Sitting of 8 June 2000

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 15 June.
MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
Order, for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Excellence in Cities
    Mr. Keith Darvill: If he will make a statement on progress with the excellence in cities proposals for learning mentors.[123333]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The excellence in cities programme has so far seen the recruitment of 800 learning mentors with a further 600 to come in the new extended excellence in cities areas. The mentors work with schools and with parents and help to reduce disaffection and alienation. In the case of the Wales high school in Rotherham, they have cut non-attendance and late attendance by 60 per cent. They also help to reduce the exclusion of children from school by working with them to overcome their problems.
    Mr. Darvill: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that learning mentors, alongside on-site pupil referrals and other measures, are a vital part of the Government's programme for tackling disaffection and the problems of disruption in schools? Will he confirm that, under the Conservative Government, thousands of young people were excluded from school and were left out on the streets to commit crimes? Does he also agree that the Conservatives are Johnny-come-latelys on this issue and have no ideas to offer?
    Mr. Blunkett: Johnny-come-lately is an admirable description of the Leader of the Opposition. He was away at Easter and the spring bank holiday, so he missed the two speeches in which I addressed the issues that he
    404
    talked about earlier this week. There are 1,000 learning support units in schools across the country, with proper funding and a full education for pupils in referral units such as the Zacchaeus centre in Birmingham, which was funded by the Government's school inclusion grant. The grant enables schools to buy back in the services that they need at the referral unit and it ensures that children can work with mentors and have places when that is necessary. All that has gone on because the Government have changed from £17 million to £527 million the amount of money that is available. A Johnny-come-lately, who was on holiday when these matters were discussed, has suddenly caught up with them now that he is back from swimming with the dolphins.
    Mr. Graham Brady: As part of the Government's laudable aim of achieving excellence in cities, they are setting up new private schools, the city academies that are funded by the state. Ministers have determined that the practice of such centres selecting 10 per cent. of their pupils will raise standards in our cities. Will the Secretary of State explain what has led him to the view that 10 per cent. is the correct percentage? Does he not believe that the optimum percentage might be 5, 20 or perhaps even on occasions 100 per cent?
    Mr. Blunkett: The initiative has nothing at all to do with mentors or the excellence in cities in programme in general, but it is entirely in line with our diversity programme in which specialist schools have exactly the same opportunity in terms of aptitude not selection. The previous Government were quite happy to use that distinction themselves and it has been dealt with on numerous occasions. No doubt, we shall return to it when I have more time to explain the difference to the hon. Gentleman.

    Farm Diversification
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What estimate he has made of the likely effect on employment levels in leisure and similar pursuits as a result of farming land being redeployed for non-farming uses over the next five years. [123334]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): We have not made an assessment in the terms that my hon. Friend asks. However, in the past year, jobs in agriculture and fishing fell by 12,000 and jobs in the services grew by 354,000, and some of them will be the result of farm diversification.
    Mr. Flynn: It is extremely regrettable that there is a continuing fall in jobs in farming, a process that has been going on for at least 200 years. However, it is encouraging to note that there has been an increase in the population of rural areas—four times the increase in the nation as a whole—and that there has been a similar increase in the number of start-ups in small and medium-sized enterprises in the countryside. Is it not encouraging that certain farms in non-arable areas that employed two or three people on a farm of a couple of hundred acres have diversified to

    405
    employ hundreds of people in leisure and other industries? That is good for the environment, good for the prosperity of rural areas and good for jobs.
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; I certainly agree with them. The structure of employment is changing and some of the highest employment rates and some of the lowest employment rates are in rural areas. The role of Government in the process is to enable people to make a successful transition from one job to another and to stay in work.
    Mr. Colin Breed: What additional resources may be available to people who work in agriculture and those with businesses connected with agriculture to ensure that the new job opportunities are long-lasting, full-time, well paid and sustainable?
    Ms Jowell: There are two sources of help. The first is the labour market programme, for which my Department and the Employment Service are responsible, and the second involves the Government measures being negotiated with the Commission, such as the English rural development plan which, for rural areas, is worth £1.6 billion over seven years. In addition, the new rural enterprise scheme will contribute more than £150 million to rural areas between 2001 and 2006. Much of that money will be available to assist in the diversification to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that as employment opportunities in agriculture decline, there may be opportunities for businesses in many farming complexes? Will she make representations and give encouragement to other Departments so that there is evidence of joined-up government and the planning service can seek to accommodate farming enterprises that are diversifying?
    Ms Jowell: The figures that I gave in response to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) demonstrate the level of commitment and investment that the Government are making to help rural communities make the transition to which the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) referred. Joined-up government, which involves a concerted effort across government, is the key to success and stability in that.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister accept that the present deep economic difficulty in agriculture hits providers of land-based higher and further education in two ways? It slashes the profits and trading income from college farms and, quite understandably, it affects applications for courses. For example, is the Minister aware that, in the last month, the Berkshire college of agriculture has had to withdraw its course for the two-year national diploma in agriculture because of a lack of take-up? I am not being partisan, but the situation is extremely serious and requires careful consideration from the Department, which should consult with MAFF, the two funding councils and the colleges if the essential infrastructure of education and training in land-based industries is to be maintained.
    Ms Jowell: I am happy to examine any individual cases which the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise and am
    406
    willing to receive further details of the specific example that he gave. It is important to ensure that people are trained for existing jobs and that work-based training and courses offered by further education colleges equip people with skills for the future labour market.

    Clothing and Textile Industry
    Judy Mallaber: What action he will take on the recommendations relating to education and training in the strategy document for the United Kingdom clothing and textile industry published on 6 June. [123335]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I welcome the report and, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was pleased to announce a 12-point plan to support the industry and help it to adapt and meet global changes. The industry has a turnover of almost £18 billion, has exports worth more than £5 billion and employs 277,000 people, so it has a strong future and must respond and focus effectively on its key strengths. We have accepted all the recommendations on education and training in the strategy document and have worked actively to establish and support two national training organisations to encourage more effective education and industry links.
    Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I agree and confirm that textiles and clothing remain one of our largest manufacturing sectors and have a positive future, provided that they are helped to adapt to compete in world markets, along the lines suggested in the report. However, in the past decade or so, tens of thousands of workers in the industry have lost their jobs and many more face redundancy. What are the Government doing to help those workers?
    Ms Hodge: There have been redundancies in the clothing and textile industry but, each quarter, 8,000 new jobs in the sector are reported to the Employment Service. In areas where there has been concentrated redundancy, such as that in the William Baird case, we have been able to employ rapid response units to good effect to give immediate assistance to people affected by closures. As well as our existing resources, we have identified £2 million of new, additional moneys for the industry.
    We have asked the textile and clothing strategy group to report to us by the end of the month with proposals as to how we can establish a pilot to link people who have been made redundant, or who are in danger of redundancy, more swiftly with job opportunities in their locality. We want to know how we can intervene in a fragmented industry where redundancies have a widespread impact. We are also evaluating the effectiveness of the north-east regional taskforce to see whether that has added value.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the Minister's replies and fully support the views of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). Does the Minister accept that, sadly, the clothing and textile industry will not have a good future unless the large retailers stop pressing down the manufacturers' margins—that would encourage investment and employment—while they themselves operate margins of over 300 per cent?

    407
    Will she encourage Departments of State, particularly the Ministry of Defence, to purchase British goods, and not those from overseas? [Interruption.]
    Ms Hodge: I am hesitating because I did not know whether I was hearing a contribution from an old Labour market interventionist or a Conservative free marketeer.
    Mr. John Bercow: Where does the suit come from?
    Ms Hodge: I have been asked where my clothes come from, and I can tell hon. Members that today I represent the European Union, but my fundamentals are well and truly British.
    Mr. Winterton: The Minister has not answered my question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister attempted to answer the question, although it was an amusing response.
    Mr. Winterton: Am I permitted a point of order, Madam Speaker?
    Madam Speaker: I am afraid that I do not allow even the hon. Gentleman a point of order in the middle of Question Time. He may return to the point later, if he wishes. The House will realise that I have given the Minister the opportunity to answer the question, and she appears not to want to do so.
    Ms Hodge: I thought that in the first part of my response I was starting to answer the question. The serious point is that, as part of the 12-point plan, we are examining how we can impact on the supply chain to ensure that we protect the textile industry. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the strategy document, he would find that that proposal is incorporated in it.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister understand that there is nothing wrong with intervention? The Government may have started out in 1997 with the starry-eyed idea that market forces would ensure jobs for everybody in every part of Britain, but the truth is that we have to intervene, and we always have done. Intervention has recently taken place in Rover and other cases, and there is nothing wrong in that. In mining, too, there has been limited intervention, although some of the money will go into Richard Budge's pocket.
    I am concerned about the fact that, in Bolsover, 700 textile jobs have been lost in the last three months, which in a small geographical area is equivalent to the Rover job losses. We all know that there has been a seepage of jobs from textiles for donkey's years, but the Government must understand that there is nothing wrong with intervention; market forces will not resolve the problem in peripheral and coalfield areas. Now that the Government have a chance to move away from the operation of market forces and to understand that, to save
    408
    jobs in textiles and other industries, we have to intervene. If we do that now, before the general election, everything will be all right.
    Ms Hodge: That is a serious contribution, and there is a real issue about ensuring that, when the Government intervene—this Government believe in active government and intervention—we do so in a way that ensures that jobs are sustainable over time in an economy that is changing and restructuring fast and that we protect and promote not only the interests of workers, but those of consumers who need to buy those products. The intervention has to be of a nature that will ensure that there is strength and sustainability in the jobs. In the clothing and textile industry, we have to focus on the high-quality, well-designed products that we produce here in Britain, of which we are justly proud.
    Mr. James Gray: Tubbs Elastics, Sherston, which is in my constituency and is the largest elastics manufacturer in the United Kingdom, is equally concerned—like the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber)—about the future of the textile and clothing industry. In that context, like the textile and clothing industry generally, it is worried that the so-called summit held the other day and the 12-point plan are all about spin, PR and gimmickry rather than actual substance. As an example of that, is the Minister not ashamed that, on the day when she knew that she would answer a question about the textile and clothing industry, she should barefacedly come to the Dispatch Box wearing a French suit? Is that not an example of the Government's approach to industry? Knowing that she would talk about the industry, why could not she have worn a British suit, for heaven's sake?
    Ms Hodge: I tried—[Interruption. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you would stop me presenting each label on every garment that I am wearing today, but I tried to demonstrate that I am a good European by wearing a mixture of European and British clothes. Can I make a serious point? The Conservative party never did anything to support the textile and clothing industry to restructure and ensure that it had a proper, sustainable future. In response to growing redundancies and problems in the area, we have put together a group that has produced a report, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read it. This is the start of action. If he is suggesting that we as a Government should be protecting sectors of an industry that are unsustainable, that is a massive shift in Conservative party policy.

    Young Long-term Unemployed
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What steps he is taking to improve provision for the long-term unemployed aged 25 years and over. [123336]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The new deal for those who are 25-plus has already helped 40,000 long-term unemployed people into jobs. There are now 55,000 fewer people unemployed for 18 months or more than there were in May 1997, but there is more to do. From April next year, we intend to build on the success of the new deal for young people and increase

    409
    significantly our investment in the new deals for older people facing long-term unemployment by giving them personal advice and high-quality practical assistance to help them to move back into work.
    Ms Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even though the employment zone in Doncaster has been up and running for only about a month, it has been extremely successful in getting long-term unemployed people over 25 back to work? However, at present those who can benefit from the scheme are selected randomly and I should be grateful for her assurance that, if it continues to be as successful as it is at the moment, the scheme will be extended to all long-term unemployed people in the zone.
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and her congratulations on the early success of the employment zone. Random assignment is being used to ensure that the new approach succeeds in getting more of those facing long-term unemployment back into work more quickly. As soon as that success is clearly established, the extra support and help available to some of her constituents will be available generally.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the new deal—one of the actions taken to support long-term unemployed over-25s—has been a failure, not least in North Yorkshire? Will she join me in recognising that the burdens on employers are disproportionate and increase the cost of employing over-25s?
    Ms Jowell: The Opposition have been persistently hostile to the new deal—a programme that, according to independent evaluation, is getting young and older people off benefit and into work. They have always been indifferent to the fate of the long-term unemployed, hostile to the new deal and hostile to our Government's objective of opportunity for all in return for responsibility from all.
    Mr. Derek Foster: It is welcome news indeed that the success of the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds is drawing out important lessons for beefing up the new deal for over-25s. My right hon. Friend will recall that the recent Education and Employment Select Committee report identified transport as one of the most important factors in enabling people looking for work to get to where the jobs are. What progress is she making—with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and with local authorities—to that end?
    Ms Jowell: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Since I appeared before the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have launched a further stage of the travelcard for new dealers, offering half-price travel to enable young people to get to work. We are looking to extend the travel-to-interview scheme and the new job grant will begin to remove some of the obstacles that travel presents. We are determined to remove the obstacles to people getting to jobs. We are extending help to disadvantaged people, extending the opportunity of work and taking the practical action that that requires.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that 81 per cent. of participants in the new deal for over-25s are on
    410
    the advisory process, 45 per cent. leave the scheme to claim jobseeker's allowance, 9 per cent. go to work-based learning, 3 per cent. go to the training and education option, 25 per cent. go to destinations unknown and, in its two years of operation, only 14 per cent. have managed to achieve sustained employment, why does the right hon. Lady not admit that no Government have ever promised so much, delivered so little and blown their own trumpet with such indecent haste?
    Ms Jowell: Well, just tell that to the 40,000 people who have already found work as a result of the new deal for over-25s. We will take no lessons from an Opposition who have always been hostile to helping unemployed people into work and who have tried to thwart everything that the Government have done to extend the advantage and opportunity of work to the unemployed. We are building on the success of the new deal for young people, building on the help with basic skills, numeracy and literacy and preparation for work and removing the practical obstacles that many long-term unemployed people face in getting to work. We are investing six times more in the help that will be available to the long-term unemployed to get them into work. We want the over-25s to get work, and more than 200,000 young people have successfully moved off benefit and into work through the new deal.

    Employment Service Direct
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: How many jobseekers have secured employment through Employment Service Direct. [123337]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Employment Service Direct is part of a £68 million modernisation programme, which uses old technology in the form of a telephone, and new technology in the form of touch screens, to enable people to access the jobs that are available when they need them. Since it was launched last year, 50,000 people a week have used the service and 82,000 have found jobs through it. Those 82,000 are among the almost 1 million people who have got a job since the Government were elected, but did not have a job when Conservative Members were in power.
    Mrs. Brinton: I am grateful for that reply. I was pleased to learn from my local district manager that jobseekers perceive the service as successful. It means that they do not have to trot out to the jobcentre to access employment. There are also many hotlines in the community through which people can access jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent new service will not only get more people into the job market but increase jobs mobility? That is what we want.
    Mr. Blunkett: The service is part of a more adaptable and flexible labour market, which works in the interests of growth with low inflation, and offers opportunities that did not previously exist. It is part of the development of the new learning and work bank, which will link learning opportunities and skills to the jobs that are available, help people to prepare their CVs and enable employers to access employers and call them for interview. The service is also more than that. It contributes to the employment

    411
    service's ability to reach out to those who previously sat at home, waiting for someone to find them a job. It means that we can not only draw people into the jobcentre and help them, but work outwards from the jobcentre to ensure that, wherever there is a vacancy, a person is ready and able to fill it.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Why then did the Government close down the successful job clubs? What advice has the Secretary of State for my 58-year-old disabled constituent who has been out of work for two years, but was previously helped back into employment by the Conservative Government's job club scheme? Why does not the Secretary of State believe that that would help in the case that I described?
    Mr. Blunkett: Because we replaced what was available with the new deal for those aged over 50 and the new deal for disabled people. They provide a personal adviser service, and a service tailored to the needs of individuals. The personal adviser service provides what were previously job club activities, such as showing people how to write a letter, make a phone call or prepare a CV. The new programme has been much more successful in getting the long-term unemployed and the disadvantaged into work.

    Higher Education (Ethnic Minority Access)
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What plans he has to ensure that members of ethnic minority groups have equal access to higher education. [123338]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Ethnic minority students are generally well represented in higher education, although some groups still give cause for concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a further £4 million to enhance the £18 million allocated to students from disadvantaged areas. Many of those from the ethnic communities will benefit from those measures.
    I congratulate the many universities that reach out to different communities. For example, London Guildhall has excellent links with the local Bengali community. The university of East London also does good work. There is good work from universities throughout the country.
    Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the Dearing report, which, in 1997, highlighted the persistently low participation of specific ethnic groups in the pre-1992 university system? Does he know that entry applications for 2000–01 show that the position has not improved and that percentages have decreased in some ethnic areas? Does my hon. Friend know that ethnic groups are concentrated in specific post-1992 universities, and that Dearing identified one of the reasons for that as their ethnic-friendly policies? Will he ensure that the pre-1992 universities also have such policies and do not carry a tag of institutional racism?
    Mr. Wicks: It is vital that all our education institutions, including all our universities, have equal opportunities policies—not just pieces of paper, but practice to back them up. In my constituency, one third of the people are from the various ethnic communities. Increasingly,
    412
    we need to look at the individual communities, rather than the aggregate, because the experience of access to universities and other institutions is very different. Of course, our universities need to be sophisticated. I am not complacent, but the numbers going to universities from ethnic communities in general have increased. We still have a lot to do.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Minister accept that those of us who attend graduation ceremonies at universities in London and outside are constantly and favourably impressed by the number of members of ethnic minorities who have secured higher education qualifications, under both the present Government and the previous one?
    Mr. Wicks: Of course, we congratulate those young people, their families and their teachers. However, I am concerned that young men from the African-Caribbean community, many of whom have great ability and are working well in the schools, tend to be under-represented in many of our universities. That is one area in which we are not complacent; there is still much to do.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my hon. Friend agree that getting a place at university should be based on ability and what one knows, not on having a toffee nose and a public school education? I urge him to continue to put pressure on universities to do more to improve access. Will he consider carefully the proposals from the Sutton Trust about how the Government can help in that process?
    Mr. Wicks: The Sutton Trust, for which we all have great regard, produced its report this week. It tells us that the chance of getting into a top 13 university is approximately 25 times greater if one comes from an independent school than if one comes from a lower class or lives in a poor area. We are working on that, with summer schools and bursaries from the universities for many of those youngsters, and we are working with universities, many of which are doing good work. Indeed, many at Oxford are doing good work. That is what we should encourage. We should move on and make sure that each and every one of our young people, whether rich or poor, black or white, from north or south, has a good chance, with good A-levels, to get into our good universities.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems with black Afro-Caribbean boys in particular is that they are four times more likely to be excluded from school, and therefore not to participate in the education service or go to university? What is the Minister doing about that? Will he comment on the College of Law research published this week, which shows that black and Asian students graduating from university are 30 per cent. less likely to find a place in a law firm than their white counterparts? Surely that is a disgrace at the other end of the market.
    Mr. Wicks: I certainly understand the last point, and none of us is complacent about the extent of racial discrimination in this country. It has implications not only for Government, but for many institutions, including those connected with the law.

    413
    With regard to exclusions, there is a difficulty, but the numbers are improving. I am aware that not only our Department, but many schools and local authorities are working extremely hard on that issue. We need to work with parents, families and mentors in the community to get it right. We can play a major role. Education maintenance allowances will enable more children this summer to think about staying on in education. Much remains to be done—it is a big issue and we are working on it.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key elements of the problem is that the funding basis of the further education college system, which is such an important gateway to higher education, was highly fragmented? Much still needs to be done to ensure that that conduit to higher education is made more effective than it was under the previous Government.
    Mr. Wicks: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we are legislating for new learning and skills councils from April next year. The 47 local councils will be responsive to local needs and demands—the needs of business and employers, and also the needs of individuals—to make sure that demand and need lead the system.
    We have invested record amounts in further education, because we regard it as a sector for the 21st century. We must ensure that it plays a major role in both social inclusion agendas and the economic development of local communities.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Magdalen college, Oxford, has offered three ethnic minority candidates places to read medicine this autumn, in preference to other applicants. As the Prime Minister has refused to do so, will the Minister now repeat the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that that is an absolute scandal?
    Mr. Wicks: I have great affection for the hon. Lady, but she is a poor substitute for Jeremy Paxman.
    Mrs. May: Come on, answer.
    Mr. Wicks: People should have equal chances of getting into our best universities, whatever their socio-economic status. At present, many children who secure top A-levels do not have those equal chances. It is a scandal that we have that inequality in Britain. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we think that it is a scandal and we are going to do something about it by applying practical measures. The Opposition are complacent. They concern themselves with the elite, while we are concerned with all children.
    Mrs. May: The Minister speaks of the standard of entrants. The Government have said that they want places at medical schools to be ring-fenced for certain categories of students. People would prefer their doctors to have been selected on the basis of merit rather than political correctness. Given that rhetoric and waffle are now attracting slow handclaps from middle England, will the Minister set aside the waffle and set out for the House
    414
    exactly what the Government are suggesting, and whether it involves dropping standards of entry for medical students?
    Mr. Wicks: It certainly does not. Given the Prime Minister's clear target—to expand universities so that 50 per cent. of our young people have access to university education—there will be excellent places, with quality maintained, for all children with decent A-levels: yes, from the private sector, and yes, from the public sector. It is crucial for us to get the best in our universities. At present, as the Sutton Trust has demonstrated, too much talent from working-class communities is being wasted. We are determined to redress the position.
    The hon. Lady may not like that answer. I may not receive a pot of jam from her.
    Mr. John Bercow: Sexist!
    Mr. Wicks: It is not at all sexist. I know that the hon. Gentleman's application to join the Women's Institute was declined, and I can see why. What I said was not sexist at all. I will take a pot of jam from the hon. Gentleman, or from other hon. Gentlemen.
    We are concerned about equal access to our top universities. That is what our party is about, and as a Government we are working on achieving it.

    Secondary Schools (Ofsted Inspections)
    Mr. Clive Efford: What guidance is given to Ofsted inspectors regarding short inspections of secondary schools. [123339]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The guidance given to inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education will depend on the purpose of the inspection. Some schools are inspected because they are subject to special measures or have serious weaknesses; others may be visited to check the progress that they are making. As part of the regular cycle of inspections, more flexibility has recently been introduced so that effective schools are inspected less often and resources can be directed to those that are less effective.
    Mr. Efford: My right hon. Friend is aware of the anger felt by teachers, parents and the local education authority in my area following a short inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of one of the largest secondary schools in the country. Would she care to say how schools can plan ahead with any confidence if HMI fails to abide by the minimum standards set out in a document published in January? I have a copy here.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are far-reaching implications for schools throughout the country? Would she care to respond to letters sent to her by me, and by the leader of the local education authority? Will she support demands for an annual debate in the House on the activities of Ofsted, so that the House can impose some accountability on the organisation?
    Ms Morris: I do understand. My hon. Friend has spoken to me a number of times, and also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about the feelings of

    415
    staff at Crown Woods school. I think that my hon. Friend has acted properly, and that the school has acted properly. In the first instance, the school wrote to Her Majesty's chief inspector. We have made it clear to the school that it has the right to go to the adjudicator, Elaine Rassaby—a woman appointed under this Government so that schools have access to a second opinion.
    Two things are now important: first, that the school follows the proper processes, but secondly—I say it in the kindest way—that staff at the school do not let their anger detract from their core job, which is raising standards. I trust that they will not do that. We should await the response and see what happens.
    On the accountability of Ofsted, as my hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on Education and Employment almost annually now interviews HMCI and, on more than one occasion, the Committee's report has been debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome that and hope that it will continue.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What advice is the Minister giving to inspectors about exclusions in schools? Many schools that are failing have a lot of disruptive pupils, yet head teachers tell me that, for budgetary reasons, they are scared of moving those pupils out of school because, as soon as they do so, they lose the bonus given by the Government for keeping disruptive pupils in school, disrupting other children's education.
    Ms Morris: Schools do not lose money for excluding children. Under the present Government, for the first time, money that used to be kept by the local authority in case children were excluded and had to be educated elsewhere is devolved to schools—more money to schools, rather than to the local authority. That is what we have done. It makes sense, if we give money to schools to ensure that children are not excluded and a child is then excluded, that the money goes with the child so that the child can be educated. That is exactly right.
    I would be surprised if any school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency had been told by Ofsted inspectors that it should not be excluding children, but it is right that, when Ofsted inspectors go in, they look at the range of provision in the school. That will include looking at those children at risk of exclusion and ensuring that the school has a proper discipline policy.
    Just so that there is no mistake—because there has been much mischief making and headline grabbing this week by the Leader of the Opposition—I believe that every hon. Member is united: our clear message to parents, teachers and pupils is that, where a child's behaviour is such that it distracts other students from learning, the head has every right to exclude that child from the school, so that others can get on with learning and teachers can get on with teaching.

    Secondary Schools (Specialisms)
    Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the development of specialisms in secondary schools.[123340]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Under the Government's specialist schools programme, schools can
    416
    specialise in one of four areas. Specialist school numbers have more than doubled since 1997, with just over 500 specialist schools operating from September this year. Those schools are continuing to prove their effectiveness in raising standards: the average percentage of pupils achieving five or more GCSE A* to C in 1999 compared with 1998 improved by two thirds as much again in specialist schools, compared with all other schools.
    Mr. Hope: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees that specialist schools have a vital role to play in raising standards and in increasing diversity. My particular reason for raising the question is that we are creating a fresh-start school in Corby—Corby community college. It is about to head off into a brand new future, building on the success of two other schools that have merged. It will really help that school to make a fresh start if it becomes an arts and media specialist school, to match the technology school that we already have in Corby. When that application comes in, will my hon. Friend give it sympathetic consideration, so that every child in Corby gets the best possible start to their education?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is a strong and persistent advocate for schools in his constituency, and I am sure that he will continue to be. I offer my best wishes to staff and students of the newly formed Corby community college as they take forward the important job of raising standards for their children.
    My hon. Friend is right—one of the important points about applying for specialist school status, which is increasingly popular among schools, is that, in producing a development plan that shows how the school intends to raise standards and to benefit the wider community, the focus on that activity itself helps to raise standards. I assure him that, as always, we will consider any forthcoming applications very carefully.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Grammar schools specialise in academic excellence. What is the Minister's definition of a "pretty standard" grammar school? Will she confirm, as a matter of fact, that Blackheath high school has never been one?
    Jacqui Smith: That question confirms our view that the Opposition's attention is based on a few schools, whereas our attention is based on raising standards in all schools. The Conservatives have a shadow Minister for grammar schools. I understand, from reading The Birmingham Post, that they now have a Conservative candidate who calls himself the Midland's spokesman on grammar schools. I think that it is about time that the Opposition concentrated on all the schools in this country, and all the children in this country, as the Government intend to do.

