed, with no need for flak jackets and armoured vehicles, and able to patrol all parts of Northern Ireland without the need for the support of the Army.
The biggest single contribution to that, and to transforming the policing environment in Northern Ireland, would be for the paramilitaries—republican and so-called loyalist—to end terrorism for good, dismantle their organisations, and begin to decommission their illegal weapons. When that happens, it should fall to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with its proud name and symbols preserved, to rise to the challenge of policing the peace just as valiantly as it has policed Northern Ireland throughout the darkest days of terror. The RUC deserves our support. The Bill, without amendment, does not.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I associate myself with the Minister's remarks about the casualties sustained by the police service over the past three decades. The RUC has made an enormous sacrifice by any standards.
This is a significant Bill that will have a profound influence on future developments in Northern Ireland, so it is important that we get it as right as we can. The Liberal Democrats strongly support the broad thrust of the Bill. It is in accordance with the Belfast agreement and implements most of the Patten report.
The Bill is a compromise between the concerns of the nationalist and Unionist communities. As such, it will attract criticism from the more extreme elements on both sides. Compromises are a hallmark of democratic politics. That is why, as devolved government gets under way in Northern Ireland, the arrangements in the Bill will gather increasing support from the majority of its citizens. The key to that lies in the provisions for community co-operation and involvement and in the checks and balances, including the ombudsman and the commissioner.
While we welcome the Bill and broadly support it, the Liberal Democrats still have some concerns. If they could be satisfactorily addressed, the Bill could be further improved. We shall move amendments on those issues in Committee, when I shall be greatly assisted by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, who has considerable experience of police matters.
The major worry that I shall concentrate on is the issue of recruitment quotas, as detailed in Clause 45. The provisions now in the Bill are worse than when it

643
was first introduced in another place. Originally, the quota provisions had to be renewed every three years, together with a sunset condition under which quotas would cease to operate after 10 years. That sunset clause has now been removed. That means that unless the triennial orders renewing the provisions are defeated in Parliament, quotas can be employed indefinitely. That would be a matter for despair.
I should explain why the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose quotas per se. We fully understand the Government's motives, which are highly commendable. They want to achieve an equal balance in the police between the two communities. Well before the Patten report, the Opsahl commission observed in 1993 that,
"As with political structures, the key question about policing is how to ensure its acceptance by the nationalist community".
The use of quotas is one of the confidence-building measures aimed at ensuring that acceptance. However, we do not believe that they are the best way to go about it. Indeed, they could well be counter-productive. While I fully understand the symbolic significance of a 50:50 quota, I query its practicality. What would be the consequences at the triennial review if recruitment fell below the designated 50 per cent Roman Catholic enrolment? We may well be storing up trouble for the future, which could be avoided if targets were substituted for quotas.
The Home Secretary has laid down targets for the recruitment of ethnic minorities for constabularies throughout England and Wales. He specifically ruled out quotas in a speech on 14th April 1999 to the national conference for recruitment, retention and progression of black and Asian officers. He said:
"But let me be clear about what I am not doing. I am not setting quotas and saying that you have to take somebody on because of the colour of their skin. I am setting targets to enable the police service to more fairly represent the community you serve".
The advantage of targets over quotas is that they allow for greater flexibility in monitoring the new recruitment process. High targets can be set—even 50 per cent—but any shortfall in reaching a set target is much less damaging than a failure to achieve a rigid quota. I fully appreciate why the Secretary of State adheres so strongly to the quota option at this point in the legislative process, but the crunch will come at the first triennial review when, if the recruitment quota has not been fulfilled, it will be a major problem for whoever is the Secretary of State at that time. Although we all hope that an equal balance in recruitment will have been achieved, we shall need to anticipate the situation if it has not. Targets will help us to aim for success. Quotas are more likely, albeit inadvertently, to prove a recipe for failure.
We also have other concerns. In view of the time and the many speakers to follow, I shall refer only briefly to them. They will be taken up by my noble friend. We have a number of concerns regarding the relationship between the board, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. The Patten report expressed the hope that the new police board would be considerably stronger than the police authority that it replaced. However, the Police Bill assigns many powers to the
644
Secretary of State and the Chief Constable rather than to the board. We do not, however, question the need for a role for the Secretary of State in policing. What we are concerned about is that the relationship between the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the board is out of balance in favour of the Secretary of State.
With the exception of these reservations, which we will address further at the Committee stage, we strongly support this Bill. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill aims to preserve the best of the old, while addressing the imperatives of the new.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, few people can produce any real justification for the Patten report and this Bill. It is rather as though in 1940 Churchill had decided to set up a commission to recommend drastic changes in the composition and structures of Royal Air Force Fighter Command and investigate the political and religious views of the pilots who won the battle. I wonder whether we can assume that Churchill would then have appointed Oswald. Mosley to that board to ensure a fair balance and arranged for the Luftwaffe itself to be represented, perhaps even by Herman Goering, if he could have spared the time, so that allegations of undue force used by the spitfire and hurricane pilots could have been thoroughly investigated. Had there been a Northern Ireland Office in those days, of course, it would have been only too happy to organise the release and repatriation of the German pilots. After all, the Northern Ireland Office has doubly excelled itself today by releasing the Docklands bomber and making concessions and promises in other ways as well.
Some contributors give the impression that they are thinking of a body akin to traffic wardens. Regrettably, we in the United Kingdom cannot afford that kind of luxury. When the Patten report was being shaped well over a year ago, there was a belief that because 70 per cent of the electorate voted for peace, there would be peace. There was an innocent belief in the assurances of Her Majesty's Government, and particularly those of the Prime Minister, in the campaign to secure a "yes" vote in the referendum. There was an expectation that the published Patten report would ensure that nationalist and republican leaders would encourage Roman Catholic recruits to enlist in the police force and thus achieve a sectarian balance.
I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about the hideous danger of quotas as opposed to targets. Unfortunately, that all-important aim was recently dashed by both elements following the passage of this Bill through another place. They have made it quite clear that they will not encourage Catholic recruits to join even the restructured force. Those four Patten assumptions have simply disappeared and are no more valid than the excessive spin doctoring that has damaged faith in democratic government in the minds of the United Kingdom electorate in general.

645
I realise that most Bills evolve over a period of consultation and discussion and that inevitably the situation could be transformed by the time any given Bill receives Royal Assent. However, in the case of the Patten conclusions not only has the landscape already changed but the very foundations have simply disappeared. One of the causes was the blatant and naked pressure applied by America to secure acceptance, of a sort, of the Good Friday agreement. People have now had their eyes opened.
I frequently expressed grave reservations many years ago about the intolerable pressure used when Israeli and Palestinian representatives were shipped across the Atlantic, were given the pressure cooker treatment and starved of sleep until, in desperation, they accepted what was termed an "agreement", which endured until they returned home to face their respective hostile people. Now President Clinton has this very week washed his hands of a situation made worse by his dazzling high wire acts.
On this side of the Atlantic, the British and Irish Governments imported the very same devices and methods and, with highly questionable means, achieved an illusion of success. But when the conjuring tricks were revealed, great was the disillusionment on the part of tens of thousands of people who now bitterly resent being deceived. They have resolved never to be conned a second time, which creates a very difficult situation for anyone engaged in future experiments. A few weeks ago the Irish Foreign Minister mocked the victims of deception by revealing that the entire process is designed to eliminate all traces of Britishness from Northern Ireland. That was an eye opener to all who had placed their trust in princes and politicians.
Therefore, like the innocents who were told that they were voting for peace, your Lordships will rightly resent having been invited to join in that conspiracy, directed against what I have always termed "the greater number of all faiths and none", who have one simple desire—to remain within the same kingdom. We can be certain that in the next two months until your Lordships return to the consideration of this Bill, the terrorists will have been granted still further concessions, because it is an unstoppable flow, and many more traces of Britishness will have been removed before we return in October. In like measure, resentment in the minds of that betrayed "greater number" will have increased.
In October that greater number, Protestants, Roman Catholics, other faiths and none, will be listening to your Lordships focus on those clauses in the Bill that are designed to eliminate Britishness and certainly not intended to improve the quality of policing in a part of the United Kingdom. It will therefore be the task of your Lordships to disregard all the threats of all shades of terrorists and their allies in drug dealing and protection rackets. Our duty will be to make a splendid police force even better.
There are those who would seek to mutilate and dismember the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has protected the greater number of citizens to which I
646
have already referred. Your Lordships' role will be the opposite. As has been said, we shall need to look at crucial points such as the title of the force, the command structure, political oversight, retention of the necessary equipment and financial accounting and budgeting.
I am sorry that because a commotion was caused by those doing their best to obstruct our proceedings this evening, the noble and learned Lord had difficulty in making himself heard. But if I heard him aright, he suggested that the Bill had a certain parentage because it was a recommendation of the Belfast agreement. I do not think that I am misquoting him. That was the gist of what he said. But he will realise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, that we are not there yet. Page 23 of the Belfast agreement said about the setting up of the Patten commission that it should include,
"proposals on any necessary arrangements for the transition to policing in a normal peaceful society".
That was what it was commissioned to do. It was not to disarm the police; to change the name of the police force; to mutilate its whole structures and make them impotent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, we are not there yet and that is the problem. So the Bill gets the wording wrong because it starts the wrong way round. We are not in a normal peaceful society as yet. We all hope that we shall be. At that time, many of us would be prepared to support some other features which are currently objectionable. But I repeat that we may have a long way to go before it is possible to implement those provisions.
Fortunately, our two months of Recess provide your Lordships and the Government with ample opportunity to examine the Bill; to remove the numerous flaws which there are because of the timetabling which the Bill suffered in the other place; and to introduce constructive amendments, it is hoped in co-operation with the Government—and we all look forward to that. Most importantly, we must do nothing to weaken the capacity of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to play its part in protecting the nation from the various active terrorist units prepared to strike at will. The Provisional IRA remains in possession of its arsenal, which arsenal is constantly updated and reinforced. Parliament and your Lordships' House have an overriding responsibility to secure that counter-terrorist capacity of the police is in no way impaired.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I regret that due to the lateness of the proceedings, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, could not take part in this debate. I should have liked to hear his remarks.
First, I quote to your Lordships what the Good Friday agreement said about policing. It stated:
"The participants [in the negotiations] believe it essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative

647
of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and cooperative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms".
The same paragraph goes on to say that any structures and arrangements should be,
"capable of delivering a policing service, in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels, and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility consistent with the foregoing principles. These arrangements should he based on principles of protection of human rights and professional integrity and should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community".
I say that because it is very important to remember—I have said this before in this House—that the Good Friday agreement was an international agreement. It was signed not just by the UK Government but also by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and with the active support and presence of the Government of the United States.
That is very important because it was in pursuance of that paragraph in the agreement that the Patten commission was appointed. It is something of a paradox that someone who was a former chairman of the Conservative Party is certainly unpopular in ways that I would not have anticipated.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt is more qualified to speak on this than I am, but the basic problem, as we know, is that Northern Ireland is a divided community. It has been divided for not just the past 30 years but for the past 80 years. We must not forget that background.
Perhaps I may quote from the evidence which the Catholic Bishops of Northern Ireland gave to the Patten commission. Two remarks were made which reflect that division. On the one hand, it was said about the RUC that there was "a deep legacy of distrust" and on the other hand that there was,
"the deep sense of possession of the police force by the Unionist community".
I join those noble Lords who have paid tribute to the RUC for its gallantry and bravery. It is a very uncomfortable position to be caught in the middle of a divided political society and to have to defend not just the people but very often yourself under difficult circumstances.
The Patten report stated that,
"the issue of policing is at the heart of many of the problems that politicians have been unable to resolve in Northern Ireland".
If we are to tackle that problem head-on, and not just for the next two, three or four years but permanently, we must do so in the spirit in which the police force becomes a policing service. Of course, it must be effective, efficient and accountable. It must be accountable not only to a certain formal body but in ways that are transparent so that it becomes accountable to the entire community.
I do not want to speak on the issue of targets versus quotas or anything like that. But in that respect, it is extremely important to say that even the composition does not matter so much as winning the confidence of the community. That is an extremely important point. Permanent peace will come when that is achieved.
648
I want to say something about accountability. Paragraph 1.15 of the Patten report refers to,
"effective and democratically based oversight of policing".
"Democratically based oversight" does not necessarily mean "politically interfered with oversight". It means that the community's involvement through democratic procedures and processes is taken into account so that people feel that the police belong to them. That is the sort of policing that we have been able to achieve here on the mainland and I do not see any reason why that should not he our goal for Northern Ireland.
I do not want to go into the details of the Patten proposals and so on. If I thought that the Bill did not follow Patten, my direction would be exactly the opposite to that of some noble Lords who have already spoken. So I shall not go into those details. But it is extremely important that the issue of human rights should be addressed absolutely head-on, not only because the European Convention on Human Rights is about to come into operation in the UK, but also because the issue of human rights embodies many of the fundamental concerns which any policing force must address in a modern society. It is in a difficult situation like this—I agree that it is a difficult situation because peace has not come yet—that human rights are most likely to be violated. We must be vigilant. If the community does not see the policing service as its policing service, operating in its interest, we shall not be able to achieve the peace and prosperity that we want for Northern Ireland.
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, at the start I should declare an interest as the recipient of hospitality in Dublin a few weeks ago. I acted as host for the Police Federation of Northern Ireland at a deeply moving occasion when a number of those who were widowed and a number who were crippled as policemen during the past 30 years were received with great kindness and imagination by the Taoiseach, the entire political establishment in Dublin, as well as a goodly proportion of the Irish press.
It is a great pleasure to have the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It is some years since I have had that privilege in your Lordships' House. He always presents a case that is difficult to answer. In this instance, I wholly agree with what he said about the need for transparency. However, I draw his attention to chapter 4 of the Patten report which, among other things, deals with views throughout the nationalist community of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but a remarkable phenomenon was noted by my right honourable friend Mr Patten in which it was generally accepted by a large majority in the nationalist community that the RUC was biased against them. But in every community a clear majority felt that that was the case in the whole Province but that it did not apply to the RUC in their particular area.

649
My right honourable friend concluded differently from me, that that meant that perhaps there was a bias. I concluded that from their own experience they felt that there was not one, but that they had been told that there was a bias in the community as a whole and they accepted that general view. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, may feel that that may be worth some consideration.
Turning to the Bill, your Lordships will agree that we consider this Bill at a time when explosions and attacks on security forces have, thankfully, declined dramatically in Northern Ireland. The Province seems to us, and to most of its inhabitants, to be more nearly at peace than at any time in the past 30 years. Countless lives have, therefore, been saved and in many parts of the Province prosperity has either returned or has made an appearance for the first time, particularly in the western part of the Province.
On this side of the water, both press and public take that impression at face value and, as we all are, they are grateful that the threat of explosion and assassination seems, for the moment, to have all but disappeared here as well. Although as my noble friend Lady Seccombe pointed out, and as those of us who unfortunately have professional relations with the Special Branch know, that is more because of the efficiency of the security forces in protecting us than because the threat has disappeared.
In the context of this Bill I ask whether this apparently happy state of affairs is real, or is it a delusion. Of course, we long for it to be real and we long for the terrorists to long for it to be real. Indeed, it seems to me that the whole peace process has been based on the expectation that the terrorists can be seduced into surrendering the uncomfortable politics of the Armalite in exchange for the comfortable politics of the ballot box and the ministerial limousine.
What is the reality on the ground in Northern Ireland? The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is in a better position than most to tell us about this and we greatly look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject. My Northern Irish friends tell me that the reality in many parts of the Province is still extremely grim. It seems that increasingly the poorer areas are becoming ghettos. Many areas have always been ghettos, whether loyalist or republican, but the mixed areas are becoming fewer. I use the word "republican" rather than "nationalist" deliberately because, as I understand it, the SDLP is now too soft to count for much any more in the mean streets or in bandit country.
These ghettos are ruled by terrorist organisations. They exact total obedience through brutality and the fear of brutality. Like all terrorist organisations, both loyalist and republican, they have become indistinguishable from organised criminals. Some, of course, continue to finance a portion of their operations from the donations of deluded romantics in the United States of America, but increasingly both sides finance themselves by becoming mobsters. Their rackets are drugs, extortion, protection, prostitution,
650
taxi services and all the paraphernalia of organised banditry which we associate more with 1930s Chicago than with a modern United Kingdom. Genuine peace and the rule of law will seriously damage those bandits' financial health and luckily for them, but not for us, we have not yet achieved genuine peace.
The Government, through the RUC, have to provide us with statistics and if noble Lords visit the website of the RUC, they will find that in the year so far to 2nd July there have been no fewer than 125 paramilitary-style attacks, compared with 136 in the comparable period last year. In parenthesis, it is interesting to note that both for last year and this there was a higher recorded incidence of loyalist attacks than republican attacks. That is perhaps because the republicans are less divided on the ground, have greater control over their own people and do not need to intimidate them. In the four years to December 1999 recorded paramilitary attacks—we know about the recorded ones only—fell from 326 in 1996 to 196 in 1998, but they rose again to 206 in 1999. I believe that many of those incidents reflect the fact that the godfathers intimidate their own communities rather than attack the other side.
Your Lordships can only imagine how that regime restricts the liberties that we fondly imagine every citizen of the United Kingdom enjoys. Just in case we consider that for the police and security forces the situation has returned to normal, the RUC's website is equally instructive. It is true that, thank God, in 1999 and so far during the current year, no security force deaths have been attributed to terrorism. However, between 1st and 15th July this year alone, there have been 332 attacks on the security forces, including 13 shootings; 88 RUC officers and six soldiers have been injured. There have also been 313 petrol bombing incidents and 611 incidents of criminal damage of various kinds.
Clearly, from those statistics alone one can see that large areas of the Province are still controlled by terrorists. I fear that that is hardly surprising. This is where I begin to become rather controversial. It is a province whose newly devolved government contains representatives of terrorist organisations whose very presence there has been engineered by the threat of a return to full-scale terrorist war.
For anyone who doubts that, noble Lords have only to contrast the public statements of the British and Irish Governments with the contents of an internal Provisional IRA document known in the trade as "TUAS" and circulated before the first ceasefire referred to by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. TUAS is an acronym that stands for "tactical use of armed struggle" and boils down to one thing: if the British Government do not give way, threaten a resumption of the bombing campaign and then they will. Contrast that with British and Irish Government pronouncements, which seem to me to reflect all too clearly the success of TUAS.