    New Technologies (Access)
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What action he is taking to combat social inequality in access to new technologies among learners. [123342]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): We are taking steps to ensure that, in future, every school leaver will have the opportunity to use and develop

    417
    competence in those new technologies. They are essential, and we have to ensure that not only those pupils who are fortunate enough to have a computer at home are able to use them. Two out of three people in socio-economic groups A and B have access to a computer at home, whereas only one in five of those in socio-economic groups D and E have access.
    We are making good progress in improving computer:pupil ratios and internet access in schools. In 1997, only one primary school in six had access to the internet; today, about two thirds do. Every school in the country will have access by 2002. We are also taking action to ensure access for adults. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given a commitment that, by 2005, all those who want it will have the opportunity to access the internet.
    We are establishing about 700 computer learning centres to serve the country's 2,000 most deprived wards, and 50,000 free computer training courses are being made available to jobless—[Interruption.] I think that Conservative Members would like—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Has the Minister finished?
    Mr. Wills: Madam Speaker, with your permission, I have not quite finished. We are taking important initiatives—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We have reached only Question 9, and I deprecate that we are not making better progress. We have had long questions, and we have had very long answers from Ministers. Will the Minister now bring his answer to a conclusion?
    Mr. Wills: I am happy to return to the subject in the future, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome his commitment to gaining the widest access to information technology. He clearly demonstrated that commitment on a recent visit to my constituency. I very much welcome his comments on the serious issue of the digital divide between those young people who have access to computers at home and those who do not. What further action can we take to encourage industry to tackle that social exclusion, and how can we monitor the effectiveness of the Government's initiatives to bring computers to those who are the many and not the few?
    Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for re-emphasising the importance of tackling the digital divide. We are working with the private sector to do precisely that. I know that Conservative Members have absolutely no interest in those essential new technologies. They have proposed absolutely no policies whatsoever on them, and have demonstrated their complete lack of concern with bringing those opportunities to everyone in the United Kingdom, other than to a privileged few. They have continued to demonstrate that attitude today. The Government, however, will continue to ensure that everyone has access to those opportunities.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister mentioned that some schools are now kitted out with internet-capable computers. I represent a partly urban and
    418
    partly rural constituency, where there are people who simply cannot afford to have their own computers at home or to pay online charges, even with reduced costs. What steps will he take to ensure that, when the school day ends at 3.30 pm, all those schools with computers will be opened to young people and adults so that they can access the computers?
    Mr. Wills: I am glad that at least one Conservative Member recognises the importance of the matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that. We particularly understand that it is sometimes difficult for schools in rural areas to have access. That is why my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry have been pushing forward development of broadband wireless as a means of accessing the internet. I think that such access will be particularly valuable for schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We also have a range of initiatives designed to help schools stay open longer, so that they can provide access to those technologies in schools to the whole community. We are encouraging applications, from all communities that serve deprived areas, for new computer learning centres. I hope that there will be some applications from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    Skill Shortages
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: If he will make a statement on the initiatives undertaken by his Department to address skill shortages in the engineering and IT sectors. [123344]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): This is, of course, a serious question. Briefly, the number of undergraduates enrolling in computer studies is increasing. With the national training organisations, the university for industry and the new Learning and Skills Council, we are tackling the issue. We are keen to ensure that more women enter careers in both computer science and engineering.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. He will know, as I do, that there are a significant number of vacancies within the UK for qualified engineers and information technology literate individuals. These people are desperately sought. I welcome the significant number of initiatives that have been taken by my hon. Friend's Department to promote the understanding of science, engineering and technology. What further initiatives does he have in mind to promote the public understanding of science, and thus possibly induce more young people into an exciting career?
    Mr. Wicks: One of the relevant new initiatives is the new Connexions service—the youth support service—for 13 to 19-year-olds. It is designed to give each and every child first-class information and guidance about learning opportunities and careers. The role of the national training organisations is also important. I shall be happy to discuss the matter in more detail with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister will be aware that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said that funding for universities needs to

    419
    be reformed. It has suggested that engineering courses will have to cost rather more in tuition fees than, for example, arts courses. The figure of £6,000 has been talked about. Does the Minister agree that a £6,000 tuition fee, far from encouraging people to study engineering, would put them off? If so, how does he reconcile that with the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday? He said that
    we simply have to change the system of finance. Virtually every major country around the world has had to do the same, and I think that it is right that the Government make the difficult … choice to reform student finance.—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 282.]
    Mr. Wicks: We have made important and sometimes difficult decisions, not least about student finance. Unlike the previous Government, who compromised quality and quantity by reducing unit costs, we are maintaining standards. We are funding the university sector. There will be no top-up fees, which we have legislated against. Such fees do not represent the right approach. The approach that we have outlined is the right way ahead.

    Education Maintenance Awards
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What plans he has to extend education maintenance awards to other areas. [123345]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Early signs from the existing education maintenance allowance pilots are very encouraging. Clearly, paying young people to continue their education has the potential to make a real difference to their lives and choices. We are extending the number of pilots to 41, and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that one of them will be in east Lancashire.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will recognise that in Burnley and in east Lancashire there is certainly more deprivation than elitism. In Burnley, there are far too many people who are unable to go on to further and higher education. Anything that the Government can do to encourage people to take that route will be welcome.
    Mr. Wicks: That is absolutely right. Although the needs and abilities of youngsters at 16 will vary, we must
    420
    ensure that all young men and women have first-class training and education. Education maintenance allowances are a vital part of the strategy, but there are other parts to it.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Who qualifies for this money?
    Mr. Wicks: It is designed to help those from low-income backgrounds to gain access to education and training after the age of 16. We are piloting the scheme. The early results in terms of increasing participation and diligence in studies are most encouraging. It is a useful pilot and we are encouraged.

    Pre-school Provision
    Fiona Mactaggart: If he will make a statement on provision for children aged under five years in the private, voluntary, independent and maintained sectors. [123346]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): All four-year-olds now have access to free nursery education, and for the first time in Britain, because of a Labour Government, we are specifically funding the expansion of free places for three-year-olds. By March 2002, we shall have funded 190,000 free nursery places and two out of three of our young three-year-olds will have access to a free place.
    Fiona Mactaggart: The House will want to know how many extra places for three and four-year-olds have been created in the past two years. May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the diversity of provision, which stands in stark contrast to the Conservatives failed nursery voucher system?
    Ms Hodge: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in the issue and I congratulate her on that. We have a fantastic record on expanding places and ensuring diversity. Eight out of 10 of the new places that we have created for three-year-olds are in the private and voluntary sector. For the first time since funding has been provided for nursery education, there has been an increase in the number of places available for four-year-olds in the private and voluntary sector—a sector that the previous Government did their best to destroy.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
TUESDAY 13 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
THURSDAY 15 JUNE—Debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 16 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 19 JUNE—Debate on the royal commission report on the reform of the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 20 JUNE—Opposition day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE—Second Reading of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 22 JUNE—Debate on the security and intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23 JUNE—Debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 June there will be a debate on European document No: 6230/00: the White Paper on Environmental Liability, in European Standing Committee A. On the same day, there will be a debate on European document No: 7828/00: Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 14 June 2000:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Documents: 6230/00, White Paper on Environmental Liability. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xiii (1999–2000).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 7828/00, Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xix (1999–2000).]
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am sorry, but I take points of order after questions.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the details of next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. I welcome the long-awaited debate on the Wakeham report, six months
422
to the day after its publication. We hope that the Government will have something positive to say in that debate, so that they can dispel the widely held view that they wish that that issue would disappear.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister trailed a statement by the Home Secretary on the Burns report on hunting. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be an oral statement, and tell us on which day it will be made?
There is mounting interest, not least among spending Ministers, in the comprehensive spending review. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Chancellor hopes to make a statement on the outcome, and will she confirm that there will then be a debate on it in Government time?
Might we also have a debate on voluntary organisations, led by the Prime Minister, to give him an opportunity to agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) that the Women's Institute has done a sterling service to the Labour party by proving to the Prime Minister that people will not play a scripted part in choreographed politics?
Can the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on foreign affairs, led by the Foreign Secretary? There are many issues causing concern, not least the tragic death of Brigadier Stephen Saunders in Athens, on which the House will want to express its sympathy to family and friends. While we welcome the recent statements, they are no substitute for a structured full-day debate on foreign affairs. Will she also find time for a debate on the housing Green Paper—a subject that the House has not discussed for some time?
Finally, can the right hon. Lady say anything further about the date of the summer recess, so that our staff and the staff of the House can plan their lives?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks, and for welcoming the debate on the Wakeham report and the reform of the House of Lords. He says that it is some time since the report was published, which is true. In fact, we scheduled the debate earlier and moved it at the request of the Opposition. As for the content of the debate, it will be—as I have made clear from the outset—a debate in which the Government wish to hear the views of the House. As for the notion that the Government hope that the issue will disappear, those who hope that it will disappear are those who hoped that it would never be raised in the first place, and they are on the Opposition Benches.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Burns report, which we anticipate will be delivered soon. I cannot tell him for certain today when a statement will be made, but I expect that the Home Secretary will make a statement. I shall keep him informed through the usual channels. Similarly, I shall draw his remarks on the comprehensive spending review to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—but the timing is not yet settled.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for the Prime Minister to lead a debate on the issue of voluntary organisations. Participation in general debates by Prime Ministers was not a pleasure that we ever had during the days of Lady Thatcher or her successor. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would enjoy taking part in such a debate, although the pressures on his time are very great. As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about people taking a scripted part in politics,

423
I have actually read the Prime Minister's speech—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has not done so, and I understand if that is the case. It was excellent.
It is surprising that people objected to those unexceptionable remarks about the strength and importance of the health service and the need for reform. To some degree, one does wonder why it happened—[Interruption.] That is, of course, a matter for other people to decide. There is certainly some irony in the fact that an organisation that one would have thought would welcome remarks about the importance of traditional values chose, in some small quarters, to object to them.
The right hon. Gentleman also requested a debate on foreign affairs. I know that the whole House will wish to send its sympathies to the family of Brigadier Saunders, who, tragically, was murdered this morning. Fortunately we do not often lose public servants to such a fate, and the incident is much to be regretted. I know that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made public statements, and the whole House will wish to join in sending our sympathies to the family. I have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a full day's foreign affairs debate, and I am aware that the Opposition are seeking such a debate. I remind him that I have announced four separate days of debate on various issues and an Opposition Day, so we are finding time to debate issues as well as the Government's legislative programme.
I have also taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the housing Green Paper. He will know that the consultation on that is still under way, and the Government will respond in due course to the fruits of that consultation.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 796.
[That this House congratulates the Board of Science and Education of the British Medical Association for the publication of its report 'Eating Disorders, Body Image & the Media' which considers the role that the media can play in the causation of eating disorders; notes that eating disorders have one of the highest mortality rates of all psychiatric illnesses, and are an increasing problem in modern western societies; welcomes the Government summit which is to take place on this issue on 21st June; and calls upon the Government to implement the recommendations in the BMA's report which call for clearly defined targets for the reduction in the number of eating disorders through preventative measures, extra resources to be given for mental health services, specifically eating disorder clinics, and increased public education on the connections between dieting, physical activity and health, and the health risks associated with eating disorders and being underweight.]
It concerns the excellent report by the BMA on eating disorders, body image and the media. My right hon. Friend will be aware that eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa, are on the increase and are affecting ever younger people, especially girls. The Government will hold a summit in the near future, and I am sure that the BMA's report will be discussed there, but can my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the issue in Government time? There is a worrying trend of growth in such illnesses.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that this is a subject in which my hon. Friend has taken great interest, and it arouses
424
great concern in the House and more widely. She is right that the Government are giving full consideration to the recommendations of the report and very much recognise the seriousness of the issues. I fear that it is not likely that we will be able to find time on the Floor of the House in the near future to debate those issues, although Westminster Hall is another option. However, I assure my hon. Friend that, by that or some other means, the Government will look at the matter very carefully.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: First, may I ask to be associated with the condolences extended to the family of Brigadier Saunders? I am sure that that feeling is shared by all hon. Members.
Secondly, will the Leader of the House bring forward the report from the Review Body on Senior Salaries on hon. Members' office costs allowance, and will she be able to find time for a debate on the matter in the next couple of weeks? I draw her attention especially to the very tragic experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). Several of my colleagues have received advice from the police and others about adopting necessary security measures in their constituencies so that they can proceed with their normal parliamentary duties.
That is becoming a significant factor in the allocation of hon. Members' resources for the coming year. [Interruption.] When it comes to choreography, Conservative Members are better than the WI. Back-Bench Members are precisely the ones who find themselves in the difficult circumstances that led to the tragedy in Cheltenham.
Mr. Cash: Dad's army.
Hon. Members: Get a bodyguard.
Mr. Stunell: I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the matter carefully and bring a report to the House.
Finally, may I draw the right hon. Lady's attention—
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: You're safe in here, son, don't worry.
Mr. Stunell: May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 804, which relates to Burma?
[That this House recognises and supports the Committee Representing the People's Parliament in Burma which has been established due to the military junta's refusal to comply with the 1990 election results and allow parliament to convene since that time; notes that the Committee Representing the People's Parliament has already received statements of support from the European Parliament, the Danish Parliament, the Belgian Parliament and the Norwegian Parliament; and believes that international recognition of this kind will serve to strengthen the pro-democracy movement in Burma.]
A number of legislatures in western Europe have offered their support for the People's Council representing the Parliament. Will she find time for the House to do the same?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for associating his party with our remarks about the death of Brigadier Saunders.

425
The hon. Gentleman requested a debate on the SSRB report. If I recall correctly, that report was produced before the terrible events that took place in Cheltenham. I recognise that many hon. Members have taken advice as a result, especially for staff members in their constituencies, and that there is some concern about the financial implications. However, the SSRB did not report in the context of those issues, and perhaps the best way forward would be for the hon. Gentleman to draw his remarks to the board's attention. I shall do the same, as I know that the board keeps such matters under review.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to Burma. It has been the policy of successive Governments to recognise states rather than Governments or political parties. The question of recognition is therefore more difficult than it appears at first sight. However, we keep the matter under review, and we continue to put pressure on Burma to improve conditions at home.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it not rather important that regular reports should be made to the House of Commons when British troops are in action? Would my right hon. Friend consider a statement being made to follow the response made yesterday evening by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to a question that I asked about what had happened with regard to a grenade that caused so much trouble for Brigadier Shirreff of 7th Armoured Brigade and his colleagues?
My hon. Friend said:
It is certainly difficult at this stage to do so, but people should not automatically assume one particular source.—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 389.]
Obviously, the authorities locally are conducting investigations, but is not it important that the House should know the results, as the broader question concerns what exactly is going on in Kosovo?
Is not it also important for the House to have some explanation as to why significantly more armament is being dropped on Iraq? That was revealed in answers to questions asked in last night's debate by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
Mrs. Beckett: Defence Ministers come regularly to the House, both to debate and to make statements. They endeavour to keep the House as fully informed as possible. It is, of course, not always possible to anticipate every issue or air every question that may come up on defence. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence endeavours to keep the House informed and will, I know, continue to do so through our regular debates and statements.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Will the Leader of the House, in the forthcoming European debate or in an early statement, ensure that, for the first time, we get an accurate and straightforward account of the Government's European policy? In particular, will she ensure that Ministers answer the question about when they wish to abolish the pound, because they will be speaking against the background of a very successful "Save the Pound" weekend, led by the Conservative party?
426
Will Ministers also tell us for how much longer they wish the House to have the main power to tax people in this country, given the strong pressures in the draft treaty of Nice to give away huge chunks of our right to independent taxation? Is the right hon. Lady aware, for example, that it is no good defending ourselves in relation to the withholding tax in current negotiations and saying no, because if we sign the draft treaty of Nice in its current form, it could be pushed on us even if we objected to it?
Mrs. Beckett: The House is under no illusions—it knows exactly what the Government's European policy is. It has been repeated ad nauseam in the House, and was repeated again at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. Either Conservative Members are wilfully refusing to pay attention or they have difficulty in grasping a simple, straightforward statement of policy. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have clearly indicated that only when the economic tests are met would the question of belonging to a single currency even arise.
As for the power to tax and the withholding tax, the withholding tax famously remained in play, despite claims from the Conservative party that it vetoed it when plainly it did not. The Government have continually made it clear that we will resist attempts to erode our freedom to run our own tax affairs as we choose, and we are doing so very successfully.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I thank my right hon. Friend for her response to my advances over recent months? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not want to be greedy, but she has now given us the 1999 annual debate on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, whereas this is the year 2000. When does my right hon. Friend plan to hold the debate after next?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sort of grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks. I recognise that he has been asking for this debate for some time—but to ask for another one is pushing his luck a bit.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I remind the Leader of the House of the question that I asked her on 27 January, which appears in column 586 of Hansard, in which I asked her to initiate an annual debate on road safety? She will be only too aware of the appalling accidents that have happened in Derbyshire. In the year to May 1999, some 17 people lost their lives on roads in Derbyshire; up to the May bank holiday this year, the figure is 35. That is an appalling rise, and. I believe that it is also reflected in other counties. It is time that we had an opportunity to discuss this matter in the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concern. The whole House is conscious of the devastation that such a level of accidents causes to the lives of individuals and to the community. The Government have, as the hon. Gentleman will know, made available substantial increased investment for transport, but it takes time for that investment to bear fruit. However, where road safety is concerned, such statistics cause alarm and require careful investigation and thought.
Mr. David Chaytor: There has been increasing concern about some of the criticisms in Ofsted

427
reports on individual schools and local authorities, and there is continuing concern about some statements by the chief inspector of schools. Given that the responsibilities of Ofsted are due to be extended into the post-16 sector—the new Connexions service—and have been extended into the inspection of pre-school provision, and in view of Ofsted's unique nature as a Government agency beyond ministerial accountability, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea not just to have a debate on Ofsted in the near future, but to establish an annual debate in the House on its role and performance?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand that that issue is of considerable importance, and is one in which hon. Members—not least my hon. Friend—take a great interest. However, I fear that his request for a debate in the Chamber is yet another on the list of all those that we simply cannot satisfy. Of course there is the additional facility of debating time in Westminster Hall, to which my hon. Friend might care to direct his attention.
As for annual debates, we once added up the many issues on which Members on both sides of the House had requested such a debate, and came to the conclusion that if we were to grant all those requests, we should never do anything else.
Mr. Stephen Day: The Leader of the House told us earlier of the Prime Minister's enthusiasm to debate the voluntary sector. She may have noted that on Thursday 15 June there will be an opportunity for him to do so; a debate will be held in Westminster Hall on the role of the voluntary sector in national life—recognising and promoting volunteering.
Will the right hon. Lady advise us how many Ministers will be absent next week addressing the Women's Institute? If the number is significant, will that have as devastating an impact on the business of the House as it did on the Prime Minister?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is business questions, and it is not usual to ask for a debate while pointing out that such a debate will, in fact, take place. His question is thus rendered rather superfluous.
It would be a mistake on anybody's part to assume that the Prime Minister was distressed—[Laughter.] Like all of us, he is slightly regretful when people do not appear always wholeheartedly to agree with him. However, he is a man who has encountered disagreement in his time, and expects to do so again.
As I have already said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), what the Prime Minister said in his speech was unexceptionable; I should have thought that 99.9 per cent. of the British people would agree with it. Probably, only someone who actively did not want to agree with it would find something to disagree with.
The most disturbing aspect of the comments made after the Prime Minister's speech went completely unnoticed by the media; it is a constant theme, which I have long believed is a besetting sin in British public life—the notion that politics is something that has nothing to do with everyday life. Everybody in this House either does know or should know that it is through the political structure that many of the decisions that most affect
428
people's lives are taken. If people are concerned about the health service, about post offices and a whole range of other issues, that is what politics is about.
Ann Clwyd: May I ask my right hon. Friend to use her considerable influence to persuade, coerce or cajole a Health Minister to come to the House to give an explanation about a private cosmetic surgeon, David Charles Herbert, whom I have named several times in the House? He is probably operating today, has actually been accused of mutilating at least 80 women, who have sent their complaints to the General Medical Council and to the Secretary of State for Health, yet the GMC says that it cannot, under current legislation, suspend that cosmetic surgeon. We deserve an explanation.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in such matters and has long raised concerns about them—not only with this Government but with the previous Government—on behalf of those who have suffered and been affected by people carrying out plastic surgery. I am aware of her concerns about the role of the GMC. However, I fear that I cannot offer her either time for another debate on the matter or an immediate statement. As she knows, Health questions will take place in the near future, when I am sure that she will continue her many efforts to raise and to press that matter.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Lady will be aware that her Government have made dramatic changes to the constitution and to the way in which the House of Commons operates. The one thing that the Government have not done—but which, I believe, they promised to do—is to restore status and authority to the House of Commons and to Back Benchers. Proposals to achieve that have been outlined in a report by the Liaison Committee entitled "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive". May I make a plea on behalf of all Back Benchers that the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that important report, so that the House and Back Benchers can have meaningful authority and status and the power of the Executive can be properly held to account? Will she find time for such a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have pointed out to the House before, the Government have added to opportunities for scrutiny both through the number of statements that we have made—since the general election, on average, one has been made every two sitting days—and through the opening of Westminster Hall, which allows more time for debates and for the study of Select Committee reports. Of course I recognise the wish for a debate on the Liaison Committee report, and the hon. Gentleman will recognise the fact that I am finding time for some of the many debates that people wish to hold. An interesting and important report has been produced, but it has profound implications for the operation of House—
Mr. Winterton: It does; it would restore some authority to the House.
Mrs. Beckett: The report makes many proposals that would make a substantial difference to all Members of the House and to the roles that they can properly exercise. I

429
very much hope that many more Members will read the report than I suspect have yet done so. They will then realise the implications of what is being proposed.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Although today hon. Members will rightly be concerned about the death of Brigadier Saunders, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the plight of another British citizen overseas? He is my constituent, Mr. Mohammed Chaudhry, who is the subject of early-day motion 810, which has been signed by 100 Members from both sides of the House.
[That this House notes with grave concern that Mohammed Chaudhry, a British citizen, has been held without charge by the Saudi authorities since his arrest on 23rd June 1999 following a five month internal investigation first by Colonel Abdullah Al-Mugari of the Military Police and then by Colonel Ali Johani from the Ministry of Defence into variances resulting from stock-take amounting to approximately £1.5 million of medical supplies at Riyadh Military Hospital where Mr. Chaudhry worked in storage and distribution; notes that the stock-take was cancelled in writing by the Chief Executive of the hospital before the variances could be completely investigated; notes that the investigating authorities never carried out a stock-take to establish facts; notes that, despite the fact that no further questioning by the police investigating the case has taken place since the first few days after his arrest, Mr. Chaudhry, who has always denied any wrong-doing, remains in prison, without access to his lawyer, whilst other employees, including his immediate superior, Captain Meshal, are free; believes that a year is more than sufficient time to investigate any crime of this nature, and that the continued detention of Mr. Chaudhry is a breach of natural justice and internationally accepted human rights; and therefore calls on the Saudi authorities to either release him to return home or, in the unlikely event that there is any case to answer, to bring that case forward against Mr. Chaudhry to enable him to defend himself in open court.]
Mr. Chaudhry has been detained without charge and without access to legal advice in Saudi Arabia for nearly 12 months. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement about that case, in particular, and about diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in general? Further, does she agree that British and European citizens should be advised not to visit or to work in Saudi Arabia while their basic human rights cannot be guaranteed?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has been extremely active on behalf of her constituent, with whom the whole House sympathises. I know that she will be aware that the Foreign Office has been extremely active on Mr. Chaudhry's behalf and has continually pressed the Saudi authorities at the highest level to release him and to conclude their investigations as soon as possible. I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on the matter in the near future. However, my hon. Friend will know that Foreign Office questions will take place on 20 June,
430
and I will certainly draw her remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. I know that he will urge those who are dealing with the Saudi authorities to step up their efforts.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May we have a debate on the directive emanating from article 13 of the European convention on human rights? It will have a significant impact on Church bodies and Church schools. For example, our counsel's opinion is that if a Church school was to insist that a teacher, other than a teacher of religious instruction, should be of certain denomination, it could be taken to an industrial tribunal. A Church body will be able to insist that a minister is of a certain denomination; it would be bizarre if it could not. However, it will not be able to insist that other members of staff are of a certain denomination. That is significant and important.
Before the Leader of the House says, "Well, we can discuss that next week", I point out that that would be in a general debate on important European issues such as the euro. We need a specific debate on this important directive. The issue has been before the Scrutiny Committee and it has decided, against the advice in the report submitted to it, that other aspects of the directive should not come to the Floor of the House. However, there will be hell to pay if we do not have such a debate on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a dispute about whether the effect of those proposals is as he described. Indeed, that is precisely why he wants to debate this important matter. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on such a specific issue on the Floor of the House, but it is suitable for debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: May I join other hon. Members in calling for time to be set aside for a debate on Ofsted, annually or otherwise? That would enable us to examine the need for greater accountability and transparency, and ensure consistency of inspectors' standard of performance.
Two years ago, a school in my constituency suffered badly from the diabolical behaviour of a registered inspector. When the school and I pursued complaints, Ofsted refused to say how many complaints had been made against the individual. Eventually, we were led to believe that the person concerned would not continue to inspect. I was therefore greatly dismayed to read a few weeks ago that the individual, Mr. Piers Bilston, was named as the inspector involved in causing distress to another teacher, which led her to commit suicide. Those are important matters, so we should have a debate on Ofsted.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend identifies an important and powerful concern as a result of his constituency experience. He will accept that Education and Employment questions have just taken place, and I fear that we shall be unlikely to find time for such a specialised debate in the near future. I therefore recommend to him the attractions of Westminster Hall.
Mr. Cash: The Leader of the House said that the European document on environmental liability was going to European Standing Committee A. She may not be

431
aware that, yesterday, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny decided that the document should be debated on the Floor of the House. The Minister responsible for such matters in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has also given a detailed analysis of the document, which highlighted massive changes in United Kingdom law, changes to the burden of proof and extensions of liability, both strict and otherwise.
The consequences of that involve enormous damage to British enterprise and companies, and raise the question of GM technology and biotechnology, so the matter must be debated on the Floor of the House. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that, in line with the decision made properly yesterday by the European Scrutiny Committee, which was correctly convened, the matter will be debated on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I cannot confirm that. I was aware of the view expressed yesterday by the European Scrutiny Committee on what I accept is an important matter. The Government did consider the Committee's advice, but it has long been the practice of successive Governments to discuss such issues in the appropriate Committees, which is why the matter is scheduled for debate in European Standing Committee A.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the three early-day motions that deal with the Stewart report and the siting of mobile phone masts, which are causing a great deal of concern generally and in my constituency? In Edgware and Mill Hill, for example, masts seems to sprout all over the place like oversized weeds, without the benefit of planning consent. Will my right hon. Friend find time to organise a debate so that we can examine the implications of that, especially the safety aspects? When mobile phone masts are sited next to schools or in residential areas, naturally that is worrying for parents and constituents in the locality.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that concern has been expressed. Indeed, my hon. Friend has taken great interest in the matter on his constituents' behalf and Members on both sides of the House have received representations on it. Of course, the Government are keeping the issue under careful review and are considering, for example, the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no requirement for planning consent for such masts.
I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter on the Floor of the House. I believe that it has been debated recently in Westminster Hall, but I am sure that the issues would benefit from a further airing there.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised a strange case. The European Scrutiny Committee was set up to represent the House; it was properly constituted yesterday and decided that document 6230/00 on environmental liability should be considered not in European Standing Committee A, but on the Floor of the House.
The document is of fundamental importance. There is an explanatory memorandum from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the
432
hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), which shows that the Government are, for understandable reasons, undecided about what to do. I am a member of European Standing Committee A, and few members turn up to its proceedings, yet night after night, we all go home early from the House at 10 o'clock. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to give the House a chance to go into the detail of the document and to show that the House is paramount.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman said that this was a golden opportunity. The unworthy suspicion has crossed my mind that the golden opportunity was presented to Opposition Members who found themselves in the majority on the Committee and decided to refer the matter to the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for the importance of the issue. There is an Opposition day on 20 June, as I have announced, and I am sure that he and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will be able to press the matter on their Front-Bench colleagues.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does my right hon. Friend not accede to some of the requests of Tory MPs to have a day's debate on the Floor of the House for this and a day's debate for that? We could delay the beginning of the recess way beyond the start of the grouse shooting season on 12 August, even though the shadow Leader of the House keeps requesting the date of the recess, and I have an idea that he wants an early start so that he can get off.
On a more important matter, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that some of us do not believe in the Liaison Committee report? We do not believe in extending the sloppy consensus and in handing over power to three unelected Select Committee Chairs. If we move towards sloppy consensus and away from the class divide, this place will finish up as non-political as the Women's Institute.
Mrs. Beckett: The best thing that I can say is that, as always, I take a close interest in my hon. Friend's remarks. He is right to identify the fact that the Liaison Committee's proposals are profound in their implications and their potential impact on the House. They need to be properly considered and weighed, and no doubt that will happen over time.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the right hon. Lady's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the Liaison Committee report, is she advancing the novel theory that the House should consider issues with shallow implications before it considers those with profound ones?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I was not making that assertion. A matter that I did not refer to, because it is under discussion, is the fact that the Liaison Committee has invited me to give evidence to it on its report, which I am perfectly willing to do, although it is slightly unusual for a Committee to take evidence after a report has been issued. I have presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Committee would want the debate on the Floor of the House to take place after that, rather than before.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Home Affairs

433
Committee has recommended a weakening of the double jeopardy rules, which go back 2,000 years to Roman law and provide fundamental protection of the rights of the individual British citizen. Weakening those rules might allow us to resolve a few short-term injustices at the expense of having much greater injustice in the long term. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we can have a debate urgently, and certainly before the Government make up their mind? I give her notice that I cannot envisage circumstances in which I would be prepared to vote for a weakening of the double jeopardy rules.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend certainly makes an important point in identifying the serious implications involved in such proposals. He will know that that point was a recommendation of the Macpherson report—as ever, taken up on a knee-jerk basis by the Leader of the Opposition—and that the Government are taking the matter seriously and have referred it to the Law Commission, which is considering it carefully. The Government will consider the Law Commission's views carefully when it has finished its deliberations. He will also know that his concerns were expressed by several hon. Members on both sides of the House when the matter was last raised—not least by the then shadow Home Secretary, who suggested that it should be approached with caution. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's leader unfortunately did not take that advice.
Mr. Nicholls: In a more bipartisan way, can I ask the right hon. Lady to consider a debate into the shambles that passes for the Government's transport policy? Would not such a debate enable us to discover whether there is any truth in the rumours coming out of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that, once again, the funding of bypasses will take place? Would not that mean that the people of Kingskerswell, which is in my constituency, would know whether they must wait another seven years before they gain any relief, or whether they could remind themselves that under the previous Government's proposals, the building of their bypass would have started by the end of this year? People, probably including Ministers, do not know what the Government's policy is, and it is about time that we had a debate so that we could discover it.
Mrs. Beckett: Was not the hon. Gentleman a Minister in that Department?
Mr. Nicholls: No, I was not.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman was certainly involved in discussions with that Department under the previous Administration. On the building of a bypass in his locality, yes, such proposals were indeed scheduled, but he will know that, given the lamentable failure of economic policy under the previous Government, the chances of funding being available for such things were always very problematic. Under this Government, almost an extra £2 billion has been put into improving roads and local public transport, and we shall continue to do so.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is urgent need for a debate on local government finance for two reasons? First,
434
the inadequacies of the current system are producing much eliminable misery, especially because of the inadequate financial basis for social services departments and others. Secondly, major changes have been brought about in the system, for example, by the change to resource accounting and the ring fencing of certain housing budgets, which could have the effect in my patch of losing Dacorum council some 40 per cent. of its revenue next year. Those matters are sufficiently grave to warrant urgent consideration.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concern that my hon. Friend rightly expresses on behalf of his constituency. However, I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, but oral questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place next Tuesday and my hon. Friend, too, may find that he can secure a debate in Westminster Hall earlier than he could on the Floor of the House.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given her prior notice because it is not one which she could normally be expected to answer unprepared? Will a Defence Minister make a statement in the House about what investigations, if any, the Ministry of Defence police are making into the circumstances whereby The Mirror acquired a stolen laptop computer with military secrets on it, given that fat t that my attempts to establish from The Mirror whether money was paid to the thieves rather than the police being informed of their identity have been rebutted with a degree of hysteria and abusiveness? It is a serious matter if a national newspaper pays thieves for stolen property to get headlines. Have any investigations been undertaker? I should be most grateful to the right hon. Lady if a statement could be made.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise the matter as that has enabled me to discover that an investigation—handled in the first instance by the British Transport police—is indeed under way. He will recall that the event took place at Paddington. The Ministry of Defence police are assisting with identification of property and so on. I fear that I cannot undertake to provide a Defence Minister to make a statement in the near future, but I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, and he has shown assiduity in raising the matter. I suspect that it might be possible for the MOD to make some information available to him and I shall certainly draw his remarks to its attention, but I understand that it is not yet in a position to do so.
Shona McIsaac: Have Ministers given my right hon. Friend any indication of when they will introduce proposals to reform leasehold regulations, particularly those for the purchase of freeholds? They are of particular importance to thousands of home owners in Grimsby and Cleethorpes who have purchased leasehold houses and whose leases are about to expire. Certain freeholders charge more than the market value of a property for the purchase the freehold and many residents have lost homes for which they have paid mortgages. That

435
is a scandal and I hope that Ministers will introduce proposals as soon as possible so that no more of my constituents lose their homes.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point and, like all hon. Members, I am sorry to learn of the problems that have affected some of her constituents. The Government wish and intend to publish a draft Bill in the not-too-distant future, which would give the House an opportunity to debate those issues and whether their handling can be improved. As she will know, it would then be a matter of trying to find time for legislation. As she is a regular attender of this event, she will also have noted the many occasions on which Opposition Members have seemed to wish for the Government not to introduce any legislation. She has powerfully made the point that people wish many things in this country to change. That requires the Government to act.
Mr. Graham Brady: It is some three months since the Commissioner for Public Appointments published her report, which found that the Government had engaged in a systematic politicisation of health service appointments, but we have still had no statement or debate in the House on a damning document which criticised them in trenchant terms. As primary care trusts are being set up and appointments to them are being made, is not it particularly important that we should have a statement or a debate? It is essential that the abuses of the process of making public appointments should be stopped and cleared up before those appointments are completed.
Mrs. Beckett: It was made clear at the time that the appointments were made through the proper Nolan process and that no one was appointed who had not come through it. The appointments were not simply made by Ministers. However, when the report was published, the Secretary of State made it plain that he nevertheless felt that there was room for further improvement—the appointments process was, of course, put in place by the previous Government—and he has made those changes.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Leader of the House for her gracious hospitality in giving Lady Members the welcome opportunity to see Admiralty house this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] May I raise a matter with which she is familiar from her days at the Department of Trade and Industry and that is of great interest to the Women's Institute: pylons and the overhead transmission of electricity through the Vale of York and neighbouring constituencies? The Yak of York and particular parts of it such as Tockwith regularly lose their electricity supply and the fact that it is to be further jeopardised by pylons is a source of great concern. Will she make time for an early debate on the Floor of the House so that we can consider the merits of underground transmission?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for her kind remarks, although I fear that she has stirred up a demand from those around her. I have taken that on board.
I am aware of the anxiety about electricity supply in the hon. Lady's part of the world. She knows that the issues are technically difficult and have been the subject of much discussion and careful consideration. I fear that
436
I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future. However, its complexity and relevance to constituencies such as that of the hon. Lady makes it an issue that might well be aired in Westminster Hall. I also point out that Trade and Industry questions will take place on 15 June.
Mr. James Gray: Business questions are an important part of the parliamentary week. Is not it therefore a shame that, of the Government's army of 400 Back Benchers, only six manage to stay for the duration? At its peak, only 15 or 20 attended. That may show that the Government are running out of steam. If they are not, will the Leader of the House dismiss press rumours that the state opening of Parliament will be delayed until January or may not occur, and confirm that it will take place, as usual, in November?
Mrs. Beckett: We do not tend to discuss the date of the state opening of Parliament on the Floor of the House at this stage. As ever, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the papers.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I share the incredulity of the Leader of the House about the Women's Institute's lack of gratitude and failure to recognise how lucky, privileged and honoured its members are to be living under this Government. In the light of that astonishing lack of gratitude, do the Government intend to publish their annual report, as they have done in the past two years? If so, when will it be published and how much will it cost the taxpayer? Perhaps they have rightly decided to kybosh the entire project and spend the money on essential services for the people of this country.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman offhand about the status and timing of the next report. However, as the hon. Gentleman will recall from previous exchanges on the matter, some 20,000 British citizens bought the report and paid their own money for it at W. H. Smith. Clearly, not everyone shares the hon. Gentleman's view of it.
Mr. John Bercow: When are we to have the much delayed debate on small businesses? Given that 99.6 per cent. of Britain's firms employ fewer than 100 people, and that they account for 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, produce two fifths of our national output and now face a sea of regulation, which is deeper and more hazardous than at any time in our history, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is important to hold a debate without delay to tackle the anxieties of those enterprises?
Mrs. Beckett: As I have already said, I have found time in the current programme not only for an Opposition day, but for four days of debate on general issues. Although there is an undertaking to consider small businesses on a fairly regular basis, there is no commitment to an annual debate on the subject, for the reason that I identified earlier.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that The Economist intelligence unit and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which considered separate matters—financial matters, such as taxation and product regulation—pointed out that our light regulation is one factor that makes the United Kingdom one of the best places in which to do businesses.

Points of Order
1.23 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Hughes of Llanon, wrote to the Prime Minister in October 1999 about means testing disabled people in employment for the independent living fund, with special reference to their son, Colin Hughes, who is a producer for the BBC. The Prime Minister's office acknowledged the letter on 10 November 1999 and said that a reply would shortly be forthcoming from the Department of Health. In the intervening months, my constituents have written to the Department of Health several times and have copied the letters to the Department of Social Security. In the past fortnight, I have written again to the two relevant Ministers. To date, no reply has been received to the initial letter, which was sent in October 1999. Eight and a half months have passed without a reply to a letter on a matter of concern to my constituents. Will you deprecate that lack of activity, Madam Speaker, and urge Ministers to be timely in their replies?
Madam Speaker: I most certainly deprecate the lack of positive response to the hon. Gentleman. I can give no ruling on the matter; it is not a matter for me. I simply say to the Ministers on the Front Bench that I hope they will have noted the hon. Gentleman's words and will follow them up.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In her reply to my request for a debate on the European paper on environmental liability, the Leader of the House gave her reason for overruling the majority of the Committee yesterday. The reason was that there was a majority of Conservative members on that day. Is it a constitutional precedent that Select Committee majorities will be—
Madam Speaker: Order. I know that some hon. Members are extremely concerned about the matter, and I see that another hon. Member is ready to raise another point of order on a similar matter. The hon. Members correctly put their questions to the Leader of the House and she responded. They know the Government's position on the matter; it is not a matter for me.

Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Pensions
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  1.25 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the Government's policy towards pensioners is patronising and confusing; recognises that pensioners want the dignity of receiving social security through their basic state pension as an entitlement and not through complicated special payments; urges therefore that the winter fuel payment, free TV licence, and the age addition, along with funds from abolishing the failed New Deal for Lone Parents and other savings, should all be put into a substantial increase in the basic state pension for 2001/2002 of £5.50 for a single pensioner under 75, £7 for a couple under 75, £7.50 for a single pensioner over 75, and £10 for a couple over 75, together with a commensurate increase in thresholds for benefits and tax allowances, so that the value of the increase is passed on to all pensioners, ensuring that they are better off than at present under this Government's muddled and incompetent policies.
  Yesterday, in his now notorious speech to the Women's Institute, the Prime Minister said:
  We should put more faith in people's desire to engage in a conversation about the future.
  What better way of engaging in a conversation about the future than a Supply day debate in the House?
  We called the debate because we wanted pensioners' voices to be heard in the great national conversation called for by the Prime Minister. We want pensioners' voices to be heard because they are saying, loud and clear to all of us in our constituencies, that they are fed up with the Government's patchwork of special measures and gimmicks. Instead, they want money to go into the basic state pension as an entitlement.
  The Government's special measures have gone down like a lead balloon—or perhaps we should now say that they have gone down as badly as the Prime Minister at the WI. They have gone down badly with the pensioners whom the Government claim to want to help. The Prime Minister's speech at the WI was received almost as badly as the Minister of State's, when he tried to explain the Government's policies at the National Pensioners Convention the other day. I am sure that he learned what pensioners think about the Government's policies.
  Pensioners say over and over again that the Government's schemes are complicated, whereas pensioners want simplicity; the Government's schemes are patronising, whereas pensioners want respect. I shall quote from one of the many letters that I have received from pensioners. The letter arrived in my post this morning from a pensioner in Suffolk, who writes:
  I wonder how long it will be for them to get it into their thick heads that pensioners do not want crumbs thrown at them from lord and lady Bountiful Blair's table. . . what they do want is a fair and reasonable pension, and the same amount of pension for all pensioners. We wish to pay our way like everybody else and object strongly when we are made to become forelock touching, cap in hand, second class citizens.

  439
  That summarises what millions of pensioners think—not just pensioners, but their representatives. The director general of Help the Aged described the hand-outs as
  a patronising pat on the back
  and continued:
  What older people want is a decent weekly income which they can spend as they wish, and with dignity.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman quotes from organisations such as Help the Aged. He knows that those organisations are calling for a large increase in the state pension and a restoration of the link to earnings. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to change Conservative policy from the past, when the party broke that link, and restore it now?
  Mr. Willetts: I recognise that many pensioners want the restoration of the earnings link, but neither the Opposition nor the Government are offering that. Pensioners must choose between the options before them. We believe that our option is superior to the only alternative, which is what the Government are doing.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Bearing in mind the call that has just been made for the restoration of the earnings link, will my hon. Friend confirm that although the last Labour Government introduced an earnings link, for the last four years of the Labour Government they refused to implement it in practice? When their Secretary of State, who later became Lord Ennals, was quizzed by Pensioners' Voice about his statutory obligation, he sneeringly replied:
  I have an obligation to take the figures into account. I do not have an obligation to get the figures right.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right in his recollection of the history of that incident.
  It is not just pensioners who are critical of the Government's schemes. Labour's activists and supporters say the same thing. Labour councillors lost 600 seats after the last local elections. A survey of Labour councillors who had lost their places on councils revealed that pensioners overwhelmingly preferred to get money straight into their pockets directly from their pension.
  That is what even some of the Secretary of State's colleagues have been saying in the privacy of unattributable briefings in the Lobby. One Labour MP was quoted as saying:
  It's like a poor employer who robs his workers every week, then gives them a turkey for Christmas.
  Perhaps one of the Labour Members who are present today said that. Perhaps it was the Minister of State, speaking unattributably; who knows? [HON. MEMBERS: "Deny it."] I will not ask Labour Members to deny it. That would be too embarrassing for them.
  Another Labour MP said:
  It's terrible. The Tory leader is saying in public what we have been saying in private for months.
  That is what Labour Members think. The Secretary of State has even got his former ministerial colleagues saying it. A former Defence Minister has said that pensioners believe that winter fuel payments and
  440
  concessionary television licences are diversionary measures and that pensioners want an increase, week on week, in the basic pension.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Why, then, did the hon. Gentleman tell the House:
  We have no plans to remove the winter fuel payment. —[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 33.]
  Mr. Willetts: I was very careful. We have listened, we have learned, and we have now announced our policy. The hon. Gentleman's party fought the last election on a manifesto that pledged it simply to linking pensions to prices; subsequently, it changed its mind and said that it wanted to link them to earnings after all. That is a wild and uncosted policy, so that was a dangerous intervention.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend think that opposition to the Government's policies on pensioners explains the drop of over 1,000 in membership of the Sedgefield constituency Labour party, the recent emergence of a rebel breakaway group, and its decision to distribute a subversive newsletter that excoriates the Prime Minister's record?
  Mr. Willetts: I am sure that my hon. Friend has made a powerful point. I am only surprised that he said "1,000" rather than "1,007 precisely", in the style with which we are so familiar. Anyway, he is entirely correct.
  The fact is that pensioners do not support what the Government are doing, Labour councillors do not support what the Government are doing, and the Secretary of State's own Back Benchers do not believe in what the Government are doing. The question is why the Government plough on with such an unpopular and ill-considered policy, when everyone in the country apart from the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues knows that it is a nonsense. That is the real question to which we would like to hear the Secretary of State's answer.
  Kali Mountford: Is it not the case that state pensions have been paid for through national insurance contributions? Is the hon. Gentleman now advocating paying for pensions in some other way, given that his sums do not add up?
  Mr. Willetts: I will take the hon. Lady through the sums in a moment, if she wishes me to do so. The fact is, however, that we are talking about a carefully costed package that involves no increase in total social security spending. The national insurance fund is in surplus. Pensioners want a charge on the national insurance fund as part of a contributory entitlement, and it could easily be afforded.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: May I gently chide my hon. Friend? He talks about the Secretary of State. One thing that is really frustrating in life is, having dreamt up a good policy, finding that someone much cleverer has come up with it first. Could that explain the petulance behind the Secretary of State's remarks? Perhaps he was planning to introduce the policy, but my hon. Friend got there first.
  Mr. Willetts: Who knows? It would be interesting to find out. The Government have been busy briefing away on all sorts of options. It would be fascinating to learn whether they have listened to pensioners as we have.

  441
  Let me tackle the sort of arguments that we may hear from the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will not want to answer the question that has just been put. I suspect that he will say that the Government are doing the right thing, because they are targeting help on the pensioners who need it most. That is what he has been claiming. However, his claim does not stand up to scrutiny.
  What we are doing is replacing the various special payments with a consolidated increase in the basic pension. The Secretary of State's special payments are very ill targeted. He has put much more money into the special payments than he has into the minimum income guarantee. This year, £1 billion more is going into the special payments than into the minimum income guarantee. Next year, £0.5 billion more will go into special payments than the guarantee. The money that the Government have put in has gone, above all, into the special schemes that we are consolidating into the basic pension. Nothing in our proposal affects minimum income guarantee expenditure. It is all about consolidating those gimmicks.
  I was surprised by some of the Secretary of State's claims about the targeting of his measures. On 16 December 1999, in a press notice from his Department, he said:
  The annual Winter Fuel Payment will be payable to everyone over 60.
  I invite him to say whether that is an accurate and true statement on access to the winter fuel payment scheme. He knows that that is not an accurate statement of the way in which the scheme works. He knows very well—if he did not know when he issued that press release, he should have—that winter fuel payments are not available to pensioners in residential accommodation or nursing homes who are on income support. They are available to pensioners who are in nursing homes or residential accommodation who are not on income support, but they are not available if pensioners are on income support. There are 200,000 pensioners on income support who do not receive the payment, whereas more affluent pensioners in residential accommodation do receive it. It is nonsense.
  Either the Secretary of State did not understand his policy when he made that statement, or he was deliberately misleading. The fact is that what we are doing, putting the money into the basic pension, is better targeted than the measures that it replaces. It is better targeted because the quirks, oddities and unpredictable effects of those schemes—which, to be honest, I do not think the Secretary of State fully appreciated when they were introduced—will be replaced by a steady, reliable simple system. Better than that, we are giving the extra money to the over-75s in particular. We all know that older pensioners tend to be the poorer pensioners.
  Mr. Phil Hope: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for the past 10 minutes or so and I have not heard one word of apology for the 18 years that resulted in 1 million pensioners living below the poverty line in 1997—[Interruption.] The Labour Government have targeted and tackled that, much to my pleasure and much
  442
  to the annoyance of Opposition Members. Will he now apologise to the 1 million pensioners whom he betrayed for more than 18 years? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot haves a situation where hon. Members are shouted down.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) is rash enough to make that point. Let me quote some figures. During our years in office, there was an average increase in the net income for pensioners of 64 per cent. on top of inflation. Total public spending on pensioners as a proportion of gross domestic product was higher in our last year of office than it is under the present Government. During our time in office, there was a reduction in the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits. Compared with the present Government, what we achieved is a jolly sight better. Pensioners are suffering.
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No. I will get on. I will not waste any more of the House's time on that matter.
  The claim that it is all to do with targeting the money better does not stack up. The real reason why we have all those special gimmicks lies at the door of 11 Downing street. It is all to do with the Chancellor.
  This is a Chancellor who, a week or two before any Budget or any major economic statement to the House, suddenly thinks "I need a gimmick. I want a special scheme. I need to announce that I am transforming the tax and benefit system." No Budget statement is complete without a radical change to that system.
  We have debated already the impact of that on families. We have the working families tax credit, the child care credit, the children's tax credit, the integrated children's credit, and the employment credit. The Chancellor called the Budget that introduced all that lot a Budget for stability. I do not know what a Budget for a bit of change would look like.
  When it comes to pensioners, the Chancellor does the same thing. We have a different scheme, changes in the rules on entitlement, different amounts of money. It is unfair on pensioners, who want simplicity and reliability. They do not want Labour gimmicks.
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I do not think so; no.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Willetts: Oh, all right.
  Mr. Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Quite clearly, he is prepared to answer questions about his own policy. Is he prepared to accept that the criminal act that he is announcing as part of his policy entails walking up to pensioners, taking out their wallets or purses, taking money that has been given to them by this Labour Government, putting that money into an envelope, and giving it back to them? Does he also

  443
  accept that that cons no one, particularly not the pensioners in my constituency, and that it would not make the poorest pensioners a single penny better off?
  Mr. Willetts: Even if there were not a single extra penny for pensioners in our package, it would still be the right thing to do—because it would be part of the guaranteed, contributory basic pension, instead of all those complicated gimmicks. Actually, however, we are putting £320 million extra on top of the Government's provision and financing that by making savings elsewhere in social security. Nevertheless, even if we were not making that extra provision, our package would still be the right thing to do, because pensioners want the money as part of a guaranteed, weekly entitlement.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore rose
  Ms Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No. I want to make a bit more progress, and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
  I do not want to leave the impression that all the blame is being heaped on the head of the poor, wretched Chancellor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the blame has to be shared between No. 11 and No. 10 Downing street. The Prime Minister cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for the situation. Pensioners are so angry about the 75p increase not only because of its financial effects, but because of what it tells them about new Labour and new Labour's attitude to older people. One pensioner said that the Prime Minister
  thinks people like me are old has-beens, who aren't important or glamorous, people who they think can go to the back of the queue.
  The quote describes new Labour's modernising, young Britain attitude to pensioners. The Government have no respect for pensioners and no understanding of them, and that is why they have made such a mess of their pensions policy. That attitude goes to the heart of the Government. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister and those who surround him.
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the effect of his proposals on a pensioner's income would be a change of 42p per week?
  Mr. Willetts: All pensioners will be better off under our proposals. Even if there were not a single extra penny, as I said, it would be the right thing to do; but there are gains for pensioners on top of that. The size of the gains will depend on the personal circumstances of the pensioner. They will vary also because the schemes that our proposals will replace are so complicated. We are providing a reliable weekly payment instead of all the special schemes.
  Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No; I want to get back to the point that I was making about the Prime Minister.
  We know from the people surrounding the Prime Minister what Labour really thinks of pensioners.
  444
  We know what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at a private meeting. The Sunday Times reports:
  Mandelson appeared to have written pensioners off as a group who were not worth cultivating.
  He said that there was "no mileage" in them.
  The chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, at the same meeting, is alleged to have said that pensioners are "racist". I do not know whether that is true, but it is certainly true that—as he said—they are "predominantly Conservative". We certainly know that that is true.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the most recent edition of Age Concern's magazine, which states that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said nothing of the sort? That was stated in the pensioners' own publication—which the hon. Gentleman, like me, should have received this morning.
  Mr. Willetts: I thank the hon. Lady. I am grateful for that point, which I shall consider carefully.
  Let me just deal with something that seems to epitomise the new Labour approach to pensioners and why, at No. 10, they have got it so catastrophically wrong and are so out of touch with the views of pensioners across the country.
  There is a report entitled "Ministers want trendy name for pensioners", which states:
  Ministers want to "rebrand" pensioners with a trendy name that will appeal to younger people …
  Ministers believe words like "pensions"—
  perhaps that is why they do not put them up enough—
  or "elderly" carry a grey imagine which deters younger people from thinking ahead.
  So, what have Ministers done? The report states:
  Some of Whitehall's finest minds are working on the problem, while the Government is also seeking outside help to try to come up with a new title.
  While the Government's finest minds have been thinking about the naming of pensioners, Conservative Members have been thinking about how we can help pensioners. Our package is about substantial increases in the basic state pension.
  Ms Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that is the right thing to do and that it will benefit pensioners? Is he suggesting that he will increase the amount of money that will go to pensioners year on year? If he is, perhaps he will tell us where that money is coming from.
  Mr. Willetts: The increase in the basic state pension will be part of that pension, and uprated in line with prices thereafter. That is the right way to do it, and we make no apology.
  As there are some Labour Members in the Chamber, I shall briefly clarify our position for a few of them, so that when they are in their constituencies they do not perpetrate the lies about our policies that have been perpetrated over the past 10 days.
  Several hon.: rose—
  Mr. Willetts: No, I shall not give way. I want to make some progress.