651
In the Dail, on the day that the Downing Street declaration was promulgated what now seems many years ago, Mr Spring, the then Republican Foreign Minister, said,
"We are talking about the handing in of arms and are insisting that it would not be simply a temporary cessation of violence to secure what the political process offers. There can be no equivocation in relation to the determination of both governments in that regard".
Yet in spite of those admirable sentiments, in the wake of a resumption of violence followed by,
"a complete cessation of military operations"—
a declaration in which the word "permanent" was conspicuously absent—the government of whom I was a member decided to assume as a "working assumption" that the ceasefire was indeed permanent. The retreat from our insistence on an unequivocal surrender of the Armalite in favour of the ballot box has continued since then, accelerating rapidly since May 1997.
I shall not weary your Lordships with a repetition of the various formulations which have been drawn to our attention during the ensuing years and months. But your Lordships will know that, as a result, Sinn Fein was able to enter talks without handing over a single weapon, and then enter the Executive itself.
We are all aware of how, in order to preserve the ceasefire, the Government have failed to stick to any of their demands that weapons should be surrendered before the peace process began. TUAS has worked; and seeing that it works, the loyalists are gearing themselves up to be able to respond in kind. Instead of strengthening the centre of the political spectrum—something which all of us in this House want to see and which so many people, particularly representatives present from all sides of the community in Northern Ireland, have endeavoured to achieve—governments of both persuasions have achieved exactly the opposite. They have hollowed out the centre and strengthened the extremes instead. That may secure a temporary respite. But in the end it leads to trouble, particularly when large numbers of the most dangerous terrorists are being let out without any guarantee that they will not return to their past.
This Bill must be viewed in that context. Those of us who believe in parliamentary government and its consequences for the rule of law must believe that those who govern us and sit in our representative institutions will not use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their aims. We must also believe that the government we elect will use every means to ensure that that is so and remains so; that they will be prepared to draw a bottom line if it is not so and to defend the ballot box against the Armalite by any means at their disposal if it cannot be done by sweet reason.
If there is no sanction that parliamentary government is prepared to use to force the men of violence to rely exclusively on Parliament and the ballot box, I suggest that the men of violence will always win. In spite of the feebleness of British governments of all political complexions and their readiness to give in to the threat of violence, the RUC
652
has become an increasingly effective first line of defence against terrorism, as my noble friend so eloquently told us. As she also said, that is true not only for the inhabitants of the Province, but also for those of us on this side of the water and the inhabitants of the Republic as well.
This Bill, in a number of ways, undermines the capability of the RUC as an effective anti-terrorist force at a time when terrorism and the threat of terrorism are at least as potent as they have ever been, certainly in their effects if not in the number of victims that they are taking, which seems to be no longer necessary. I shall look at three examples in addition to the points made by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. First, the name and oath as set out in Clauses 1 and 38 are not merely cosmetic: they affect morale in a way one has to have been shot at to understand. Anybody who knows the works of Sir John Keegan, particularly In the Face of Battle, will understand the importance of symbols of this kind.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, the imposition of quotas is counterproductive and shows clearly that the Government have ignored, as my right honourable friend Mr Patten did, the role that intimidation plays in preventing Catholics joining the RUC.
Thirdly, the composition of the district policing partnerships could all too easily allow representatives of terrorist groups who have no convictions to become members. Of course, we shall return to those matters in the remaining stages. I hope that it will be possible, before Committee stage, to see the regulations anticipated in Clauses 44 (on recruitment) and 52 (on emblems and flags) at least in draft before we come to discuss the clauses in detail.
However, I must place on record my own fear that, although much of this Bill is welcome, as many noble Lords have already said—indeed, the RUC welcomed at least 70 per cent of the recommendations of the Patten report—there are parts of it whose consideration, let alone introduction, I am sorry to see before the ghettos are once again free, while the Government continue to submit to terrorist threats, and before the terrorists have thrown away the Armalite in favour of the ballot box. If that happens, it is right that we should examine many matters and be prepared to treat former terrorists in a spirit of generosity and reconciliation, which is absolutely essential if peace is to return to the Province.
Until we are sure that terrorism has really disappeared from the Province and that the men of terror are really prepared to give up violence, I wonder whether we are aware of the delusion from which we are suffering. Indeed, I wonder whether my old friend Mr Patten does not feel, in his heart of hearts, the same. I noticed in a report in The Examiner dated 17th February this year that he was quoted in the context of the suspended Assembly. Some of his strictures in that press report apply to what happens in the Province when the Assembly is suspended. However, there are other strictures which do not seem to apply to that

653
circumstance. For example, in setting out the central arguments for his policing reforms, my former right honourable friend stated that the arguments,
"are affected if some people now eschew their obligation to give primacy to democracy".
He went on to say,
"While some of our proposals would depend on what happened on the ground, some of our proposals would clearly affect for the better what was happening on the ground. But it is difficult to make those judgements when one isn't entirely clear where the security situation is going to develop".
He adds,
"Now, clearly, a commitment to the democratic process involves an equal commitment to taking the gun out of politics, and I don't see how any number of elaborate casuistries can avoid that simple proposition".
I hope that my right honourable friend can be persuaded to repeat that remark in the context of this Bill.
As your Lordships will have ascertained, I agree particularly with that last sentence. Until the gun is taken out of Irish politics, North and South, we need a police force in Northern Ireland with the morale and capability to continue doing the job it has been doing for the past 30 years with increasing success and courage. If we act in the way we are acting now before that happens, we are in danger of breaking the very foundations on which this House acts and which another place supports as the foundation of our own polity, let alone anybody else's.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to address your Lordships' House tonight on a subject in which I have a keen and very practical interest. As many noble Lords know, I am chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority and deputy chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, the body that represents all police authorities in England and Wales as well as the current Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Therefore, I hope that I can share a little "insider knowledge" with noble Lords in this debate.
As my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton made clear, we wish to see a single, integrated policing service that has the confidence and the respect of the whole community in Northern Ireland. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government have recognised the need to specify a minimum as well as a maximum number of members for the policing board. That is essential under any political circumstances. I am also encouraged by the enhancements that have been made to the code of practice for district policing partnerships, the provisions for police officers to register their associations and the increased emphasis on human rights.
We very much welcome the introduction of a new code of ethics as proposed by Patten. We are pleased that the Government have recognised that it should be the responsibility of the police board to issue the code and assess its effectiveness. But how effective can the code be if officers are only asked to, "read and
654
understand it"? Surely, we must, as a minimum, expect officers to carry out their duties in accordance with the code—just as they are required to do in respect of the oath. We also welcome the decision to remove some of the wholly unreasonable restrictions placed upon the board's ability to ask for a report of the chief constable, or initiate an inquiry. But there remain fundamental concerns in this area, about which I shall say more in a moment.
I make no apologies for reminding your Lordships that policing by consent—meaning the consent of all our communities—is the touchstone of the UK system; a system of which we are justifiably proud. But that can only be achieved by putting in place a series of checks and balances which ensure appropriate accountability both to central government and, crucially, to the local community. The right balance has to be struck in the relationships between the Secretary of State, the policing board and the chief constable. As it stands, the Bill has not, in our view, got the balance right. Of course the Secretary of State must have a role; indeed, that is right. We look forward to the future when that role may be devolved to a Minister of Justice. But, at the moment, the role of central government is rather too great.
It is in this respect that the Government have so far failed to address a number of key issues. In my research into these key issues, not only have I found support on a Cross-Bench basis in this House but also that a broad political consensus exists among the parties in Northern Ireland. That support should, in itself, have commended the necessary changes to the Government. I am optimistic that the Government will find time to listen and heed those points.
I return to the policing board's powers of inquiry. While the Government have removed one of the restrictions, we believe that the stranglehold is still too tight. The Patten report was clear about this. It said that the board should,
"be able to follow up any report from the Chief Constable by initiating an inquiry into any aspect of the police service or police conduct".
But the Bill imposes significant restrictions on the board's decision-making capabilities—not only in the specified majority for taking such a decision, but also in the detailed requirements that must be followed before a question can even be put that an inquiry be held. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord say that he would make further changes. I hope that he will address some of the points that I have highlighted. I look forward to further discussion on these issues.
However, perhaps I may make this simple point. Even if the board manages to persuade the Secretary of State that an inquiry is needed, it will still have to pay all the costs. That could be almost impossible, given its modest budget. Therefore, I urge the Government to look again at this point. I should

655
remind the noble and learned Lord that the Patten report was quite clear that the powers of the Secretary of State were already too great and should be reduced. It said:
"In Northern Ireland the Secretary of State is much more directly involved [than in England and Wales in policing]—these arrangements are not a basis for democratic accountability in the sense of the police being … responsible to the community".
Best value is a prime example. Since 1st April of this year, all police authorities in England and Wales have had to ensure that local people get best value from their policing services. It is a challenge that we are meeting with commitment and enthusiasm. As one who is now wrestling with this new duty, I can say that one thing is crucial: there must be absolute clarity about roles and responsibilities. In England and Wales, the duty is placed squarely on the police authority. But as the Bill stands, both the policing board and the chief constable are to be responsible for best value in their respective spheres. The chief constable is to be answerable for improving police services to the Secretary of State, instead of to local people through the policing board. I do not feel that it is overstating the case to say that I believe that that will be a recipe for disaster, because of their divided responsibilities.
The policing board's primary duty is to secure an efficient and effective police service. Consistency demands that the obligation to secure best value—that is, economy, efficiency and effectiveness—rests with the policing board. How else can the board fulfil its key statutory responsibility? How else can the board ensure that local people get improved policing services? As the Bill stands, I simply cannot conceive how those points can be answered.
Similarly, in the provisions covering the police planning process, the Secretary of State takes to himself the power to regulate the content of the board's policing plan, in a way that is at odds with the position in England and Wales. I can tell the Minister that that will be bitterly opposed by police authorities in England and Wales.
The strength of the police planning process lies in setting broad performance targets. But the existing powers given to the Police Authority under the 1998 Act are removed. Again, as chairman of a police authority, I know only too well how critically important it is for the new board to be able to set clear targets reflecting the priority and effort that local people attach to particular aspects of police work. I make no apologies for referring again to the Patten report, which said:
"We see no justification for the Government to second-guess the Board in these matters".
Again, this is an issue to which we shall return at a later stage.
Finally, and extremely seriously, the ability of the board to hold the chief constable properly to account on financial matters has been removed. By placing accounting responsibility for the police grant on the shoulders of the chief constable, the Government will not only damage the board's credibility but also take away from it the valuable right of internal audit, which
656
is crucial. It is a crucial investigatory and oversight function. This departs from long-established practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is opposed by all the major political parties in Northern Ireland and by the Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan.
I have only had time to highlight some of the most obvious and serious concerns. There are many other detailed points to which we shall need to return, including the board's role in consulting local people. But our concerns are clear. The system of checks and balances is out of kilter in that it concentrates too much power on the Secretary of State and the chief constable, thereby negating the role of the board. The consequence of those shortcomings is that we have a genuine fear that the new board: will not have the power that the Independent Commission intended; will not command the support of either the police service or the community; and that, by this somewhat parsimonious approach, the Government will, in reality, undermine the thrust of their own legislation. I look forward to hearing the Government's response and to further, and more detailed, discussion on these important issues when we reach the Committee stage.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, at the outset one has to say that there are aspects of Patten and aspects of the Bill which are positive. Many recommendations of an operational nature I agree with. Many recommendations members of my party agree with. But, perhaps more importantly, many recommendations the RUC agrees with and welcomes—indeed, many it proposed through the chief constable's review.
However, there are many other areas where I have grave doubts and objections. Noble Lords sitting close to me may have noticed that I am wearing a rather distinctive tie. It is an RUC tie, specifically woven to commemorate the rightful and justified award of the George Cross to the RUC. Is it not ironic that a few short months after that award we should debate such aspects of future policing in Northern Ireland as a change of name?
We cannot legislate for what is in people's hearts and minds. Whatever we decide, just as the names "bobby" and "Peelers" remain in use in areas of the country, so also will the name of the RUC, at least for my generation and my son's generation. Can one really foresee someone in trouble in Northern Ireland calling for help and saying, "I'm going to phone the Police Service of Northern Ireland"?
In addition to the removal of the proud name "Royal Ulster Constabulary", I believe that this Bill is fundamentally flawed in at least two other aspects; namely, the proposed district policing partnerships, especially the proposals that Belfast be divided into four sub-bodies, and the proposal for 50/50 recruitment. I have grave reservations about creating 29 local area commands corresponding to the 26 local council areas, plus an additional three for the City of Belfast. With the loss of a whole tier of management in

657
the RUC via decentralised command, I fear that that bodes ill for the future and will serve to balkanise the police force in Northern Ireland.
The population of Northern Ireland is only 1.6 million. We do not need 29 local area commands. I believe that there needs to be a regional level of command above the local areas and that the unitary nature of the RUC must be preserved.
In mainland terms, the City of Belfast is not particularly large, with no more than 300,000 or so electors. While Belfast may currently be divided by the RUC into four local areas of command, these do not mirror the four parliamentary constituencies and extend far beyond the city limits as far as Lisburn to the south, Antrim town and Carrickfergus to the north, and Bangor to the east, incorporating parts of the constituencies of South Antrim, East Antrim, Lagan Valley, Castlereagh and North Down. I am confident that 300,000 people could more effectively and more efficiently be served by one local area command.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord is possibly not aware that the City of York, which has a population of about 100,000 people, is divided into four commands, as it were. That system works effectively. The noble Lord may like to consider that point before he comments further.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. However, the City of York may not have the divisions of the City of Belfast, the consequences of which for policing are a matter of great concern to me.
I do not wish to labour this particular operational point at this stage of the Bill. I am, however, concerned at the likely consequences which would follow the establishment of 29 local area commands, and especially four in Belfast. These 29 area commands will all be mirrored by, monitored by and potentially dominated and influenced by district policing partnerships. Four such commands for Belfast is just too many, unnecessary and plainly planned for political reasons and not operational policing. But, what is worse, it has the potential to subject the police to intolerable sectarian and party political pressures at grassroots level.
As the Belfast Telegraph of 21st July stated:
"Can anyone imagine the chaos which would ensue if the policing of Drumcree or contentious events in Belfast were fully at the behest of local policing boards?"
It does not require an Honours degree in current affairs to realise that a West Belfast sub-committee of the DPP would be almost exclusively republican and nationalist—effectively Sinn Fein/IRA. The East Belfast DPP sub-committee would be almost exclusively loyalist and Unionist, with a substantial degree of input from the UDA and the UVF.
658
The religious and political mix in the north and south of the city would at least ensure some measure of cross-community representation on the DPP sub-committee for those areas, but that is scant consolation. The idea behind this seems to be to create a Protestant/Unionist dominated DPP for Protestant areas and a Catholic/nationalist dominated DPP for Catholic areas. This simply cannot be acceptable. This is cantonisation of policing of the worst kind and would facilitate paramilitary linked parties increasing their influence over certain areas.
At least a Belfast-wide district policing partnership would dilute the influence of parties whose support is concentrated in particular areas. Sinn Fein/IRA might have nearly 70 per cent support in West Belfast, but across the city as a whole the figure is much lower. Just as it would be wrong to leave policing in West Belfast in the hands of republicans, so it would be wrong to place policing in East Belfast in the hands of loyalists. I want to see an effective district policing partnership and police force for all the people in every part of the City of Belfast and Northern Ireland.
If the purpose of the Patten report was to take politics out of policing, one needs only to look at this proposal to see just how completely it has failed. Instead of taking politics out of policing, it seeks to place politics at the very heart of policing. Whatever happened to the concept of treating people equally as citizens rather than as members of a particular religious or ethnic group? I believe that the more we focus on divisions in society, the more we risk reinforcing those divisions by constantly emphasising them, rather than seeking to concentrate on those factors which unite us. Twenty-nine sub-committees of the district policing partnership will hardly encourage unity. They will merely promote and reinforce ideas of separateness.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, over the years the City of Belfast, and indeed other areas of Ulster, have seen the creation of far too many ghettos—Protestant and Catholic alike. It is my belief that in the new dispensation we should do all we can to create a new community in Northern Ireland. The proposed large number of DPPs will hinder that. They will be divisive; they will foster community tensions and, yet again, the police will be piggy in the middle.
I now turn to the matter of 50/50 recruitment. I am opposed to the concept of 50/50 recruitment to be introduced in the Bill. It is positive discrimination. I oppose all forms of statutory discrimination, whether positive or not. I wish to see any police force in Northern Ireland—indeed, throughout the United Kingdom—reflect the society that it polices: 50/50 recruitment will not remedy Catholic under-representation in the police force because it attempts to address the symptom rather than the cause.
We are all aware of the cause of Catholic under-representation in the police force—the lack of Catholic applicants and the pressures they were under. During the period between the cessation of military operations by paramilitary organisations and the suspension of police recruitment, Catholic applications to the RUC

659
doubled from 11 per cent to 22 per cent. This desirable trend was achieved not by positive discrimination but by encouraging young Catholic applicants.
Perhaps I may illustrate the point by reading a letter which was published in this morning's edition of the Irish News, a newspaper with a mainly nationalist readership. The letter was written by an officer of the RUC. He writes:
"I want to make my position clear to my co-Catholics in this part of Ireland. I joined the RUC in 1971 when living in Derry with my mother. My father died in 1964, leaving us a poor family financially. I joined the police to help my mother 'make ends meet'. When a prominent republican heard of this, he and three of his 'henchmen' called at my mother's house in the dead of night and threatened her, physically, over my job. She was told what they would do to her if I wouldn't resign, and her windows were broken to emphasise the point. That's the type now in government, that's why Catholics don't join the RUC. Pity these 'henchmen' don't have the background and good character required for the RUC".
The letter was signed simply "Good Catholic".
Targets and affirmative action measures encouraging applications from under-represented groups—from all under-represented groups—are the only means of securing a police force that reflects the society that it polices. Indeed, targets and affirmative action could include targets for female recruits and for recruits from ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland, thus redressing under-representation in other areas, not only Catholic under-representation.
It may have crossed the minds of some noble Lords, why not extend the quota system to female recruitment or to the recruitment of ethnic minorities? There are two points to be made in regard to this question. First, it would seem that it would be illegal under European law, in contravention of Council Directive 76/207/ EEC on the Implementation of the Principles of Equal Treatment for Men and Women, to have this quota recruitment scheme apply to male/female recruitment. Secondly, many ethnic minorities would fall under the grouping of "other". Fifty/fifty recruitment is not 50 per cent Protestant and 50 per cent Catholic; it is 50 per cent Catholic and 50 per cent "other".
Therefore, not only will young Protestant applicants suffer reverse discrimination, but so will young Muslim applicants, as will young Jewish applicants, Hindu applicants, Sikh applicants, Baha'i applicants—need I continue? These are all religious groups prevalent in Northern Ireland society which will be discriminated against by being labelled "other" for recruitment purposes by this Bill.
The question of legality will be raised again in December 2002, when two directives flowing from Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty will be implemented. It appears from the draft of these directives that the 50/50 recruitment in this Bill would be contrary to these directives. I question the morality of legislating in the interim.
I know that the hour is getting late and that I have been speaking for some time, but I am going to be pedantic and further demonstrate my concerns by an example. The police have 100 vacancies for recruits: 150 "others" apply and there are 50 Catholic applicants. Fifty/fifty recruitment dictates that if all
660
100 vacancies are to be filled, 50 must be from Catholic applicants and 50 from "other" applicants. However, there is a standard for successful applicants and let us assume for a moment that 60 per cent of the "others" grouping and 60 per cent of the Catholic grouping make that standard. We now have 120 applicants who make the grade for 100 vacancies. This would be fine—except that only 30 of the 50 Catholic applicants, being 60 per cent, have made the grade. So, although we now have 90 applicants from the "other" group who have made the grade, only 30 can be employed.
The police force requires 100 recruits so it has a choice: it either accepts an under-strength force or lowers the standard for applicants to permit all 50 Catholic applicants to be recruited. This totally corrupts the merit-based system of recruitment; it is clearly unacceptable.
The only situation in which 50/50 recruitment would not cause reverse discrimination would be where 50 per cent of the population are Catholic and 50 per cent are "others" and where 50 per cent of the applicants are Catholic and 50 per cent are "others"— and if 50 per cent of the applicants were Catholics there would be no need for targets or affirmative action, never mind quotas.
This 50/50 recruitment will fail to tackle the problem of low numbers of Catholic applicants and can lead only to resentment within the police force. Inevitably one recruit will perceive another recruit to be there, not on merit but because of his religion.
As I have said, I wish to see a police force that reflects the society it serves. This can be achieved by affirmative action measures; it can be achieved in a morally and legally correct manner and it can redress under-representation in terms of sex, race and religion. In this regard, opinion formers from within the Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland and from within the nationalist community must play their part. Roman Catholic church leaders and nationalist leaders must encourage their young people to apply to join the police in Northern Ireland, and do so in the knowledge that all we want is a neutral, fair police force, accountable and respected. That is what we should aim for in policing in Northern Ireland, not statutory discrimination.
Patten wanted to put human rights at the heart of policing. Paragraph 4.1 of the Patten report states:
"It is a central proposition of this report that the fundamental purpose of policing should be, in the words of the Agreement, the protection and vindication of the human rights of all".
This Bill puts statutory discrimination at the heart of policing rather than human rights.
Perhaps I may leave the House with one final thought. On 12th November 1997, the Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir Ronnie Flannagan, gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. One of the members told him:
"I think you are absolutely right that positive discrimination is totally counter-productive, based on my experience in other areas. People have to be advanced on merit".

661
That member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was none other than Ken Livingstone, MP.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I deeply regret that this debate is taking place today. In the 36 years that I have been in this building I cannot recall a Bill of such significance getting a Second Reading on the day that the House was to break up for the Summer Recess. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland will see it that way; that the House is treating the people of Northern Ireland with contempt.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if I could just remind my noble friend, the House is not finishing today; the House finishes tomorrow.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I think my noble friend may regret having said that because tomorrow the last of the murderers will be released from the Maze Prison. This is a deeply emotional week in Northern Ireland. We have to think of the people, the victims, who have lost their loved ones, not only the RUC—although 310 of its men have been brutally murdered—but the 8,000 who were injured as well. We have to think of the civilians who were murdered. In this country we have to think of the 600 servicemen who were murdered. This has been a deeply disturbing week in Northern Ireland. This week, as I have read the newspapers—coming from Northern Ireland—I can feel the emotion. I know what is happening to the people over there as they see the brutal murderers of their loved ones being released. Is that price too high to pay for peace in Northern Ireland? There are many people who think so.
We have heard that the Good Friday agreement is meant to charter the future of Northern Ireland and that we should attempt to move on. It is only the living that can move on. The dead cannot move on. The hundreds of people who have been murdered in Northern Ireland cannot move on and neither can their relatives who watched them die in such horrible circumstances.
Many people quote the Belfast agreement. The Belfast agreement contained three main controversial points: first, the release of prisoners, to which I have just referred; secondly, the decommissioning; and, thirdly, what we are discussing today—the reform of the police. My noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spoke. The noble Baroness said that she was on the police authority for North Yorkshire. North Yorkshire has absolutely nothing to do with policing in Northern Ireland. The police in North Yorkshire are not about to murder their way out of the United Kingdom.
In Northern Ireland we do not vote on Conservative and Labour terms, much to my regret. We vote on Unionist and nationalist, terms. The Unionist wants to remain within the United Kingdom. The nationalist
662
wants to break away from the United Kingdom—at least we are so told. Northern Ireland is never very far away from elections. We have local government elections; we have the Assembly elections; we have the European elections; and we have the elections to this House.
I shall tell your Lordships what is happening at the present moment. There are two nationalist parties, Sinn Fein and the party of which I was a former member, the SDLP. They are nationalist parties. I should explain what nationalism means. The other two parties are the Official Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party.
Both those elements are fighting the next Westminster election. I believe that, particularly on the nationalist side, some of them are acting quite irresponsibly. We know that the SDLP is now following a republican agenda. Sinn Fein has attempted to demonise and to humiliate the RUC. It has a very good reason. It was the RUC which was responsible for arresting those terrorists, bringing them before the courts and having them sentenced to long terms of imprisonment—the same terrorists released this week. So it is in the interests of Sinn Fein and the terrorists to demonise the RUC.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only yesterday broke the Anglo-Irish agreement. There was one notorious prisoner called McArdle who was detained for a few days. He did not qualify for release. The Secretary of State went to Her Majesty to ask for the royal prerogative to be used to let out one of the most notorious prisoners who had ever been in the Maze prison. That is a direct attack on the integrity of the Anglo-Irish agreement. The Bill is hugely political. Let us not underestimate the politics of the Bill.
I say to the noble Baroness again that there is absolutely no comparison between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and any other police force within the kingdom. Unless one knows the history, the background and the ethos of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, one will not understand anything about it. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was created in 1920 by the partition of Ireland. The previous police force was known as the Royal Irish Constabulary. It was the Royal Irish Constabulary which had the badge that is now with the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a shamrock and a crown. Nothing could be more instructive to the two communities in Northern Ireland. In fact Sir Richard Dawson Bates, Minister of Home Affairs in the first government of Northern Ireland when the state was set up, attempted to do away with the Northern Ireland badge, the badge that has been so courageously worn by the RUC.
The RUC was formed after many scores of RIC men were killed in the years between 1918 and 1920. They were given two jobs. One of them was to detect crime and criminals, the same as in any other police force in the United Kingdom. The other one—the one that led to their death, and the one which has led to this humiliation—was to protect the integrity of the state of Northern Ireland. It is because of that responsibility that the IRA has been killing RUC men over so many years.