  445
  Two important points were made clear in the original announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. They relate to two understandable concerns of pensioners, which were tackled at the beginning when we announced our policy. First, there is the concern—I understand the basis for it—that the special payments are tax exempt and the basic state pension is taxable. Some pensioners have asked, "Does that mean that we shall pay more tax as a result of this proposal?" It is not our intention that the proposal should include some special behind-the-scenes arrangement to collect more tax from pensioners. We do not believe in stealth taxes and it is the Government who have introduced them, not us. That is why my right hon. Friend said in his original statement:
  We would also adjust tax allowances for older people to compensate pensioners for any extra that they might otherwise pay.
  It is not the purpose of our proposal either to increase—[Interruption.] There is no increase or reduction in tax. The tax position will be unaffected and neutral.
  Secondly, the Secretary of State has claimed recently—perhaps it is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister received the slow handclap by the Women's Institute when he tried to make the same point, but I do not know whether he managed to deliver that part of his prepared speech—that 2 million of the poorest pensioners would lose out because they would have an offsetting reduction in their entitlement to means-tested benefits.
  The package is clearly costed, simple and straightforward. There is no messing about. It is costed on the basis that the money will go to all 10.5 million pensioners. There are no offsets or reductions in entitlement to means-tested benefits. Again, I shall quote the original statement, which says that
  we would adjust means tested benefits to ensure that the poorest pensioners gain at least as much as other pensioners.
  That has been clear all along. The Secretary of State should stop pretending that he does not know that that is our policy.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman put his hand on his heart and tell the House that had the Government not put in extra money for pensioners, he would still be advocating his proposal—in a way, very welcome—to increase the basic state pension? Furthermore, the next time that we have low inflation—as a result of the state pension being linked to inflation, the result is an increase of the state pension by a paltry few pence—will he argue that he will increase the pension by more than those few pence?
  Mr. Willetts: I think that hidden in that intervention there was a tribute to the wisdom of the Conservative policy on pensioners. I shall take that in the spirit in which it was intended.
  As in so many areas of policy, we are clearing up a mess that was created by the Government. They are the people who have created muddle and confusion. They make the benefit system more complicated every time that they make a new statement and introduce a new policy. We are offering pensioners respect for their ability to manage their own money and their own entitlements in the way that they wish. We are offering them the dignity of an entitlement to a contributory benefit. The Prime
  446
  Minister was rumbled yesterday, and the Secretary of State has been rumbled. Pensioners have rumbled the Government.
  1.50 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'condemns the Opposition for making no commitment to the welfare of either today's or tomorrow's pensioners, opposing every step the Government has taken to help pensioners and producing proposals for next year's basic pension uprating which amount to bribing pensioners with money which is already theirs; recognises the legacy of increasing pensioner poverty left by the last Government; applauds the Government for doing more to help all pensioners, spending £6½ billion more than planned by the last Government, but most for those who need help most by concentrating half the additional money on the poorest quarter of pensioners; congratulates the Government for tackling poverty directly with the Minimum Income Guarantee, helping take-up through better publicity and simplified claims procedures; supports the Government's plans to help those pensioners who just fail to qualify for the Minimum Income Guarantee by raising the capital limits to 12,000 from April 2001 and committing itself to bringing forward proposals for a Pensioner Credit which will reward thrift; congratulates the Government for helping all pensioners with their costs, including Winter Fuel Payments and free television licences for people aged 75 and over; and applauds the Government's strategy for ensuring that, in the future, nobody who has put in a lifetime of work or caring need retire onto means-tested benefits, including a commitment to the basic state pension, a state second pension which does more for 18 million people including those on low and moderate pay, with caring responsibilities or broken work records because of disability, and new flexible, low cost, stakeholder pensions.'.
  What was rumbled within hours of its announcement was the Conservative policy on pensions. It did not stand much examination before it became perfectly obvious that the Conservatives, having opposed every extra penny that we were spending on supporting pensioners, were taking that money and offering to spend it in a different way. There was no new money. The public and the rest of us should beware of Tories bearing gifts, because we have some experience of what happened during the 18 years that they were in government. They were not noticeably the pensioners' friend or on the pensioners' side. They left 2 million pensioners living in poverty. The gap in incomes between the better-off and the poorest pensioners was as great in 1997 as it had been 40 years earlier, and one third of people working today were heading for a retirement in which they would be dependent on benefits from day 1 because of inadequate second pension provision. Of course, we also all remember the millions of people who wore this-sold personal private pensions—something that the Conservatives encouraged when they were in office.
  Today we have heard the first big idea from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). The Conservatives are trying to bribe pensioners with money that they were going to get anyway from the Labour Government. The Conservatives ate giving money with one hand and snatching it away immediately with the other.
  Let us look at what the Tories are promising this time. I remember taking part in an interview with the hon. Gentleman on flu "Today" programme on the morning of his great announcement. He said that he was going to give £5 more to single pensioners. It did not take long to find out how he had reached the sum of £5. It is quite easy:

  447
  £3 from the winter fuel payment, which we introduced and the Conservatives opposed, plus at least £2 from the inflation increase. The hon. Gentleman is trying to tell pensioners that he has £5 of new money, which he knows full well they were going to get anyway.
  However, the hon. Gentleman's policy did not last for very long before it began to fall apart. When I heard him say that the House of Commons Library had helped him, I began to get suspicious. During the 13 years that I have been in the House, I have often found that when people start praying in aid the House of Commons Library, it is as well to see exactly what the Library said. As we know, it is a reputable and scrupulously impartial research organisation.
  I asked the House of Commons Library—or, to be absolutely accurate, because I do not want to mislead the House, I got my parliamentary private secretary to ask the House of Commons Library—what it had said to the hon. Gentleman. The researcher said:
  Taking into account his proposals to abolish Winter Fuel Payments, free TV licences for the over-75s, and the Christmas Bonus these increases would leave single pensioners under 75 £0.42 per week better off.
  There we have it. Within hours of the announcement being made, it turns out to be not £5, not £7 and not £10, but 42p. That is what the Tories are promising pensioners. The Tories should bear in mind the fact that one reason they lost office after 18 years was that people did not believe a word that they said. Today we have heard yet another attempt to con people into believing that the Tories are offering more money, when the truth is that they are offering 42p. As the Library I helpfully goes on to say:
  No account is taken of income tax effects.
  The figure also fails to take account of the fact that many pensioners will lose benefits.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I should like the Secretary of State to clear up what he has just said, for the sake of accuracy. Did he say that he asked his PPS to ask the Library to provide the same information that was provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)? Is he aware that the Library is usually very strict in how it presents information to individual Members? If the Secretary of State is saying that the information that was given to my hon. Friend by the Library was also given to his PPS, I hope that he is misleading the House.
  Mr. Darling: I do not know the proper procedure for this situation, but I am more than happy to place in the Library the information that my PPS—my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey)—obtained. It was a proper inquiry, and before the hon. Gentleman gets on his high horse, he should remember that when the Tories were in government they frequently asked the Library what information it had provided to Opposition Members.
  The letter starts by saying:
  You asked about David Willetts' plans for increases to the Retirement Pension, which he has stated as being based on work by the House of Commons Library.
  It continues by making the point that the answer is 42p. Lest the Tories think that I am being unreasonable, or that the Library was being unreasonable in telling us what it has done, I shall explain why the sum of 42p has some
  448
  credibility. About five hours after the hon. Member for Havant appeared on the "Today" programme, his colleague the shadow Chancellor appeared on "The World at One". [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] It is no wonder that he is not here, because I am about to tell the House what he had to say. When he was asked about the policy, which hon. Members will recall had been spun across every newspaper the night before, he said:
  We are making quite a limited announcement today.
  He was certainly right about that. He continued, with refreshing candour:
  We are not over selling this at all; it is a one-off policy.
  Of course it is a one-off policy, because there is no way that, with their tax guarantee, the Tories can find more money for pensioners in the future. The shadow Chancellor went on to say:
  It is money which is already being spent.
  We have had smoke and mirrors from the Tory party.
  The shadow Chancellor made other revealing points, which bring me on to the point made by the hon. Member for Havant about losers. Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, some 2 million of the poorest pensioners would lose out because the Tories will not give an undertaking to increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings. Indeed, the Tories are against the minimum income guarantee, or at least they were until two weeks ago. The shadow Chancellor was revealing on that point, because when he was asked about an extension of the MIG and whether it would, in time, be linked to earnings, he said:
  You are leading me now into a policy area in which we haven't yet made a statement.
  He continued:
  all other announcements about our attitude towards pensions and the minimum income guarantee and so on are a matter for the future.
  There we have it. The shadow Chancellor made it clear that the Tory party was performing a smoke and mirrors trick, by promising money that was already being spent. He said that it was not a big deal, because the net effect, after all was said and done, was 42p extra.
  Mr. Willetts rose
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I notice that he said on a subsequent television appearance when he was asked about the minimum income guarantee:
  In the long term, how you uprate the value of income support, the minimum income guarantee, is indeed a matter for decision.
  Perhaps he will tell us his decision now.
  Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State well knows that he has made no commitment to guarantee the earnings uprating of the minimum income guarantee beyond the life of this Parliament. I ask him to endorse the statement in his pamphlet entitled "Are you just getting by when you could be getting more?", which is the latest guide for pensioners. It describes the minimum income guarantee as
  the name we give to Income Support for pensioners.
  It is our old income support for pensioners that the Government have just renamed after a Soviet fighter aircraft.
  Mr. Darling: If that is the best that the Tories can do, pensioners will soon see what the Tory party is all about.

  449
  We have increased the amount of money that goes to the poorest pensioners, because—as I said at the outset of my speech—one of the problems we inherited was the fact that 2 million pensioners were living in poverty, and no decent society should tolerate that.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will in a moment. I am coming to a subject that I have no doubt is near to the hon. Gentleman's heart, but for entirely the wrong reasons.
  The hon. Member for Havant has said that he will save money elsewhere in the social security system. We know that the Conservatives would scrap the winter fuel bonus, free television licences and the Christmas bonus, but they have two other proposals as well. They would raid the social fund, from which money goes to people who are absolutely poor and sometimes destitute, and scrap the new deal for lone parents—and all for 42p.
  Shona McIsaac: My right hon. Friend said that the Opposition plan to scrap the winter fuel allowance. Does he agree that that would be very serious, as men between 60 and 65 would lose an allowance that has just been extended to them? The Tory proposals would not give any extra help to that group of people, who would be much worse off if they voted Conservative.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. When the Conservatives announced the 42p increase proposal, they were less keen to emphasise that they would scrap measures that help many people in this country.
  With regard to the new deal for lone parents, we have been able to spend £6.5 billion more on supporting pensioner incomes in part because we have cut the bills of economic failure, as we promised to do at the general election when we inherited high levels of unemployment. One of the ways we have achieved that is through the new deal for lone parents.
  Last week, the hon. Member for Havant announced, for I think the third time, that he would scrap the new deal for lone parents. The Government are acting to cut the numbers of people who are out of work but could be in work. So far, 150,000 people have joined the new deal for lone parents, and 50,000 of them have found jobs. In addition, nearly 15,000 have gone into education or training. The cost of that is £1,300 a job, or about 10 weeks' worth of benefit. The programme helps people get into work.
  The Conservatives plan to scrap the new deal for lone parents and to remove income support the minute a child reaches the age of 11. After that, there would be absolutely nothing. The hon. Member for Havant should remember that another legacy of the previous Conservative Government was the more than 1 million lone parents on benefit. At Tory party conference after Tory party conference, in order to give delegates some cheap thrills those lone parents got nothing but abuse.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Secretary of State confirm that only about 5 per cent. of those invited to take part in the new deal for lone parents have emerged from the programme with a
  450
  successful conclusion? What estimate has he made of the percentage of those lone parents who would have got jobs without the intervention of the new deal?
  Mr. Darling: First, 90 per cent. of people who are eligible join the new deal. From next April, a condition of receiving benefit will be that all lone parents—and several other categories of people—must take part in compulsory interviews for training. The economy has 1 million vacancies, and there are 1 million more jobs than existed when we took over government. We are determined to ensure that every one who can work should work. We are achieving that through active intervention in the labour market because we know that, left to its own devices, the market provides no help at all.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Darling: I had better give way to the hon. Gentleman before he gets too excited.
  Mr. Bercow: The breakdown of the NIRS2 computer system deprived hundreds of thousands of pensioners of their just entitlements. Fully 21 months have passed since the Secretary of 5 State told the House that the matter would be sorted out within weeks. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that 280,000 pensioners are still waiting for their rebates, and that £140 million of compensation has still to be paid?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on one point. The computer did not break down—it never worked in the first place, and the bill for that should be sent to Conservative central office. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was daft enough to raise this matter, so I shall tell him that the contract to replace the national insurance recording system was entered into in 1995, and had to be completely rethought a year later. When the time came to switch the computer system on, it did not work. It was yet another mess that we had to clear up. The position has now been stabilised, no one is losing their money and we are clearing up the mess that the Conservative party left us.
  Mr. Brady: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. John Greenway: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hear shouting from both Back Benches. Right hon. and hon. Members cannot do that—they must listen to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Darling: That is very good advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will give way to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) now. Why not?
  Mr. Greenway: This is a very serious point. I want to bring the Secretary of State back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac). It was my constituent, Mr. John Taylor, who took the Government to the European Court of Justice over the winter fuel payments for men over 60. I resisted the notion that this was a good idea. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether, but for the court case, the Government would

  451
  have extended the winter fuel payment to men over 60, and whether doing so represents good value for money for the social security budget?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman can tell his constituent that we will be giving him the money but the Conservative party will be taking it away. I am sure that that will be a great comfort to him.
  Mr. Greenway: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Look how excited the Conservatives get once we expose their policies for what they are.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend has demonstrated that to make this bogus pensions increase offer, the Conservatives have been recycling money already spent. Is it not also interesting that the Conservatives have recycled Front Benchers and Whips on to the Back Benches to intervene, in an effort to disguise the fact that hardly any of their MPs have bothered to turn up for what they say is a major issue? It is their debate.
  Mr. Darling: I understand that that is indeed the case. If the Conservative party policy was so good, surely some Back Benchers might have turned up to cheer on their colleagues. Instead, we have the unpaid payroll vote sitting behind them. Now I want to make some progress.
  Scrapping the new deal for lone parents would be a false economy. If we allow more and more people to remain unemployed, there will not be money for the health service, pensions or anything else. The hon. Member for Havant was desperate to make his sums add up. He needed to raid something else from the social security budget, so he went for a measure that would be entirely self-defeating, as well as raiding the social fund. The social fund is necessary because, unfortunately, there are people who have no money and could be destitute. Presumably the Tories would just say to them, "Tough luck."
  The House of Commons Library has confirmed that as a result of the hon. Gentleman's proposals, the best that a pensioner could hope for would be 42p—before tax, of course. However, he forgot to mention that his party also has an interesting policy with regard to pensioners and the national health service—with their 42p, they would have to fund expenditure that is presently free on the national health.
  The Conservatives' health policy is that hip and knee replacements and hernia and cataract operations should be covered by private medical insurance. This is an extraordinary turn of events. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, there are a lot of Front Benchers sitting opposite but here they are, trying to distance themselves from their party's policy.
  I thought that it would be interesting to find out exactly how much those operations would cost. I looked at information from BUPA and other private health care providers, and found that a cataract operation costs between £1,800 and £2,400. A knee replacement—
  Mr. Brady: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps we have a BUPA salesman here who will tell me how much it will cost.
  Mr. Brady: I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State, but I am not a BUPA salesman. However, he ought to realise that the Labour Government are the private health industry's best ever salesmen. Since they took office, 150,000 people have been forced to pay for their operations because NHS waiting lists are so long. That is happening under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, not under the Conservatives.
  Mr. Darling: We are actually increasing spending on the NHS by a third—something the Conservatives oppose. Obviously, the matter causes the Conservatives much distress. However, at the next election, when our two parties set out their stalls before the electorate and the Conservatives say they will give pensioners 42p more on their pension, I hope they will also say that, under their proposals, according to their health spokesman, conditions such as
  hip and knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations
  should be covered by private, medical insurance. If people do not have £7,800 for a hip replacement, they will have to try to get insurance for such conditions—but just try to do that as a 60-year-old.
  What we have from the Conservative party is a complete con. It should surprise none of us, because they tried to con people for 18 years before they were finally rumbled.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: It may have escaped my right hon. Friend's attention that, when it was cold enough for long enough—usually when it was too late—even the Tories used to make some cold weather payments. Are they not now proposing to scrap the winter fuel allowance without making any compensatory arrangements for the cold?
  Mr. Darling: All of us who are familiar with the cold weather payment scheme were struck by the fact that it had to be cold for an awfully long time before it was triggered. The nature of the British climate made that quite difficult. One did not receive much and when one did, it was long after the event.
  The advantage of the winter fuel payment is that it is tax free; it is not taken into account for benefits and it arrives just at the time when pensioners begin to worry about whether they can turn up the heating. That is not something that has ever bothered a large number of those from whom we are hearing this afternoon.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: The Secretary of State is correct to dismiss the cynical approach of the Tories, but does he agree that the benefits that we are providing could be better targeted? I draw to his attention the fact that recent studies from Bristol university show that only 51 per cent. of people in my constituency are expected to live until they reach the age of 75, whereas in Eastwood the figure is 66 per cent. and in some of the better-off parts of England it is more than 70 per cent. That means that free television licences, targeted at the over-75s, actually miss out half the people in my constituency—[Interruption. They will die before those licences are available. Would it not be better to re-target the provision at those in greatest need?
  May I say that I was very glad—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has certainly been able to say a lot during an intervention.

  453
  I call Mr. Secretary Darling— [Interruption.] Order. Before I call the Secretary of State again, I appeal once more to hon. Members. We cannot have shouting across the Floor of the House— [Interruption.] Order. I am not addressing my remarks only to the Opposition, but to all hon. Members. We cannot have shouting across the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Darling: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) would readily admit that not all his constituents die before the age of 75. However, the report to which he referred identifies the problems that occur when people are born into low-income households and live on low incomes throughout their working life. As sure as night follows day, they will die on a low income. That is precisely why the Government have introduced a range of strategies to increase the amount of money going into households with children. That is why we increased child benefit by so much and why we are introducing the integrated child credit. We are helping parents into work through the working families tax credit and a variety of means—all of which are set out in our annual report "Opportunity for All" and all of which are opposed by the Conservative party.
  That leads me to another point I wanted to make. The contrast between the Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition is that we are tackling the problems we inherited, some of which had not developed during the previous 18 years but had been around for longer than that. However, if we do not sort them out, we shall prolong a wholly unacceptable situation.
  First, we need a pension strategy so that in future everyone can retire on a decent income after a lifetime of hard work. Secondly, we must ensure that pensioners do not live in poverty. That is why we are spending an extra £6.5 billion on pensioner incomes during this Parliament£2 billion more than it would have cost to restore the earnings link. It is important that half of that £6.5 billion will go to the poorest third of pensioners. We are spending more because we believe that we should be doing so and, as a first priority, we are spending that money on those pensioners who need it most.
  As a result of what we are doing, all pensioners will be £3 a week better off because of the winter fuel allowance. The free television licence for the over-75s is worth a further £2 a week. However, because we want to tackle pensioner poverty, we are ensuring that the poorest pensioners, who receive the minimum income guarantee, will have at least £8.40 a week more, and up to £10.65 a week more for the oldest. That makes them better off than under the Tories—£8 and £10 a week better off, with more than that for couples. That money is over and above inflation. It is a real gain for those people.
  I make no apology for making that our first priority. It is quite wrong that, at a time when many people retire with a good state second pension or an occupational pension, other people still live on a pension that is lower than income support. That is why we increased pensions by so much for the 1.5 million pensioners who lost out as a result of the situation we inherited.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson rose—
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way to both hon. Gentlemen in a moment. I am conscious of the fact that it is their Opposition day, so I do not want to take up too much time, although even after their Whips and Front-Bench spokesmen leave the Chamber—I may be wrong, but I suspect that it will not be long before they do so—there may not be many Opposition Members who want to speak. However, just to show how generous I am, I give way to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).
  Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to a humble Back Bencher. He must be the only Member who does not receive lots of communications from pensioners, all saying that they want not gimmicks but a decent pension. Surely, that is the basis of our proposal.
  Mr. Darling: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench team will have noted his plea not to remain on the Back Benches for much longer.
  I will deal with his second point. What pensioners want any Government to do is to increase the amount of money available to them. However, many pensioners accept the fact that the first priority must be to deal with those pensioners who were living in absolute poverty as a result of the situation left to us by the Tories. The second stage is clearly to help those pensioners who have modest savings or modest amounts of capital and who also lost out under the Conservatives.
  As a first step, we have doubled the capital limits. The Tories did nothing about that for most of the time they were in government. We have doubled the capital limits that entitle more people to receive the extra help they need.
  For the longer term, we are ensuring that a system will be in place to enable people to build up a decent pension in future. It is worth noting that, in 30 years' time, nearly a quarter of the population will be retired. That is why we need proper debate and an understanding of the need to save more, so that people can retire on decent pensions.
  Ms Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that he was going to talk about the future of pensions, he said nothing about that? He failed to address the pension needs of women, including the many women who work part-time, married women who have no pension rights of their own and those women who choose to stay at home and look after their families or disabled relatives and who currently lose their pension rights. Will my right hon. Friend say something about all that we are doing to support women—especially those who choose to stay at home and look after their families?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend's intervention is timely. The minimum income guarantee helps a large number of people who retired without a full contribution record and whose basic state pension is much lower than £67. The minimum income guarantee gives them help that was not available in the past, because the Conservative party was never that bothered about the matter.

  455
  Furthermore, we are putting in place pension reforms that will last in the longer term. When the basic state pension was introduced, it was always intended that people would have a second pension in addition—either from the state or an occupational or works pension. Indeed, one of the reasons that the average pensioner income is £132 at present—well above the basic state pension—is that many people are retiring on occupational pensions that they took out 20 or 30 ye are ago. That is why it has gone up. We want to add to that.
  It has long been recognised that there never was a golden age in which the basic state pension was worth enough on its own. It has always been looked on as a foundation. One reason that the Labour Government of the 1970s introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme was that they recognised that both state and funded pensions had a role to play in increasing pensioner income.
  The problem we have today is that, although many people have good occupational pensions, too many people have retired on the basic state pension alone or just above that.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, because I want to make some progress
  We have introduced the new stakeholder pension because it will give flexible low-cost pensions to nearly 5 million people who until now had nothing other than personal private pensions that were probably inappropriate for many of them. As has been said, we are reforming SERPS to give more security in retirement for 18 million people—carers and disabled people with broken work records—who did not receive enough help under SERPS.
  I repeat the example yet again. Under SERPS, someone who earned less than £6,000 would get about £14 a week. Under the new state second pension, the sum rises to £54 a week. It is heavily redistributive— if I may use that term—towards those people who lost our in the past. We are helping pensioners today; we are tackling the appalling Tory legacy of pensioner poverty and we are also making sure that, for the future, people can retire on a decent income.
  What we heard two weeks ago and what we have heard this afternoon—I notice that the hon. Member for Havant did not dwell too much on what exactly he was promising—have made the issue abundantly clear. As the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor, said the Conservatives' policy does not constitute a big announcement. Essentially, it amounts to 42p. The Conservatives seek to spend the same money that we are already spending. We are tackling pensioner poverty and ensuring that people can retire on a decent income. We are making sure that 18 million low-paid carers and disabled people receive more. We are rebuilding the NHS, not trying to shuffle pensioners into private care. We are spending far more than the Conservative party ever would or ever will. I urge the House to reject the main motion.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am delighted that the Conservative Opposition have chosen the subject of pensions. We have spent much of the past three years wondering what they would do if they were in office, and we have now heard the first instalment. We have heard what they would do on day one, but we are still hazy as to what would happen after that.
  As the Secretary of State for Social Security rightly pointed out—I heartily agree with him—42p will be the net benefit of the Conservatives' proposal. Where the Government will be associated with being the party of 75p for pensioners, the Conservatives, when they go into the next election, will be known as the party of 42p for pensioners. Although we have not finalised the Liberal Democrats' manifesto, I assure the House that our pledge on the basic state pension will substantially exceed 42p and 75p.
  Mr. Bob Russell: That is why Ronnie is retiring.
  Mr. Webb: Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is looking forward to benefiting from our pledge.
  The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and Conservative literature say different things to different people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I find that shocking. The Conservatives have put in their leaflets that 75p is inadequate for pensioners and the hon. Gentleman described the sum as paltry. However, when I challenged him on 7 February and asked him what he would do if he were Secretary of State, he said:
  We would carry on increasing the basic pension in line with prices.—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 33.]
  In other words, the increase would have been 75p if he had been in power. Today, he said that, once the Conservatives have given pensioners their own money back in a different way, the pension would continue to be linked to prices. As I understand it, that is the Conservatives' policy
  If pensioners vote Conservative, they will receive the money that they are getting already delivered in a more sensible way, and I have no problem with that. I have made that point in the House on several occasions. Long before the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party had no plans to remove the winter fuel payment, I asked whether it was an administratively sensible way to provide the money, given that it costs £10 million to £15 in administration costs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) received a letter from a constituent saying:
  Dear Ed … I have an Honours Degree from Cambridge and was an Under Secretary in DHSS. I find the page of "Winter Fuel Payment Notes" just about as dense a 600-700 word essay as one could imagine. And yet I am required to sign
  that I have read and understood the leaflet. Those notes are just one example of the bureaucracy involved in the system.
  I have no problem with the principle of delivering money to pensioners through the basic pension. We have been consistent on that point. Our amendment on the

  457
  Order Paper objects to the pretence that, by voting Conservative, pensioners will receive £5 of new money that will make them better off, and not just by 42p
  Mr. Willetts: We are making a bit of progress. Faced with the choice simply between what is happening under this Government's proposals and our proposals for the consolidation of the money, which does the hon. Gentleman think is better?
  Mr. Webb: The Conservative party's package contains several elements. The first is to pay the winter fuel payment through the pension, and I do not have a problem with that. However, we do not support the abolition of the free television licences for those aged over 75 or the abolition of an age addition.
  Ms Keeble: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's criticism that the Conservatives' policy means all sorts of different things. I looked up the Liberal Democrats' policy on their website and clicked on the word "policy". The page that flashed up said "No documents."
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady is very welcome to check my personal website.
  The critical point is that—to coin a phrase—pensioners were not born yesterday. They can see through the Conservative party's offer, which will mean that they would get back their own money.
  Ms Ward: I appreciate the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). However, let us consider traditional manifestos that are set out in writing. If I recall it correctly, the Liberal Democrats' policy at the last election was to retain the basic state pension's link with prices. Have they now changed their policy? The policies that they expound in the House are very different from the ones that they expound outside.
  Mr. Webb: If the hon. Lady attended debates on pensions a little more often, she would know that, for some years, we have advocated a better deal for pensioners than that contained in our previous manifesto. Politicians are often criticised for failing to live up to their manifesto promises. I doubt that a single pensioner in my constituency will criticise me for doing more than I promised when they elected me. I suspect that they will welcome that.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: In the interests of his constituents in Northavon, will the hon. Gentleman spell out exactly how much better off they would be if, by some extraordinary fluke, the Liberal Democrats won the next election?
  Mr. Webb: The Conservative party makes policy in an intriguing way.
  Miss Kirkbride: I asked about the Liberal Democrats' policy.
  Mr. Webb: I will explain our policy to the hon. Lady. However, when a new Conservative shadow Chancellor
  458
  took over, he reversed within a few days substantial tranches of party policy. That is not how the Liberal Democrats work. Our policy is determined at our conference by the delegates. We have just completed a policy document, "Policies for an Ageing Population", which contains proposals for substantial increases in the basic state pension across the board and particularly for older pensioners. We have advocated that for a long time, and the Conservatives will now have to vote for that to facilitate their proposal for an extra £2 for the over-75s. They were ambivalent about that move, but now have to support it to implement their policy. We shall vote on our proposals at our September conference and they will become party policy. That policy will be published in the coming few months, so the precise figures, together with a statement of where the money will come from, will be available.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman mentioned extra money for older pensioners. Does he recall that he proposed to fund that by dismantling SERPS?
  Mr. Webb: No, that is not how we propose to fund it. If the Secretary of State contains himself for a few weeks, he will be able see our proposals in a policy document which explains where the money comes from, although that will not be from the abolition of SERPS. By contrast, the Government stood on a manifesto that said that SERPS would remain for those who wanted it, but the right hon. Gentle man is abolishing it.
  The key point is that if the Conservative party were in office, it would give pensioners the 75p that they deride as paltry. It has sought to make political capital out of that 75p, but pensioners have long memories and know that they would let nothing better from the Conservatives. It is not just their record in this Parliament that we have to worry about—we must also examine the record of 18 years of Conservative Government, which sends a clear signal about why pensioners do not trust the Tories on pensions.
  In 1980, the Conservative Government broke the earnings link. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) commented on that link and rewrote history by implying that it had never been properly honoured. However, the history of the pension shows that its real value increased significantly relative to earnings in the 30 years after the war and that successive Governments, despite difficult economic situations, did more than simply retain the earnings link. I therefore reject the suggestion that, in a relatively prosperous nation, the link is totally unaffordable.
  The Conservatives broke that link, thereby allowing the basic state pension for each generation that retires to fall further behind what it received when it was in work. If the role of a pension is to help people maintain living standards from work into retirement, letting the basic pension lose touch with what people are earning, whatever the mechanism, means that the state pension fails to fulfil that role.
  Conservative proposals on winter fuel payments would make no difference to pensioner incomes over the lifetime of a Parliament. Once the Conservative party had done that, what would it do next? If inflation was at 1.1 per cent., it would give pensioners 75p, so nothing would change for pensioners. I strongly suspect that the hon.