663
Sinn Fein is nationalist. The SDLP is nationalist. Let us look at the interpretation of that word. "Nationalist" means that they do not accept the state of Northern Ireland. They want to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That is the meaning of nationalism. It is for that reason that so many terrible tragedies have taken place.
Now we have this Bill. It is hugely political. It is recognised to be such by the majority of people in Northern Ireland. I have already stated that the SDLP is following the agenda set down by Sinn Fein—Sinn Fein/IRA—the party that has murdered policemen and many others. I do not believe that Sinn Fein/IRA and the SDLP represent the true feelings of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. Every Catholic is not a nationalist. Every Catholic in Northern Ireland does not want to see the abolition of the Border. But parliamentary elections have determined those people who would have us believe so. I suggest that the Bill has been brought forward in a very emotional week. I read the papers today and saw photographs in them of people who have been released—people who murdered friends of mine. Therefore, I do not discuss this issue in a vacuum. I discuss it in the terms in which it is seen by the people of Northern Ireland.
The provisions on 50/50 representation were brought forward with the best of intentions but they are totally unrealistic. In 1976 I sat at the other end of this building putting through the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. It was meant to deal with discrimination between Catholics and Protestants at the time. After all these years there is still an imbalance. A balance has not been achieved since 1976 and it will certainly not be achieved within the time limit of Patten. How do you discern a Catholic? When he applies to join the RUC, is he a Catholic because he went to mass on the previous Sunday? Perhaps he did not go to mass at all. Perhaps he is a lapsed Catholic. If he was lapsed, would it mean that he could not be taken in as a Catholic? I do not think that a solution can be found to that problem.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about the district partnerships. I have lived in Belfast and represented West Belfast for many years. I know every district in West Belfast. District partnerships set up in estates like Turf Lodge, Ballymurphy, New Barnsley and Andersonstown will be wholly dominated by the men with guns. They will not accept a police force. There will be no opportunity for anyone living on those estates to join the police force or the new police service without the sanction and approval of the men with guns. Even as things stand, the Catholics who are in the RUC—I recognise the courageous stand they have taken—cannot live in the ghettos. They have to live far way from their districts and far away from their relatives. They cannot even visit their parents because they are members of the RUC. There is still a great deal of intimidation.
We learnt from our papers all last week and from contact with the RUC of the terrible number of brutal beatings. People are having their ankles and elbows blown off. They are not being killed, because that
664
would break the IRA ceasefire, but the mutilations continue. I can tell the House—I say it with a great deal of realism—that there is no way in which the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries will give up control of their areas. There is absolutely no chance of that happening.
The Bill may be visionary. I should like to see much of what it proposes come to pass. I approve of many of the elements in the Bill. Many of them have been brought about by the chief constable himself. Perhaps I may say that the present chief constable is the best chief constable we have ever had in Northern Ireland. I know that he is desperately trying to go along with the Bill. But can noble Lords imagine the position he is in? He wants to see the provisions of the Bill implemented. He wants to see an acceptable police force. But it would be less than human to expect him to forget the murders of members of his own force—the ones with whom he served, from the time he was a constable to when he became chief constable of the RUC. I believe that Ronnie Flanagan will do his best to implement these proposals.
Tomorrow the House adjourns for two months. That adjournment provides an opportunity for the Government to look at all the imperfections in the Bill and to recognise that nationalists will never accept the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. All Catholics are not nationalists. Northern Ireland is not like North Yorkshire and is not like some parts of London. Northern Ireland is a place apart. We have had to live with the awful circumstances of the past 30 years. I hope that we can do something with the police force through the Bill. But I would say, with rather more hope than optimism, that we need to bring about the right circumstances. I wish the chief constable God speed.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I feel rather inadequate in following the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I only hope that the situation does not turn out to be as depressing as some of us have reason to believe it might.
I welcome the Government's willingness to improve the Bill at later stages. The vast proportion of the Bill is most welcome and comes from the chief constable's review, which was not complete when Chris Patten was moved in. I and many others object to and oppose the change of name from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I oppose it very strongly indeed. I am full of admiration for the dedication, professionalism and sacrifice of its members over the past 70 plus years and especially since 1969. In the security forces I served beside them on a daily basis for 17 years and I know the sacrifices they and their families made during that time. I may say that among the very best were some from the minority side of our community. I stress that. I entirely support all the tributes paid to them.
I agree with most of the reservations that have been expressed in the debate. I should like to highlight a few additional concerns that I have on other parts of the Bill. The Northern Ireland policing board will take over

665
from the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I have no problem with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, mentioned the division of responsibility. As she was the first and only speaker to do that, I thought that I would reiterate the point with regard to one particular circumstance. Under Clause 3, the board will continue to be responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of the police, the police support staff and the traffic wardens. However, under Clause 12, the chief constable will take over financial accountability. That is a change from the present position whereby that responsibility is vested in the police authority, as it is in England and Wales.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that responsibility for efficiency should not be divorced from financial accountability, as that is the very means of control through value for money and so on? Secondly, why should the position be changed if it is considered good practice in England and Wales? Why should the position be different in Northern Ireland? Surely those who hold the purse strings call the tune. I would not insist on those two responsibilities necessarily being with the police board. I would leave that up to someone else to decide. But there must be outside auditing, no matter who has those responsibilities. I believe that they should be vested in the same place, wherever it is.
Before leaving the subject of policing boards, I have one matter to raise in comparing the board with the district policing partnerships in Part III of the Bill. At present, members of the police authority, which is to become the policing board, sign a notice declaring their awareness of the Official Secrets Act. They also agree to a code of practice and the seven principles of public life. In effect, they undertake, among other things, to observe confidentiality. I have reservations about the establishment of district policing partnerships. However, I know that many other people have concerns about their composition and, in particular, about the backgrounds of the people involved. I share that concern. Can the Minister assure the House that those individuals will have to undertake the same commitments to confidentiality and good practice as those members of the policing board? If he says that the police board will bring in regulations, I will not be satisfied. I should like to know that it will occur. That would perhaps allay some of the fears which have been generated by these partnerships.
The reorganisation of the structure of the police force into police districts, as provided in Clause 20, will bring our policing structures into line with the remainder of the United Kingdom. Some may have a fear of this. However, I have read Police Force Reorganisation—Getting it Right by Jonathan Nichols, a report published in 1991 on behalf of the Home Office by the Police Research Group and I am quite impressed with it. I shall not venture into discussing the situation in Belfast, although I know of the problems. However, I do not live there and we have just heard a far more expert account of it than I could ever give.
666
Nevertheless, the report is excellent and stresses the difficulties of reorganisation into the United Kingdom equivalent of police districts, which are known as BCUs—basic command units. A quotation is cited at the beginning of the report and is worthy of note:
"We need to meet any new situation by reorganising. And what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress by producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation".
So pronounced Gaius Petronius, writer, satirist and organiser of Nero's personal revels in the Roman Empire. Not much changes. It is a warning; it will take a great deal of good leadership and professionalism successfully to carry this out. It will not happen overnight.
Although I support this change, I must ask if we are doing it at quite the right time. I am not against the change, I am for it, but perhaps not yet. In an Audit Commission report, Paper 9 of the Police Papers in England 1991, such commands are defined as,
"the lowest level in the command structure which can provide a 24-hour policing service able to respond to all incidents and deal fully with most of them without frequent external support".
That is key to a breakdown of that kind of command structure. It is a fact that the type of problems that occur frequently in Northern Ireland—marches, bombings and shootings—all require more resources than those held at divisional level, let alone at the envisaged smaller district commands. In principle I am supportive, but is the time yet right?
On that question, another problem lies in the offing. Assuming that the reorganisation is put in place, it may not be long before it will have to be reorganised. It is common knowledge, now that we have an Assembly, that it is likely to look at reducing the number of district councils in local government. However, police districts are to conform with district council areas. Again, I ask the question: are we being a little premature in bringing about this change by enacting the Bill?
I should like to discuss for a moment the 50/50 quotas. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I shall not detail half of the matter. My noble friend Lord Rogan has covered it well. We all understand his figures and will understand them even better when we come to read them. I shall leave out my contribution on that point. However, they emphasise the fact that, first, we should seek targets and not quotas. I wish to examine this briefly in relation to police recruits and thus add a little to the words of my noble friend. Secondly, I should like to discuss the police support staff, who have not yet been mentioned.
If we meddle with the acceptance of recruits by accepting outside of the order of merit to achieve our quotas, then—assuming that the order of merit is some indication of the merit of policemen and women in the future—by taking people of lower ability, we are creating a less able group of police. In the longer run that will create what will amount to a two-tier system. Noble Lords will note that I am not saying that Roman Catholics are less intelligent than Protestants. I say merely that, with the numbers coming forward, that will be the effect of taking people from further down the order of merit.

667
In addition to creating a level of, perhaps, less able policemen, we shall also create a problem for the future. Future promotions will be made on merit. That will not reflect either a 50/50 or any other form of quota. How will we get around this? Perhaps the Minister could suggest a strategy that will solve the problem. I should also say that similar circumstances have prevailed in America with the black population and, I believe, in Canada with French Canadians in Quebec. This has been demonstrated in other areas.
My next point is not mischievous. It may be a reality. A recruit's religion is taken as being that which he or she enters on a form held confidentially—and signed in confidence so that no one will witness it—by the equal opportunities branch of the police force. No proof is required and it can never be questioned in the service. Thus, if a Protestant or one of the "others" that make up their side of the 50/50 division, feels that he or she would have a better chance of being appointed if he or she were a Roman Catholic, all they need to do is to sign a form saying that they are Roman Catholic. No one can question it, even if that person walks out of the base on a Sunday morning and attends the Protestant St. Anne's Cathedral in Belfast. I appreciate that that is simplicity in itself, but in Northern Ireland people get around much more complicated situations. It is not even a criminal act, because the applicant could change religions in 20 minutes flat.
I wish to mention quickly in the same context the position of the police support staff. At present they are made up of some who are employed directly by the Police Authority and some who were seconded from the Civil Service. The latter have now been incorporated into the Police Authority. In future, employees will come directly to the police board, as it will be constituted. In practice, this will make the present imbalance in that department even worse because the proportion of Catholics in the Northern Ireland Civil Service is higher than that in any policing body.
There are those Catholics who may have joined the Civil Service in preference to a police body because they may have felt intimidated had they joined any organisation involving the police. In the Civil Service, they are asked to tick a box to discover whether they would be prepared to be seconded to the police. Some may not have ticked the box initially, but, after experience, some of those Catholics have done so and have then gone to serve with the RUC in that context. However, under the new arrangement, this option will no longer be made available and the imbalance in the police support staff will become even worse, even though it forms a part of the Northern Ireland police service. That was confirmed as a possibility to me this morning by the Police Authority.
I should like to say that I am a strong supporter of the motive that lies behind the 50/50 principle. However, the Bill will be successful in that respect only if the SDLP and—dare I say it?—the Roman Catholic Church actively support their members in joining such a service. I have not heard that they have done so yet. Until that is done, there is not a hope on this side of
668
kingdom-come that Sinn Fein will do so. I call on the SDLP and the Roman Catholic Church to make the move. The Bill goes as far as it is possible to go; it goes far further than would most reasonable people.
In conclusion, I support the Bill and I hope that the Government will respond to the concerns that have been voiced today. I hope too that over the Recess they will think carefully and come back with some amendments of their own.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may join first in the tributes that have been paid to the courage and bravery of the men and women of the RUC. I should like also to join in the tributes paid to the Chief Constable who, I agree, is the best chief constable to have served in Northern Ireland. He is leading the police in a most excellent and far-sighted manner.
I am conscious of the 302 deaths—murders—of RUC officers during the Troubles. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the last officer to die did so as a result of the bomb at Drumcree two years ago. He was, as it were, enforcing the law against loyalist paramilitaries. That shows that the RUC has been behaving, and has had to behave, in an even-handed manner. I am sure that it has been very difficult for members of the RUC to deal with some of the difficulties that they have had to face, particularly at Drumcree in the past few years. Therefore, we all agree that the George Cross was a well deserved tribute.
I have sensed a great deal of pessimism in this debate. I have not detected much confidence about the future for Northern Ireland. I have heard rather gloomy prognostications. I am more of an optimist, although I share an awareness that there are many difficulties still to be overcome.
I should like to comment briefly on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about prisoner releases. My view differs from his. Of course, the re lease of prisoners has been the single most difficult issue arising out of the Good Friday agreement. It has been painful for many. I recall the debates in this House when we dealt with the legislation for the release of prisoners. We all found it a painful prospect. Nevertheless, without prisoner releases, there would have been no Good Friday agreement, and without an agreement there would have been no prospect of peace for Northern Ireland. Admittedly, there is an unacceptably high level of paramilitary attacks within the communities, and these must be condemned absolutely and totally. No such attack should ever lake place; the level is far too high. But the release of prisoners is something that we had to do as a government. I refer to the time when I was a Minister helping to further the policy. Without such prisoner releases, difficult as the matter is, the prospects for Northern Ireland would be much gloomier. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree with the point that he making, painful though it is. But will he deal with the

669
point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt; namely, that in securing the use of the prerogative yesterday, apparently, in the case of McArdle, the Secretary of State breached the wording of the Good Friday agreement, which we have all been told must be upheld to the letter, by securing the release of McArdle some seven months before the proper application of the agreement would have released him?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is a question that should be directed at the Minister. It would not be proper for me to speculate on the series of events that led to that release. I would rather leave it to the Minister. I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying, but I am sure that the Minister will be back in his place shortly and will be made aware of the question that has been asked.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on one positive feature: the co-operation between the Garda and the RUC. It is not always widely appreciated. For example, at the Templemore training centre in the Republic there is a joint training programme for RUC and Garda officers, preparing them for service in Kosovo, where many are at present. When I was a Minister I met Garda officers in Donegal who told me about the joint project with RUC officers providing holiday facilities for children from Northern Ireland who had learning difficulties and other handicaps. I am aware that there is co-operation also on such issues as road safety. Co-operation in tackling the problems of drugs could usefully be developed further. The Patten report says that co-operation could be more formalised; nevertheless, there is a high level of co-operation. It is important that that should be understood.
Looking at the Patten report and the Bill that is before the House, what are we seeking to achieve? There are clearly two aims. One is that there should be a higher share of Roman Catholics in the police force in Northern Ireland. No one quarrels with that. People say that the Roman Catholics' share of RUC membership increased at the time of the first ceasefire. All I would say is that in the period before the Troubles, in the late 1960s, there was a low proportion of Catholics in the RUC, so this is a long-term problem. I agree that intimidation is a serious factor. I have discussed the matter with individual RUC officers. But there are other reasons. One is surely that there is not the context and climate of opinion within many Catholic communities which encourages young Catholics to join the RUC. They do not have the support of the politicians or the good will that would be necessary if they were to take that step. I hope that that will change.
The second aim of the Bill is surely that nationalist parties and Churches, the Catholic Church in particular, should all be prepared in the future to recommend that young people should join the police in Northern Ireland if that is the career that they want. That will be a key test of the overall success of the policy.
670
I had quoted to me recently the words of the headmaster of a Catholic school in Northern Ireland. He said that there is no difficulty for his school leavers in joining the police; they do join—but they join the Strathclyde police, the Garda and the Metropolitan Police; they do not join the RUC. That is what must change if we are to have a proper basis for policing and peace in Northern Ireland. I learnt a long time ago that for the police to be effective anywhere, they must have the consent of the majority of people in the communities that they serve. That is what members of the Metropolitan Police have always said to me when I have discussed the matter with them. Because that consent is not as forthcoming in some parts of Northern Ireland as it ought to be, the task of the RUC is made much more difficult. If members of the RUC are to provide the professional policing that they want to provide, they need to have that support in their own communities. That means that they must have more support among the Catholic population than at present. I know that many Catholics support the RUC, but they voice that support in opinion polls; it is not done vocally, through the community leaders in that population.
When the Bill is bedded down and becomes law, it is important that we get the police in Northern Ireland out of party politics. Nothing can be more damaging to professional policing than for the nature of the police service to be the subject of constant party-political argument. It does not lead to good policing. It is not fair to the police or to the people of Northern Ireland.
My understanding is that every one of the 175 Patten recommendations had the endorsement of at least a police officer who put it forward to the Patten committee. I mention that because it is sometimes thought that the recommendations do not have any support among police officers.
When I had the privilege of serving in Northern Ireland as a Minister, the Secretary of State suggested at the time of the publication of the Patten report that we should all visit individual RUC stations and discuss how officers felt about the report. I visited four RUC stations and at each I met 20 or 30 RUC officers. I visited Enniskillen, West Belfast, Dungannon and Newry. In each, I had an interesting, fascinating and difficult hour-and-a-half or two-hour discussion with the officers there. My sense was that, although they were not happy about the Patten report—they did not like the idea of a change of name or a change of badge, or some of the other points that have been raised in this debate—in the end they felt that if implementing the Patten recommendations would achieve the intended aims, they would go along with it, albeit reluctantly. That was the main sense of my discussions, although there were clear voices to the contrary, saying, "Under no circumstances". I felt, both at those meetings and in discussions that I have had with other RUC officers, that that was the way they saw it: "We don't like it, but if that's the way forward, we'll go along with it".
I am aware that attitudes to the RUC among some people in Northern Ireland are polarised. Some people say that the police are always in the wrong; some say

671
that they are always in the right. But, of course, common sense suggests that the truth is somewhere between the two. I take the view that when the police show that they are impartially upholding the law, they are entitled to the support of everyone in the community.
The RUC officers in Northern Ireland to whom I have spoken are much more relaxed about the Patten report and about this Bill than are some politicians in Northern Ireland. At times the police have a more mature attitude to this matter. They know that they operate in a democratic society and have said to me that if a democratic parliament wants to change the way that the police service operates, they will accept it, even if they do not like it. I believe that the task of negotiating these changes with the police is a good deal more straightforward than are negotiations with some politicians.
There are signs that some nationalist politicians and the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland are very unhappy with the Bill. My concern is that if in the end they are not willing to encourage young people to join the RUC, one of the main objectives will be negated. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had very little margin for manoeuvre. He is hemmed in between the views of Unionist politicians who do not want to go an inch further than they have gone—they do not even like the fact that they have had to go so far—and nationalist politicians who do not believe that all of their concerns are being met.
I turn briefly to the name. I understand why the RUC does not want to lose its name. Equally, at the time of reorganisation of the Army, in some cases British regiments also lost their names through mergers. They did not like it, but they accepted it. It did not imply any denigration of the traditions, courage, VCs and other decorations earned by those regiments; it was simply a necessary change. I urge those who are concerned about the name to look at the precedent set by people from those regiments.
In future where will the name the "Police Service of Northern Ireland" appear? Will the name be used widely?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is the noble Lord sure that the analogy he draws between amalgamated regiments and the change of name of the RUC is an accurate one? After all, there is no doubt about the national allegiance of an amalgamated regiment. The implication is that those who support the change of name and the new badge will refuse allegiance to the Crown and that we are accommodating them.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that the noble Viscount goes rather far down that path. In quoting that example I seek merely to demonstrate that painful decisions had to be made and accepted by those associated with British regiments with long traditions. There is some analogy to be drawn between that difficulty and the difficulty faced by people who respect the long tradition of the RUC.
672
I asked where the new name of the service would appear. At the moment police vehicles do not bear the name of the force. For example, I do not believe that in London police vehicles bear the name "Metropolitan Police". The name RUC is not in evidence on vehicles anyway, so I am not sure that the change is as significant as some make out. I understand the concern expressed by nationalist politicians about the use of "PSNI" for operational purposes and not others. However, I am also aware of the difficulty that faces the Secretary of State who has had little margin for manoeuvre.
I am conscious that I have gone on for longer than I intended. I should like to make one key point and then bring my remarks to a close. One wonders whether anything else can be done to seek a more positive attitude to this legislation on the part of nationalist politicians, particularly the SDLP. Many say that they want more of the Patten recommendations in the Bill. Although I realise the difficulties, I wonder whether there is any way in which the Bill can provide future flexibility. The oversight commissioner, for example, has a particular remit. Could his remit be widened to give a little more flexibility to enable him to make recommendations to the Secretary of State about further managerial changes that may be introduced into police operations in Northern Ireland? I put that question to elicit the Government's view on it.
Finally, the council of the isles is a new structure to be set up under the Good Friday agreement. I hope that policing can be on the agenda of future council meetings. That would enable all of the territories — England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—to discuss joint problems and approaches to policing within that council.
I am aware that the Secretary of State has endeavoured to meet many criticisms. I am also aware that many remain outstanding. I hope that they can be resolved and that, in the fullness of time, the SDLP will find it possible to be more supportive of this legislation than it has been able to be so far. I see the reform of policing in Northern Ireland as one of the biggest challenges of the peace process and an essential ingredient in making the Good Friday agreement effective to ensure long-lasting peace for the people there.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I recognise that the hour is late and we have covered a good deal of the ground. It is not my intention to weary noble Lords any more than is necessary by regurgitating what has already been dealt with. However, I should like to pay a great tribute to a number of noble Lords who have spoken tonight. I refer to my noble friends on these Benches. I also refer to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—he is not present at the moment—who is a gentleman of very high integrity. I spent 20 years trying to keep him out of this building, because the noble Lord would regard himself as one of my political opponents. However, his