  459
  Member for Havant was influential in Conservative policy-making circles when the previous Government devalued the basic pension and slashed SERPS. The real value of SERPS entitlements was more or less halved in legislation in 1986 and halved again in the Pension Act 1995. That is the Conservative record on state pensions, which pensioners remember.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The key phrase used by the hon. Gentleman was that the state pension was meant to help pensioners maintain their living standards. Does he agree that linking the pension to earnings would diminish the incentive for people to make additional provision, which was always the intention of the old age pension system under Beveridge?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman make a fair point. If we had only an earnings-linked pension and a price-linked means test, there is a risk that people would start to rely more on state pensions and less on their savings. However, we are not in that position, as we have an earnings-linked means test designed to ensure that today's poorer pensioners at least keep pace with the working age population. We do not oppose that. We do not oppose keeping those on income support out of touch with those of working age. However, doing that means that one cannot let the basic pension fall, which is the difference between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat positions.
  The Secretary of State seemed to imply with a gesture that we had not said that before. Our criticism concerns letting the basic pension cut itself adrift from the means test, which creates the savings disincentive raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does not that scenario give rise to the present problem? The Government's minimum income guarantee for pensioners is a minimum income guarantee only if those pensioners draw income support. It is disgraceful that any pensioner should have to rely on drawing any benefit to get a minimum income. That applies to some of the poorest pensioners in the land.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. For most of the period in which the Conservatives were in government, 1 million pensioners were getting income support, which is the same thing. The hon. Gentleman's party seemed to have no problem with that in office. Indeed, occasionally it made above-inflation increases to income support for pensioners in the same way that the present Government link it to earnings. The policy is the same, and the election did not bring any change to it. What was true when the hon. Gentleman's party were in office is certainly true now.
  The critical point is that the Conservative package would be of negligible value to pensioners and they can see through it. Just as across the land the Secretary of State is known as Mr. 75p, the Opposition spokesman will be known as Mr. 42p. There may be a gain of 42p, but there would be a significant number of losers—to whom fleeting reference has been made, such as the men aged 60-64 mentioned by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) who think they will get the winter fuel payments, but in fact will lose them.
  460
  The motion for debate states that funding will come from
  abolishing the … New Deal for Lone Parents
  and elsewhere, which glosses over the £90 million or so that will come from the social fund. I should be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Havant if he wants to explain on what parts of the social fund he would draw. Would he draw on crisis loans for people whose domestic circumstances are in crisis and who need money for a desperate situation, or would he draw on budgeting loans for people on a pathetic income who need a few pounds to buy a cooker or fridge? Perhaps he would draw on funeral or maternity grants. What cuts would he make on the most vulnerable people in society? The motion is smoke and mirrors and does not explain how the Conservatives would find 42 pence for pensioners. That is what they are really about: they are attempting to deceive pensioners.
  Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman speaks about deceiving pensioners. If I understood him correctly, he does not support the winter fuel allowance, which the Liberal Democrats would get rid of. The Labour party is the only party to maintain the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and men aged 60 to 65. Those men would therefore lose out under Liberal Democrat policy.
  Mr. Webb: There is no question but that we would honour existing entitlements—but the Conservatives would rip them up. However, it makes sense to feed those entitlements into the pension, as we have always argued. In the 60 to 64 group, people already expecting to get that payment, such as those in the income support category, should continue to do so. However, it is not necessarily sensible to keep that going in perpetuity. All existing promises, however, must be honoured.
  Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: No.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) mentioned married women and pensions. The Minister of State and I had an exchange in an Adjournment debate on the position of married women who pay the reduced rate of national insurance, many of whom are the poorest pensioners in the land. Indeed, one of them wrote to me recently because she was receiving a pension of 8p a week. I suppose that 42p would be good news for her, but that is not so for most pensioners.
  Having examined the history of the matter, I learned that the Leader of the Opposition was a pensions Minister in about 1993, when nearly 1 million married women paid national insurance at the reduced rate and therefore depriving themselves of future pension entitlements. A significant number were wrongly advised to pay national insurance at the reduced rate. Some of them were on such low pay that they could have paid less national insurance if they had gone into the full system. However, the then pensions Minister failed to draw that to their attention. The Leader of the Opposition is therefore partly responsible for today's pensioners being on such poor pensions.
  The Minister of State kindly invited me to offer him individual cases. I have written to every pensioner who has written to me, passing on that invitation so that they

  461
  can respond through their own MPs. I am gathering information, and hopefully the Minister will also shortly receive information from pensioners throughout the land.
  I shall not follow the precedent set by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) yesterday when he spoke for 45 minutes in a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. I shall shortly draw my remarks to a close, but first I shall set out the alternative Liberal Democrat vision for the basic state pension. Two or three key principles distinguish our approach from that of the Conservative party and the Government.
  First, we believe that the basic state pension has a central role and there should not be additional money for gimmicks and schemes. To that extent, there is common ground. However, we believe that the pension has been allowed to fall much too far behind means-tested benefits. The basic state pension is just over £67 and the means test is worth £78, so there is already a yawning £11 gap, and by the time of the election it will be larger still. Our commitment is to reduce that gap and, to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), our goal is to ensure that no pensioner over 75 has to rely on means-tested benefits such as income support.
  Our goal is to raise the basic state pension with particular emphasis on older pensioners, who tend to be women, to be poorer and to have run down their savings. Our approach is universal in that all pensioners will receive the pension and will not have to be means-tested, but it is targeted because the pension will increase substantially with age and will therefore reach those most in need. That is the right balance, and the Government's obsession with means-testing and the Opposition's approach, which recycles existing cash, are not. Our targeted approach will ensure that pensioners most in need—those who are entitled to the means test but who do not claim the benefit—get the money to which they are entitled.
  We believe that the pensioners of this country have been insulted once by being given 75p, and they will be insulted again if offered 42p by the official Opposition. Only one party at the next general election will pledge a substantial, real increase in the basic state pension, and pensioners know who their friend is.
  2.42 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Studying the subjects that the Tories have chosen for today's debates leads me to an inescapable conclusion: it took the Labour party 18 years of opposition to become fit to form a Government; on this form it will take the Tories a lot longer than that to become fit to form an Opposition.
  For the second debate—obviously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not discuss that subject—the Conservatives have chosen genetically modified crops, a matter that divides the sovereign's consort from the heir to the throne, and the heir to the throne from the Princess Royal. Yet the Conservatives want to make political capital out of it.
  For this debate, the Tories have chosen a subject on which their record is so appalling that one would think that they would never presume to open their mouths about it. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for
  462
  Havant (Mr. Willetts), in a speech that managed simultaneously to be both conceited and inadequate, told the House that he offered pensioners respect—and respect is all that the Conservatives are offering pensioners. Even if they offer that, we should remember that one of their Prime Ministers used to refer to the retirement pension as a "donation".
  Let me make my position clear. I think that the Government were seriously mistaken to put up the pension by only 75p this spring. I have a right to say that because months beforehand, I wrote to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, telling them that it would be a blunder to bring in an increase of that size. Furthermore, although I welcome the free television licences for those aged 75 and over, I have said repeatedly that the policy should extend to all pensioners. So I have a right to tell the Government to do even better, while praising them for all that they have done for pensioners—the £150 winter fuel allowance, the £10 Christmas bonus, the free eye tests, the free TV licences for older pensioners and the cut in VAT on fuel.
  The Conservatives do not have the right to utter a peep about pensions. We must remember that they legislated for the link between the basic pension and the prices index, and that is the basis for the 75p increase that the Tory leader has the nerve to denounce. In their 1997 manifesto, the Tories promised to
  continue to protect the value of the basic state pension against price rises.
  That is Hague-speak for "75p", which is all that the Conservatives would have provided this year.
  By ending the link between pensions and pay in 1980, the Tories were responsible for the fact that today's pension is £31.40 a week less for the single pensioner and £50 a week less for a married couple. Ending that link meant that over their years in office the Tories stole £115 billion from pensioners, in return for which they are now offering 42p.
  The Tories are now trying to make up for that, or at least pretending to do so, by promising a single £5.50 top-up on the pension. The hon. Member for Havant admitted this afternoon that that would be a once-and-for-all increase, before they went back to increasing pensions solely on the basis of the price index. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, the shadow Chancellor has admitted that the £5.50 top-up would not involve a penny of new money. It would all be paid for by money already committed, most of it to pensioners. This must be a first: the only self-financing bribe in the history of political peculation.
  However, the situation is even worse than that because the £5.50 top-up would be for one year only, but the cuts—the end of the winter fuel payment, the Christmas bonus and the free TV licence for those aged 75 and over—would be for ever. If the Tories ever came to power, they would budget to spend far less money on pensioners than Labour does. They would not spend a penny more on the pensions increase, as they have admitted, but they would end the winter fuel allowance, which would save the Treasury £1,300 million a year. The end of the Christmas bonus would save the Treasury £85 million a year. The end of free TV licences would save £364 million a year. So in exchange for that

  463
  self-financing bribe for one year, the Tories would take away £1,750 million, and rising, from pensioners every year.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman in a moment; I have him well in mind.
  On the one hand, there is 42p, with no new money, and on the other, £1,750 million will be taken from pensioners every year. No doubt if the Tories ever got the chance, they would give that money away to the top taxpayers who benefited during their years in office.
  A funny thing about the free TV licence is that the Tory leader announced his intention to abolish it on 24 May, but only the day before, when the House passed the legislation facilitating the free TV licence, the Tory Front-Bench spokesmen were confirming their "warm, enthusiastic, welcoming support" for the measure. On 23 May, they said that free TV licences were wonderful; on 24 May, they said that they had to be abolished. That is not so much a U-turn as a hairpin bend. For reasons that I have always failed to understand, the hon. Member for Havant has been referred to as "Two Brains"—two faces would be a better description. Madam Speaker has ruled it out of order to describe the Conservatives as hypocrites. That is just as well, for hypocrite is too kindly an epithet to apply to that party.
  The Liberal Democrats, from whom we have just heard, should rename themselves the lachrymose crocodiles. During last month's local elections, that grubby leaflet "Focus" sought to stir up discontent it my constituency about what the Liberal Democrats called the "75p pensions insult", but what is their policy on pensions?
  The Liberal Democrat amendment states:
  the Conservatives have admitted that, had they been in office in April 2000, they would have increased the basic state pension by just 75p …
  True, but so would the Liberal Democrats. That was official Liberal Democrat policy, and it will remain so until the phantasmagorical document that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) endorses and promises will be published.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) was unable to find the Liberal Democrats' policy on the website, but my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) quoted it from memory. I do not need to quote their policy from memory; I looked it up in their 1997 manifesto, which states:
  The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices.
  That is Lib Dem-speak for 75p. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that that continues to be their policy until that wonderful document, for which we cannot wait, comes out later this year. No doubt—the Liberal Democrats being what they are—it will tell us not only what they would pay pensioners, but how they would pay for it in increased taxation, national insurance contributions, or both. A significant absence from all Liberal Democrat spending commitments is how they intend to find the money to pay for them. I shall return to that matter not in this speech, but in future speeches in the House, if I catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
  Pensioners would have been worse off this year under Liberal Democrat policy, because the party had no policies to introduce winter fuel payments or free TV
  464
  licences in its election manifesto. The Liberal Democrats battened on to those, but they are our policies, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes said—ours alone. Not only would pensioners have been worse off this year under Liberal Democrat policy because of their 75p increase without a winter fuel payment or free TV licence, but the hon. Member for Northavon has admitted that they would have been even worse off. Using strange phraseology, he has said that the Liberal Democrats would honour the current commitments. I do not know what that means, especially as their intention would be to incorporate them into the pension. That would mean that the money would be taxable, as distinct from not being taxed as now. The hon. Gentleman has not committed his party to continuing the winter fuel payment as such. He sits there giving a twitch of his head, which I cannot interpret, but he is certainly not springing to his feet to deny what I say.
  We have no guarantee whatever that the Liberal Democrats will continue with the free TV licence, even for over-75s. Furthermore, they claimed in one of their other "Focus" leaflets, which was circulated in my constituency, that the Labour Government would force pensioners to collect their pensions through bank accounts, although they knew—if they did not know, they should have done—that the Prime Minister personally promised that pensioners would continue to be able to collect their pensions from their local sub-post offices weekly and in cash. The "Focus" leaflets have turned lying and deception into such an art form that any minute now, the Liberal Democrats will apply for a lottery grant for them.
  In a recent asylum debate, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) gave
  an undertaking, on behalf of my party, that we will seek to deal with any matter in our party that other people are concerned about.—[Official Report, 12 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 447.]
  More than a month ago, I tabled early-day motions drawing attention to Liberal lies and deception, and we are still waiting to hear from the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party can and should do better for pensioners, and Labour Back Benchers will keep up their pressure for that better deal, but we will take no lessons on pensions, or anything else, from the opposition parties, which compete with each other in empty promises and political prestidigitation.
  2.56 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am especially pleased to follow my colleague, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on which I serve. I have considerable respect for him, but on this occasion, he has used his formidable intellect to distort Conservative party policy on pensions. He suggested that we proposed to condense the winter fuel payment, the Christmas bonus and other payments made to pensioners into one weekly payment. He knows full well that that will not last for one year; it will be continuous. The increase in money that we will give pensioners will be sustained. That is more than the Government propose now because of the administrative savings and money from other Government programmes, which will be added to the overall amount that will be given to pensions.
  Given the right hon. Gentleman's considerable intellect, I am surprised that he did not mention—perhaps because of partisan politics—that as well as pensioners receiving

  465
  a higher weekly payment, on which future upratings will take place, the money will also be index linked in a way that I presume the £10 Christmas bonus and other payments have not been for some years. He distorts our party policy on such matters—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) must not interrupt the hon. Lady while she is speaking.
  Miss Kirkbride: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me after the right hon. Member for Gorton, so that I can swiftly put those matters right for the record.
  I do not wish to speak for too long because this is, sadly, a short debate on an important policy matter which affects a huge proportion of our citizens, who clearly feel strongly given the amount of publicity and news attention surrounding pensions during the past few weeks. However, I am proud to stand on the record of what the Conservative party did for pensioners in our 18 years in office and what we propose to do. Sadly, our proposals are subject to distortion by Labour Members. They distort what happened to pensioners and their incomes during those 18 years.
  A third of pensioners now have incomes that are in the top half of all incomes in the country. That is a considerable achievement, for which we deserve some of the credit in so far as we encouraged occupational and private pension schemes. I wish that more than a third of pensioners were in that position, but back in the 1970s and before, pensioners were almost universally poor. That is not so nowadays and they mirror the rest of the population: some are well off, some are fairly well off and, sadly, some, like other people, are poor.
  It is Conservative Members' duty to point out that all pensioners, given their service to this country and their status as senior citizens, should be allowed to live in dignity and decency, and should have enough money to do so. I accept that all Members want to achieve that objective, although it will be expensive in so far as others will have to pay.
  Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Kirkbride: I will, but I hope that the hon. Lady does not make more partisan points.
  Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on the point of pensioner poverty. Given that her party—and, it seems, the Liberals—does not support the £150 winter fuel allowance, I am intrigued to know how she would tackle the problems of those who have suffered from hypothermia in winter. That payment has made a significant difference to pensioners' use of heating over the winter months and could save lives.
  Miss Kirkbride: I am sorry to have to say that the hon. Lady's question is extremely ignorant and completely misses the point: we propose to give pensioners that money weekly rather than annually. They will still receive it, so her point is ridiculous as it lacks any intellectual credibility whatever. I am sorry that I gave way.
  466
  I was developing the point that we improved pensioner incomes and increased income support for poorer pensioners during our 18 years in power. The Government have introduced measures on similar lines, but given them different names. For example, they call family credit the working families tax credit. On the whole, the policies are similar and, in a civilised society, it is right and proper to help poorer pensioners. I take great comfort from the fact that many people drawn from the spectrum of 10.5 million pensioners—getting on for 20 per cent. of our citizens—can live out their lives in some financial security. That is good news on which we want to improve. To that end, the Government have a case to answer.
  We all accept that pensioners' incomes are vulnerable because they can no longer work. They are not in the marketplace and feel insecure because they are unable earn more—their incomes are static. People fortunately live longer, but inflation may erode the money that they receive, which is a worry. Therefore, it was extremely mean of the Labour Government to create a position in which pensioners can no longer get back the tax on their dividends. That smacks of the class envy that we have seen in the past few weeks.
  Pensioners who happen to have a few shares in British Gas, BT or any other stock portfolio are not necessarily rich. The tax that they get back is a significant part of their income and they are entitled to it, especially given the vulnerability of their income position. It was mean and spiteful of the Government to stop pensioners claiming back their tax, and that measure contrasts markedly with the new proposals for the tax regime: whereas the tax man would have taken £40 million from a dot.com multi-millionaire who made a profit of £100 million, fat cats, as the Government used to call them, will now be able to keep £90 million and hand the Treasury just £10 million. That sits uneasily with depriving pensioners—who by no conceivable definition are the rich in society—of a legitimate part of their income.
  The same goes for the Government's sins of omission as for their sins of commission against the pensioners—they have done m thing about annuities. Many pensioners who, in good faith, set up a financial portfolio under which they would be obliged to buy an annuity at 75 face a serious situation that has perhaps been made much worse because the Government will not be involved in the gilt market as much as they once were. That is welcome in many ways, but pensioners will be adversely affected and face relative penury because the Government simply will not act. They should do something for those pensioners, a number of whom from my constituency regularly write to me, pleading for the Government to act. As one does as a Member of Parliament, I send those letters to the Treasury, only to get the usual blanket, stonewall answers. The Government have committed a gross sin of omission. If they want to claim that they are the pensioners' friend, they must consider that issue urgently.
  I support what my party proposes to do with the state pension after the next election and I am pleased that it looks increasingly likely that we might win.
  Mr. Swayne: We will win.
  Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend encourages me to tempt fate, but one must never do that in politics.

  467
  However, the political landscape has changed dramatically over the past few weeks. I enjoy speaking to the Women's Institute in my constituency and must report to the House, as a matter of record, that I have never been slow handclapped by the Bromsgrove WI. I congratulate the WI on its view of the Prime Minister.
  One reason for the change in the political landscape is that pensioners prefer the dignity of the pension being paid under the contributory principle, which we shall offer them at the next election, and like the idea of people being entitled to that money because they earned it during their working lives. Our proposals are not a gimmick and they do not represent a handout. That money could not be taken away at the whim of a Chancellor who thought that it was no longer a good idea to continue with any extra payment such as those introduced by this Government.
  The Government's public relations used to be so sure-footed, so I cannot understand why the Chancellor has been foolish enough to give more money to pensioners—we accept that he has done so—in a grossly offensive way. That has backfired in terms of the pensioners' view of the Government: 75p was given on a contributory basis, but other money was given in the form of gimmicks and handouts. The sooner they learn their lesson, the better. Labour Members have been so excitable today because, in their heart of hearts, they know that too.
  I commend our pension plans to the House. They are right for pensioners, some of whom would benefit by much more than the 42p claimed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. Not all pensioners get free television licences; some do not even have to buy one. Those people would be helped by our policies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, pensioners on income support who live in nursing homes do not benefit from the winter fuel payment, but they would get our extra money for the basic state pension. Several groups would benefit from the straightforward principle of giving pensioners what they deserve—an enhanced weekly pension.
  3.9 pm
  Ms Claire Ward: I welcome this Opposition day debate because it highlights further the hypocritical opportunism of the Tories, which is at the core of their party. In choosing the subject for today's debate, Conservative Members seem to have forgotten their record when in office. It shows that they have no interest in pensioners. The previous Government abolished free eye tests for pensioners; they also abolished the link with earnings. That made pensioners poorer and resulted in the Government's introduction of the 75p increase for pensioners in April this year.
  Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Lady favour the restoration of the earnings link? If so, has she made representations to the Government Front Bench?
  Ms Ward: I shall comment on the way in which the Government could do much better later. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall reach his point, if he will have a little patience.
  I am currently considering the previous Government's record. They allowed winter fuel payments to be made only if stringent conditions, about which we heard earlier, were satisfied. They made pensioners poorer so that
  468
  between 1979 and 1997, the gap between the richest and the poorest pensioners increased. The incomes of the richest pensioners rose by 80 per cent., while those of the poorest increased by only 30 per cent.
  Through their plans to abolish parts of the social fund, the Tories have demonstrated again that they are not interested in pensioners or anybody who is on low pay and in need of help. When Conservative Front-Bench Members make their winding-up speeches, I hope that they will identify the exact benefits, which are currently available through the social fund, that they would abolish, and the sections of the community that would not have access to that important fund.
  Despite such a track record, Conservative Members have the cheek to try to con pensioners by proposing a handout, for which money that they already receive in a different form, would pay. Pensioners will not be deceived by that. It is an insult to a generation that deserves much better from all politicians to be used by the Tories for a cheap headline. Pensioners would not benefit from Tory policy.
  As for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is no longer in his place. That shows that not only their policies have disappeared. If the hon. Gentleman returns while I am speaking, I shall consider the points that he made in his speech.
  The Government's actions for pensioners to date should be applauded. The minimum income guarantee ensures that the income of the poorest pensioners is increased so that they are able to live in some dignity. The winter fuel allowance acknowledges that, in winter, pensioners worry about the cost of heating. The allowance of £150 will be paid to all pensioner households from December this year. It ensures that pensioners will not have to choose between heating and other necessities. Restoration of free eye tests for pensioners and the introduction of free television licences for those aged over 75 are important. The Government should be commended for that.
  The hon. Member for Northavon has now returned. That gives me the opportunity to comment on his speech. It is no wonder that his colleagues have deserted him. If I were a Liberal Democrat Back Bencher, and had witnessed the hon. Gentleman's inadequate performance, I would also desert him. No Government Front-Bench Member has achieved such a low standard. The hon. Gentleman said that, in 1997, he and his colleagues were elected on a manifesto commitment that no longer exists. I listened carefully to his speech, but he did not outline the new policy. When I return to my constituency and talk to pensioners, I now understand that Liberal Democrats had a policy that they no longer support, but have no policy to replace it. There is a policy vacuum. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made matters as clear as mud.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady has not followed our pension debates closely. Otherwise, she would know about our policy for age additions to the basic state pension, increases across the board for all pensioners and our alternative budget, a costed document, which is produced every year. That is the latest statement of our policy, and it provides precise figures, including those for the increases and the age additions. If the hon. Lady is in any doubt, I am happy to send her a copy.
  Ms Ward: That will be a riveting read. The hon. Member for Northavon made it clear in his speech that

  469
  the Liberal Democrats' policy had not been determined and that that would happen during a future policy conference. I therefore conclude that if he no longer supports the policy on which he stood for election in 1997, and will not have a confirmed replacement policy until the end of the year, he, like all Liberal Democrats, is in policy limbo.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend is right to describe the Liberal Democrat position as a policy vacuum. Does she know that the costed alternative budget contains no costed commitment to the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings? Does she therefore agree that it is dishonest of the Liberal Democrats to claim around the country that they are in favour of restoring the link when they have not costed their commitment to do that?
  Ms Ward: It is obvious that my hon. Friend has also faced the difficulties of local Liberal Democrats making claims that are not supported by their national policies or spokespersons.
  Mr. Swayne: I, too, have a difficulty.
  Ms Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little more progress, which will give him even more reason to intervene.
  The Government have done a lot for pensioners, but we can do much better. We must do more in the rest of the Parliament. Some people may justify the increase of 75p by comparing it with the retail prices index as it stood. However, while the price of a basket of goods may not have risen significantly, pensioners have faced other increases, even in the past few months, which have not been taken into account. In my area, the council tax and council rents have increased. That may cancel out the benefit of the new money for a section of our pensioner community in the middle-income group, and those who do not rely solely on a state pension, but have a small occupational pension, which takes them over the threshold for entitlement to additional support. Those pensioners could not be described as well off, but they are no longer in the third of the pensioner group that is entitled to additional funding to allow them to live in some dignity.
  Unlike the Tories, our aim should be to retain the benefits that we currently pay to pensioners, and to increase the state pension as well. The debate has revealed the focus of the Tories' argument on pensions—not that pensioners should have more money, but that the money that they are already being given by the Government should be given to them in a different fund, from a different source. I approach the matter from a different point of view. I believe that pensioners should continue to receive the benefits that they are gaining from the Labour Government, and that they should have an increase in the basic state pension.
  Mr. Swayne rose—
  Ms Ward: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. He is so persistent.
  Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Lady. She is young, intelligent and articulate. There are many other
  470
  compliments that I would pay to her, but I ask her to fancy herself as an aged lady, beyond the age of, say, 75, and to ask herself whether she would rather receive a free television licence or the value in cash. Surely it is better to have the cash: if she wanted a television licence, she could purchase one, or she could spend the money on something else that was preferable.
  Ms Ward: I am ever grateful for any comments received, even from the hon. Gentleman, although I am not quite that desperate yet. He asks me to picture myself another 50 or 60 years from now. Should he still be on this earth at that time, I would be surprised. He asks me to choose between being given just over £100 or getting a free television licence.
  If I pay £101 or £103 for a television licence, I want to receive the equivalent sum. If the licence is given to me free, that is a benefit to me, because it is just over £100 that I do not need to spend from my savings or the income that I receive in a state pension.
  Yet again, the Tories have missed the focus of the pensions issue. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we need to do a lot more to help pensioners. There is no doubt in my mind that next year, pensions should be uprated significantly—not just by the £2 or £3 that we have heard is likely to come in the increases next April, but by much more than that. The £2 or £3 is linked to prices, so pensioners are already facing those costs.
  I want more pensioners to gain more money from the Government. I want the Government to ensure that pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled. Many hon. Members come across pensioners who do not realise that they are entitled to various benefits and the minimum income guarantee. We need to do much more to take that campaign out to pensioners and to ensure that they get their entitlement.
  I welcome the increase in the limit on savings and capital that was introduced in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier in the year. That limit should be linked, so that we are not reliant on the Government to decide that the limit is out of date. The Tories left the limit at a very low level over a long period.
  Pensioners' savings may be money for their funeral or money for a rainy day. It is their security in life. These days, £3,000, £4.000 or £5,000 is not a lot of money for pensioners to have, considering that that may be their only savings and their only support for difficult times.
  We should extend some of the other benefits at present under consideration. As my right hon. Friend is aware, in the Transport Bill that has been before the House we are introducing a national concessionary fare scheme. Unfortunately, the terms of the scheme mean that pensioners will gain the minimum of half-fare travel on buses, and only within their own local authority area. Should my granny decide to travel from Scotland to visit me in Watford, she will get a half-fare concession in her own area in Scotland, but she will not be entitled to a half-fare when she comes to Watford.
  There should be a truly national concessionary fare scheme, allowing pensioners who travel throughout the country to pay a minimum half-fare, wherever they are. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his powers of persuasion with our colleagues in other Departments.