673
contribution tonight on the issue of the police must be taken very seriously, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Before I move on to a number of topics in this debate, on a night like this I should like to provide the Government Front Bench with a little relief. I pay tribute to the Minister for one matter which pleases me very much. The noble and learned Lord said today in response to a Question for Written Answer that the Government now recognise the plight of police widows and the difference between those who were widowed before 1992 and those widowed after. I should like to dwell on that for a moment or two. To be fair to the Minister, when I discussed this matter with him on a number of occasions he was most sympathetic and understanding. I am ashamed that I was not aware of the circumstances of these gallant ladies until recently. In fairness, when it was put to the Minister he recognised the situation immediately.
This matter was drawn to our attention by a series of articles in the Belfast Telegraph written by the UK's regional feature writer of the year, Gail Walker. She is one of the best known and best established feature writers in Northern Ireland. She drew attention to the plight of widows. I seek the indulgence of the House to highlight one case which is humbling and shows how much we owe to the RUC itself and officers' families. In last night's edition of the Belfast Telegraph Gail Walker profiles the case of a woman who has been widowed for 31 years and is in receipt of a police pension. After inflation, that pension is now £137 a month. I am ashamed of that and the fact that I was unaware of it. To be fair to the Minister, he has taken the matter on board and appointed Mr John Steele, a gentleman of high integrity who is known to me, to look into these matters and report back at the end of October.
With the Minister's permission, I should like to put the case to Mr Steele on behalf of the small group of widows who have been kept by us in penury. Their only sin—it is no sin—was to lose their loved ones who were protecting me so that I could sleep at night, and protecting all of us in no matter which part of the kingdom. That is a salutary lesson for us all. I know that the Minister will join me in saying that it behoves us to look at those who protect us in a different light. A few lines from Rudyard Kipling always come to mind on this issue:
"The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace,
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot".
That is something we should remember about all those people who protect us and look after us, whether in the RUC or the Army.
I support changes in organisations. There must be changes in the RUC if and when we move towards a peaceful society in Northern Ireland. I do not think that noble Lords on these Benches or anywhere else would disagree with that. I still have reservations. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, referred to the state of society in Northern Ireland and debated whether we
674
have a true state of peace. Ninety-five per cent of the Bill is excellent. However, 10 per cent is badly flawed and will be subject to much scrutiny in Committee and later stages.
On the arguments about the 50/50 recruitment issue I make only one point. As the noble Lord, Lord Eames, knows, I am associated with one of the major grammar schools in Northern Ireland. Because it is classified as a state grammar school everyone who goes there is classified as Protestant—yet we do not know what proportion are not Protestant. I suspect that it could be 15 to 20 per cent. But the question is not asked; it is not relevant. An education is supplied. Those people will be disadvantaged if one adopts the 50/50 arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the definition of a Roman Catholic. Is he someone who goes to mass? Is he a Roman Catholic if he is a lapsed Roman Catholic? If he is a lapsed Roman Catholic, is he eligible only for the part-time police? Where do we stop this nonsense? There is an honourable, fine, small Jewish community in Northern Ireland which has given great service to the community, including the police force. Where are they in all of this?
Like all noble Lords who have spoken, I want to see more members of the minority Roman Catholic community in the RUC. I join with others in paying tribute to the work that they have done. But 50/50 recruitment is not the way. I suspect that that measure will be heavily attacked at a later stage.
My noble friend Lord Rogan discussed the business of district boards. He is right. It is an issue which will be addressed in due course.
The name and the badge are emotive issues. We should not underestimate their importance. We want politics and police separated. At this point in time they are not. While the various relationships of politics and police in Northern Ireland are still intertwined, it is important to remember that at this point in time the Good Friday agreement and the executive are not stuck together with superglue. They can come apart. For instance, too much stress on the community that I represent and the house of cards could come down. I fire that warning shot in the air.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, after the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I shall say little or nothing about the strategy of the IRA. It has been covered. However, because of the security situation over the past 30 years, the RUC has had to develop a counter-insurgency capacity and to operate, unlike any other police force in the UK, as an armed force which is itself a prime target of the paramilitaries. It is recognised as the most dangerous police force in the world in which to serve. It is also, despite that necessary extension of its role, one of the police forces of the United Kingdom. Incidentally it is the front line for the UK and it has special tasks.

675
The Belfast agreement recognised the choice of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to maintain the Union. The RUC is thus one of the legitimate manifestations of British sovereignty in Northern Ireland, just as the Garda is of the Irish State.
The Belfast agreement also states that the objective is,
"As early a return to normal security arrangements as are consistent with the level of threat".
The Patten report also recognises that the implementation of the report must depend on how the security situation develops. We have not yet developed that peaceful environment. Do I need to remind the House of Omagh or of the bomb threat in London this year? The hydra-headed IRA, as Gerry Adams famously said, has not gone away and the loyalists are making their own unwelcome contribution to the threat to the peace. One visit, two years after the agreement was signed, to an IRA arms cache by two distinguished men who are scarcely expert in assessing armaments does not balance the scales when, in the other scale, we see several hundred tried and convicted murderers freed into the communities where the families of their victims live. We see no decommissioning and in my view very little likelihood of it, since it remains the bargaining chip that Sinn Fein/IRA will and must use to extract yet further concessions. It is called "a creative climate for change". Sinn Fein/IRA might be said to have created a modern version of jam tomorrow, or a perversion of a scheme under which poorer families buy furniture and are given two years to pay, only in the IRA version we pay first for what we are never to receive.
When I say "we", I believe that I am speaking for many of the people of Northern Ireland for we are all citizens of the same country. But we, here, do not suffer as they do from the consequences of the steady appeasement under both governments which has continued and of which parts of this Bill are the latest manifestations. I wait with interest to see what further concessions are to be made as the Bill goes through, as a result of the meetings between British and Irish officials which were reported to be taking place in London two weeks ago to consider what more could be done to appease the nationalists. The Minister indicated that he expected further changes to be made to the Bill here. I wonder whether that is what he meant.
The Bill is premature. We should not be demobilising, or at the very least disarming our frontline troops, the police, when the war is far from over. And we are not bound to do so, even by the Belfast agreement. Northern Ireland is not yet a normal, peaceful society and we must ensure that the same mistakes are not made again in terms of accelerated devolution. We are not yet ready, as the agreement requires,
"in the context of ongoing implementation of the relevant recommendations, to devolve responsibility for policing and justice issues".
and particularly not after consultation with the Irish Government. We should not forget, either, that the Sinn Fein/IRA notion of complying with the
676
agreement so far is clearly to say that their only policy is to abolish the RUC completely—presumably to replace it with a people's police. Their attitude does not augur well for a 50/50 police force and they should be challenged about this. We must strongly support Clause 52 of the Bill which protects the chief constable's right to report to the Secretary of State, and not the board, on issues where national security and related matters are involved. For the board, 10 of whose 19 members are to be nominated by the Assembly, is already a predominantly political body, a microcosm of the Executive. So far, the Government's own implementation plan stands firm on no devolution of national security, but for how long?
Festina lente, hasten slowly, should be our approach to any measures that weaken our only defence against a still active terrorist threat. We should firmly reject any proposals which might tend to weaken the efficiency of the Special Branch, as is envisaged in the Government's implementation plan. We should also ensure the continued accountability to Parliament proposed by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, with reference to Clause 46(3) on recruitment, Clause 49 and Clause 52—the sensitive issue of emblem and flag—where the committee advocates the affirmative procedure.
As the Government have chosen to accept and to translate into legislation a report which has sometimes treated the RUC as a political football rather than a highly professional and valuable police force, they must consider carefully the wider political impact of how the Bill is handled. As it started as a political issue, we have to consider it in political terms. Many of the recommendations made in the Patten report and reviewed in the plan are sensible. Many are welcomed by the force. Some of them, such as community policing on a larger scale, were already operating. Where the Government risk failing is in forgetting what the agreement—usually their bible—says:
"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes".
Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The RUC itself, and not just its badge, is such a symbol, not for an angry minority but for the majority of the people in Northern Ireland.
Fortunately, Clause 52 of the Bill reserves to the Secretary of State the right to make regulations as to emblems and flags. When the time comes for those decisions they will send a very potent signal.
But meanwhile the man in the street looks round and sees the continuing brutal intimidation of the paramilitary—and the Prime Minister, when he pledged no more violence after the agreement, included the beatings and the exile. The mart in the street is living in a world where, since the Belfast agreement was signed, there have been 215 shootings and mutilations, 507 beatings, 2,579 families rehoused because of intimidation and 1,932 families exiled for ever overnight from their homes in Northern Ireland on the arbitrary decision not of the law but of the paramilitaries.

677
Into that world a large number of killers have now been released. An alien government, the Irish Government, can, by agreement, intervene and claim the right to be consulted on how the police force of those Northern Ireland citizens should be recruited and run. That is very different from the existing and excellent co-operation between the Garda and the RUC. That Irish Government have presumed in the past to negotiate with Sinn Fein/IRA on reductions of our troops. That Government would like all issues of policing and justice to be devolved to a body, the Assembly, where the mortal enemies of that force, who openly wish to destroy it, are represented and have Ministers.
Northern Ireland is full of victims, past and present, of the paramilitaries, many of whom, including members of the RUC and the reserves, received derisory compensation for often terrible injury. So far, the Government will not consider retrospective changes in compensation. Many of the pensions are derisory, too. Someone of the age of 21 will not have clocked up many pension years. However, I welcome what the Minister had to say about new developments on that front.
I hope that we shall examine more closely in Committee exactly what the redundancy terms are to be for the many experienced RUC officers being offered voluntary retirement to make way for the presumed new intake of "persons treated as Catholics" to make up the required 50 per cent quota. What happens if that quota is not reached? Who does the work? I wonder whether noble Lords have considered sufficiently—if not, we must do so—how training will be carried out if too many experienced officers are lost too soon.
Meanwhile, the man in the street sees that the Government so far have spent £12.5 million on the Bloody Sunday inquiry and estimate that a further £19.4 million will be needed in 2000–01. On the other hand, victims are to have £3 million over a two-year period and £1 million for a memorial fund. The European Union Peace Programme, interestingly, is giving £2.8 million to victim groups—very good—but £4.3 million to ex-prisoner groups. Therefore, the man in the street sees how the victims are valued.
Meanwhile, many of those brave and experienced officers who have not done a bad job protecting the community from terror and have suffered while doing it—that includes many Catholic officers—are to retire to make way for an as yet unsecured quota of "persons to be treated as Catholics". It is generally recognised that what has prevented Roman Catholics from joining the RUC—although some brave men have—is intimidation, peer pressure, loss of contact with family and friends and the permanent threat to the lives of their families. That was the decision of the House of Commons Select Committee on the recruitment of the RUC. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what imposing a quota will do and yet more interesting to see whether Sinn Fein/IRA will allow anyone to seek to be a part of that quota.
678
It is worth noting also that under Clause 45 both the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order and the Race Relations Act (Northern Ireland) will have to be amended or disregarded. When one looks at the RUC as a highly professional organisation which has already done so much to develop and change, it is clear that the issue is partly one of timing. It is simply that the time is not yet.
The RUC has accepted much of this Bill and much of what it is trying to achieve. There is no doubt of its earnest wish to be a fully accepted force of law and order in a peaceful community and to prevent the paramilitaries from keeping their own arbitrary and brutal order. Incidentally, I find it extremely difficult to understand why the SDLP is not able to encourage people into the RUC. How does it expect things to change if that does not happen? Because of that, we must support the RUC's efforts to make things work.
However, we must also make no more concessions that threaten its professional task. We must recognise that it takes two to tango. We must wait until the conditions of peace obtain before we take irrevocable steps. Unless and until Sinn Fein/IRA abandons its present uncompromising position and in its turn delivers the decommissioning without which there can be no peaceful, normal world, we must give no more ground and we must help the Secretary of State to call Sinn Fein/IRA's bluff whenever he needs to do so. He did it once with very good results. I should like to see it happen again from time to time. He is defending something vital, valuable and irreplaceable. In my view, the only acceptable reason for changes in the Bill at the behest of the nationalists is that they are acceptable, valuable and useful operationally and professionally and not for political reasons.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I say at the start how much I appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who spoke with his wealth of recent ministerial experience. I know that he had many contacts not only with farmers but also with policemen.
Your Lordships will possibly have noticed from this evening's debate that there can be little doubt that Northern Ireland has been, and still is, a deeply divided society. The divisions relate to religious beliefs and to political aspirations. They are often so deeply entrenched as to affect individual and group perceptions of identity. In such a society, policing is almost bound to be a highly contentious issue.
In considering the future of the police service, your Lordships' House is at a slight disadvantage. I say that because the nationalist Irish tradition is almost totally unrepresented here, whereas the Unionist Irish tradition is rather strong. That imbalance becomes

679
somewhat greater when Unionists, sitting as Cross-Benchers, sometimes combine with Conservatives to present a case. That is why I should like—
Lord Laird: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is a pity that people of the nationalist tradition in Northern Ireland do not take up seats that are offered to them in the House of Lords?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord will encourage them to do so.
Lord Laird: But does the noble Lord agree with me?
Lord Hylton: Up to a point.
I should like to make a double appeal, first to your Lordships and, secondly, indirectly to the two main political traditions in Northern Ireland. In considering the Bill, I trust that it will be possible to bear in mind the principles underlying the Belfast agreement: consent and the upholding of the human rights of the whole population. If we can always seek the common good of all, despite the many fears and distrusts that still exist, we shall make progress.
Everyone needs the services of the police at some point in their life. They will be grateful when a missing child is rescued or help comes quickly after a car crash. Not everyone will be wholly satisfied, but we should seek solutions which meet real human needs and which try to maximise the win-win outcomes.
It will be important to distinguish between the symbolic, identity-related issues, which are divisive by nature, and the practical issues, around which it should be possible to build consensus and common acceptance of a remodelled police service.
Concerns have been expressed that the Bill waters down the recommendations of the Patten commission. I trust that the published implementation plan and the appointment of a distinguished and neutral oversight commissioner go some way to allay those concerns. Accountability will be a key principle of the future system, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has already explained clearly. It will be helpful in Committee to strengthen the powers of the police board and the ombudsman, particularly their powers of inquiry.
I note the reorganisation of the police service in units corresponding with the existing district council areas. I trust that district police partnerships will build on the successes of local partnerships' dealings with the European Union's peace and reconciliation funds. The DPPs are likely to be crucial to the acceptance at local level of the new police service. For that reason, we shall have to look carefully in Committee at the proposed disqualifications in Schedule 3(8), which exclude from membership anyone who has ever received a prison sentence anywhere. The drafting seems to be contrary to the existing law on the rehabilitation of offenders. I know a number of ex-prisoners who do excellent work in a variety of community organisations. Others have been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly or to district councils. I am glad that the Northern Ireland Association for
680
Care and Resettlement of Offenders, of which I have the honour to be president, has already drafted an amendment, the text of which I can supply to Ministers, to mitigate that total bar.
Local community restorative justice is outside the terms of the Bill, but it has already been successfully pioneered in Unionist and nationalist areas. I emphasise that it is not a replacement for police services, but rather a complement and supplement to them. It involves offenders and troublemakers, as well as those aggrieved or victimised. It enables damage to be repaired, restitution to be made for offences, and relationships to be healed. What is more, it often works much more quickly than traditional police and court procedures.
I wish the Bill well. I am glad that there will be a long pause for reflection before the Committee stage. The Bill can and will be significantly improved. I repeat my earlier plea that we should examine it in the light of the common good of the whole of Northern Ireland. We should guard against any dilution of the Bill, remembering the advice of the Patten commission:
"We counsel strongly against cherry-picking from the report, or trying to implement major elements in isolation from the others".
9.25 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, we have had in this debate some powerful and moving speeches from noble Lords who have lived all their lives in the Province of Northern Ireland. I thought long and hard about taking part in this debate at Second Reading of the Bill, as I have much less experience of the Province than almost all the contributors to the debate. However, although I have never lived in Northern Ireland, it has featured strongly in my past. My father was born in Belfast. Sadly, my memories of that beautiful part of the island of Ireland are not all joyous.
Growing up in the south of the island of Ireland, I was always conscious that north of the Border there were stresses and strains of a nature that I was unable to comprehend. Listening to adults talking, I heard tales of bombings, arson attacks, people having to move to other parts of the United Kingdom or to the south. To an impressionable child, this was more than slightly frightening.
That, of course, was a long time before the events of 1969. Many people do not realise that, to a greater or lesser extent, the troubles have been part of the island for almost the whole of the 20th century. Indeed, we have this evening heard a passionate speech about that fact from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. It was a very depressing speech, with almost no hope, and I can absolutely understand why. But now I want to believe that there is a real chance that the Province can and will be seen as the magical and peaceful place that it should and could be. This may seem utterly unrealistic, but please let us be hopeful. It requires genuine goodwill, a sense of repentance for past wrongdoings on all sides, and an attitude of change, encompassed by the words, "Today is the first day of the rest of our lives". This may be difficult; it is not

681
impossible. I believe that the police in Northern Ireland can play an absolutely pivotal role in this regard.
We all recognise that, rightly or wrongly, the police force in Northern Ireland has been perceived—and I stress the word "perceived"—as being aligned to one section of the community. This has to change. It is imperative that all sections of the community should regard the police force as utterly reliable, supportive of justice, fair and belonging to them.
Living in the United Kingdom for the greater part of my life, the very presence of a policeman or a policewoman instils in me a sense of security. I instinctively know that they are there to protect me. It is my fervent wish that every inhabitant of Northern Ireland should feel the same. The police have to be seen to be a part of every section of the community. When they are, my wish will be well on the way to being granted, but there are no fairy godmothers to make it happen.
As a committed Christian, I fundamentally believe that only through the working together of the separate members of the Christian churches can this happen. I am not, of course, excluding members of other faiths, or indeed of none. But the fact is that much the greater part of the current suspicion and latent (and not so latent) animosity in the Province derives from a conflict between the two main branches of the Christian Church. It is surely time for both to adopt a forward-looking approach and to support the police in such a way that their respective flocks will do likewise.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, called upon the Roman Catholic Church effectively to stand up and be counted. The power of the Roman Catholic Church is still massively influential in the nationalist community. It is in the potentially powerful position of being an overwhelming force for good, if it would enthusiastically encourage recruitment from its flock into the police.
The generations of my father and grandfather have long since gone. There is a new, lively, world-aware generation in Northern Ireland which can be encouraged to think about the police as a real career opportunity—an opportunity not only for personal advancement but also an opportunity to do something for others. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church could be that encourager. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already referred to that.
The Roman Catholic Church has rightly on occasions been vociferous in its condemnation of the past demeanours of the police. Now is the time to show Christian forgiveness, always remembering the stricture:
"Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord",
and to look ahead. The past is past; the future lies before us. Let us not allow the sins of the past to be visited time and time again. I have always believed that one must look to the past to acknowledge those sins; learn from them; and then, for everyone's sake, forget them. I sincerely hope that the Roman Catholic Church can feel able to give a lead in that.
682
What must be avoided, of course, is an over-identification of one part of the Christian Church with an attempt to get the nationalist community to consider the police as a career choice. All church leaders—not just the cardinal, the archbishop and the bishops—should together take a stand to encourage all sections of the community to identify with the police and to see them as a respected, necessary and supportive band of people who can instil the feelings of security which I have already described.
This month, we had the experience of seeing the leader of the Protestant Church, the noble Lord, Lord Eames, denouncing the attacks on the RUC at Drumcree. I just wonder why Cardinal Archbishop Brady did not do likewise. Perhaps he felt he could not support the noble Lord. What a pity that is. That would have send a powerful message to the whole community.
I feel passionately that the answer to unblocking the history of years of suspicion and doubt lies with the recruitment of a much greater number of people from the nationalist community into the police force. It will be difficult to achieve that. I make a plea that quotas should not be employed. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, made the case against quotas. They are almost always a failure. One has only to look at the history of positive discrimination based on quotas for women in senior positions in the United States. That is not a happy story. Targets are a different matter and they should encourage new recruits who may not apply if they feel that they are merely part of the numbers game of quotas.
Finally, I hope that the Roman Catholic Church will have the courage to encourage young people to aspire to a career in the police. This is truly a new beginning, a new chapter. Let us give it a chance.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I hope that the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, when passed, will have a great influence on the progress to a peaceful and law-abiding Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it has had a bad start. To drop the name "Royal Ulster Constabulary" has caused much hurt to the majority in both religions in Northern Ireland who have had a great regard and respect for the RUC and the steadfast manner in which it has for many years defended communities against the mindless attacks by the IRA.
Over the past fortnight, the RUC has acted similarly against absurd attacks by so-called loyalists, who have sought to bring the Province to a standstill. More than 100 members of the RUC were injured by those so-called loyalists.
This week there is also great concern about the early release of prisoners. Many, both IRA and loyalist, were convicted of the most horrendous crimes. They will all be released at the end of this week and it will be surprising if some of them at least do not return to what they do best.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was quite right to emphasise the feeling of pain in the Province this week. There are few people who have not some connection