  471
  We should not take part in the debate with the Tories about existing benefits, arguing over money that pensioners are already getting. Our target should be to do even more for our pensioners. I make no apology for wanting us to do more. We have done a great deal for pensioners in three years—much more than the Tories did in their 18 years in office—but that does not mean that we cannot do more for pensioners in the remaining time of this Parliament.
  Pensioners do not have time to wait. Those who have given their lives to this country cannot wait for us to consider what further benefits we feel they are entitled to. This week, we saw the character and the courage of the generation marking the anniversary of Dunkirk.
  I know that pensioners in my constituency will not be taken in by the Tories' con, and neither should we be. We should move away from the debate about whether money should be paid through the winter fuel allowance or through pensions. Pensioners should be entitled to both the winter fuel allowance and an uprating in their pension. I urge my right hon. Friend to stand firm on the benefits that have been paid by the Labour Government and opposed by the Opposition. We are still not sure of the Liberal Democrats' views about some of our benefits.
  My right hon. Friend should have a strong word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor about more money for pensioners, to emphasise further the difference between the Government, who really care for pensioners, and the Tories, who are interested only in conning them.
  3.28 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), even if I could not follow entirely her logic.
  There are casualties of the policy announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) from these Benches, but those are proper casualties. The first casualty is the new deal for lone parents. My own lack of enthusiasm for it is largely a consequence of the fact that it does not work. The pilot schemes for the new deal for lone parents showed that marginally more lone parents acquired employment where there was no scheme in operation than where there was a scheme. It is therefore entirely appropriate that we should do away with the scheme and put the money into pensions, where it is more deserved.
  With respect to the social fund, I have never been a fan of it. There are elements of the social fund that are attractive and desirable, but one element has always struck me as undeserving. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has come to share that view, and also to believe that where consumer durables or items of furniture are required, there should be a greater expectation of the family and other social networks to stump up, instead of an application being made to the social fund, with the expectation that benefits will provide for those needs.
  I know about this, because my wife is heavily involved with a charity that aims to provide precisely those items. It caters particularly for the needs of expectant parents. I have always thought it odd that parents, and expectant parents, should exhibit such resistance to second-hand equipment, especially at the lower end of the income scale. The relatively well off are generally happy to receive such equipment; the poorer people are, the greater
  472
  their resistance seems to be. I think that that should be deprecated, and I am therefore not particularly exercised by the possible impact of our proposals on the social fund.
  As time is limited, I shall deal with only one issue. I believe—and my belief is confirmed by my interpretation of the deliberations of the Social Security Committee—that we were right to break the link with earnings. If the state pension scheme were funded the desire to restore that link would be unanswerable, but I feel that the state pension should continue to provide a minimum standard of living, so that people are encouraged to make other provision.
  The Government have put a great deal of thought into developing policy on that. They have launched many initiatives to encourage people to make arrangements for second pensions. I welcome those initiatives. Although many may have been misdirected, I think that the intention was proper and clear. I feel, however, that that intention has been undermined by the determination to uprate the minimum pension guarantee in line with earnings, which is an obvious disincentive. The main thrust of the policy was to encourage people to make their own arrangements to acquire second pensions, particularly lower down the income scale.
  There was one point on which I tended to agree with the hon. Member for Watford. It is clear to those of us who do not resile from the breaking of the link with earnings that the decision to continue uprating in line with prices must be tempered with a better understanding of what constitutes the retail prices index for pensioners. It is obvious to me that the current arrangement for uprating pensions does not affect pensioners' real cost of living.
  Kali Mountford: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that we should think again about whether there should be a pensioners' price index. Does that form any part of his party's policy?
  Mr. Swayne: As I enjoy the freedom of the Back Benches, I think it proper for me to draw attention to what I consider to be problems, in the hope that my party's Front Bench will consider and address them. That, I think, is the proper role of Back Benchers.
  This is one problem that I would like to draw to the attention of those on the Front Bench. I do not believe that our current arrangements take adequate account of the real costs of living for pensioners. If we continue to uprate pensions in line with prices—especially in the case of pensioners at the lower end of the income scale—we must take into account the real increases in their living costs. Otherwise, we shall face outrage every year.
  3.34 pm
  Kali Mountford: We have been confronted with a conglomeration of views and an examination of pension history that are beyond belief. There has been a complete misunderstanding of the way in which social security budgets are stacked up, how important they are, and why they should be as they are.
  I am particularly concerned about two issues. One is the "robbing Petra to pay Paul" syndrome—a policy requiring babies to have second-hand prams and cots to pay for a pension scheme. I would not wish to subscribe to such a policy. I thought that the state pension should have a firm foundation, but the foundation for the proposals that we

  473
  have heard today does not seem at all secure. They are based on taking away parts of the social security budget, and replacing them from elsewhere.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) did not give a clear answer to our questions about the national insurance fund. If we are to change the basis of national insurance, let us be honest about it and have a proper debate about whether the national insurance fund should fund state pensions. The hon. Gentleman did not say that this was the new position, but if we examine the figures closely it is clear that state pensions would have to be financed by general taxation.
  The figures simply do not add up. We are considering a package of measures aimed at those who need help most. It cannot make sense to say that the package does not, in the main, come from the national insurance fund—because it is paying for state pensions—and that we could somehow roll it up together and thus make a big increase in state pensions.
  We are not even being honest and recognising that fact. Those who have drawn attention to it have been told that there are surpluses in the national insurance fund. Every time I have looked at the fund, I have concluded that the alleged surpluses are there for a good reason. They are there because that is how the social security budget must be accounted for. It must cover a range of matters—matters that the House has debated repeatedly. People simply will not accept that a short-term surplus cannot, in perpetuity, finance increases in the state pension, unless we review national insurance contributions.
  The Opposition have not even said what they would do with the national insurance fund. They think that they can just tinker with the figures, but such tinkering will fool no one. It certainly will not fool those who will find £150 on their doormats in November, when they need it most. It is diabolical to suggest that it is patronising to give the poorest people the help that they need when they need it most, and it is also misleading. The aim seems to be to drag people into a debate based on fear.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Is the suggestion not also financially illiterate? If the poorest pensioners receiving the winter allowance had received the money in the basic pension, they would have lost it pound for pound through income support.
  Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition claim that that is incorrect, but we have heard no firm statement because the figures do not add up.
  Time is short, but I want to point out how vital it is to continue the winter fuel payment. Both opposition parties are opposed to that. Clearly they have not noted the views of Age Concern and Help the Aged, which have consistently said that hypothermia is claiming lives year on year. They say that it is a question of respect, and not patronising people. How patronising is it not even to provide extra measures that would help those people?
  It is all very well for the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) to say that some people could retain the benefit, but they may not be those who need it most. The people who need it most are those in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. The Opposition have decried the minimum income guarantee as something that has not
  474
  been special, although increases in it, year on year, have been far above any increases paid to pensioners in the past. Although some pensioners have not experienced the benefit, it has gone to those who have needed it most.
  3.40 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It has been a telling debate. For our side, it has been telling to watch the massed ranks of the Government because the problem is that the opposition is on the Benches behind Ministers. To be able to say that their supporters were po-faced while the Secretary of State was, not terribly effectively, defending his own policy was a joy and pleasure to us all. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I hope that outbreaks of sedentary comment will cease. It does not help the debate.
  Mrs. Lait: I am always happy to get supportive comments.
  We watched the Government's supporters not being able to support their own Front-Bench team and the Secretary of State. In fact, every contribution that we have had, other than the fairly technical one from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)—we do not have time to debate the technicalities, much as I would like to—and a part of the speech by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), basically said, "You have got it wrong. You have to do better." We have done precisely that. That is what the problem is. The Government's supporters and, indeed, the Government are thoroughly rattled by the very sensible proposals that we have made.
  It is interesting. The first speech that I made at the Dispatch Box was—to give them credit—during a debate that was initiated by the Liberal Democrats, who tabled a motion suggesting that the 75p increase was not enough. I remember saying at that time that it was a measly increase, but it is interesting to note that their amendment today goes no further than their motion at the beginning of the year. They say, "We will pay pensioners more." Now we have the promise that they will tell us in a few weeks where the money is coming from. We all hold our breath, but we all know that the Liberal Democrats say one thing and do another, should they ever be given the opportunity, which I doubt.
  We, however, have been listening very hard to pensioners. We slave listened to the organisations that represent them. We have listened to our constituents comments in letters and at our surgeries. My goodness, I have a heap of letters, as I am sure every Member does—
  Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Lait: I am terribly sorry; we are desperately short of time. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for most of the debate, I might it have been more tempted.
  What we have heard from pensioners is consistent and clear. They are saying, "We do not like being patronised. We do not like being told how to spend our money. We think that the plethora of allowances and benefits is confusing. We do not like the nanny state." We listened and we acted.

  475
  It was my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) who, in an excellent exposition, outlined exactly what we have proposed. Despite the shortness of time, I will run through it quickly. It is important that we get it on the record because so many wild accusations are floating around, including the one from the Secretary of State, who, I am delighted to see, is back in the Chamber and who persists in saying that our increase is £5. It is £5.50. I would be grateful if he tried to get that fixed in his brain.
  We took the Government at their word that the state pension would next rise by between £2 and £3 a year. We then took the money that they are spending on winter heating and on free television licences. We added the age addition for the over-80s and the Christmas bonus. We looked at the savings that we could achieve from abolishing those gimmicks. We added the money to be saved from winter fuel payments to men aged between 60 and 64, which the Government did not plan originally to give them. We took some of the extra money that the Government have put into the social fund and we used the money from the failed new deal for lone parents.
  We were then able to promise—
  Mr. Darling: It will add 42p.
  Mrs. Lait: I am afraid that the Secretary of State is too devoted to "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". That is not the answer to everything.
  We were then able to promise all pensioners the increases that—
  Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Lait: I would dearly love to give way to the Secretary of State. It would be a huge—
  Mr. Darling rose—
  Mrs. Lait: I give way.
  Mr. Darling: Clearly, the Conservative party has been on a hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy. It has come up with exactly the same answer, which is 42p.
  Mrs. Lait: What we have come up with is the answer that pensioners want. Pensioners want to get rid of the gimmicks that the Government have been buying them off with. They want the dignity and self-respect to pay their own way on their own budget on a weekly basis. They know that if they receive the money weekly, any future increases will be based on that increased state pension. Many Members are trying to portray it as a one-off increase. It is not. It will increase and roll on year by year. The base rate has gone up.
  Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Lait: I will give way briefly because I am aware that my hon. Friend wanted to speak.
  Mr. Greenway: In the catalogue of things that we propose to save money on to pay for the package,
  476
  does my hon. Friend include the more than £20 million a year that it will cost to run the bureaucracy to give the free television licence?
  Mrs. Lait: That is, indeed, part of the savings increase. My hon. Friend tried hard to get into the debate, but was not able to.
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Lait: I am sorry. I will not give way again as I have only four more minutes.
  Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) approached you to have Hansard corrected in view of the fact that Hansard reports him as warmly and enthusiastically supporting the free television licence that he now nods at as a gimmick?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and knows that he is trying to pursue a point of debate under the guise of a point of order.
  Mrs. Lait: We were able to make those promises two weeks ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), our leader, made the promise at that time. I shall read the relevant paragraph from his speech because, clearly, many people have not read it. He said:
  We would also adjust tax allowances for older people to compensate pensioners for any extra that they might otherwise pay.
  It is practically in words of one syllable. He went on:
  we would adjust means tested benefits to ensure that the poorest pensioners gain at least as much as other pensioners.
  That is in the costings. It was said by my right hon. Friend. It was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts); indeed, it was said by any Conservative who was briefing on that day. It is why the Secretary of State and other Ministers in the Department of Social Security are petrified by what we have suggested. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), the Secretary of State's PPS, is giving a very good imitation of someone who is having a nervous attack at the success of what we have proposed.
  Many pensioners are telling us that our proposal gives them dignity and choice. We have been able to give them what they require to feel that they are decent, honourable and upstanding members of society, unlike the Government, who continue to patronise, to confuse and to dish out sums of money to meet their political ends, not the requirements of pensioners who are our first priority.
  3.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Is that it? Opposition Members have finished speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you have called me to speak, but I have not really heard anything yet. However, looking at the Order Paper I was struck by the fact—I am a bit superstitious; I do not walk under ladders or do anything like that—that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, the Opposition have chosen, on their 13th allotted day, to debate pensions. They have told us nothing new about pensions, other than that they will

  477
  spend exactly the same money on pensions as is now being spent on them. No one will ever remember the Opposition's motion, but everyone will remember the substance of it: this is the 42p pension debate. That is what Opposition Members have talked about today. That is what it amounts to.
  We have not heard anything of substance that is new from Opposition Members, and they know it. They also know that their proposal is a con. That is why they were so angry with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for finding them out so quickly. As the hours passed, they changed their position and squirmed about their so-called policy initiative.
  There have been some interesting speeches from both sides of the House, and some of them were thoughtful. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) covered a range of subjects, some of which were partisan. However, I think that there is a meeting of minds that, in the years since the war, the House has not exactly shone with glory in addressing the issue of pensioners' incomes. As I said, there have been various attempts—by Richard Crossman, Boyd-Carpenter, Barbara Castle and even Keith Joseph—simply to get to grips with the fact that the basic state pension was never intended to be the sole source of income.
  Since 1948, that has been the basic tenet in the pensions debate, and the Labour and Conservative parties have both made attempts to deal with that fact. Regrettably, so far, of all those attempts not one has come to fruition in the House. Legislation was passed on one proposal, but it was never implemented. Other proposals have been modified over the years. However, the basic underlying fact is that we have to do something to get pensioners a second income, and preferably not one that relies on the vagaries of Governments, Chancellors and the national insurance fund. If people can have access to a separate, funded scheme, they will be better provided for. The consequence of that fact has been growth in occupational pension schemes and the creation of the stakeholder pension system, which will be funded.
  Nevertheless, we must always—I make no apology for this—bear in mind the total income that pensioners receive, and we should not centre the entire debate on the basic state pension. For one thing, many people do not receive the basic state pension because they have not paid enough into the national insurance fund. There have been quirks in the national insurance system since it began, and they are grossly unfair to many pensioners. If people do not, for example, accrue 25 per cent. of a pension, they receive nothing—[Interruption.] Hang on; I am making a speech on behalf of the Government. I am not going to be told by Opposition Front Benchers what to say.
  The underlying thrust of the Opposition's motion is that the basic state pension is the be-all and end-all of pension provision, and that we must never talk about other aspects of the matter. Opposition Members think that, by manipulating a debate on their own terms—just on the basic state pension, as if that is what people live on—they will appeal to pensioners.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said, in 1997–98 the average pensioner income was £132, which is twice today's basic state
  478
  pension amount. That sum includes SERFS, occupational pensions and personal pensions. It is also an average, and many people receive a much higher sum.
  We make no apology whatsoever for targeting our extra resources on the poorest pensioners. We came into office and discovered that when the previous Labour Government left office, 40 per cent. of pensioners retired on to means-tested benefit. Today, the percentage is much lower—28 per cent. The fact is that those who do retire on to it, relative to those who do not, are much poorer than they were in 1978. In 20 years, the income differential between the top fifth and the bottom fifth of pensioners has changed from 2.5:1, to 3.5:1. We cannot close that gap without getting more money, and faster, to the poorest pensioners in relation to the general population. That is the reality, and increasing money across the board simply will not work.
  Mr. Willetts: What about the winter fuel payment?
  Mr. Rooker: I am coming to that. We make no apology at all for our other manifesto commitment—it was in the rest of the sentence—On pensioners sharing in the nation's prosperity. No one has ever said that the winter fuel payment and the free television licence for the over-75s—as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, the older the pensioner, the poorer he or she is—is means tested. It is right that those should go to the over-75s. The provision also he1ps to ensure that those pensioners share in the nation's greater prosperity.
  As I said, we need to get more money, faster, to poorer pensioners. The Opposition, however, have come along and said that some of our schemes are gimmicks. One of the most upsetting aspects of this debate is that we have still not been told—we have asked the question more than once; I am sorry that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) did not answer it—exactly which part of the social fund they will abolish. Who will be affected by the abolition? We are talking about real people, not statistics.
  I accept that, in the grand order of the sums Governments deal with, £90 million is chickenfeed. However, Conservative Members need that £90 million just to make their sums add up. They need it to get the 42p—just to get ahead of the game. However, they owe it to themselves to know exactly which group they will target in the social fund. They need to know that so they can sleep at night with a clear conscience. They should know which group of the poorest people in the country they will attack It is a great pity they have not said anything about that today.
  Conservative Members were also very coy in the way in which they presented their policy. They mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Budget day. We have not argued about that statement. We realise that the announcement on pension increases did not make headlines, but it was in Hansard. The Chancellor said that, on current forecasts, the increases would be at least £2 and £3. We are not committed to those increases—but they are minimum figures. Conservative Members were very coy in dealing with that. They did not want to quote the Chancellor. They could have quoted Hansard, with a column reference, to back up their figures, but that would have destroyed their argument in a flash. It would have shown that the money they are promising has already been promised by a Labour Chancellor, in the House, not in an outside press conference.

  479
  Pensioners have welcomed the winter fuel allowance and the free television licence as cash sums. A few hon. Members have quoted letters from people criticising the Government. Ministers and hon. Members receive such letters every day, and we try personally to read and respond to as many of them as we can. It should be said, however, that members of the public agree with what we are doing. It is only right that we should hear from some pensioners who have written to the Government to say, "We think that it is a good idea to have winter fuel payments and free television licences."
  I have a letter from Mr. Harry Berry, and I have his permission to quote the letter and mention his name. He is not a constituent of mine, or even from a Labour constituency—he lives in Bury St. Edmunds. He is a former worker in the Post Office and has offered some positive suggestions. At the end of his letter, he said:
  Despite the unwarranted complaint by many of my contemporaries may I say thank you to a government who by offering me a free TV Licence and £150 Christmas Bonus—
  for winter fuel—
  has given me what amounts to a £5 pound a week increase in my pension.
  That is what 77-year-old Harry Berry acts ally said. People are saying, "Thanks very much—it is a good way to do it."
  I also want to share with the House a letter that we received earlier this week. The letter typifies the need for the winter fuel payment better than I am able to do. If ever the Government had tried to encapsulate in an advertisement, television slot or photograph the message in this letter, we would have been told, "That is not true in Britain in the 21st century." I should add that I shall not be much longer in speaking, because I do not want to steal too much of the Opposition's time.
  The letter is from a couple. As I do not have their permission to say their name, I shall not do so. However, they live in a village near Marlborough, in Wiltshire. As 6,000 people live in the village, they cannot be identified from their letter. It reads:
  Please may I thank yourself and your party for the fuel allowance that we as pensioners were awarded last winter? My husband and I have only the state pension, topped up by income support. For many years, before we became pensioners, we bought a wooding permit from our local forestry commission in order to keep our home warm as coal was so expensive. This became harder—gathering wood in rain, cold, ice and snow—as we reached pensionable age. The fuel allowance was a life saver, and we straightaway ordered £100-worth of coal, enjoying every second of the warmth it gave. I am sure we can't be the only ones to appreciate your allowance. Thank you once again. I dread to think about future winters if we had had to struggle home with the wet wood.
  I rest the Government's case.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 301.

  Division No. 222]

  [4.1 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bercow, John

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Beggs, Roy

  Brady, Graham

  480

  Brazier, Julian

  Loughton, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bums, Simon

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Collins, Tim

  Maples, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Day, Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan, Alan

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prior, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gale Roger

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gamier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gibb Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gill, Christopher

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Gray, James

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Desmond

  Hammond, Philip

  Syms Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, sir peter

  Horam, John

  Taylor lan (Esher & Walton)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor John M (Solihull)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie Andrew

  Johnson Smith,

  Viggers, Peter

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walter, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Key, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Willetts, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Yeo, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Leigh, Edward

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. John Randall and

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Allan, Richard

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Ashton, Joe

  Blizzard, Bob

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Austin, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Baker, Norman

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brake, Tom

  Banks, Tony

  Breed, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Browne, Desmond

  481

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burstow, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hain, Peter

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hancock, Mike

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Chidgey, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coleman, lain

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Jean

  Hurst, Alan

  Cotter, Brian

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cranston, Ross

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

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

  Dowd, Jim

  Drew, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Feam, Ronnie

  Laxton, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCabe, Steve

  Galloway, George

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gapes, Mike

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  482

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sanders, Adrian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

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

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Stringer, Graham

  Mountford, Kali

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mudie, George

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Norris, Dan

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normarton)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Olner, Bill

  Todd, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Öpik, Lembit

  Trickett, Jon

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pike, Peter L

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tynan, Bill

  Pond, Chris

  Vaz, Keith

  Pope, Greg

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pound, Stephen

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watts, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Webb, Steve

  Purchase, Ken

  White, Brian

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rendel, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wills, Michael

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House condemns the Opposition for making no commitment to the welfare of either today's or tomorrow's pensioners, opposing every step the Government has taken to help

  483
  pensioners and producing proposals for next year's basic pension uprating which amount to bribing pensioners with money which is already theirs; recognises the legacy of increasing pensioner poverty left by the last Government; applauds the Government for doing more to help all pensioners, spending £6½billion more than planned by the last Government, but most for those who need help most by concentrating half the additional money on the poorest quarter of pensioners; congratulates the Government for tackling poverty directly with the Minimum Income Guarantee. helping take-up through better publicity and simplified claims procedures; supports the Government's plans to help those pensioners who just fail to qualify for the Minimum Income Guarantee by raising the capital limits to £12,000 from April 2001 and committing itself to bringing forward proposals for a Pensioner Credit which will reward thrift; congratulates the Government for helping all pensioners with their costs, including Winter Fuel Payments and free television licences for people aged 75 and over; and applauds the Government's strategy for ensuring that, in the future, nobody who has put in a lifetime of work or caring need retire onto means-tested benefits, including a commitment to the basic state pension, a state second pension which does more for 18 million people including those on low and moderate pay, with caring responsibilities or broken work records because of disability, and new flexible, low cost, stakeholder pensions.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.14 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the Government's mishandling of the consequences of the presence of GM seeds in a batch of conventional oil seed rape seeds imported to Britain from Canada, which were subsequently planted for commercial purposes; and condemns the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's response which has led to a collapse in public confidence and unnecessary difficulties for the agricultural industry.
  The motion is deliberately narrow in its focus. It deals with a subject of deep concern to the public, to all consumers of food and to farmers. Today's debate is not about the merits of genetic modification, although there is a proper and lively discussion about that, even among the highest families in the land. The debate is not about the crop trials, the principle of which we strongly support, although we have reservations about some aspects of their conduct.
  I greatly welcome the review of separation distances. We have repeatedly called for those distances to be increased, most recently three weeks ago, when the Minister made his statement to the House. Once again, it has taken a debate in the House organised by the Conservative party to force the Minister to act. I hope that the review will be swift, before yet more damage is done to conventional and organic farmers.
  As hon. Members will not have had time to consider the terms of the consultation paper issued today about separation distances, I am sure that the Minister agrees that it would be wrong to try to use this debate to discuss its details, although I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to do so. This debate is about the way in which the Minister ignored warnings that he was given, failed to contact farmers who were innocent victims in the crisis, and failed to advise consumers whose ability to choose GM-free food was threatened. It is about how the Government kept secret information that should have been published; about claims made by the Minister in Parliament that turned out not to be true; about the dithering, confusion and, finally, panic that gripped the Minister; about how individual farmers now face bills running to thousands of pounds that could have been avoided; and about the destruction of public confidence in a potentially valuable technology.
  Professor Malcolm Grant—the Government's choice to head the latest advisory body on biotechnology—said this week:
  The episode has not been spectacularly well-handled.
  To avoid developing a reputation for understatement, he continued:
  The public are confused, bemused, underinformed and feel disenfranchised in this whole debate.
  After such straight-from-the-shoulder comments, Professor Grant will doubtless soon join the other distinguished experts whom the Government appoint to advisory bodies and then refuse to consult in case their advice is inconvenient or embarrassing.

  485
  Professor Grant was right about the disfranchisement of the public and right too, if his words were accurately reported in The Times, to believe that the public and farmers affected by the contaminated seed should have been told much sooner.
  This latest and worst example of ministerial blundering and cover-up over genetically modified crops began seven weeks and three days ago on Monday 17 April, when Advanta Seeds warned the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, that GM-contaminated oilseed rape seeds had been imported to Britain from Canada. At that stage, the company that imported the contaminated seeds, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, were all aware of the facts. The public, of course, were not and neither were the farmers—some of whom at that date had bought seeds but not yet planted them—or the seed merchants whom Advanta had supplied with contaminated seed and who may unwittingly have continued to sell it to their customers.
  Under those circumstances, time was of the essence, but the Minister remained silent. No public statement was made for more than four weeks. Then, on 17 May, a junior Minister replied to a planted question that was so innocently worded that nobody could have guessed its true significance. The answer said very little, but it confirmed that genetically modified crops were being grown commercially in Britain—something that Ministers had promised time and again over the past 12 months would not happen until the current programme of crop trials had been completed and analysed.
  If Ministers thought that they could get away with sneaking out an important and damaging announcement by making it late in the afternoon, they soon discovered how wrong they were. Such was the outcry that evening that the Minister was forced to come to Parliament the next day and make an oral statement—something that he should have done in the first place.
  The Minister's reluctance to come clean on such a sensitive issue may have been due to the flimsy basis of many of the claims that he made in Parliament that day. Let us look at what he said. He said:
  We moved quickly to establish the facts.
  Just how quickly we shall find out in a moment. Later, in answer to a question of mine, he said:
  We established the facts and put them in the public domain.
  The truth is that the facts were not put in the public domain for four and a half weeks after MAFF officials first knew of them. No explanation has yet been given for that long delay. We shall examine those four and a half weeks in a moment.
  First, let us consider another of the Minister's claims. He said:
  In this whole matter, the Government are proceeding on the basis of professional advice provided … to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment … on the environmental issues.
  What the Minister did not say was that that advice was obtained from somewhat limited sources. English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation
  486
  and an independent body funded by the taxpayer, might have been thought to have a view about the matter. However, during the whole four-and-a-half week period of silence from the Minister, English Nature was not consulted. Nobody at MAFF or DETR even bothered to pick up the phone and have a word with one of the highly qualified scientists and environmentalists on the public payroll at English Nature.
  Of course, by ignoring English Nature the Minister followed a precedent set by the Prime Minister, whose assertion in Parliament in February last year that the Government were proceeding on genetically modified issues on the basis of sound science was contradicted, within 24 hours by the chairman of English Nature, herself a recently created Labour peer.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the genetic modification involved, known as RT73, was approved for food use in crop trials by the previous Government?
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Lady will receive a brownie point from the Whips for reading out the planted brief, but I am happy to confirm that the Conservative Government approved that particular crop for use in crop trials, a part B approval which under the law is fundamentally different from the part C approval that is needed for the commercial growing of that crop. As the hon. Lady might remember, had she been in the House on the day the Minister made his statement, I suggested that the Government could treat all the accidentally planted crops as crop trials, and that would avoid the pressure that subsequently grew for the destruction of the crops.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): We could not do that. The crop trials are for genetically modified crops. The problem involved conventional crops with a small degree of GM contamination.
  Mr. Yeo: It would still have been possible for the Government to apply the same conditions and monitoring procedures to those crops to prevent an illegal activity from continuing. Let us return to what the Minister said on 18 May. He claimed that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—had
  looked at this specific incident and concluded that there is no risk.
  When the Minister made that claim, the incident had not even been discussed at a meeting of ACRE, nor was it on the published agenda for the next meeting of ACRE on 25 May. However, I understand that members of ACRE were contacted individually. A Minister who recognised that public confidence in genetic modification will be restored only if the Government are more open in their decision making might have explained how the ACRE advice was obtained, especially as there was a discrepancy between what DETR told ACRE members and what the Minister told Parliament.
  The advice note produced by ACRE on 17 May, without the benefit of any collective discussion, said:
  In conclusion, ACRE considers that the risks to human health and to the environment are very low. However, the Committee welcomes the precautionary steps proposed by DETR to verify and monitor independently the situation in the field and report back to the Committee.

  487
  Hon. Members should note that DETR had obviously told ACRE members that the situation was being monitored in the field. However, one day after ACRE issued that advice, the Minister told the House:
  The advice that the Government collectively have received is that it is not necessary to trace … the crops.—[Offical Report, 18 May 2000: Vol. 350, c. 473–75.]
  The advice from ACRE contradicts what the Minister said. How could the crops be monitored in the field, as DETR told ACRE members, if they were not even to be traced?
  A week later, at Agriculture questions, the Minister made an astonishing claim. He said:
  I am not keeping any information secret. I have gone out of my way to be candid with the House.—[Official Report, 25 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 1101.]
  Equally seriously, five and a half weeks after the Minister first learned that GM oilseed rape was being grown commercially in Britain, he still had no advice to offer the farmers on whose land those crops were growing. Another two days passed, during which the French Government ordered their farmers to destroy the equivalent crops in France.
  In London, the Minister continued to either. Finally, on 27 May, advice of a kind was given to farmers. It was pointed out that that GM crop did not have approval to be sold, and the Minister suggested that farmers could destroy the crops now and replant—a suggestion that would have been rather more useful if it had been made five weeks earlier—or they could continue growing the crop up to the harvesting stage. Even then, the Minister shrank from actually advising farmers directly to pull up those crops.
  What changed, other than the pressure of public opinion and the usual slide by the Minister from confusion into panic, between 18 May, when the Minister made his first statement to Parliament saying everything was fine, and 27 May, when he pointed out that the crops were unsaleable—a pronouncement that many farmers felt left them with no option but to destroy their crops? What new information became available to the Minister during that time? If the answer is none, the whole five-and-a-half week delay becomes even more puzzling.
  Mr. Brown: That issue is probably at the heart of the debate and we might as well get it cleared up now. The important new development was the continuing legal advice that was coming to me and other Ministers. Once we had established the legal position, we acted immediately to put the best advice would give to farmers into the public domain.
  Mr. Yeo: People will not draw much comfort from the fact that it took five and a half weeks for the lawyers at MAFF to discover whether a law passed in 1990 was being broken.
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Yeo: I have given way once. The Minister will get his chance. [Interruption.] I have repeated exactly what the Minister said. I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to establish exactly what happened during that period.
  During the four-and-a-half week period of silence after Advanta contacted MAFF on 17 April, we know that the Minister did not consult English Nature. We know that he
  488
  did not call a meeting of ACRE. As agriculture is a devolved issue, it might have been thought that the time was used to consult the Minister's Scottish and Welsh counterparts, especially as even MAFF might have realised that planting of the crop was still taking place in Scotland after 17 April. However, apparently, the Scottish and Welsh Ministers were not informed until 15 May, four weeks after the Ministry in London had learned the truth, and just two days before Parliament was told. Whether the Minister will now tell us that he needed legal advice before informing the Scottish Minister is something that I expect he will explain later in the debate.
  Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No, the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance in a moment. The Scottish Minister for Rural Affairs told Members of the Scottish Parliament of his deep anger and annoyance at being kept in the dark. He said:
  I'm even more annoyed there was a total lack of communication between MAFF and ourselves … We are writing to them to make it clear that this is unacceptable.
  Mr. James Gray: Should not the Minister have consulted his newly established Food Standards Agency very early on in this four-and-a-half week period? Does my hon. Friend know whether he did so?
  Mr. Yeo: As far as I know, the FSA was consulted, although I do not know on exactly what date.
  What is certain is that, after 17 April, some farmers who had purchased contaminated seed from Advanta in good faith proceeded to sow it. In a letter to The Times on 25 May, the Marquess of Lansdowne made it clear that the contaminated seed was sown on 65 hectares in Perthshire two weeks after MAFF knew that it had been sold to farmers. He wrote:
  It must be asked why those who had purchased the seed were not informed immediately and, secondly, instructed by the ministry to destroy the seed (or the crop, if it had already been planted) to ensure GM plants are contained in research environments only.
  Why indeed? Before I answer that question, I want to examine the position of the importer, Advanta Seeds UK.
  Apart from the Minister and his civil servants, the company was alone in knowing about the contaminated seed. It knew to whom it had been sold, so why did the company not contact its customers after it had contacted the Minister? If it had done so, it might have been able to minimise its liability.
  Last Friday, the general manager of Advanta, Mr. Mike Ruthven, told me that the company would have liked to warn its customers. The only reason that it did not do so was that it was asked by MAFF officials to keep the whole matter secret. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cover up."] When Advanta went to the Government to make a clean breast of its blunder, it was asked not to say a word about the matter to anyone else. It was MAFF advice to Advanta, and nothing else, that ensured that farmers were kept in the dark after 17 April. It was the Ministry's advice that allowed farmers to go on planting GM seeds in Britain in the period after 17 April. That makes a complete mockery of all the assurances from Ministers that commercial planting of GM crops would not take place.