683
with casualties or had relations and friends murdered during the Troubles. That early release of prisoners brings it all back. Unfortunately, the fact that we are no longer treated as part of the United Kingdom helps to promote that feeling among the pro-Unionist majority in Northern Ireland. The Government will do everything that Sinn Fein and the IRA ask, despite receiving nothing in return. It seems that we now have a joint authority for the government of Northern Ireland, with the Dublin Government having considerable influence on our affairs, which is most unhelpful. Of course, that is no way to treat citizens in the United Kingdom, but at the moment people feel pain and despair, which is not good. Note should be taken of that and steps should be taken to improve the situation.
It is a credit to those who feel pain and despair that they know that violence is not the answer despite the fact that the Government have shown the IRA that it pays. I ask the Secretary of State to take care that he does nothing to make it more difficult for our First Minister or Deputy First Minister of the Executive. We desperately need local democracy in Northern Ireland and, without the Executive and the Assembly, the Good Friday agreement would soon unravel.
I believe that it is ironic that by removing the name "RUC", the Government are in breach of the Good Friday agreement. Article 1, Section V requires full respect for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.
This Bill assumes that the police service will work within communities at peace and it sets out in great detail how organisations and relationships will be set up. I believe that it is too early for that and I am glad that we have two months between now and Committee stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, spoke accurately and feelingly about the terrorist organisations that control areas, the so-called loyalist and IRA organisations. They are determined to retain control of those areas. First, the IRA has a political objective. Although officially there is a ceasefire, it is doing its utmost to ensure that it controls areas in order to prove that the Province is ungovernable. I see no sign that that attitude is changing.
In addition, the financial rewards from racketeering and drug running are very attractive. Perhaps that says something about the difference between the IRA and the loyalist terrorists: loyalist terrorists control drug running themselves, but the IRA franchises it. The brutality of both paramilitaries makes it difficult for the police to obtain evidence to convict the criminals responsible. It may not be generally known that since April 1998, when the agreement was signed, six murders have been attributed to the IRA and 12 to the loyalists, and 87 shootings and mutilations have been attributed to the IRA and 128 to the loyalists. Beatings and hospitalisations are different and 281 are attributed to the IRA and 276 to the loyalists. The IRA have exiled 917 and the loyalists have exiled 1,015.
Those horrendous figures have been collected by Vincent McKenna who works day and night for the Human Rights Commission. The figures are not
684
known to the police because they do not hear of many of these instances. I forgot to mention the 2,579 families who have had to be rehoused elsewhere due to intimidation.
Those figures indicate the scale on which the terrorist organisations on both sides control their districts. The first objective must be to overcome and break up those areas before proper peaceful policing can take place.
I have been surprised that that situation has been ignored by the Northern Ireland Office. But I was pleased on Tuesday of this week when the Secretary of State spoke out about the menace of terrorists. It must be the first task for the police and the community generally.
The Bill contains serious flaws. But they have been highlighted and well explained by other noble Lords. The 50/50 quota system is reverse discrimination, which is illegal in the UK. It is also unworkable for the reasons already explained. Whatever encouragement is given to Catholic young people to join the police, they will not want to join immediately for fear of being set upon by those committed to violence. So it is unlikely that 50 per cent of recruits will come from the Catholic quarter and therefore the number of recruits coming from other quarters must be reduced accordingly. The system is unworkable.
If we have 29 district police partnerships in the form proposed in the Bill, we will in fact have 29 police services. I am sure that we need to work on that in Committee.
I listened with great interest to the debate. We heard some excellent contributions from many noble Lords. But I humbly suggest that your Lordships' attention to the Committee stage of this Bill will be necessary. There is much work to be done on this Bill, as has been done on other Bills recently brought before this House.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Eames: My Lords, the hour is late and great patience has been exhibited throughout the House. I shall therefore be as brief as I can.
It was in 1964 that the then Attorney-General of the United States, the late Robert Kennedy, attempted to philosophise on the links between society and policing in a lecture to the American Bar Association. In the course of that lecture, he said:
"Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on".
Rarely has any legislation on policing before this House brought nearer the surface than at the present moment the connection between the society that the police seek to serve and the necessities of that police service. For we heard tonight vivid explanations of the problems of Northern Ireland, among which many of us live. We heard descriptions of how those problems arose and there have been many grave attempts in your Lordships' House to describe the solution.
Perhaps I may be a little objective and ask the House to consider not just the past, but the future. I do not believe that a more sobering lesson comes out of the

685
past 30 years for all of us in Northern Ireland than this: in relation to policing, what the whole of the community of Northern Ireland asked of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was more than any other police force could reasonably be asked to respond to, to exhibit or to carry out. I believe that the whole of the community asked of the police force what it was either unable or unwilling to solve itself. Time and again, stretched between the extremes of two divided communities, also subject day and night to the philosophy and sophistication of one of the most well-organised terrorist organisations in the world, is it any wonder that mistakes were occasionally made that should not have been made? But, in the cause of natural justice, is it any wonder that this House should put beside those mistakes a tale of intimidation, injury, murder and suffocation of rights, not only to policemen and women but also to their families?
I speak with some feeling because, as many noble Lords will gather, most of my leadership has been exercised within that community. Until the day I die, I shall not forget my memories of the numerous funerals of policemen and women that I have had to conduct with my clergy. I have had to get to know the children who would grow up without a father and the young widows. Here I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, and to the Minister in this respect. I speak of a persistence with which I am very familiar because of the school that he attended; namely, the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, in relation to police widows. It will be excellent news for Northern Ireland when it is known that the noble and learned Lord has responded in the way that he has.
I have also had to try to bring what I hope is Christian pastoral care to young adults who were, perhaps, aged about three or four when their father was taken from them simply because of the uniform that he wore. Therefore, is it any wonder that whenever I think back to those 30 years that have been referred to so often tonight, I have to say again—indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, reminded us some time ago—that, so often, the RUC was asked to do what the whole of society could not do? That must be borne in mind in as objective a way as possible when we consider this police Bill.
Am I alone tonight in detecting something close to hypocrisy from any part of the community which claims loyalism, which claims allegiance to its dying breath to the British Crown, which wants to bring to the attention of the world the injustice of the removal of a badge or a name and, yet, is silent when the effigy of a policeman is burned in a bonfire; and when families of policemen who are on duty at Drumcree are chased out of their homes in the name of loyalism? The noble Baroness who spoke a few minutes ago was kind enough to refer to the actions that I took at Drumcree this year. There was quite a cost to pay. But I am absolutely convinced that the way forward is not the way of dragging the name of "loyalism", whatever way it is defined, into the muck and mire by actions such as those that I have described.
686
Therefore, when people talk about the sacrifice paid by the Royal Ulster Constabulary over the past 30 years, I beg noble Lords to put that in its context; to put it into its human context, because they are real people. They have their own fears, their own financial worries and their own education problems for their children. We have asked the RUC—I include myself in this; indeed, I venture to suggest, all of us living in Northern Ireland are as guilty as I am—to do things that society either did not wish to do, or did not have the courage to achieve for itself. That is the police force. That is the police family that is under scrutiny in this House tonight and will be so, again, when we reach Committee stage.
So what do we say about that? In preparation for this debate I talked extensively to Unionists and to nationalists and, yes, to republicans. I have talked to policemen of all ranks and ages; and, indeed, with all experiences. I have also spoken to police widows. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that the reactions were varied. However, I am convinced that a substantial number of current members of the police force in Northern Ireland would say, "We regret deeply and we feel hurt that we may lose our badge and our name, but we are professionals who have come through the fire and the fury of the past 30 years. We long to have the confidence of the whole community and to get on with a professional job for the good of that whole community". That is the test of the legislation before us. That poses the question that we should ask: does the legislation take us further down that road?
There is also the question of the perception of the community. It is a divided community. A book was written not so long ago about the history of the RUC entitled A Force Under Fire—what an understatement! Many noble Lords may have read that book. In it Chris Ryder spoke vividly of the kind of emotional reaction that I have tried to describe tonight. He states that if there is a future for the current RUC in Northern Ireland, it is a future that will go forward through various stages of change. I thought of those words when one of the widows to whom I spoke last week said, "Of course, I want to see the police move forward, but please God, tell them in London to be careful as you walk on my memories".
I believe that this past summer Northern Ireland has taken a turn for the better. That may sound strange in the light of the pessimism of which we have heard a little too much tonight. But I am conscious that, bad and dangerous though the situation has been this past summer, we have turned some kind of a corner. However, I beg Her Majesty's Government not to consider for one moment that we have reached the Utopia of lasting peace. As we saw at Drumcree earlier this month, there is still the threat of the paramilitary forces, and they are not all republican.
I am sorry that a certain noble Baroness is not sitting on the Back Benches, for she would have spoken vividly to us tonight of the Shankill. We know that the intimidation that was exhibited in the Shankill among loyalist paramilitaries at the height of the Drumcree

687
crisis has not gone away. We also know from the experience of RUC officers that the intimidation continues in many instances.
As I have tried to illustrate, I have a personal reason for saying something about the experience of the police. I was disappointed when I read the Patten report. That sentiment has already been expressed this evening by several noble Lords. I did not expect Chris Patten to use colourful language in paying tribute to those who had died or been horribly injured in service; I just looked for recognition. But I am sorry to say that I did not find it. That is the reason that I paid tribute just now to the work of some noble Lords with regard to widows who have been dreadfully penalised.
The Belfast Telegraph of 21st July stated:
"We have far from arrived at the utopian situation whereby we can say terrorism is over evidenced by the displays of loyalist paramilitary strength this July, the continuing failure of the IRA to meet the requirements for decommissioning and the on-going threat of dissident republicanism".
It is for that reason that I want to give voice at this moment—for they are not here to do it—to those who are not politically or party politically oriented in Northern Ireland; to the ordinary, decent majority of Protestants and Roman Catholic people who would say and beg with us, "Please do not reduce the level of protection or the sophistication of that protection until we can sleep in our beds in peace". I cannot say it more strongly. As I have said, I do not speak in a party political sense; I speak for those I know and work with.
So much more has been said, and I shall not go over it again in what I want to say. The future Northern Ireland that so many of us pray for and work for with others is a Northern Ireland that is at peace with itself, at peace with its memories, at peace with its future, and, above all else, at peace without fear. But fear has not yet been removed from our Province and, as long as that maintains, we shall still look to the bravery of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to look after the society in which we live.
I wish to put two questions to the Minister in relation to the legislation. He will forgive me if I dwell on them before I conclude. First, does the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill lead us towards those demands for which the ordinary people are asking—a peaceful society? Secondly, is our community prepared to play its part in what Robert Kennedy spoke of as the,
"law enforcement it insists on"?
As a Churchman dedicated to reconciliation and committed to what I can do myself with others towards gaining a just society for Northern Ireland, perhaps I may mention briefly two aspects of the Bill. I refer first to recruitment. On 25th July, Mr Mandelson, the Secretary of State, said in my own city of Armagh:
"I am determined that the new Police Service of Northern Ireland, born out of and incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will mark a radical new beginning as the Patten report intended—the start of a journey which will lead to a service which will truly reflect Northern Ireland as a whole".
688
I can understand the thinking which has gone into the way in which the Patten report has been produced and the thinking that Her Majesty's Government have put forward in this legislation, but after very much thought—I underline that—I have to ask Her Majesty's Government: is quota more important than targets to aim for? Have the Government duly and adequately considered the European legal situation in this regard? I am rusty on all this now; I simply mention it.
I have seen the outline curriculum for training of the police service for the future. I am most impressed. It is enlightened, extensive and takes account of a pluralist society. I commend it.
However, on a more practical level, perhaps I may refer to the remarks that have been made about the influence of the Church. One of the finest moments for me in regard to my colleague, Archbishop Sean Brady in Armagh, was when he walked with me on the lawn in Hillsborough the day that the George Cross was awarded to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It was an action of bravery and I pay tribute to him for it.
But, as the noble Baroness reminded us, it is incumbent on all Church leaders in the society of Northern Ireland to ask about fundamental issues at this time; about what is their obligation in encouraging young men and women to join the police. Irrespective of its name; irrespective of its badge; irrespective of the society in which it serves; what is our Christian obligation in terms of community responsibility? I have no doubt what mine is. I simply say to my colleagues that they should think long and hard about what they can say.
My second point relates to accountability. That is the key to the misfortunes and problems of the RUC over the years. I have to ask myself whether the present legislation contains the potential to improve police accountability in Northern Ireland. I have to ask her Majesty's Government whether they really are satisfied that the policing board, as described in the terms of the legislation, can operate as a strong, independent and fully accountable body which will benefit every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland, to say nothing of the police themselves. That will come up in Committee. I simply put the pointer down in the context of what I have been saying.
Your Lordships have been very patient I want to wind up my remarks. It was Kennedy who said:
"every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on".
Many of us in the House tonight live and work and pray for the future of Northern Ireland. It deserves the highest possible standard of policing which truly reflects each tradition of its population. It deserves police accountability which is above suspicion. It deserves a police force which maintains the highest professional standards. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that those standards were already being examined before the Patten report. But Northern Ireland must never again ask its police to solve problems it is itself unable or unwilling to face. We must never again, by our own indifference or failure, allow one more police life to be lost simply because we did not remove our own divisions.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I rise in trepidation to speak about Northern Ireland and its proposed new police service. I say "in trepidation" because I look at the gallery and galaxy of speakers in tonight's debate whose knowledge of Northern Ireland is unparalleled and way beyond my reach. I am very aware, as one of my noble colleagues kindly put it, that I am not one of the usual suspects on the Northern Ireland speaking list. Indeed, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if during this speech I make a mistake, like Ali G, of confusing the RUC with the RAC.
But perhaps because I have no first-hand experience of living in or indeed of the policing of Northern Ireland, I can voice some of the thoughts of my fellow countrymen on the mainland—that absent majority who wish the people of Northern Ireland well but whose regular fare, as provided by the media, has been the diet of violence and mayhem of past years and more lately the scenes of politicians experiencing frustration in trying to implement the Good Friday agreement.
Even my pre-conceived notions about Northern Ireland took a knock on my one and only visit to the Province. It was for me an inspiring experience and one about which I want to tell your Lordships. Three years ago, as an MEP and associated with the British presidency of the European Union, I attended a conference in Belfast dedicated to the welfare of children and young people in Europe. One evening, the conference done, I left my hotel—the appropriately named Hotel Europa, reputedly the most bombed hotel in Europe—and crossed the street to the bar opposite, a bar seemingly devoted to young people half my age and younger. Perhaps I should add here that Lady Harrison is fully aware of my nocturnal wanderings, especially in search of truth, enlightenment and Guinness.
The bar was so crowded and so noisy that I could hardly hear myself order. Nevertheless, pint in hand, I fell into conversation with a young Protestant woman who doubtless pitied this grey-haired Englishman lost in Belfast. As we shouted at each other in conversation, she suddenly waved to a stranger across the crowded room. It was her boyfriend, a handsome Catholic lad who, she told me, was profoundly deaf. But—here is the rub, my Lords—she then conversed and communicated with her boyfriend using the sign language skills which she had picked up from her father, who worked with the hard of hearing.
That is the marvellous paradox. These two young people, from the two different traditions in Northern Ireland, had found a language in which to speak to each other across the divide; across the clatter and chatter of this packed bar. For me, these star-crossed lovers represented a symbol of hope for a better future and a peaceful Northern Ireland.
Our chance encounter concluded with her plea to me to tell my friends on the mainland that Northern Ireland's media image of guns and destruction was a distortion of the truth and failed to report the warmth and welcome of the people of Northern Ireland,
690
something I myself experienced at first-hand. I promised her that I would fulfil her request. I have recounted that story of this Juliet and her Romeo in one parliament. I do it in a second tonight.
The people of Northern Ireland need a police force, where all its citizens can go up to a policeman and ask the time; a police force which treats all its customers on a first come, first served basis; the kind of policing that we, on this side of the water, enjoy for the most part without giving the matter a second thought. At this point I place on record my profound awe and admiration of the job done by the RUC. No body of men or women could have traversed better the bitter 30 years of war that has riven the Province. The ultimate test of what I say is that I would not have had the courage to do what they have done. That their name should be enshrined in the title deeds of the PSNI is an unambiguous testament to that legacy. But out of the shell of such sacrifice and dedication must emerge something new and distinct; a modern police force in a modernising land. The pattern of change must be the Patten report; a police service which serves all its people; retains the confidence of all its people; and which, ultimately, in its make-up, reflects the diversity of its people and their traditions.
The ambition to achieve 50/50 recruitment in the new police service will feature strongly in our debates at the Committee stage. I look forward with your Lordships to playing a part in improving the Bill, which has already undergone constructive refinement in its passage through another place. We will need to look at the question of accountability of the new force. I applaud the fact that it will be the most scrutinised force in Europe, but I do hope that, in fulfilling these democratic imperatives, the police will still have time to police.
We will need to look at the role of the Secretary of State and his long-stop powers. I welcome the moves towards greater devolution. But we cannot absolve the Secretary of State from his responsibilities to the Treasury. The PSNI will be unique in the United Kingdom in being wholly funded by central government.
I salute the work of the Secretary of State and his team for the sensitive and sensible way in which they have gone about the task of implementing Patten. But I want to use my last few minutes in highlighting one other set of challenges confronting the new police service of Northern Ireland which might otherwise go unremarked. The new force must be a modern police force in a changing Britain and a developing Europe. Indeed, in its engagement with the challenge of Europe, including the single market, the PSNI has the opportunity to become the market leader, to show the way for other police forces in Britain and Europe to follow.
I shall explain. In the Belfast conference to which I alluded earlier, I was invited to speak on the subject of the safety of children in the single European market. It was thrilling to see Northern Ireland children visiting the conference mix and mingle with their contemporaries from across the European Union, but

691
the police know only too well how vulnerable are children and their families in a world of greater travel, change and rootlessness. A cornerstone concept of the single European market is of course the free movement of people, which brings new challenges to our police forces across the European Union.
The complementary concept of the free movement of goods also has implications for the police in the forms of smuggling, drugs and organised crime. Such challenges are particularly alive in Northern Ireland where such nefarious activities habitually use as cover the cloak of sectarian violence. The PSNI will need to be vigilant to new and intensified threats brought about by the deepening single European market and by the sweeping away of borders and barriers impeding the free flow of business, trade and commerce. In this, it will need to strengthen links, not only with the mainland police forces and the Garda, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dubs, but also with their continental counterparts.
In 18 months' time the arrival of euro notes and coins will furnish new opportunities for fraud and deception to be practised on an unsuspecting public. After all, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which shares a land border with Euroland. The new police force must be ready for the currency counterfeiters.
Inland tourism, an industry which grew by 27 per cent following the first ceasefire, and of great interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will require the protection of the police, guaranteeing the safety of foreign tourists who, incidentally, are likely to be the bearers of those self-same euro notes and coins.
Inward investment from the European Union, in the wake of the European Union grants that have funded peace initiatives— those were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—and economic reconstruction will continue to be secured for Northern Ireland only if there is a secure environment for such investment. The police are crucial to the economy. That cannot be said too often.
The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the PSNI will be pivotal in fostering change. Indeed, it is likely that the police service of Northern Ireland will be pioneers in the United Kingdom and in Europe in this welcome development.
Like others, I also foresee a leading role for retiring RUC officers to redirect their considerable skills, honed in the art of peacekeeping, in advising and participating with other continental police forces in the European Union and in NATO initiatives related to peacekeeping duties. The announcement made at the EU Lisbon Summit of the formation of a 5,000-strong EU peacekeeping police force may turn out to be the ideal vehicle for redirecting the skills and experience of RUC officers at the European level, while also abetting the task of equalising representation from the two traditions in the emerging PSNI. The putative EU police college for teaching serving officers may also be a new and welcome outlet for promoting change.
692
Finally, I am struck by the ambition of the European Union to recognise that diversity is strength. Ever closer union is built on recognising the histories, traditions and cultures of Europe's many different nations and regions. Am I alone in hoping that Northern Ireland and, indeed, all the people on the island of Ireland, growing in an expanding Europe, may also take the opportunity to do things together which strengthen local communities, while continuing to acknowledge and, indeed, celebrate the cultural diversity which is their inherent strength?
The new police service in Northern Ireland will be instrumental in bringing about that wished-for change by being truly a police force by the people, for the people and, indeed, of the people.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in contrast, I fear, to the two previous speakers, perhaps I may start on a slightly grating note by echoing the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I am not blaming any individuals, but it is somehow symbolic of the subconscious patronising attitude of metropolitan England towards Northern Ireland—I am not just thinking of the Guardian newspaper—that the debate on this extremely important Bill did not start until half-past six on virtually the last day of the term and was scheduled to follow mini-debates on what, objectively, were much less important topics. The result was that two or three distinguished noble Lords have had to scratch. I had a rather more relaxing engagement lined up for this evening and had not intended to speak—until I looked at the provisional list of speakers some days ago. It has since changed, but then there were extremely few English, Welsh or Scottish speakers on the list. I thought it vital that there should be at least one more representative from the rest of the United Kingdom to pay tribute to the brave men and women of the RUC and to deplore the effective consignment to history of that admirable institution.
The deplorable aspects of the Bill—I readily concede that it has a number of good points—have their origin in the Patten report. My views on the report would not be fit for your Lordships' tender ears. I was interested, when going through my files this morning, to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had the same reaction when she first saw it. But what can one expect, given the composition of the committee?
Can one imagine the French—a people who have pride in their nation and its institutions—contemplating for one single second allowing the Americans and the Italians to help dictate the future composition of the Corsican police force? As for the idea of the Americans allowing foreigners to reform the New York City or Los Angeles police forces, the mind boggles!
Of course, the Patten report is a fait accompli and, as such, cannot be ignored. But despite what republicans both north and south of the Border claim, no British Government are legally or by convention under any

693
obligation to accept the recommendations of a Royal Commission or any other sort of commission set up by government in full or with only a few technical amendments.
But the Government have gone even further than the Patten report in claiming that intimidation by the IRA and INLA plays only a subsidiary role in the reluctance of Catholics to joint the RUC. Frankly, that claim will not stand up. Just as hundreds of mainly Catholic members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were murdered, wounded and driven permanently from their homes by the IRA throughout Ireland 80 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, reminded us, so in the past 30 years intimidation has played a major role in deterring Roman Catholics from enlisting in the RUC.
Moreover—and this is highly significant—an opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph earlier this year (one of several polls which produced similar results) revealed that only 31 per cent of Roman Catholics found the RUC name and identity to be offensive. In other words, all the proposed hurtful changes to the name, badge and other symbols are designed to placate a mere 12 to 13 per cent of the population of the Province (those with strong republican traditions), totally ignoring the feelings of the 87 to 88 per cent who either positively want the status quo or at least are comfortable with it. In proportional terms, the 87 to 88 per cent whose feelings are ignored are equivalent to the population of apartheid South Africa 10 years ago who were black, coloured or Asian. In the same way, the views of the 13 per cent prevailed over the majority, which is an interesting statistic to ponder.
There are other worrying aspects of the Bill, many of which were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and others. A most interesting article by Eamonn McCann, who is not a Unionist of any description, appeared in yesterday's edition of the Independent. That article rather reinforces some of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. Mr McCann deplores the way in which government policy is, perhaps unwittingly, reinforcing sectarianism:
"The Belfast Agreement isn't a device for ending communal hostility, but for the more efficient management of it. It doesn't invite people to come together but promises to police them apart. The agreement … condemns us to communal existence for as far forward as it is possible to sec … Never in the history of Ulster … has the 'tribal' basis of our politics been so frankly acknowledged and arrangements put in place for its perpetuation".
For all its doubtless good intentions, I fear that the effects of this Bill, unless heavily amended, may simply reinforce that dangerous trend.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I hope that, despite the lateness of the hour, I may have leave to speak briefly in the gap. I had hoped to speak earlier but, to my great regret, duties connected with the call of students to the Bar in Middle Temple tonight made it absolutely obligatory for me to be there. I had very much feared that my perceived silence in this Second
694
Reading might be taken as indifference on my part to the future of the RUC. That is the last thing that I want because I owe the RUC far too much for that.
Tonight there is time for me to express only one thought, save to add my expression of immense gratitude at having had the opportunity to listen to many fine speeches in this debate. My principal hope is that whatever police service, under whatever name, emerges from this legislation it will none the less permit those who serve in it to find the motivation to be as professional, fair and brave as the RUC that I had the privilege to know.
I am sure that your Lordships will vividly remember the photographs—if your Lordships did not see it in the flesh—of the pageant in celebration of the centenary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Noble Lords may also recall a little earlier the sight of an RUC police constable receiving the George Cross. That police constable, Paul Slane, is known to me. Shortly before I arrived in the Province in 1992 he had lost both legs and sustained a severe injury to one arm. His companion female officer had been murdered beside him. After that I saw him in church frequently at Hillsborough—he was my neighbour—and I never forgot him. For me, he epitomises the courage of the RUC and the cost of its George Cross. I was deeply touched to receive a Christmas card from him last year. That is the kind of memory that we must keep well in mind as we focus in greater detail, as we shall, upon the detail of the Bill.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this has been a truly memorable debate in the tradition of debates on Northern Ireland. It has been blessed with some wonderful speeches, in particular that of the noble Lord, the Archbishop of Armagh, who reminded of us of the Christian principles involved in our thinking for the future and as regards the past.
It is not one of the most pleasant Bills I have had to deal with; in fact rather the opposite. However, the Government's handling of it has been appalling when one considers how many people's lives and emotions the Bill will touch. It might interest noble Lords to be reminded that the Patten report was published on 9th September 1999. On 11th July, last week, the Bill went to the Commons for Report stage and Third Reading. At that stage the Government, in their wisdom, thought fit to guillotine the Bill. That guillotine meant that only three people were able to speak at Third Reading. That excluded the First Minister for Northern Ireland.
Important government amendments were tabled in another place. Because of the guillotine they were not debated. We do not know whether the Government intend to reintroduce them. The Bill has not had a proper examination in another place. It is, therefore, difficult to know the Government's position on the Bill.
The Bill comes to your Lordships' House at the end of the last week before the Summer Recess, which is always a long and difficult week in the parliamentary

695
calendar. We had this afternoon a two-hour debate about files and office space. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, passed me a note during that debate which said,
"Filing cabinets (this debate)
v.
Lives (next debate)!!"
That sums up the situation.
I have been upset considerably by other matters which have come to my attention regarding the Bill. It might interest noble Lords to know that during the Committee stage in another place a delegate from the Irish Government, an official well known in this Palace, was in the gallery. The PPS to the Secretary of State was seen regularly to be discussing amendments with the member of the Irish Government. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. What right, I ask your Lordships, do the Dublin Government have to be directly involved in a Committee stage in this Palace of a Bill about Northern Ireland?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In view of the great importance of cross-Border co-operation for security, trade, tourism and almost any subject you like, I fail to see the impropriety of what he describes.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord fails to see it. I do not understand the connection between trade and the other issues to which he refers and the name, the hat badge or the recruiting figures of the RUC, or the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
My view is that where we are today, post the Good Friday agreement, is not where we would like to be. I believe that we have had far too much appeasement and far too big a part has been played by the Irish Government. The noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Rogan, mentioned that today.
Many issues have been raised which I hope will be the subject of amendments. Many noble Lords discussed quota versus target. When looking at the Bill and its proposals for the Northern Ireland police force, or the RUC, one must be realistic and look at the climate. Many noble Lords have said that they agree with much of the content of the Bill and the Patten report. However, in several places the report specified certain necessary timings; that certain situations had to prevail.
As was made clear by many noble Lords today, we do not have bombs and bullets in this country but we still have them in Northern Ireland. They are not apparently PIRA but the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and others. We have terrorism, whether we like it or not, but worse—we are talking about a Northern Ireland police force having to police what is probably the most difficult part of the UK to police, and not only because of the religious divides. There are serious turf wars between groups of paramilitaries, or former paramilitaries, and there are serious drug smuggling and fraud problems. In fact, there is every kind of crime in a small community. It has been said several times today that there are still no-go areas for the police force. That is one aspect of the climate.
696
A second aspect of the climate is that members of the communities want to be policed, want peace and believe in the Good Friday agreement but now, sadly, are frightened to join the force. Many noble Lords have said that the problems of balancing the police force with different parts of the community is not an unwillingness to join but the fact that people are frightened to join. But they have to join in order that change can take place.
We all believe in community policing. We would like to feel that the local constable was our friend. But if members of the communities in West Belfast are not allowed—I might go so far as to say are forbidden—to join the police force by their church and by the leaders, possibly being threatened with death or expulsion, how do we break the circle? We are setting a quota or target for a new police force, which is the same one but under a different name, with a different shape and guise and probably lower morale. Who knows how it will work out? That is the environment in respect of which we are passing this Bill. Noble Lords must take that on board.
As regards policing, terrorists on both sides, and in particular the republican terrorists at the time of the Good Friday agreement, had only one objective; that was to get rid of the police force in order to give them more freedom to move. There is little doubt about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, talked about policing in York. Clearly she has some expertise in that field. I hope that we shall hear more from her and have closer arguments in Committee when we try to improve the Bill.
As I believe was made clear by my noble friend Lady Seccombe, this party supports the Bill but does not support it in its present state. There are certain key areas on which we must concentrate. Most of them have been raised by noble Lords around the House. We have discussed timing and recruiting. With regard to the name of the police service, I should like the Minister to give us an undertaking as to where Clause 1 stands; that is, whether the Government intend to amend it further, as put forward and then withdrawn in the Commons. I hope that Clause 1 will be allowed to remain and that "operational" will not be more clearly defined than it is at the moment elsewhere in the Bill.
A number of points have been made with regard to the DPPs—the district policing partnerships. This party is absolutely determined that those who have a prison or police record should not be allowed to sit on the DPPs, whether they are from political parties or privately elected. The same applies to the policing board. We hope that the Government will not proceed with giving the DPPs more powers or the right to raise taxes in order to pay for external policing.
It has been a long debate. I fear that this has not been one of the greatest summing-up speeches in a debate in your Lordships' House. However, as I read my notes, I see that most of the points that I had intended to raise have been covered from all sides of the House. I merely suggest to the Minister that there

697
is much to be done between now and the Committee stage. I hope that in Committee the Government will come forward with amendments on the various parts of the Bill that we have discussed; in particular, the name, the DPPs, the membership of the partnership boards and the structure of the management of the new police service.
10.38 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that this has been a most impressive debate. It has been extremely informative and has, I believe, contained speeches of real power. It has indicated clear areas of concern in relation to the Bill to which no doubt we shall return in Committee. However, I believe that it is also fully recognised that the Bill contains many important building blocks for policing changes for which there appears to be widespread support on every side of the House.
Without doubt, one thing that came out loud and clear throughout the debate was the universal recognition of the sacrifice made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and by the relatives and families of its members. I hope that I made it clear in my opening remarks that the Government explicitly associate themselves with that recognition.
It was hard not to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Eames, the Archbishop of Armagh, who spoke openly and honestly about his relationship with members and former members of the RUC and their families.
It would not be wise or sensible for me to go through every point that has been raised in detail, but I should like to pick up on some of the main points and concerns to set a framework for our debates on subsequent stages.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and the noble Lord, Lord Eames, all urged us not to introduce the Bill too quickly and to have regard to the security situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that this does not need saying, but I assure the House that the Government take very seriously our responsibility to protect the people of Northern Ireland. We shall not shirk that responsibility.
Moreover, I reassure the House that we agree with Patten's recognition that a number of his recommendations would require an enabling security environment before they could be implemented. That is why we have specifically recognised in the implementation plan that a number of recommendations, including many of the specific ones mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, cannot be taken forward yet. The Secretary of State gave many assurances in another place that the Government would take and accept the advice of the chief constable on the timing of the implementation of those recommendations. I repeat those assurances.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, made a similar point, with a heartfelt plea that the counter-terrorist capability of the police in Northern Ireland
698
should not be impaired. That was supported by many noble Lords. The Government will not expose the people of Northern Ireland to any risk from terrorist violence. There is an acceptance and acknowledgement in the Belfast agreement that the police service in Northern Ireland:
"must be capable of maintaining law and order including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat and to public order problems. A police service which cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance".
The Government entirely agree with that. We will not run risks with people's lives. We will ensure that the police service is as capable of dealing with the problem of terrorism as with all other types of crime.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, raised the operational independence of the chief constable. We believe that the powers of the policing board do not detract from that. As Patten said:
"Neither the Policing Board nor the Secretary of State … should have the power to direct the Chief Constable as to how to exercise those functions".
The Government have therefore provided in Clause 33 that the police shall be under the direction and control of the chief constable. That meets the concerns of the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Eames, raised a slightly different point about the policing board. He said that accountability was the key. Looking at the issue from the other end of the telescope, he asked whether the board had sufficient powers. The Government have sought to implement Patten, including creating a new policing board that, as Patten said, is
"empowered and equipped to scrutinise the performance of the police effectively".
In another place, we accepted some changes to the powers that improved the Bill. Other powers, such as those on best value and inquiry, will be subject to further change in Committee in this House. We are determined to ensure that the board has the powers that it needs and that the operational independence of the chief constable is not unreasonably interfered with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, expressed concern about the membership of the board and also of the district policing partnerships. We think that it is important to recognise that the Government have included safeguards in relation to that, where these are appropriate. But the Bill is about inclusivity. We have to move forward. We have to accept the democratic wishes of the people. That is why Patten recommended the involvement of elected representatives. In doing so, he was reflecting his terms of reference as set out in the Good Friday agreement, which was overwhelmingly supported by the people of Northern Ireland and which states that there should be,
"clearly established arrangements enabling … political representatives, to articulate their views and concerns about policing and to establish publicly policing priorities and influence policing policies …".
On the appointment of the independents, I am aware particularly of concern in this area as regards district policing partnerships. In that respect, however, there are sensible and proportionate safeguards in the

699
Bill—for example, disqualification and removal provisions and the ability of the Secretary of State to issue a code on appointments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, raised in respect of the policing board—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister reply directly to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about whether people with a terrorist record would be excluded from the local police boards, the DPPs? Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether, if a man with no previous convictions for football hooliganism can be deprived of his passport merely on the grounds of intelligence, could not people also be excluded from such boards merely on the grounds of intelligence background.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister replies, will he bear in mind the number of completely reformed ex-terrorists?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was about to come to the specific question that has been asked. I will answer it in the order of my speech and deal also with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The question goes to the point about the policing board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, raised the question of best value. The provisions are technically very complex. We intend that the policing board should take the lead on best value and that the Secretary of State should intervene only in the event of default. However we will bring forward some amendments in Committee to try to clarify that position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, also raised issues about the power of inquiry and the obligation of the board to pay the costs of such an inquiry. The Government have accepted that the safeguards originally put on the board's exercise of the power were too great. As I said earlier, we will table amendments building on those already made in another place. We believe that the board should, as a matter of proper financial accountability, be responsible for meeting the costs of an inquiry. If the board finds that it needs additional funds, it can, of course bid for them.
Particular issues were raised by the noble Baroness on financial accountability arrangements. I think it would be much more appropriate to deal with those in Committee rather than now. Similarly, I shall deal in Committee with the point about the code of ethics.
Many noble Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Laird, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Eames, raised problems in relation to 50/50 recruitment. The questions related to a variety of points but they were to a large extent points along the lines of, "Do not have reverse discrimination, simply have a target" or, alternatively, "This is not practicably enforceable".
700
The Government's aim, and the aim set out yin the Good Friday agreement, which said that the police service should be representative of the society that it polices, is to have a police service which is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
It is acknowledged by all that the current composition of the RUC is unbalanced. Only 8 per cent of its officers are Roman Catholic. Affirmative action, or targets, would take too long. The Police Federation has calculated that it will take 30 years to achieve a balance through affirmative action alone. We want all community leaders to encourage people to join the police, as Patten recommended, but we are aiming for a combined impact to bring about a sharp upturn in Catholic representation in the short term.
Patten records in his report the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission that it is not enough to have a few Catholic recruits entering the service. As long as the figure is less than 15 per cent, they will never have a substantial influence on its culture. That is why the methodology that the Bill has adopted has been adopted.
We are quite satisfied that the provisions that we put forward are in accordance with the law, both in relation to European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, as to whether a terrorist record will mean exclusion from the board. Where a person has been sentenced to imprisonment, he will be excluded. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, approached the issue from a different direction. I should tell him that we do not believe that the time is right at the moment to relax those provisions which exist at present in the Bill.
A number of speakers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Park of Monmouth—said that they thought the problem would not be solved by quotas because it is intimidation and threats of murder which prevent Catholics from joining the RUC.
Intimidation is undoubtedly one important fact. We want to see an immediate end to that. But there are other factors which include a lack of identity with the RUC; fear of loss of contact with family and community; and lack of encouragement from community leaders. The Government encourage all community leaders to remove barriers to those wishing to join the police. They believe also that the technique adopted in the Bill is something which will make a real difference to the composition of the police force.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, gave the House his picture of what Northern Ireland is like at the moment. He gave a rather gloomy picture. I took the noble Lord, Lord Eames, to disagree with that. He said that he thought, despite what we may have read in the papers, that there is a turn for the better in Northern Ireland.
Lord Eames: My Lords, if I gave the impression that the turn for the better this year was something which changed all the problems that we are facing, then I overstated my case. I was simply saying that I was hopeful that this summer, we had seen a turn

701
for the better. But the description which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, gave of some of the problems which we face is the real reason that I went on to say to the House that I felt that we should not be allowed to rush the reforms which would in any way reduce the protection which law-abiding citizens have from the police service. I should like to correct that, if that is the impression which I gave.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I certainly was not seeking to overstate what the noble Lord said about the turn for the better. Without in any way overstating the position, I took the noble Lord to say that there are signs that things are getting better.
The particular point on which I take issue, with great diffidence, with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is his description of the sense that the men of violence were winning. That is not the sense at all that we should wish to think is right. We believe that normality is returning to Northern Ireland. It is not as quick as everybody would like but we should not ignore the fact that there are signs of progress and that progress is being made.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, also raised the issue of decommissioning and the status of the ceasefires. As my right honourable friend in another place constantly makes clear, he keeps the status of all ceasefires under continual review. He will not hesitate to act against any organisation not observing a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. He receives regular briefings on the security situation from the chief constable and senior security advisers.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does that mean that the statistics which I quoted and, indeed, statistics which other noble Lords quoted do not represent a breach of the ceasefire?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not seeking in any way to challenge the statistics. I do not know whether they are right or wrong. I have not had an opportunity to check them.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, they are from the RUC website.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity to check them. I obviously accept what the noble Viscount says, that they come from the RUC website. The particular issue with which I take issue is the picture that the men of violence are winning and that no progress is being made towards a more peaceful society. Progress is being made, not as quickly as everyone would like, but there is progress.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether the regulations under Clause 44, which deals with recruitment, and Clause 52, which deals with flags and emblems, would be available at Committee stage. A draft of those on recruitment will be available; those on flags and emblems are dependent on the outcome of the consultation with the policing board, therefore they will not be available before the Committee stage.
702
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan—"complained" may be the wrong word—drew attention to what he described as the "Balkanisation" of the police service. With respect to the noble Lord, he is seeking to substitute his own judgment for the professional policing judgment of the chief constable. The chief constable supports the creation of district commands, as recommended by Patten. I believe that that idea originated from the chief constable's own review of the policing service. He supports the removal of the regional tier and he supports the four police commands proposed for Belfast as operationally necessary. So, with apologies, the Government will not follow the approach of the noble Lord. I can reassure the House that the police service will remain a single unified police service. There is no basis for claiming that those changes are about the "Balkanisation" of the police service.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in a moving and effective speech, referred in particular to the prisoner releases that have been in the news this week. Of course, I understand why the releases that took place earlier in the week and those that will take place tomorrow are difficult for many to accept. However, I believe that prisoner releases remain an essential part of the Good Friday agreement, without which a settlement would not have been possible. They were endorsed by the people of Ireland, north and south, not because they want to see prisoners go free, but because they realise the need to move on and to put the violence of the past behind them.
Time is moving on and it would be wrong for me to deal with each individual point. I am sorry that I have not dealt with every single point raised by noble Lords, nor dealt with the speech of every noble Lord. Perhaps I can return to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eames. He asked two rather powerful and pertinent questions: does the Bill help us to move towards a peaceful society and is the community prepared to play its part? We believe that the Bill takes us towards a peaceful society by laying the foundations for the new beginning to policing called for in the Good Friday agreement. The Bill lays the foundations for a police service that is representative of the whole community and which commands the support of the whole community. I cannot quote the exact words, but that reflects the description of what the noble Lord, Lord Eames, said that the RUC wanted.
On the second question, I strongly believe that the community is prepared to play its part in policing in Northern Ireland. Through the Bill and through the implementation of the other elements of the Patten report, we have a unique opportunity to create a situation where, for the first time ever, all parts of the community in Northern Ireland are prepared to play their part.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that he will answer the questions that naturally he has been unable to take the time to

703
answer now, not in papers in the Library, as many of us will not come over from Northern Ireland or elsewhere during the Recess, but in writing to us?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, certainly I shall write to the home addresses of noble Lords. I shall also put the answers in the Library. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Business
11 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before the Minister moves the next Motion, perhaps the House will allow me to intervene. I could move for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 43, but I am reluctant to do so. As a substitute, perhaps I may make a gentle plea to the Government Chief Whip, who I know is the most reasonable of men.
We have had an extremely long day. It is very nearly 11 o'clock at night. We are about to consider a highly controversial piece of legislation. It is perhaps a small piece of legislation but it has important constitutional implications. 1 suggest that it was always odd that we should be asked to consider, rather suddenly, this particular piece of legislation on the penultimate day before rising for the Summer Recess. It is even more curious that the Government appear to be insisting that, at this late hour on this penultimate day, we should pursue this business.
Does the Chief Whip agree with me that there do not appear to be a large number of Members of the Dail queuing up to become Members of another place between now and 27th September? Would it not be much more reasonable to suggest through the usual channels that we consider the Second Reading of this piece of legislation after allowing other Members of this House, who have probably sensibly gone off on holiday by now, to look at it and consider it with more care? That would also enable us to get home a little earlier this evening.
What is the hurry for this Bill? I hope that the Chief Whip realises that I say this in a conciliatory frame of mind. I am sure that the House will forgive me for raising the matter now. If the Chief Whip saw the good sense of my argument, the time of the House that I have taken this evening would in fact save us time in the end.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support what the noble Viscount has said. It may be that the Chief Whip and the Government Front Bench are not aware of the fact that the Bill completed all of its stages in the other place on 26th January, so if they have not been in any hurry over the past six months, why are we rushing now when we shall have ample time to
704
consider it later? We could give an undertaking not to oppose the Bill at any great length if it could be fitted in even on the first day back.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. There was certainly no intention that the Bill should start at this hour. Your Lordships know what happened today. We spent one and a half hours on a debate which did not add to the dignity of this House. Anybody watching that debate would not feel that it added to the lustre of the House or to the dignity of our debates. I shall make sure that a number of noble Lords who took part in that debate are made aware of the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Eames, in relation to the contrast between filing cabinets and lives.
I have to choose my words with great care. I was asked within the past 10 days if I would ensure that this Bill received a Second Reading before the Summer Recess. I ask your Lordships not to press me on that. It involves the situation in Northern Ireland. Therefore I found space for it. It was agreed through the usual channels that it should be taken this evening.
The only thing I can do—this may not suit your Lordships because everyone is here to debate the Bill—is put it on tomorrow after the Finance Bill, if it is felt that that is better than starting it now. I was very concerned this afternoon when the earlier debate took place. I made arrangements through the Clerk of the Parliaments and Hansard to make sure that the House could handle the reporting and so forth of the Bill.
Everyone is here to debate the Bill. I am sorry about what has happened. It is not really my fault. There is no way that I could ever have anticipated—I doubt whether the noble Viscount as Leader of the House could have done so either—that a debate of one hour and 40 minutes would take place on the Offices Committee report. For all those reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press me.
I was asked last week by colleagues whether I could ensure, as part of the choreography of the situation in Northern Ireland, that this Bill received its Second Reading before the Summer Recess. I undertook to do that. The only offer I can make is to put it on tomorrow after the Finance Bill. But as your Lordships are all here and probably will not want to come back tomorrow, I feel that we should continue with the Bill this evening.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Chief Whip sits down, is it not contrary to our normal procedures to continue sitting after 11 p.m. on a Thursday when we are sitting at 11 a.m. on a Friday?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is a convenience and a convention regarding the staff. This can be done, as long as arrangements are made; I was careful to do this through the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Editor of Hansard. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the House sat until 5.10 a.m. on Tuesday morning and resumed at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon.