  489
  What on earth is the point of all the carefully monitored crop trials when, knowingly and willingly, MAFF allows the planting and growing of GM crops on sites that are not even identified, let alone monitored?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is a clear obligation on Advanta to tell its customers that it had sold them a defective product, as soon as it knew that it had done so. It received no advice from Government not to tell its customers what had happened.
  Mr. Yeo: I hope that documents eventually will prove who is right in this matter. I noted that the general manager of Advanta last Friday said to me exactly what he said to a reporter from The Guardian, as a report in this morning's newspaper confirms.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): It does not confirm that.
  Mr. Yeo: From a sedentary position, the Parliamentary Secretary says that the report does not confirm that, so I shall read it to the House. Mr. Ruthven states that MAFF told him
  that they would want to make some tests themselves and not to say anything about it until they had sorted that out. I took a lot of comfort, from that and as a result did not take any action to inform farmers or seed merchants.
  Mr. Brown: There is no instruction to the company not to tell its customers that it had sold them a defective product. Clearer than that I cannot be.
  Mr. Yeo: The Minister appears to be saying that what Advanta told The Guardian last night is inaccurate. If so, I am surprised that officials from MAFF or DETR did not also give a quote to The Guardian, as they were invited to.
  Mr. Tom King: The Minister appeared to choose his words carefully, but of course every employee at MAFF is part of the government. Would it not be interesting to know whether the Minister is seeking to absolve Ministers from responsibility by isolating officials and trying to hide behind them, and whether any public body was involved in the advice given to Advanta?
  Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend makes a most important point. The way in which this matter is developing means that the documents, notes and records of the meetings that took place—even those involving only Ministry officials and the company—must be placed in the public domain.
  Mr. David Heath: I, too, was struck by the candour of the quotation from Mr. Ruthven. Is it possible that the civil servants to whom he refers belong to DETR and that the Minister is answering only for his own officials? It seems clear that wholly unhelpful advice was given.
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is possible that the officials who spoke to the company belong to DETR. I understand that the first meeting took place at DETR, with a MAFF official also present.
  490
  I suspected that the Minister might take this line of response, so I attempted to speak to Mr. Ruthven before coming into the Chamber for this debate to make absolutely sure that The Guardian had reported what he said accurately. Unfortunately, he was not available, but I have no doubt that we will get to the truth of the matter shortly.
  Given the Labour Government's appalling record of secrecy and media manipulation over GM issues, many people will suspect that MAFF may have hoped, on 17 April and during the days and weeks of silence that followed, that the issue would go away, that no one would find out and that an embarrassing problem could be covered up.
  The Minister has had six and a half weeks to think about the matter. He owes the public a full and detailed explanation of what happened and why, and this afternoon's debate gives him the chance to start that explanation. We know that he understands the seriousness of the issue now, because two weeks ago he told the House:
  To knowingly corrupt seed products is of course an offence in this country, as is knowingly releasing them into the environment.— [Official Report, 25 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 1099.]
  From 17 April onwards, until the Government came clean on 17 May, unauthorised releases of contaminated seed into the environment continued to take place. However, although those releases were unauthorised, they were not entirely unknown. One of the people who knew about them was the Minister. He knew about them and could have stopped them, but chose not to do so.
  From reports in the press now, it appears that at first the Ministry's officials may not have realised the full gravity of the situation. However, it staggers belief and strains credulity that it should take five and a half weeks for civil servants to find out the true seriousness of the problem. Not even civil servants at MAFF or DETR could be as incompetent as that.
  I hope that the Minister will explain precisely what advice his civil servants gave to Advanta. I hope that he will publish the minutes of the meetings that his civil servants had with Advanta. I hope that he will tell the House when he first knew that GM seeds had been planted. I hope that he will say when he first realised that an offence might have been committed. I hope that he will explain what the tests were that his officials told Advanta that they wanted to carry out. Will he now publish the results of those tests?
  On 18 May, the Minister told the House that officials had been in continuous contact with the company. When did he or his officials warn Advanta that the situation was even more serious than was first thought?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman calls on me to be candid, and I always try to be candid with the House—as, deep in their hearts, Conservatives Members know. I shall therefore share in full with the House the note that has just been given to me. It says that officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at that meeting gave no instructions to Advanta not to contact farmers or merchants. Nor did officials say they were going to do tests—Advanta was going to do further

  491
  tests. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just for the sake of absolute transparency, I am quite happy to cross the Floor and give this note to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Yeo: I welcome this new spirit of candour.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
  I note that the Minister has contradicted specifically the report in today's edition of The Guardian, and I am aware that the reporter concerned gave an opportunity to spokesmen from both MAFF and DETR to comment last night on that report. I believe that this sequence of events makes it even more important that the Minister should place in the public domain the contemporary records of the meetings concerned. Given that he is willing to share with me the scribbled advice given by him to the civil servants in the box, I trust that he will publish those minutes as soon as possible after this debate.
  I repeat my last two questions: when did the Minister or his officials warn Advanta that the situation was more serious than first thought, and when were lawyers first consulted? If the Minister is unable to answer those questions fully, the suspicion will grow that he and his officials may indeed have been aware that there was a risk that a crime was being committed. In case anyone believes that that crime was just a technicality—a sort of environmental parking ticket—let me point out that contradicting the relevant section of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, if tried in a Crown court, carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and an unlimited fine.
  I hope that the Minister will explain both his actions and his inactions in this matter. I hope that his statements will be supported by documents available to the public. He must understand that his previous statements have reduced trust and increased suspicion. The Government's abject failure to keep their promises about not allowing commercial planting of GM crops until the trials were completed, their dithering and inaction in the face of knowledge that the law might be being broken, their lack of openness and candour in dealing with farmers, the public and Parliament, mean that if the Minister confines his reply today to announcements about yet more advisory bodies, future random checks on seed imports and consultation over separation distances, he will be admitting his own negligence. He will be condemning himself as a man who cannot be trusted, whose weakness and incompetence put farmers and the environment at risk and who, even by the abysmally low standards of this Labour Government, is not fit to hold office.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  4.43 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  endorses Her Majesty's Government's approach to the development of GM technology in agriculture; believes that the Government has responded in a responsible, open, considered and proportionate way to the recent discovery of the adventitious presence of GM seed in conventional oilseed rape seed; supports the priority the Government
  492
  has given and continues to give to the protection of public health and the environment, and its continued determination to act on the best available scientific advice; applauds the creation of the new, independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on GM issues; welcomes the announcement by the seed company Advanta, following discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that they will provide a fair and equitable compensation package to affected farmers; and commends the Government for the action it is taking at both national and international level to minimise the risk of a similar incident occurring in the future.
  The last remarks of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) were particularly personal and offensive. If he really believes that I should not hold the office that I hold, there is a parliamentary procedure that he can adopt. I notice that he has not done so. However, it reflects credit on the hon. Gentleman—I almost said "horrible"—that he is so ashamed of his speaking material, with its grotesque misrepresentation of events, that he was reluctant to take interventions.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will be familiar with the plays of Robert Bolt, particularly "A Man for All Seasons", in which Thomas More is framed by his enemies. After a particularly indefensible and implausible charge is put against him, More says:
  That's a horse that won't run, Master Secretary.
  Thomas Cromwell replies:
  There will be others.
  So it is with Agriculture Ministers.
  We have had a succession of complaints from the Conservative party, suggesting that the Government are doing things wrongly. Only a few months ago, all the hedges were going to be ripped up in this country and farmers would be denied their arable aid payments, pork chops would have to be de-boned, the shepherds' crooks industry would be closed down, the beef on the bone ban would be reintroduced, our pets would have to be boiled before going abroad, and so on. This is the latest attempt, and it is more pathetic than most. The over-riding point that the Government established early on, and which the hon. Member for South Suffolk has not challenged, is that there is no risk to public health or to the environment in this accident.
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to The Times, because on Wednesday 7 June it contained a very good commentary on GM crops issues by Nigel Hawkes. He observed, although it was not his main point, that the hon. Gentleman
  was raising fears rather than addressing the issue.
  Mr. Yeo: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way in a moment, but let me just finish my introduction.
  It is very telling that the key charge made by the Opposition, as I pointed out on 18 May, is about process, not substance. The Government have responded in a responsible, measured and proportionate way to this incident. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman referred to an article in The Times. He will be familiar, as we all are, with the consequences of being quoted out of context. The quotation referred to in the article was taken from a

  493
  remark I made to explain the difference in concept between genetic modification and ordinary plant breeding. It was taken out of context by the journalist concerned.
  Mr. Brown: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. Nevertheless, the point remains that his attack on the Government is about the process, not the substance. [Interruption.] It is impossible to interpret his speech this afternoon any other way. So let me remind right hon. and hon. Members of the key facts as I set them out for the House in my statement on 18 May.
  The Government were advised by Advanta Seeds on 17 April that some of its supplies of conventional rapeseed sold and sown in 1999 and 2000 might have contained a small proportion of genetically modified seed. This seed had been sold and sown in several European Union member states, possibly including the United Kingdom. The full facts were not known at that time.
  It now appears that the seed was sold in France, Germany, Sweden and Luxembourg, as well as the UK. This is a problem with EU-wide and international implications, and it requires a common solution.
  On learning of the potential problem from the company, the Government took action to investigate the implications for public health and the environment, as well as to assess the legal implications, so that appropriate action could be taken. The Government established that the genetic modification in question—RT73—had previously been approved in the UK for food use in 1995 and for field trials in 1997.
  The expert committees specifically tasked with examining the food and environmental safety of genetically modified products—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes—had both cleared it. The Government asked both ACRE and the Food Standards Agency to look at the circumstances of that specific incident.
  Sir Robert Smith rose—
  Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Brown: I want to make my presentation. If Opposition Members think that it is incomplete, I am willing to take interventions at the end. I ask the House to hear me first. I shall take interventions later.
  Those committees confirmed—initially and subsequently in formal advice—that the product presented no risk to human health or to the environment. That advice has been placed in the Library.
  Having established those facts, the Government were in a position to provide balanced and proportionate advice on the implications of the incident and on how to deal with it. My Ministers of State accordingly did so in both Houses on 17 May, when they set out the steps that the Government are taking to address the wider issues on seed purity highlighted by the incident.
  The Government have been criticised for delay. However, as I have already made clear, our approach throughout has been to establish as many of the facts as
  494
  possible so that we can give accurate and responsible guidance to farmers and consumers. Given the uncertainties of the incident when it was first reported to us, it would have been premature and potentially alarmist to have published incomplete information. In any case, we were reassured at an early stage—that is a crucial point—by the knowledge that the GM product in question did not pose a threat to health or to the environment. Of course, we had the 1995 and 1997 technical assessments to guide us.
  Mr. Gray: The Minister heard from Advanta on 17 April. On wha dale did he first consult English Nature and the Food Standards Agency?
  Mr. Brown: The FSA was consulted at a very early stage—almost immediately. I shall come to the point on English Nature in a moment.
  Mr. Tom King rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and then I ask the House to let me make the presentation.
  Mr. King: The Minister is making a clear and understandable case that, when Advanta produced that information, there were good reasons to investigate the matter further so that it would not give rise to concern. On those grounds, it would have been extremely sensible for officials to advise that Advanta should be asked not to say anything at that time. Yet the Minister strenuously denies that they lid any such thing. It seems to me that the matter could easily be cleared up. In the interests of openness, do I understand that he is undertaking to provide the minute of the meeting between officials and Advanta, so that we can read what was actually said?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has served in government. He knows the position on providing written records of meetings. I have to rely on the assurances given to me. I was not at the meeting. I do not even know whether there was a written record.
  Sir Robert Smith: Obviously that matter creates some concern. The Minister talked about not publishing the information. Will he explain why he could not share it with other rural affairs Departments in the United Kingdom? When Members of this place write to MAFF about certain issues, their letters are passed to those other Departments for reply. How can we have confidence that those Departments know what MAFF knows when they write such replies?
  Furthermore, although the Minister minimises the risk to health and to the environment, there was certainly a commercial risk to those people who bought the seed.
  Mr. Brown: The territorial Departments should have been drawn more fully into the discussions at an early stage. For that, I apologise on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: I should like to make some progress, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

  495
  Consideration of all these issues takes place against a background of already heightened public concern about GM products. Our approach, which was paralleled by other affected countries—the decisions are not unique to the UK—was first to seek the advice of our experts. Because the matter is complex, that includes legal advice as to the legal situation, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) hinted in his intervention on his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk.
  Officials from the FSA and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were involved in discussions as soon as the incident was reported to the Government. The process of consulting the expert committees was, of necessity, a continuing one, because the early information we received was incomplete. The Government obtained early and informal reactions from the secretaries to the committees on the basis of the first and incomplete information. Subsequently, the secretaries consulted committee members and were able to convey their advice to the Government.
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make much of the fact that English Nature was not consulted by the Government. The fact is that English Nature advises on nature conservation issues. The key questions in this incident related to environmental and human health implications. Those are for ACRE and for the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, whose specific remit is to look at the implications of genetic modifications.
  Efforts have been made to portray English Nature as being at odds with the Government over this incident. That is simply not the case. The chairman of English Nature has confirmed that English Nature does not think the affected crops need to be destroyed. English Nature has offered advice on the nature conservation aspects of the incident—as would be expected, because that is its statutory function. An English Nature expert, Brian Johnson, said publicly—on the BBC—that any risk of GM pollen from these plants pollinating native plants was "vanishingly small". The hon. Member for South Suffolk referred to dangers to the organic farm movement. He did not say where the organic oilseed rape was located and he did not say whether there was any; it would be extraordinary if there were. The advice that Brian Johnson has given is consistent with the advice that we have received from ACRE.
  The Government have been accused of allowing farmers unwittingly to plant the crop by delaying an announcement. If there were anything in that charge, it would be a serious one.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: Let me deal with this issue before I give way to the hon. Gentlemen and to anyone who may be queuing up behind me. I see that at least part of the House is satisfied.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The right hon. Gentleman has no support from those behind him.
  Mr. Brown: Come the Division, the hon. Gentleman will find that he is wrong.
  496
  The fact is that the Government were first notified by the seed company once the planting season for the variety was already well under way. I have already explained, exhaustively, that we needed to establish the facts and the technical and legal implications before we could make any sensible announcement. If anyone doubts my motive before I made the announcement, let me make it clear that I wanted to find a workable way forward for this country's farmers who, after all, are the innocent party in this case. That is what we were striving to do. I shall have something to say that will interest those who care more about our farmers rather than making political mischief.
  The Government have followed up the announcement of 17 May with further action on the practical and legal implications. The legal advice to Ministers is that we have the power to order the destruction of a crop in specific circumstances. Let me make this clear: if there were a threat to human health or the environment, we would order the destruction of the affected crops. There is not such a threat, so the legislation cannot be invoked. That is the legal advice to Ministers.
  Therefore, as the advice I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment published on 28 May made clear, it is for individual fanners to decide whether to destroy or to maintain the crops. However, the disposal options for the harvested crop are likely to be extremely limited—this point was perfectly properly raised—as there is no consent for the GM element of the crop to be marketed.
  To offer farmers greater flexibility in this difficult situation, I negotiated a special derogation to the rules for EU crop subsidy payments. That allows farmers to claim subsidy payments on crops planted up to 15 June, instead of 31 May, as normal. Farmers therefore have two options as the position stands. Thanks to the extended EU planting deadline, some farmers may have the option of destroying the affected crop and planting another crop in its place. Others will wish to maintain the crop as normal to qualify for EU subsidy payments.
  The expert advice to Government is that these crops present no danger to the environment. However, in discussion with the National Farmers Union and the seed company Advanta, I have explored the possibility of negotiating a further derogation to the EU subsidy scheme rules to allow farmers to mow or destroy the crop straight away rather than to maintain it to maturity. They will still qualify for the subsidy payments.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend explain why farmers need to look to European subsidies to make up for the losses that they may incur? Why is the company not liable? It sold a product that was not what it was claimed to be.
  Mr. Brown: This issue is fraught with legal peril, including points about the mitigation of loss, and it has taken time to find a way through it. I hope that we have found a clear-cut way and 1 shall explain it to the House.
  I must stress that what I am about to explain is not legal as things now stand, but my officials are in urgent discussion with the European Commission to see whether it is a possible option. I believe that it is the most desirable way forward. I and Ministers in other member states are pressing for the outcome and a decision is due to be voted on today.

  497
  If we have a clear outcome by the end of today or tomorrow, the House and the industry, including the farmers affected, will be told. I believe that the proposal offers the best way forward, which is also the view of Advanta and the National Farmers Union.
  Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister's legal advice include an analysis of the damages that could become liabilities under the principle that the polluter pays in both the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and arrangements in Community law that are being extended under the proposed directive on environmental liability? Yesterday, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny voted for a debate on the Floor of the House on the directive, but, regrettably, that decision was overturned by the Leader of the House this morning.
  Does the Minister agree that if the Government are to be open and transparent, we should be able to see all the legal advice and have access to all the material in the Library? The Government should be more candid and open in debating such questions, so that the British people and the farmers—whom we rightly say are innocent—do not find themselves at a severe disadvantage.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is too long.
  Mr. Brown: My days as a Government business manager have ceased, and I have moved on to a happier billet. I am therefore afraid that I am not able to respond as I might otherwise have done to the hon. Gentleman's request. Hon. Members will be aware that Ministers are not supposed to interpret the law inside or outside the House.
  I have been working to try to find a reasonable way through the matter which is fair to the company, mitigates the losses and means that farmers who are innocent victims do not suffer resultant financial hardship.
  Mr. Paterson: The Minister admitted to the Select Committee on Agriculture that he was responsible only for the seed aspects of genetically modified crops. Environmental matters are dealt with by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, food matters by the Food Standards Agency, and presentation, I believe, rests in the hands of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who in May told "Today" that she was not happy with the presentation in connection with such crops.
  Who is in charge? Would it not be sensible to have someone in overall control of all GM matters, to stop those extraordinary muddles involving the Department, its sister Departments and the devolved Assemblies?
  Mr. Brown: The delay that is occurring while the issue is fully considered does not mean, as the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest, that there is a muddle. Such matters are co-ordinated by a Cabinet Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in charge.
  Mr. Gray: The Minister for the Cabinet Office, whom the Minister has prayed in aid, said on "Today" on 22 May that the Government had made a mistake in not
  498
  telling the public about the contamination. Will the Minister respond to that? A moment ago, he dismissed his noble Friend, Baroness Young, when he said that English Nature had nothing to do with the matter because it is concerned with animals. Baroness Young said:
  The UK statutory nature conservation agencies must be consulted
  about similar incidents in future. What is the Minister's response to his colleagues' remarks?
  Mr. Brown: I did not dismiss the views of English Nature. Its statutory responsibilities are for nature conservation and it has offered us helpful advice on such matters. I fully agree with the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I would like to make progress, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams).
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I suggest that we contrast our debate with the dozen or more debates on the serious problem of BSE that we had in the early 1990s. We are nit-picking about insignificant dates in April and May and about a crop that was not a threat to human health or the environment. Uprooting those crops would cost about £3 million, whereas the problems that occurred in the decade in which the Conservative party was in office involved a cost of £4 billion, and are still with us.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out again to the House that there is no threat to human health or the environment. There are important issues, including legal issues, involving the supply chain, and the Government have been working hard to resolve those so that there is ultimately no economic loss to farmers, and the seed company is treated fairly. We will take steps to make sure that we minimise the possibility of such an incident occurring in future. I give way to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).
  Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister was asked whether advice had been given to Advanta not to give information to its customers. His reply was that no instructions had been given to Advanta to tell its customers about the seeds. There is a difference between advice and instructions. Is there no question that the Minister is using weasel words, and that advice, but not an actual instruction, was given to Advanta that it should not tell its customers about the seeds? I hope that there is no question of that, because the Minister is under a duty to be full and frank with the House.
  Mr. Brown: I do not think that there is a Minister in this Government who tries harder to be candid with the House, and I could not have been more candid with the explanation that I have given; I handed it to the hon. Member for South Suffolk, who speaks for the Opposition

  499
  on such matters. I know of no semantic differentiation of the sort that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentions. I cannot be more open than that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I give way to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is made clear in resolutions of the House that Ministers should be as open as possible. There is a difference between advice and an instruction, and the House needs to know which was given because this is an important point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the gist of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say, and it is not for the Chair to interpret words or advice that are being debated. This is a matter for the debate, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find other ways of pursuing the point.
  Mr. Brown: I offered to give way to the hon. Member for Salisbury, who is an old sparring partner of mine, although in those days he was the Minister and I was the Back-Bench MP making a nuisance of himself.
  Mr. Robert Key: I am certainly not making a nuisance of myself. If the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that there was no danger in the crop being planted, on what grounds did the French Government instruct farmers in France to destroy their crops?
  Mr. Brown: It is not for me to interpret the law in France, but apparently the French Government have the power to do that under their legal code. We have the power to do that under our legal code, but only in very specific circumstances that are defined in the Environmental Protection Act. Like me, the French Agriculture Minister would have had in mind the fact that there is no marketing consent, so the issue for Ministers is to find a way to safeguard arable payments to farmers.
  As those who follow such matters will know, the European support mechanism is an important element in growing oilseed rape, so we want to preserve farmers' rights to European aid, but we have to find a way within the law to deal with the lack of marketing consent. That is what we are trying to do here; Jean Glavany is trying to do that in France; Karl-Heinz Funke and Margareta Winberg are doing the same in Germ, my and Sweden respectively, and the Minister in Luxembourg has the same task. We all face a common problem, and we have, I hope, arrived at a common solution, which will work for farmers and be fair to the industry.
  That brings me to compensation for farmers' losses, which is essentially a matter between the farmers affected and the seed company. However, the House will want to know that I have had a constructive meeting with representatives of Advanta Seeds last week, and the Government welcome the company's announcement on 2 June that it will provide a fair and equitable compensation package for the affected farmers.
  Opposition Members are trying very hard, and completely unconvincingly, to pin the blame for the incident on the Government and to argue that taxpayers'
  500
  money should be used to deal with the consequences. It was not the Government who produced the seed and sold it to farmers; the Government's role in this incident is limited to dealing responsibly and proportionately with the consequences once the company had come forward to notify the Government of the problem. This we have done and will continue to do.
  The precise circumstances that resulted in the presence of GM seed in the non-GM batches are still being investigated. My officials are in contact with the Canadian authorities and the seed company to establish the details. One of my technical advisers has visited Canada to liaise with the authorities, and one possible factor in the incident may relate to the separation distances used to produce the seed crop. We are investigating that issue.
  In line with the response that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on 18 May, I can tell the House that the Government are undertaking a review of separation distances, including a scientific review of the relationship between separation and crop purity. We shall consult farmers—both conventional and organic producers—and other interested groups and see what lessons may be learned from the Advanta incident.
  Mr. David Drew: I have made similar points before, but the other matter that must be explored is the importance of every country signing up to the Montreal biodiversity protocol because until all countries do so, segregation will remain a difficult issue, as the Select Committee on Agriculture proved. The very least that we can expect is that each country will police its own production.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Underpinning all this is the inescapable fact that the seed business is international, and if we intend to regulate it, standards must be set. There are currently gaps in European Union and international law.
  The incident has highlighted the importance of putting in place up-to-date regulatory systems to reflect the implications of the worldwide development of GM technology for the seed industry. That includes the need for clear and explicit product descriptions for consumers. An important objective of the British Government is to protect consumer choice. As my hon. Friend says, the seed trade is international.
  The regulation of seed purity is an EU and international issue, and action is required at EU and international level. That is why we have raised the subject as a matter of urgency with the European Commission and our EU partners, and in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I have written to Commissioner Byrne urging him to accelerate the setting of new EU standards for seed purity. I have discussed that matter with my colleagues at the recent informal meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers, and there was general agreement that it should be addressed urgently. Technical work has already begun, and Ministers will discuss it again at the June Council.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: On the consultation and the inquiry, can the Minister confirm that farmers will be given a brief résumé of the findings

  501
  whenever they are finally made available? Many farmers would be grateful for the kind of guidance that could result.
  Mr. Brown: As soon as we have something further to say to farmers, we will ensure that they are notified as fully as we can, but I do not know where the affected farmers are, so we will put the information in the public domain. I am sure that by doing that, and also through their union, we will get the information to the farmers.
  On agreed international standards, we have taken immediate action in the United Kingdom to minimise the chance of the problem recurring. My Department is carrying out a study into seed sourcing and the possibility that GM presence may occur in seeds. The report of the study's preliminary findings is being published today and has been placed in the Library. Members will have a chance to consider it.
  The report will inform the system of seed import spot checks that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has introduced as part of the existing inspection and enforcement arrangements for GM organisms.
  Officials in my Department and in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working with the UK seed industry to develop an industry-wide code of practice on issues relating to the sourcing of seed and monitoring GM presence. I am glad to say that the industry has responded positively to that initiative.
  It is unfortunate that Opposition Members are trying to make political capital out of an accident. Of course that accident is worrying for the farmers who, unfortunately, have been caught up in it, but I am trying to resolve their fears without their suffering financial loss.
  Mr. Yeo: Damage to the farmers is what the Opposition are concerned about; that is why we tabled the motion. The Minister said that he might not be able to publish a minute of the meeting that took place between his officials and Advanta, because it might not exist. If a minute does not exist, it is difficult to understand how he can be so sure that certain things were not said. Be that as it may, he told the House that his officials were in continuous contact with the company for a month. There must be some minutes of some of those meetings. For the purpose of clearing up the doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) rightly raised about the difference between advice and an instruction, will the Minister at least undertake to publish all the minutes that exist of those meetings, so that the House and the industry can be clear about exactly what advice or information was passed to and from Advanta?
  Mr. Brown: Subject to advice that I receive from officials once this exchange is over, if the information exists and if I can put it in the public domain, I am willing to do so. However, there may be some reason why I cannot keep that pledge. If there is such a reason, I shall explain it. A good explanation would be that there is no written record, for example. I want to be open and candid,
  502
  and if there is something that I can put in the public domain I will do so, although there are no precedents from the previous Government to guide me in that direction.
  Mr. Paterson: Following on from that point, if there are no written records, can we see a diary of the telephone conversations in which each of the other Departments and the devolved Departments were informed of these events?
  Mr. Brown: Those Departments were first informed at official level—but as I have already told the House, the devolved territories should have been involved earlier. I apologise for the fact that they were not. My Department's involvement with the devolved Administrations is greater than that of many others, and we have developed good working relationships with the devolved authorities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I want to maintain relationships built on candour, and I regret that we did not get the information to them quickly enough.
  Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that it would be worrying if the company and/or the Government were aware of the problem, but let farmers go ahead and sow the seeds, causing all that damage and cost, which could have been avoided? Is not that one of the most serious aspects? Can he assure the House that that is not what happened and that the Government did not say, "Oh, let's keep this quiet while we do the tests."? Logic seems to suggest that that might have happened, so can the right hon. Gentleman give us the clear facts?
  Mr. Brown: I can do better than that. As well as confirming that I can put the minutes of the early meetings in the public domain—I understand that there is no reason why I should not; therefore I shall do so, as I want to be candid—I can also announce to the House that the European Union committee has met, voted on the scheme that I described and approved it. As of now, a new option is available to UK farmers, and, indeed, to farmers in other parts of the EU. It is now possible for farmers to take the tops off the affected crop and still claim the arable aid payment under the rules. That is the best way forward, and I am pleased to tell the House that that option is available, because it will go a long way to resolving the issues. All Members, whatever their political point of view, will be pleased with what I have said, as it is welcome news for the farmers affected.
  Mr. Colin Breed: That is welcome news, but has there been any discussion of the potential for consequential loss and damages—not specifically for those who have sown the rape, but because the destruction of so much rape, and the consequent lack of it in the market, may push up the feed price?
  Mr. Brown: Many perils threaten the common agricultural policy, but an immediate lack of oilseed rape is not one of them. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
  It is my contention that the Government have acted throughout in a responsible, balanced and proportionate manner. We have investigated the facts and the legal and scientific implications, and have issued information and advice accordingly. We have taken the lead in pressing for action at EU level and have secured the result that we