Disqualifications Bill
11.4 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill removes the last major inconsistency in the way in which UK electoral regulations apply to Commonwealth nations and to Ireland. It achieves this purpose in Clause 1 by amending the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. These amendments will allow Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament to serve as Members of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, to which the disqualification provisions set out in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 apply, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, where the relevant provisions are in the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
Clause 2 of the Bill will prohibit Ministers of the Irish Parliament from taking up ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Likewise, any Minister, junior Minister, First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be prohibited from a ministerial position in the Irish Government.
The Bill involves a limited extension of existing provisions under which Members of a number of legislatures outside the UK can already take seats in the House of Commons. It extends a provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 under which Members of the Irish Senate—the Upper House of the Irish Parliament—can take seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill does not establish any new principle or introduce major constitutional change, and it will not have any effect on the membership of this Chamber.
Perhaps I may explain the background in relation to the current provisions. For many years Irish citizens within the UK have enjoyed many of the same rights as Commonwealth citizens. Both Commonwealth citizens and Irish nationals have long been able to stand for and vote in elections for the House of Commons. But one significant difference in their treatment has remained. Under the current law, Members of Commonwealth legislatures, unlike Members of foreign legislatures, can take seats in the House of Commons. But Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament cannot, even though all other Irish citizens can. I give way.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is explaining the asymmetry between provision for Commonwealth countries and Ireland. But what is the pressure for this measure? Who wants this? Indeed, why is this Bill necessary? It is a complete mystery. Who on earth wants this to happen?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we believe this to be sensible step that will help the process. I am trying to explain why we are doing it now and the nature of the Bill's purpose.
706
The Bill will remove the inconsistency that I have just mentioned. It will enable Members of the Irish legislature to stand for election to the House of Commons and the UK devolved legislatures, thereby giving them equal treatment with the Members of Commonwealth legislatures and the same rights as other non-elected Irish citizens.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but perhaps the Minister could answer this question. If Mr Gerry Adams were to be elected to the Dail, as I believe is extremely likely, would he then be able to take his seat in the House of Commons, despite the fact that he has always refused to take the Oath? Would this measure allow him to do so?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords; it would not. This Bill will simply get rid of an existing disqualification that would have prevented him standing.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 already went some way to address this situation. Section 36(5) provides that a Member of the Irish Senate—a body that is partly appointed and partly elected from sectoral constituencies—may take a seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill builds on that provision, which as a result can now be repealed by Clause 3. The Bill extends that provision, first, to the other place and to the UK devolved legislatures, so that Northern Ireland is not singled out for special treatment; and, secondly, to members of the Dail, the Irish Lower House.
By placing all Members of the Irish legislature on the same footing as Members of Commonwealth legislatures, the Bill rightly reflects the strength of the relationship that exists between our two nations. Furthermore, it is in line with the special position long recognised for Irish citizens in our electoral arrangements. It would now be out of step with the transformed political landscape in Northern Ireland and in relations between our two countries not to take the measures we are proposing. In particular, it is the establishment of the new institutions provided for in the Good Friday agreement which makes this measure timely now.
When devolution and the other new institutions—
Lord Laird: My Lords, is the provision for this mentioned in the Good Friday agreement?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not.
When devolution and the other new institutions came into force on 2nd December last year, the Irish Government also repealed the longstanding territorial claim over Northern Ireland in Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. This makes clear that a united Ireland can only be achieved with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. With the principle of

707
consent at the heart of the new constitutional settlement, there is a solid basis for a close relationship between our two countries and the principles within it.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive my ignorance, but will a Member of the House of Commons be able to stand for election to the Dail as well?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, but that is a matter for southern Irish law and not a matter for this Bill.
This Bill is just one example of that close relationship. While itself not a commitment in the Good Friday agreement, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, it is consistent with it.
The Good Friday agreement has given new shape to the British-Irish relationship and created a new architecture of institutional links throughout these islands; links that respect the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom but provide a framework for practical co-operation between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Government through the North-South Ministerial Council and in the British Irish Council between all of the UK devolved administrations and the British and Irish Governments. These arrangements recognise and build on the very special relationship that exists between the people of Britain and Ireland.
This closeness has been further illustrated by the way in which the British and Irish Governments have worked together since the devolved institutions were suspended on 11th February to their restoration on 29th May. I am convinced that we would not have got the process back on track so soon had it not been for the way in which our two governments have co-operated and persevered together, and on all levels.
I recognise that there may be some concerns about conflicts of interest. I do not believe that the holding of dual electoral mandates in itself necessarily represents a conflict of interest or makes it impossible for such elected representatives to carry out their duties effectively. It may do, but that must be for the electorate to decide and we should be wary of stepping in to pre-empt their decision.
I accept that the situation of Ministers taking executive decisions is different from that of Back-Benchers participating in two different legislatures. Ministers must be in a position to take into account the best interests of those in the jurisdiction they are governing and must be seen to do so. That may not always be obvious if a Minister is also a Minister in another sovereign country. Whether or not conflicts of interest actually arise, it is important to avoid any perception that such conflicts could exist.
That is why Clause 2 of the Bill prohibits Ministers of the Irish Government from taking up ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In addition, it states that a Minister, junior Minister, First Minister or Deputy First Minister of the Assembly would have to resign their position in the Assembly executive upon becoming a Minister of the Irish Government.
708
In conclusion, as is right for a Bill affecting the membership of the House of Commons, it was extensively debated in the other place. In total, some 27 hours were devoted to it on the Floor of the House of Commons, including one overnight sitting. So I hope that noble Lords will accept that it has been extensively and carefully scrutinised by the Chamber which will be affected by it. As I have said, this Bill does not, of course, affect the membership of this House.
It is a modest Bill. It does not make any dramatic changes. It simply extends to the Irish legislature existing provisions which already permit M embers of a number of legislatures outside the UK to take seats in the House of Commons. It builds on the existing provision allowing Members of the Irish Senate to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly and extends this to the House of Commons and the UK devolved legislatures and to Members of the Irish Dail.
It is a further example of the development of mutually beneficial relationships between our two countries and throughout these islands, relationships which are now based firmly on the principle of consent. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
11.15 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, as I was preparing to speak to the Disqualifications Bill I was puzzled. I am even more puzzled by the remarks of the Government Chief Whip as he pleaded—that is the correct word—that the debate take place tonight. Why in the past 10 days was he asked to ensure that the Bill was read a second time before the Recess? Why was it so important to so do? What did he mean when he said it affected the current choreography in Northern Ireland? Why the urgency? Who is applying the pressure? Why the sudden speed?
I do not take the opinion that this is a modest Bill; I do not take the opinion that this is a minor Bill. It has a fundamental application and effect on the constitution. It is curious to find the Bill before us at this time. As has been mentioned, it was last debated in another place in January of this year, more than six months ago. Questions were asked in another place at that time. It was asked: why is this Bill being introduced? Why so urgently? No satisfactory explanation was provided. The question "Why is this Bill being introduced?" is still pertinent. A related question now is why is this Bill being brought before your Lordships after lying dormant for six months.
Of course Bills do not immediately come before us after Report stage in another place, but a six-month lapse is surely unusual. Indeed, it is so unusual that this situation has aroused suspicion. That suspicion is enhanced by the manner in which the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages of the Bill in another place were hurriedly driven through. Such haste in procedure is used normally only when emergency legislation is under consideration. This is clearly not emergency legislation; as I said, it is a measure of constitutional reform.

709
Perhaps this suspicion is unfounded and the Government will be able to put minds at ease. The Government could begin to deal with some of those concerns by telling the House why this Bill was introduced in the first place. Who was consulted by the Government before this measure was introduced? Why was the Bill rushed through another place in a manner usually reserved for emergency legislation? Is this measure a one-off, as it were, or is it a part of a wider review of the matter of disqualification? And, especially, why, after lying dormant for six months, is this Bill before the House tonight?
I feel that I can perhaps suggest some answers to these questions. It is my firm belief that this measure has been brought forward in response to a demand from Sinn Fein/IRA. This measure formed no part of the 1998 Belfast agreement. Furthermore, let no one be in any doubt, this legislative proposal is not based on consensus; there has, in fact, been an absence of consultation. In short, we are faced with a constitutional measure that did not feature in the Belfast agreement and about which there is little or no consensus. I suggest that this is wholly unreasonable.
Let us pause for a moment to consider the purpose of the Bill. It has a clear purpose: to permit persons simultaneously to be a Member here in the sovereign Parliament of Westminster, in Dublin in the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, and in Belfast in the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly. That is not the same as being a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and here at Westminster; nor is it the same as being a Member at Westminster and at the European Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a devolved assembly and the European Parliament is a supranational assembly. Neither are sovereign parliaments. Yet both Westminster and the Dublin Parliament are sovereign parliaments. Being a Member of a number of different assemblies and a single sovereign parliament does not pose the same problems as does being a Member of more than one sovereign parliament.
A conflict of interests and duties is inevitable for Members of more than one sovereign parliament. Although two nations may share many interests, no two nations are always going to have the same interests. The Bill not only allows for a person to be a Member of the Irish Dail, at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it also permits a person to be a Minister or junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and a Member of the Dail. However, it does not allow a person to be appointed First Minister, Deputy First Minister or any other Minister or junior Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly if that person is a Minister in the Government of Ireland. Should not that prohibition apply to junior Ministers in the Republic of Ireland as it does to junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
If a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland is not permitted to be a Minister or junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, why should a Minister or junior Minister in the Northern
710
Ireland Assembly be permitted to be a junior Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland? Again, I fear that such inconsistency and lack of reciprocity serves only to enhance suspicion of the Bill.
The Government of the Republic of Ireland do not appear to be interested in enacting any similar measure to permit Members at Westminster—all Members at Westminster, not just those who are considered Irish citizens by the Republic's constitution—to be able to serve in the Irish Parliament. The Government of the Republic of Ireland plan no reciprocal measure. Indeed, I am led to believe that many parliamentarians in the Irish Parliament feel uneasy about that measure. That measure of constitutional reform creates as many anomalies as it removes. It serves no logical purpose unless one is a Sinn Fein Member at Westminster who wishes to be involved in the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
There is no logic in accommodating a constitutional reform on which there is a lack of consensus, which formed no part of the Belfast agreement, which is designed for the sole benefit of one political party, and which is not even desired by many parliamentarians in the Republic of Ireland, the only other potential beneficiaries.
11.23 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in the interests of brevity and in view of the late hour, I will not attempt to repeat the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has put forward regarding the inconsistencies of the Bill. Perhaps I may just say that I agree with a number of his remarks.
I made it clear in a previous intervention that I thought it was inappropriate for the House to be discussing a constitutional measure, however small, at this late hour of the night, particularly in view of the developing role of your Lordships' House, as underlined by the Wakeham report, as a constitutional longstop. It is unfortunate—to say the least—that the Government have seen fit to bring this piece of legislation forward in the way that they have. Indeed, when asked—I hope the noble and learned Lord the Minister feels politely—why it was necessary to introduce the legislation now, no satisfactory answer was given. I can only speculate that there was a TD who had ambitions—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I did not understand the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to be, "Why are the Government introducing the Bill today?" but, "Why is it happening at this particular time?" So I think that the noble Viscount is talking about two different things. For the record, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, nodded when I said that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, whose intellect is well known, is more than capable of understanding even the complications of my noble friend's mind.

711
Perhaps I may ask a slightly different question. Why is it so important that we should consider the Second Reading of the Bill now? Is it important that the Bill should become law? If so, why? Is it so important that we should be asked to rush it through in this way without an adequate explanation? Who is it designed to help? I assume that it is designed to help, above all, certain nationalist or republican people in Northern Ireland who have ambitions to become TDs. Those of us who have recently visited Dublin will, without question, have noticed the extreme nervousness with which members of the Dublin Government are viewing their next general election. The nightmare they are facing is that enough Sinn Fein TDs will be elected to the Dail next time round to hold the balance of power between the two parties.
I can only assume that we are about to face the curious prospect that a number of people represented at the very least in the Northern Ireland Assembly will also be members of the Dail and will therefore be able to pursue through parliamentary means what a number of people on this side of the water and indeed in Northern Ireland itself see administratively, which is the beginnings of joint administrative authority in the Province, and that that is being pursued as a form of joint legislative authority as well. Whatever the protestations of Ministers may be in that respect, that is the only explanation which fits the very curious set of facts that your Lordships have managed to identify.
It is clear that Members of the other place who are also members of Sinn Fein are not able to take their seats at the moment because they refuse to take the Oath. I hope and believe that the Government will not change the nature of the Oath for another place. The oath represents a clear commitment on the part of Members of another place to the polity which we all attempt to serve. We well know that Sinn Fein represents a tradition entirely inimical to the polity which we all attempt to serve. It is therefore entirely proper that if they do not wish to take that oath they should not have the right to serve in a Parliament whose main objective is to promote the welfare and interests of that polity.
That brings me to the other curiosity in this very curious piece of legislation. How is it possible for a member of the Dail—I have no idea what Oath members of the Dail have to take but I imagine that they have to make some kind of affirmation of loyalty to the Republic of Ireland—to contemplate becoming a Member of another place where an affirmation or an Oath of loyalty to our polity has to be taken? How is that conflict to be resolved? If I understood the noble and learned Lord the Minister correctly, he suggested that it was up to the individual concerned. After all, we are not talking about Ministers here. However, surely it is up to this Parliament to decide whether it wants Members with divided loyalties? I am well aware that Members of Commonwealth countries may be presented with the same difficulty, but I suggest that, in an imperfect world, at least they are members of an organisation of nation states which has a historic link
712
from which the Republic of Ireland decided to withdraw as long ago as 1949. The comparison appears to mix apples and oranges.
I hope that I have made it clear that this is a Bill which seems not nearly as simple or as innocuous as the noble and learned Lord made out during his characteristically soothing remarks. I feel that we have not yet been given a remotely convincing explanation of why we are in such a hurry and why the Bill must be given a Second Reading at this late hour and at this particular point in the parliamentary cycle.
I feel equally that what the Bill seeks to do is constitutionally unsound and something that this House would do well to consider in prime time rather than at this late hour. I hope that the noble Lord who is due to reply to the debate will be able to give slightly more convincing answers to both of those points. If he cannot do that, I shall be strongly tempted to suggest to the House that we should divide on Second Reading.
11.31 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the House is ill advised to discuss any subject at this time of night, but in so far as we are sitting, I see no reason why we should not be discussing this Bill. The world outside of this place thinks that we are ridiculous to sit as late as we do, but that applies to our business generally rather than only to this Bill.
Given that we have the same relationship with Commonwealth countries—that is, the same ability for Commonwealth parliamentarians to sit in our Parliament as is being suggested here for the Republic of Ireland—we are not seeking to do anything dramatically new. Moreover, as a country we have closer relationships with the Republic of Ireland than we do with many Commonwealth countries. Those relationships are based on proximity, a common land border, common languages and many other shared traditions.
Above all, however, those relationships have been developed and enhanced through the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Government of the Republic played a leading part in helping to achieve the Good Friday agreement. As a consequence of that agreement, the relationships have intensified. We now have the North-South Ministerial Council which also forges closer links between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Taking all of those factors into account, I do not believe that this is a drastic departure from precedent. This is a modest and reasonable Bill and one which common sense suggests that we should adopt.
To my knowledge, the only individual who might fall into the category covered by the Bill is Seamus Mallon, who, I understand, might have become a Senator in Dublin but was prevented from doing so because he is a Member of the House of Commons. It is not a question of Sinn Fein as regards past precedent; it is Séamus Mallon. There may be others, but I do not think that it matters too much. In any case,

713
many other politicians in Belfast maintain close relationships with Dublin. Frequent visits are made by Ulster Unionists, along with others.
This is a modest and sensible measure. I cannot see why so much concern has been expressed about it.
11.33 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I have been given a singular honour tonight. Not on every occasion is one given the opportunity to rise to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who had a distinguished career as a Northern Ireland Office Minister.
However, I too find the whole business of the Bill very curious. To an extent, I believe that the Government Chief Whip let the cat out of the bag when he spoke of "choreographing" and "timetabling". This measure does not form a part of the Good Friday agreement. I believe that noble Lords are agreed on that point. This measure is an additional element. I shall give way.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage on me. Obviously, I am not familiar with the details of the situation in Northern Ireland. But, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, when I am asked by a Secretary of State who is familiar with the situation if I will use my best endeavours to see that a Bill receives a Second Reading according to a certain timetable, namely before the Summer Recess, all I can do as Chief Whip is do my best to achieve that.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's clarification of that point. But I merely make the point that the word "choreographing" in the Northern Ireland context has a slightly different meaning.
Lord Carter: I am sorry.
Lord Laird: My Lords, the hour is late. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rogan, whose speech outlined our major objections to the Bill. I can find no demand for it. I understand that there is possibly one person who would like the Bill passed for his own personal political objectives. That seems to me a poor reason to bring the Bill forward in this rather strange way after it has lain dormant on a shelf somewhere for six months, having been first rushed through the other place.
The Good Friday agreement talks about parity of esteem. It talks about the concept of equality. We were told afterwards by many sections, including the Dublin government, "You cannot cherry-pick the Belfast agreement". I am prepared to accept that. But sometimes it might be thought that some people get slightly more parity than others. It is not a case of this not being a part of the Belfast agreement. This is additional to the Belfast agreement. This is something to suit the political agenda of some people in Northern Ireland who can make their demands in a slightly more threatening way than others.
If there were a demand, a groundswell of opinion, in the Irish Republic in favour of creating the state of affairs that the Bill seeks to bring about, do they not
714
have the option of rejoining the Commonwealth? If, as we are told, there is a great commonality of purpose with the people down south and there is a welling up of support and interest in looking after the activities of people in Northern Ireland, it is a pity that was not a bit more evident in some of the security situations that we have seen over the past few years. It is a pity that security co-operation was not as good as it could have been.
If there is such a desire on the part of the two governments to look again at relationships, what representations have this Government made, for instance, to the Government of the Irish Republic concerning those people who live in the Republic but consider themselves to be members of the pro-British community?
I should like to know who wants this Bill. The question has been asked many times tonight. If either of the two noble Lords on the Front Bench wish to answer that question now, I am prepared to give way so that we can discuss it. Who asked for this Bill? Who wants the Bill? Who benefits from the Bill? Do they accept the point that there seems to be slightly more parity for one section of the community than for the other?
As a Unionist, I am prepared to work the Good Friday agreement. I am prepared not to cherry-pick it; I am prepared to do it all. But I have not gone back with a shopping list. I am prepared to take the hit of being a chairman of a cross-Border implementation body. That is not something that we did not want. We did not ask for it; we did not seek it—but if it is part of the agreement, we will do it. But we have not gone back with another shopping list. Why is there more parity for some people than for others? I cannot find any answers. Shall I give way and allow the Minister to respond? I thought that I was about to receive an answer but I was not.
We should like to understand the political objectives of the Bill, where the demand for it comes from and the speed of it. I am prepared to accept that earlier the word "choreography" was used incorrectly. What is the objective of this Bill, who wants it and why do we have it before us today? Does the noble and learned Lord accept that in the delicate balance—even the choreography—in Northern Ireland, this kind of skewing of parity is noticed and has an impact? Perhaps the Government are prepared to explain the reason, even if it is unpalatable to us, why this Bill is before the House tonight; or maybe as chairman of a cross-Border implementation body I should now start to develop my own shopping list of matters additional to the Good Friday agreement.
11.41 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I followed the progress of this Bill in the House of Commons and was extremely interested in it when it was first introduced. I have been waiting, waiting and waiting for the Bill to appear in your Lordships' House. For a long time the Bill appeared to have been dropped, just as the arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly

715
appeared at one time to have been dropped. It is difficult to resist the conclusion, particularly in the light of the observations of the Chief Whip, that this Bill has been linked pari passu with the peace process.
I accept that there are matters about which we are not entitled to ask, but this is a very far-reaching measure. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is a very skilled parliamentarian and is expert at telling us that things are not very significant and must be taken step by step. We must not worry about the next step until it arrives. For example, we have perfect freedom of action to consider whether the Oath to the House of Commons is to be altered. There is no need to consider it now; it can be dealt with later.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, in no way whatsoever can this Bill be presented as a mere administrative tidying up or, in a practical sense, a measure to put us on the same footing as Commonwealth countries. It is not practical for someone to sit at the same time in the House of Commons and the Parliament of the Seychelles, the Lower House in Australia or the Lower House in India. When I was a Member of another place I should have loved to sit also in the Indian Parliament, but that is riot a practical proposition and I do not believe that anyone has ever sought to propose it. In the context of Northern Ireland it is, however, a practical proposition. What we are doing for Northern Ireland is to make a reality of something that has never been a practical possibility for other Commonwealth countries.
This may be a practical possibility for other European countries. The very arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the closeness of our relations with Europe could also be advanced as a reason why perhaps there should be membership of the French Assemblée and the House of Commons at the same time. It is perfectly clear that, step by step, this measure is tied to the peace process.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was being a little simplistic when he said that there had been great consultation on this matter in the House of Commons. (I do not know whether I may have the attention of the Minister at some point.) It was some consultation. The Government tried to sneak it into the House of Commons late at night. The other place sat all night because there was uproar in a certain section of the Conservative Party. That was not voluntary consultation or close scrutiny; it was the House of Commons being very angry, puzzled and mystified by why and how the measure was being introduced. The question remains: why is this being introduced?
The Minister referred to the distinction between Ministers and Back-Benchers. A Minister in the Irish Government could not be a Member of the House of Commons at the same time. He said that it posed a clear conflict of interest. But does not a similar conflict also arise with a Back-Bencher in both parliaments? They are both sovereign parliaments. In both parliaments one has to swear an Oath. One represents constituents in sovereign parliaments in different
716
countries with different aspirations. There would be a conflict there almost as great as there would be between being a Minister in one parliament and a back-bencher in another.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne referred to the conflict between the two Oaths. No doubt we shall be told by the Minister that the Oath is another matter; that we must take each step at its time; that there is no need to make a decision and that no decision is being proposed about the Oath. But we know what will happen. After the measure is implemented there will be proposals relating to the Oath at a later stage.
I was unsure whether, in reply to my question, the Minister said that there would be, or there were, reciprocal arrangements in Ireland. The noble Lord who spoke later implied that perhaps measures would not be taken. I should be grateful if the Minister will clarify whether further measures are required or whether they exist in law already.
These proposals were not included in the Good Friday agreement. I do not accept that it is a modest measure. It is a mystery why it was dropped, as it was, for several months and then rushed in at this stage.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, on a point or order, the noble Lord is speaking in the gap. The convention is that the speech should take four minutes. In the last debate, the noble Lord intervened although not having attended for much of it. Although the noble Lord is a distinguished parliamentarian, he is fairly new to your Lordships' House. I respectfully remind him of our conventions.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am extremely sorry if I have offended against any convention. It is only because of the strength of my feeling about the measure. I assure the noble Lord that I shall wind up my remarks quickly.
It is a significant measure. I deeply fear that it is part of an appeasement process that I think is getting out of hand and which we shall come to rue in later stages.
11.47 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, there are two equally legitimate views on the Bill. Indeed, there is a third; namely, the awful hour at which we are discussing it. I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House will agree with that third view.
Of the first two, on the one hand it can be argued that a national legislature is one of the defining landmarks of a state and should in no way be diluted by allowing Members of other national legislatures to belong concurrently to our Parliament. That is the traditional view.
On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has argued, one can recognise that the principle has already been breached since Members of Commonwealth legislatures can stand for election to the House of Commons, or appointment to this House which has happened in at least one case. Furthermore, it can be added that if the Council of the Isles, created as a result of the Belfast agreement, develops into a

717
significant institution in due course, as many of us hope that it will, there is something to be said for an element of interchange and cross-fertilisation between Members of the various parliaments and assemblies of these islands which the Bill provides. In practice, of course, few politicians will attempt to avail themselves of this, as in the case of the Commonwealth. But in its own modest way it will serve as a symbol of the growing amity and co-operation between the peoples who populate this archipelago in the north west of the European continent. On the whole, we on these Benches believe that the second argument is the more compelling in the light of recent developments.
11.50 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, as is already clear, we on these Benches do not like this Bill. It seems to us a very sinister Bill and was not part of the Good Friday agreement. My noble friend Lord Cranborne spoke of the change in the balance of power in the Dublin Government, a point I have been making for some time. It is a likely occurrence.
It is also likely that Sinn Fein will win the West Tyrone election and the same person may well win the seat in Donegal. I am full of suspicion about what is behind the Bill. My criticism of the Government's approach to Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement has been consistent: there has been too much appeasement. In the days of Kevin McNamara and the right honourable Dr Mowlam there was a clear, well known republican ambition. Since the present Secretary of State has been in place, that has been slightly less obvious, except when the Prime Minister and Mr Ahern get together at regular intervals.
The Bill was driven through the other place in the middle of the night, in an all-night sitting. It is presented to us almost in a crisis situation when we know that there is no crisis.
The Chief Whip told us that he was urgently asked by the Secretary of State, the right honourable Peter Mandelson, to get the Bill through this stage before the Recess. What is it about the Bill that is all of a sudden so special? The Minister presented it as a tidying-up measure. It is no such thing; it is a clear initiative being driven for a given purpose. That is quite clear, but we do not know what the initiative is. It has clearly happened on a steady stealth-by-stealth basis; that is the republicanisation, the unification, of Ireland. That is how the people in Northern Ireland see it and at this hour of the night, as one of them, that is how I see it.
The Bill is being used as a bargaining tool for something in return. The trouble with such bargains is that we have never seen evidence of anything in return. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, made the point that if the Republic is so anxious to have Members of the Dail serving in our Parliament and with the same rights as other Commonwealth citizens, why does it not rejoin the Commonwealth? During the past year or so, I have spoken to Members of the Dail several times and there
718
was no antipathy towards that suggestion. In fact, it was thought to be a realistic possibility and I see the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, nodding.
I return to the Bill and ask what is behind it. Furthermore, as an aside, I ask how many Members of Commonwealth Parliaments have at the same time been Members of another place. I am sure that at some stage the Minister or his officials will have an answer to that question—in writing will do but it would be nice to have it tonight.
I saw the Bill a year ago when it went into the other place. I remember it collapsing and the fact that it did not come to this House because the Executive fell. It was my impression and that of members of my party that the Bill would never see the light of day again; would that it had not. We are very suspicious of the Bill. We shall continue to probe it and to resist it at every stage of its passage.
11.54 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, under the circumstances and given the lateness of the hour, this has been a very lively debate, and an interesting one at that. A number of points have been made, perhaps with a better temper than one might have expected under the circumstances. I shall endeavour to respond to those points, raised quite properly.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and perhaps also the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, posed the first and most important question with regard to the haste, and yet the slowness, with which this legislation has been brought forward. Listening to their comments and observations, it struck me that the Government would have been damned if we had brought back the Bill quickly and now we have been damned for taking our time.
However, I believe that we should remind ourselves that the Bill was published before Christmas last year and the commitment therefore made. It is important to know that that commitment meant that all stages were completed in another place. The delay between the completion of those stages and the Second Reading of the Bill in this House tonight was due to the intervening uncertainty with regard to the Assembly and its suspension and restoration in recent months—as recently as 29th May. Because of that, the time between the Bill being committed in another place and its introduction here is explained in good measure. This is the Second Reading. After the Recess there will be plenty of opportunity to consider the Bill at length and with no particular urgency.
As to the question of consultation, which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, raised quite properly, as I said, the Bill was published before Christmas 1999 and the normal opportunities for representation and scrutiny clearly have applied. As the noble Lord will know, one of the Bill's three clauses was inserted in another place at the express request of his own party. Clearly, some consultation had been undertaken to achieve that particular objective.
Understandably, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also made the point that the Government were attempting to rush the Bill through the Commons. Following the

719
establishment of the devolved institutions in December last year, we believed that it was important to maintain momentum by pursuing vigorously all outstanding measures relating to the political settlement. At that stage we had witnessed swift progress on the constitutional provisions contained in the agreement, the establishment of an inclusive, power-sharing, devolved Assembly, the amendments to the Irish constitution renouncing Ireland's longstanding territorial claim over Northern Ireland, and the establishment of the cross-Border shared institutions. Proceeding quickly with this Bill was simply a part of the momentum to move forward more rapidly. However, there was no intention to push through the Bill with undue haste.
By that stage, Section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 had already amended the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 to enable a Member of the Irish Senate to take a seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That amendment had been accepted by both Houses without controversy. We had no reason to believe that extending the same principle in the Disqualifications Bill would elicit such a vastly different response. I believe that that was a reasonable position for us to adopt.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked why, if the Bill was urgent, its Lords stages were delayed for six months. He wanted to know the rationale behind that. Simply, it was not considered appropriate to proceed with the Bill while, as I said earlier, there was a degree of uncertainty surrounding the future of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House agree with that. However, now that the institutions are restored—on a firm basis, as I think most of us would agree—it is entirely reasonable that we should continue, particularly as the relationship between the British and Irish Governments proved to be as constructive and positive as ever during the brief period of suspension.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made a further point about junior Ministers in the Dail being able to take up a ministerial position in the Northern Ireland Assembly—or at least I think that that was his point. The intention of the Bill is not to enable junior Ministers in the Dail to take up ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That needs to be plainly understood.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked us why we were so keen to take Second Reading now. I think that I covered that in answering the earlier point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. The noble Viscount also asked whether there would be changes to the oath of allegiance. That is not part of the Bill. We do not intend to interfere with oaths of allegiance. Oaths that are taken in other Parliaments are not a matter for us and could never properly be considered as such.
The noble Viscount also talked about dual mandates and conflicts of interest. There are other ways of looking at those issues. It is already possible in Commonwealth legislatures to join two different sovereign Parliaments. That much is understood. Holding a dual mandate does not necessarily result in
720
a conflict of interest or of loyalty. We have dealt with the problem of ministerial conflicts of interest by inserting an exclusion in Clause 2. Several Members of another place are also Members of devolved legislatures and at least one is also a Member of the European Parliament. There are Members of your Lordships' House who are Members of the European Parliament. However, those in the Executive who make decisions need to avoid possible conflicts of interest. That is why the Bill constrains Ministers.
I do not believe that Northern Ireland has been singled out for special treatment. It is being treated as part of the United Kingdom.
Some have suggested that the purpose of the Bill is to achieve a united Ireland by uniting the two legislatures. That is not our intention. The Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland Act and the British-Irish agreement all make it clear that the decision on whether to pursue a united Ireland depends on the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill will in no way circumvent that. It gives Irish citizens rights that are already accorded to Commonwealth nations, just as they enjoy other significant electoral rights enjoyed by Commonwealth citizens. That is a recognition of the close political ties between the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Lord Laird: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a lot of his arguments are reasonable, but the timing is not? We do not understand timing the Bill alongside the Good Friday agreement. I do not know anybody in Northern Ireland who requested that. Where has the pressure come from for the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am drawn to conclude that perhaps there is never a right time for some people to make progress on some of these matters. We have judged that it is right to try to make progress. We suspended that progress while the Assembly was not in operation. We now want more progress to be made. The arguments for developing that special relationship can be taken forward with the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made some clear and specific points about the special relationship with the Irish public, including our historic and cultural links. We need to build on those relationships on the basis of consent, trying to cement the political progress that has been made over the past two or three years and beyond.
I think that I have answered the primary points that have been raised. I do not think that I have left much out and I am sorry if I have missed anything in trying to summarise where we are.
However, it is important to make the final point that the Bill is clearly linked to the peace process. It is very important that we should cement those links in developing continued and improved British/Irish relations. That surely is at the heart of the Good Friday agreement. Much political progress has been made since then. I can well understand some of the

721
misgivings, but I think that we would be very foolish to throw up the political opportunity and the opportunity to make further progress.
So far as we are concerned, this is simply a case of amending and regularising existing legislation according to the existing principles in the light of recent developments. Nothing innovative is being suggested. The Bill does not represent for us a major constitutional amendment. It will not have fundamental, practical implications, nor will it have any impact on the composition of this Chamber.
Given the progress that has been made in reaching a political settlement in Northern Ireland, the amendments that have been made to the Irish constitution and the coming into force of the British/Irish agreement, this surely is now the right time to extend this modest courtesy to the Irish Parliament. This measure strengthens the close ties that exist between the United Kingdom and Ireland, but it does so within both the terms and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. As such, I hope that it will receive the support of noble Lords here today. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord puts the question, as I was on my way out of the House at the Peers' entrance, I happened to catch sight of the television in the lobby. I thought that I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, suggest that he wished to divide the House at the end of the debate. Not unnaturally, I returned to the House.
I hope that I have not brought about this situation in what was an honest attempt to help the House. I merely informed the House that the reason for the Second Reading was that I had been asked by the Secretary of State to achieve a Second Reading before the Recess. It was entirely my own phrase and choreography. Chief Whips should not hold opinions or do any more than state the facts of a situation.
The reason that the Bill is being read tonight—and I have already apologised for the fact that it is so late—is that I thought that it would be convenient for everyone who was speaking on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, bearing in mind the difficulties of coming backwards and forwards. The Bill would probably have been read at 9 o'clock if we had not had the earlier incidents. I took the view that it would probably be convenient for the Bill to be read this evening. Those are the reasons.
I think I am correct in saying that there is no precedent that we can discover for dividing the House on a shout at Second Reading. It is completely outwith the convention of the House. My understanding is that a Motion is tabled so that the House is aware of the intention of the noble Lord that this Bill be read this day or in six months, or that the Bill be not given a Second Reading, with a reasoned amendment. It
722
would be extraordinary if, on a whim, we attempted to kill a Bill on the shout. I therefore hope that noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, will the noble Lord, the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, tell us if the Secretary of State gave him any reason for wanting this Second Reading so quickly?
Lord Carter: No, my Lords. He merely wrote to me in the usual way and said that it would be helpful, if possible, to have a Second Reading of the Bill before the Summer Recess. At first I thought that it would not be possible. I discussed this in the usual channels and no objection whatever was raised in the usual channels. I then realised that we would have time today in the normal way. Because everyone was here for the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, I thought that I was being helpful by having the Second Reading tonight. I was responding to a simple request to find time, if possible, for a Second Reading before the Summer Recess. It also helps us to get it into Committee more quickly in the overspill, because we do not have to wait for the 14-day interval. It is as simple as that. As far as I am aware, there is nothing at all sinister about it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene before he sits down. May I express my complete sympathy to the noble Lord, the Government Chief Whip. It is clearly a difficult situation for him. I do not believe that anybody in this House, least of all myself, would in any way suggest that he was ever minded to be unhelpful to your Lordships. We all greatly appreciate the way in which he performs his duties and the considerable style with which he does so. It is hardly surprising that he is held in the deepest affection in all corners of your Lordships' House.
As a former Leader, I hope that I am aware of what is usual at Second Reading. I hope that I am right in thinking also that it is still within the rules of your Lordships' House to divide the House on a shout at Second Reading. It seems to me that the only time at which this House would be extremely unwise to vote against the Government at Second Reading is on a manifesto Bill, which this Bill clearly is not.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord the Chief Whip, I listened with as much care as I could muster not only to the noble and learned Lord who introduced the debate but also to the noble Lord who, with his usual courtesy, answered it. I was not happy with the answers to the two questions which I asked. They were principally concerned with the content of the Bill and the way in which the noble Lord the Chief Whip has been asked by his colleagues to introduce this Bill at this hour.
It was with some anxiety that I listened to his answer when I intervened before the beginning of this debate, because I had hoped that he would be able to accommodate us if there was no real reason for us to hurry this Bill through. I have not heard one. I am sure that, like every good Chief Whip, he will have kept a

723
House. I intend to divide the House to make the point. I undertake that we shall put in Tellers and that we will not endeavour to defeat him.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should tell the noble Viscount that under the usual arrangements which mean that we never whip on a Second Reading, because it is unknown to me to divide the House on a shout at the end of a Second Reading—I cannot think of any precedent—there is no whip. It is not my duty to keep a House on unwhipped business, which, as the noble Viscount knows, Second Readings always are.
12.12 a.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be read a second time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 2.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B. [Teller]

Bach, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harrison, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Desai, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dubs, L.

Simon, V.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Cranborne, V. [Teller]

Lamont of Lerwick, L. [Teller]

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 57, I declare the Question not decided and the debate thereon stands adjourned.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as business on this Bill is not concluded, I shall table it to continue tomorrow afternoon, after the Finance Bill.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Census (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.

Football (Disorder) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past midnight.

  Overseas Aid: Debt Relief and AIDS-related Assistance
  Overseas Aid: Debt Relief and AIDS-related Assistance
  Climate Change and Human Migration
  Climate Change and Human Migration
  Nandrolone: Report
  Nandrolone: Report
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Chinook Helicopter ZD576
  Chinook Helicopter ZD576
  Offences against the Person Act 1861 and British Troops under NATO Command
  Offences against the Person Act 1861 and British Troops under NATO Command
  Immigration Appeals: Revised Rules
  Immigration Appeals: Revised Rules
  Part-time Judicial Appointments
  Part-time Judicial Appointments
  Unlawful Imprisonment
  Unlawful Imprisonment
  Ministerial Accountability Following Devolution
  Ministerial Accountability Following Devolution
  Montgomeryshire: Magistrates' Courts
  Montgomeryshire: Magistrates' Courts
  American Bar Association Visit
  American Bar Association Visit
  Ufl Ltd
  Ufl Ltd
  Merrywood School
  Merrywood School
  Sex Education in Schools
  Sex Education in Schools
  Children's Commission for Wales
  Children's Commission for Wales
  Poorest and Richest Households: Income
  Poorest and Richest Households: Income
  GLA Side Roads
  GLA Side Roads
  London Underground Limited: Performance
  London Underground Limited: Performance
  Railway Station Car Park Charges
  Railway Station Car Park Charges
  Ten-year Transport Plan
  Ten-year Transport Plan
  South-East Manchester and West Midlands Multi-Modal Studies
  South-East Manchester and West Midlands Multi-Modal Studies
  West Coast Main Line: Future Freight Capacity
  West Coast Main Line: Future Freight Capacity
  Millennium Dome: Building and Infrastructure Costs
  Millennium Dome: Building and Infrastructure Costs
  Amendments to Bills
  Amendments to Bills
  NMEC: Retention of Simmons & Simmons
  NMEC: Retention of Simmons & Simmons
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Government Annual Report
  Government Annual Report
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Intervention Board: Annual Report and Accounts
  Intervention Board: Annual Report and Accounts
  BSE
  BSE
  GM Crops: Exclusion from Food Chain
  GM Crops: Exclusion from Food Chain
  Arms Industry: Investment by Political Parties
  Arms Industry: Investment by Political Parties
  Immigration Act Detention: Written Reasons
  Immigration Act Detention: Written Reasons
  Prisoners Transferred to Hospital under Mental Health Act
  Prisoners Transferred to Hospital under Mental Health Act
  Probation Committees: Use of Home Secretary's Default Powers
  Probation Committees: Use of Home Secretary's Default Powers
  Community Service Orders and Probation Supervision: Home Secretary's Powers
  Community Service Orders and Probation Supervision: Home Secretary's Powers
  Transsexuals: Working Group Report
  Transsexuals: Working Group Report
  Access to Government Information: Code of Practice
  Access to Government Information: Code of Practice
  Asylum Support Adjudicators
  Asylum Support Adjudicators
  Fire Service: Capital Provisions
  Fire Service: Capital Provisions
  Horserace Betting Levy: National Lottery Impact
  Horserace Betting Levy: National Lottery Impact
  Sexual Offences Review: Report
  Sexual Offences Review: Report
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Passive Smoking
  Passive Smoking
  Smoking in the Catering Industry
  Smoking in the Catering Industry
  Human Embryo Cloning: Report
  Human Embryo Cloning: Report
  Embryonic Stem Cell Tissue Imports
  Embryonic Stem Cell Tissue Imports
  NHS Pensions Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  NHS Pensions Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Life Expectancy Inequalities
  Life Expectancy Inequalities
  Variant Creuzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Variant Creuzfeldt-Jakob Disease