  503
  were looking for. We have made our representations at international level and have also taken interim measures in the UK to minimise the possibility of recurrence, pending EU and international agreement on the wider issues.
  The House will have taken a hard look at the motion and the amendment, but before hon. Members make a final decision, I invite them to take a hard look at the latest eco-warrior, the Swampy of South Suffolk. The hon. Member for South Suffolk has tried to present himself as a green consumerist, who is anxious only to discover the facts. Before falling for his words, I ask the House to consider his contribution on a different matter. It displays a different swing of the famous Tory "yeo-yeo" on a debate about a real public protection issue: BSE.
  On 25 March 1996, the hon. Gentleman said to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who was then Secretary of State for Health:
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been an act of gross irresponsibility on his part to overreact to the hysterical demands coming from Labour Members?
  We were considering BSE, not oilseed rape. The hon. Gentleman continued:
  Does he further agree that if the British beef industry is destroyed as a result of that hysteria, voters in the rural economy, which will have suffered a devastating blow, will know whom to blame?
  As it turned out, they did. The hon. Gentleman's words were prophetic. He went on:
  Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if billions of pounds of extra public money were suddenly to be available for the purposes of protecting children's health, it would certainly not be sensible to use that money to pay for the slaughter of millions of healthy British cattle?—[Official Report, 25 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 720.]
  Those were the words of the hon. Member for South Suffolk about a public protection measure. Yet the Conservative Government found it necessary to spend what will ultimately be £4 billion on it. Given the hon. Gentleman's views on BSE, why should any hon. Member rely on his views on oilseed rape? I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. David Heath: The Minister is right to say that he has a reputation for openness, frankness and candour. That reputation is hard won, hence our disappointment in the Ministry's reaction to the episode that we are considering. The delay in making details available to the public does not reflect well on the arrangements in the Ministry or between Departments. Even if it does not reflect reality, an impression has been given of complacency, inconsistency and incompetence. That is a serious charge, which will damage the Minister's reputation for openness.
  It was not acceptable for details to be released to the public through a written answer, which was characterised by its incompleteness. We strongly suspect that the written answer was provided only because the matter was about to become public through other means in other parts of Europe. It was unacceptable that important details were published in a press release, which was separate from the material available to hon. Members. I raised a point of order about that on the evening that the press release was sent out. It was also unacceptable that the Minister had to be dragged to the House the following day to make a statement. The initial delay, too, was unacceptable. I shall revert to the latter point.
  504
  The Ministry, and everyone who takes a serious and scientific interest in the matter, knew that seeds from north America had been contaminated at source. It was a matter of common discourse in the scientific journals. On the day of the Minister's statement, I drew his attention to an article by Dr. Phil Dale of the John Innes centre. That was hardly a secret document; it was published in The Times on 18 June 1999. The article made it clear that there was a problem at source with the seed, yet the Department did nothing.
  Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with what he says about scientific articles. I asked the House of Commons Library to do a trawl of parliamentary questions, and I find that none of us, on either the Opposition or Government Benches, tabled any parliamentary questions at any time during this Session on such contamination of seed.
  Mr. Heath: I cannot honestly say whether any question was tabled from these Benches—I was not responsible for this area at the time—but I hope that we have been consistent in our criticism of GM and its handling. I do not believe that anyone can challenge Liberal Democrat Members on that.
  There was a widespread view that contamination had occurred. What worries me is that, while giving assurances in the House and to growers and consumers, the Department was not instituting precautions such as the testing of seed and investigation at source, or even talking to the Americans and the Canadians, as it has done since the Advanta Seeds episode has come to light. That suggests a laxity in procedures which I would not have expected, given the public interest in the matter.
  When the firm information came in on 17 or 19 April—when it was known from Advanta that there was a potential problem—that strange discourse took place between Mr. Ruthven and the Department. I do not believe for a moment that we will get to the bottom of that today. What the Minister said is in flat contradiction to what Mr. Ruthven has said on record, as reported in newspapers and elsewhere. Mr. Ruthven has the advantage of having been at the meetings and been a party to the conversations, which the right hon. Gentleman was not. That must be weighed in the balance.
  We must ask ourselves to whose advantage it was that nothing was said. Was it to the advantage of a seed company that was facing potentially large compensation claims—a liability? I suspect that it was not.
  Mr. Nick Brown: If it was not to its advantage that nothing was said, why did the seed company not say something?
  Mr. Heath: That is precisely my point. The only rational reason why the seed company stopped notifying the farmers at that point was that it received advice from some source or other to do so. We must wait and see what the reason was.
  The next question is how the matter was managed within Government. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who has just left the Chamber, said earlier, the difficulty is that the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

  505
  Regions all have a finger in the pie. It is not clear whether people were sitting round a table at an early enough stage to develop a strategy for dealing with a potentially difficult issue.
  What is clear—the Minister admitted it today and apologised for it—is that the territorial Ministers were not advised. That is extraordinary. We have a Cabinet Office and a Cabinet Committee whose job is to co-ordinate government. The one thing that it must co-ordinate is GM seeds, but it cannot be bothered to tell the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Surely somebody has that job—perhaps it should be the Advocate-General. We have never discovered what he does. Somebody should have been responsible for letting the departmental Ministers know, yet that did not happen. I find that extraordinary.
  There is the argument—let us put it no higher than that—about whether an appropriate degree of consultation took place with ACRE, English Nature and other interested bodies.
  Let us deal with what the Minister told us in his statement. I preface my comments by saying that I accept the general advice that there is no danger to public health or to the environment as a result of the contamination. I must, however, ask specific questions about what the Minister said. He referred to RT73 GM oilseed. He is right: the Conservatives gave licence for a part B release for trial purposes, and also for food use.
  The Minister said that this variety of GM oilseed
  is one that had previously been approved in the UK under our strict regulatory regime for food use.
  The precise position, is it not—the Minister will confirm this—is that the oil was approved on the European Union substantial equivalence basis. It was fast-tracked through—the oil, not the seed. I hope he will also confirm that that is now being challenged by the Italian Government. There are significant doubts about whether it was appropriate. Simply to tell the House that the oilseed had been previously approved for food use was to disguise some of the background.
  On 18 May, the Minister said that there was no risk to "health or the environment". He has moderated his view since then. He has said that there is no substantial or appreciable risk, and I accept that. But without clear advice beforehand and without the testing on site mentioned by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), how could he know? It was blanket advice, given on the basis of limited information rather than the exhaustive consideration and investigation that should have taken place.
  On 18 May, the Minister said that the oil was
  indistinguishable from conventional rape oil; no modified DNA will be present.
  We have heard that argument before. I entirely accept that there is a difference between material derived from genetically modified organisms and material that contains such organisms; but let us consider the advice of the European Union scientific committee on food. On 17 June 1999, it said:
  "some refining processes used by industry today may ensure that DNA/protein are efficiently removed. There is no guarantee however that these processes are commonly applied.
  Again, we are advised by experts that that categorical assurance could not be given, because there is at least an element of doubt. It depends on the processing mechanism.
  506
  I found it curious when the Minister said that
  the GM variety is sterile.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 473.]
  I puzzled over that. What were we talking about? Were we talking about an F1 hybrid, or an F2 hybrid? How was that variety sterile? In fact, it is a case of male sterility. The pollen is sterile, not the plant. The female parts of the plant are anything but sterile; they are fertile, and can therefore propagate. It is rubbish to suggest that there could be cross-Pollination from male sterile plants. What there can be is continued propagation from those plants, via the female plants and seed scatter. Again, the statement was not incorrect, but it was incomplete.
  Mr. Nick Brown: The risk has been described by Brian Johnson of English Nature as "vanishingly small".
  Mr. Heath: I think that we have to deal with risks that are vanishingly small in this context. As I say, I honestly do not believe that this is some form of trickery that will make its way across the country and destroy nature before our eyes. However, we claim to have proper precautions in place. Everyone knows about the release of oilseed rape; everyone knows that sports get everywhere in our countryside. Hardly a lane does not have a bit of oilseed rape in it. If we are seeing release, we are seeing release. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that this is conventional, as if this variety of rape will behave differently. Perhaps he will tell me why.
  Mr. Brown: The genetically modified part of what is overwhelmingly a conventional crop will behave in a different way, because it is modified to do so.
  Mr. Heath: That is an entirely baffling comment. Apparently, it is modified to behave itself to stay within its field boundaries. That is wonderful news. We now have well behaved oilseed rape as a result of genetic modification. I do not believe that. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade me later.
  On that day, the right hon. Gentleman made a string of statements, all of which have a degree of validity, but none of which tell the complete position, which we need to know. Frankly, at that stage, if not before—I believe that we should have been told much earlier about the position—a completely candid view should have been expressed to the House. I do not criticise him because I am sure that he gave his statement in good faith, but the more we examine it and look at the detail, the more we realise that many questions still beg an answer.
  A major concern for us all has been how the farmers—600 throughout the country are affected, we understand—who have grown the crop would be compensated. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has made announcements, which I wholly welcome, on European Union derogation and how that will work. That will be helpful. It does not solve the difficulties in relation to cancelled contracts, or deal with the fact that there should still be a liability on the part of the seed company. Nor does it answer another question: what role does the right hon. Gentleman feel his Department has, not in providing compensation—I do not think that it should provide it; the seed company should be liable—but in marshalling legal cases, assisting our farmers and ensuring that they are as well catered for as

  507
  farmers elsewhere in the European Union? That is absolutely the province of his Department. I would welcome more information on that.
  Sir Robert Smith: I have read the Government's amendment. They clearly wish to link themselves with Advanta's decision to enter into discussions on compensation, but the sequence of events will not be lost on many Scottish farmers. It was not long after the announcement that Mr. Al Fayed had bought some of the contaminated seed that the company came out with a more interesting approach to the compensation issue.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My advice to any would-be biotechnological firm is to choose its enemies carefully. I am not sure that that firm chose its enemies terribly carefully in that respect. That may have had an effect on its decision. Nevertheless, we want a clear strategy.
  The whole episode smacks of dereliction somewhere within the Department, or between the Department. I do not like the way in which the Government were eventually forced to make the matter public, rather than vouchsafing it of their own accord. I do not like the retrospective justification that is going on: the argument for a 1 per cent. threshold. It tries to justify what is a fait accompli, to our detriment. The statement was considerably ill prepared and, in some ways, ill advised. I do not accept that empty reassurance is any replacement for robust investigation.
  Indeed, there is more than a smack of the old days about the whole thing. Some Labour Members have mentioned the BSE crisis. Of course there is a difference in scale. Of course there is a huge and yawning gap between what happened with BSE and what has happened with the oilseed rape seed, but some of the Department's instincts seem to have changed not one wit. That is what is of concern. I am only waiting for the day when the right hon. Gentleman corrals some poor child and stuffs him or her with an oilseed rapeburger to reassure the public, because that is how the Government have addressed the issue.
  We do not want to go back to the days of the Tory Government. We do not want to go back to the way they managed things. I know that they have changed their tune. The hon. Member for South Suffolk—Swampy, as he was described earlier—has been consistent on the issue, at least over the past year or so. The Conservatives were not terribly consistent earlier. It was they, when in government, who argued against labelling GM food in Europe; and it was they who first licensed GM foods: cheese, tomato puree and soya were allowed on to the market.
  The Minister was fortunate to find an appropriate quote from the previous Government. It is very difficult to find any relatively recent quote on genetically modified organisms from the previous, Conservative Government. I think that that omission was a dereliction on their part. In those days, they were not concerned about the issue, but were happy to go along with big industry. Now that Conservative Members are in opposition, they feel differently about the issue.
  The episode raises some basic biotechnology issues. I do not damn all biotechnology. I have also always made it absolutely plain that the Liberal Democrats do not
  508
  believe that any technology, developing or otherwise, is in itself wholly wrong. We are, however, dealing with a critical issue that patently involves potential problems for human health, the environment, agronomics and agriculture's effect on society. We should not only be aware of those problems, but take absolutely every precaution to ensure that developments in this country are safe.
  The proponents of genetic modification often argue that there is an essential similarity between it and natural selective breeding. Of course selective breeding, and the introduction of alien species to the United Kingdom, can be compared with genetic modification. Some of the issues in the inter-relationship between those developments and the environment are the same. However, there are also significant differences between genetic modification and those other developments. In genetic modification, an artificial situation is created as genes not only from different, unrelated species, but from both the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom are combined. That is not a natural process and gives rise to innate concerns.
  Mr. John Hayes: The difference to which the hon. Gentleman alerts the House is essentially a difference of scale. Plant breeding programmes occur over decades and generations and are essentially gradual, whereas genetic modification programmes involve an almost immediate quantum leap. The key difference is one of scale.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a difference in scale and in the size of the technological leap. Those are both relevant factors.
  There are other technological issues, such as the safety of the vector mechanism that is used to implant genetic material. What do we know about the safety of vectors? In many cases, we do not know how safe they are, because there has not yet been sufficient experimentation to enable us to be sure.
  An essential issue is the friability of the new genome. The genetic material may appear at any point in a pre-existing genome, but what might be its effect? To what extent might it create fractures or new relationships in the genetic material? We need to investigate not only those matters, but the material's interactions and possible inter-relations with native species. The precautionary principle is so important.
  When addressing public health issues, we have to be secure in our knowledge that a novel food, whatever it might be, has been tested to pharmacological standards, so that we are entirely aware of any potential side-effects and dangers to human health.
  The labelling issue is important: we should make the public aware of what they are eating. On 13 January, when we discussed the issue, the Minister for the Environment was very clear that his personal view was that he was keen to reach a threshold of 0.1 per cent. genetic material in food, rather than the 1 per cent. threshold that is now being used as a working hypothesis. The same lower threshold should apply to seeds. If we are talking about GM-free, let us mean GM-free and specify a very low tolerance, rather than the threshold that is currently being considered.
  I understand that United Kingdom officials may be supporting the European Commission's emerging view that a 1 per cent. threshold is acceptable. If so, that is

  509
  worrying. If we want GM-free seeds and cannot get them from America, let us get them from a more reliable source that is genuinely GM-free.
  Some animal feed issues have not been addressed, either in the House or outside in the general consideration of these matters. At present, 2 million tonnes of GM crops are imported for animal feed. Does that cause a potential problem? The US Centre for Veterinary Medicine thinks that it does. It replied to an inquiry from the Food and Drug Administration in 1992. It stated:
  In addition to the human safety and environmental concerns outlined in the appendices to the notice, CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.
  There is an issue that has not yet been properly addressed.
  We have always said that farm trials are an essential part of the investigatory process. We do not accept the suggestion that there should never be any trials. If no trials take place, we shall never be able to ascertain what is scientifically valid and what is not. However, we have been consistently concerned about separation distances. That was the thrust of an argument that I put to the Minister for the Environment in January. I suggested that the distances were inadequate. I felt that I was fobbed off and that the argument was not being taken seriously.
  All that has changed. I am glad that a review has been announced, but I think that it is too late. It should have been put in place a long time ago. As for the Canadian contamination, the distance was probably 800 m. That is 16 times greater than the distance that the Government were first assuring us was adequate for the task. If that is the case, why are we taking any other assurances at face value?
  When farm trials take place, separation distances and the protocols of the experiments need to be right. They need to be specific to the GM species and variety that is under trial. We cannot move results from one place to another or from one variety to another. What is right for one species in East Anglia will not be right for the same species in Alberta. The local species, flora and fauna are different.
  There are specific issues that we must consider, such as the evidence that has emerged of a transfer of herbicide resistance, which is being seen in Alberta. Crops lying close to GM crops have acquired Round-up assistance. They now have to be dealt with using rather more unpleasant and environmentally damaging herbicides. That is a concern. It is exactly what people have been worried about from the start in environmental terms.
  As for commercial planting, we must have a strict and enforceable moratorium. I worry about the Chardon LL consideration. Some time ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister on the issue. It took months and months to get a reply from the Minister in another place, Baroness Hayman. I do not know why it takes her months to reply to my letters. I wonder whether there is a correlation between that delay and the delay in dealing effectively with this issue. It irks me that I had to pay £30—
  Mr. Nick Brown: I would wish to demolish that conspiracy theory. There is a backlog in the correspondence section. Extra people have been put in to try to clear it. It is not a conspiracy.
  Mr. Heath: Then that is all right. There is a backlog in the correspondence section. One effective means of
  510
  reducing the correspondence is to charge £30 to anyone who wants to object, which is the process that we have had to go through.
  If the Government are to go ahead with listing Chardon LL, the moratorium means nothing. Effectively, there will be no legal barrier to a genetically modified crop being planted commercially. To be plain about it, the industry will take that course. It will lose patience in the end, unless the Government are prepared to take action.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has repeatedly referred to the issue of reliability, and it must be sorted out. We must have a clear understanding of where liability lies so that we do not have to consider whether there is a basis for legal action being taken.
  There is no need for superstition, because there are enough scientific concerns. They need to be properly addressed in a neutral way, but with an emphasis on the precautionary principle. We need proper care, good science, good agricultural practice and, above all, openness and information. We have yet to see many advantages from GM crops, but we have already seen some of the disadvantages.
  I welcome the new committee, although I do not know how it will find its place in the overcrowded arena of Government responsibility in this area. We may eventually need a system map to find our way round the Government's GM management system.
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman has just said that we know the disadvantages of GM crops. Will he list them?
  Mr. Heath: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to my speech with such assiduity. I thought that I had been clear about some of the disadvantages. If he wants to know, perhaps he would like to speak to his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk on the Front Bench, who can give him a comprehensive list. I thought that that was the tenor of the Conservative attack. Perhaps we have little local difficulty in this Conservative Opposition day.
  I welcome the new testing procedures, the promise to look again at separation distances and the rather belated efforts to support farmers. However, I repeat that the episode has done a lot of damage to the reputation of the Minster and his Ministry, as well as to the cause of biotechnology in this country—although I leave it to others to judge whether that is a good or a bad thing. There is a lack of confidence, not necessarily in the House, but among the public, that the Government have got their heads around the issues surrounding GM technology and the necessary precautions. Over the next year or so, the Government need to persuade the public that they have sorted the problems out, because at the moment they are looking very threadbare.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me on to which Committee of the House I should address my concerns. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just spoken for longer than my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) when he introduced the debate. As a consequence, when one takes into account—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The length of time that hon. Members take when they address

  511
  the House is entirely a matter for them. Points of order such as this simply reduce the time available for other Members to contribute.
  Mr. Baldry: May I finish my point of order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I have dealt with that point.
  5.53 pm
  Joan Ruddock: I will endeavour to be brief. At the heart of the GM debate is a critical dialogue—or perhaps a lack of dialogue—between science and society. Scientists, particularly technologists, have moved ahead at such a pace that the public are concerned that they cannot keep up and therefore cannot remain in control of some of the things that are most fundamental to their lives—the food that they eat and the environment that they inhabit. All of that is logical. We should never deride the public for their attitudes, even if they have been influenced by the hysteria that has been whipped up at times by certain sections of the media. I have no doubts about the continuing seriousness of the subject at the heart of this debate.
  There is also a perception that many GM companies have recklessly rushed to the marketplace without due concern for public sentiment and the potential effects on the environment. I want to put today's debate in that context by asking what Advanta was thinking about. The company could not have been ignorant at any stage of the preparation of the seeds. It could not have doubted the concern of the European public or the actions that have been taken by food retailers. Even when oil is produced from oilseed rape seed with no DNA remains, many retailers insist that the source of the seed is GM-free. Advanta is not ignorant of European law. Indeed, it battles frequently to achieve new licences, to have seeds placed on lists and to acquire new patents. It was completely clear that no licence existed for the commercial sale in the United Kingdom of the GM seeds in question nor the products arising from them.
  My argument, therefore, is that the company had a clear duty of care. The seeds were grown in seed crops in Canada. Advanta would have been able to ascertain that GM crops were being grown in the same region in which the crops were being grown to produce conventional seed. The company must be as aware as any hon. Member of all the scientific literature on cross-contamination of oilseed rape. It must also have been clear that the particular GM crops grown in the area were those that were resistant to the Round-up herbicide developed by Monsanto. Contamination of Advanta's seed crops by GM seed of that particular type was, therefore, a real possibility.
  Either Advanta should have taken care to test its seeds, or it has to bear a responsibility for knowing all that it knew and choosing not to test and, therefore, risk the possibility that it marketed contaminated seeds. Seed purity tests were available to the company, and in making the sales it did and discovering subsequently—if it was subsequently—that the seed was contaminated, it had an absolute responsibility to inform its suppliers the moment that it had the facts and to trace and inform the farmers who had planted, or had ready for planting, those seeds.
  Advanta also had a responsibility to inform the Government, but informing the Government is not equivalent to passing the responsibility and liability from
  512
  the company to the Government. That responsibility and liability remains with the company. I have gone on record and criticised the Government for the delay in bringing the information into the public domain. However, I have not the slightest doubt about the motivation that led my right hon. Friend the Minister to do what he did in that intervening period. His motivation was wholly good and honourable, and I have no reason to question his integrity. There is no reason or justification for the Opposition motion today or the scurrilous attacks that have been made on my right hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend has set out clearly the steps that he took and perhaps the criticism that can be made is that he was overly cautious, that he tried to get everything in place and that he wanted to know exactly what the facts were, who might be affected and where the liability lay before he came to the House to give, in his words, balanced and accurate advice to farmers and consumers. That is honourable, but I hope that he will realise with hindsight that such is the sensitivity of the public to those matters that it might be more sensible in any future occurrence—which we hope does not happen—to be less cautious and to give the information before everything is in place. I accept that there may be consequences from doing that. What is clear is that there was nothing to cover up and no attempt to cover up anything.
  However, there are lessons to be learned from what has happened, and I turn to them now. My right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken about the presence of oilseed rape that is genetically modified, and the advice of English Nature. It would be helpful if the Government tried to find out what traces remain of the 1999 crop. Only the male plants are sterile, so some adventitious fertilisation and seed production from the previous crop is likely. The result would be fully grown plants able to produce pollen. He may find nothing, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into that important matter.
  Another issue involves the seeds that may remain after the safe harvesting and destruction of contaminated crops this year. I hope that steps are taken to determine what can be done about those seeds and to ensure that they are destroyed. I understand that English Nature has advised that spraying be undertaken, and that that may be necessary. However, I hope and expect that further checks will be made, so that we can reassure farmers and the public that there is no remaining contamination.
  I hope also that my right hon. Friend will determine the true level of contamination in this country. It has been estimated at 1 per cent., although I believe that Advanta hoped that it was less than that. If checks are being carried out already, I hope that the results will be made known. It has been suggested that in some parts of Sweden, for example, 2.6 per cent. of the conventional seed stock was contaminated. That is worrying.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as he is one of those who support the introduction of strict liability. I do not believe that any case can be made for tolerating the confusion that arose in this case. It must be made absolutely clear that the liability in such matters rests with the company. I believe that that is the case in this instance, but the matter needs to be codified.
  With regard to seed purity, I know that many people want to suggest that, because 1 per cent. contamination is accepted in food for labelling purposes, a parallel level of

  513
  contamination in seeds could be acceptable. I do not agree, as there is no equivalence. Seeds are planted into the environment, and the living plants that they produce will have a continuing effect in that environment. There is no room to tolerate any percentage of contamination. It can be prevented, and companies must be made to prevent it. Our fanners must be sure that the products that they buy are the ones that they seek, and that they are the ones that they can plant.
  Time does not permit me to say all that I want to say on this subject. I believe that we can all learn from this regrettable incident—the Government, scientists, environmentalists and the public at large. Science is not absolute, as we know. We will receive the test results of our trials in due course, and the political debate will continue. However, we must be mature in that debate and understand that absolute control is not possible all the time.
  We need transparency and rational argument. My right hon. Friend the Minister has dealt with the matter and brought it to a sensible conclusion for the moment. I am sure that he will have in hand what is needed for the future, and that he will ensure that farmers do not lose out as a result of this event.
  6.4 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: We seem to have been around this course many times before, as different products and developments affect our food supplies. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have learned some lessons by now. It always seems to react after the event, with the result that scorn is poured on the biotech industry. That is an important and developing sector in our economy, as it is in the United States. It also drives our farmers mad. If they are not ploughing up their crops, they must tearing out their hair, and many of them are being put out of business. There have been dozens of different scares, such as BSE, salmonella, listeria, irradiated food, aldrin and spraying apples for scab. Given the number of times that the House has debated matters of this sort, we have to ask ourselves whether we have learned anything.
  Has the Minister bothered to read the very excellent reports produced by our own House organisation, POST—the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. It wrote excellent and very clear papers on this subject in May 1998 and October 1999, producing excellent, simple, sensible and scientifically sound documents. That information would have informed the Minister and his Ministry so that he could have stepped in to the argument before we reached this point.
  The idea that the public might get is that people working in science and the commercial development of agricultural products have no concern for their consumer market, and that they are trying to shove into the market things that are dangerous to human health, almost regardless of whether or not those products are sound. That is an absurd proposition. Any business that behaved so irresponsibly would not last five minutes, because every user of the product—and goodness knows, we live in a litigious society—would sue the company. There would be no point in taking such a risk.
  We are all concerned about the relationship between society and science, but the scientist must be allowed to experiment. Trial and error is an important part of
  514
  scientific progress. At some stage, the product will be tested on people. In the past, scientists often tested products on themselves. I do not suppose that they ate mountains of soya, or whatever. However, we learned about vaccines and other products that improved human health by that means. It is inevitable that we must have trials—yet immediately such trials become known, pressure groups seek to frighten the public about them, because they have their own agenda. They believe that nature is as it is and should never be adapted or altered, yet hardly anything in our environment has not been altered over a period of time.
  Historically, almost every new scientific development has been challenged. Astronomy, medicine, development of the understanding of the workings of the human body and Darwinian science have all, in their time, been treated in much the same way as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace treat this issue and have treated issues in the past.
  Much of the science that is cobbled together and presented to the Minister—and much of that which was presented to the previous Government on BSE—Is highly challengeable. However, because it is all done at the last minute to deal with the challenges made by these pressure groups, it is often bad science, badly thought out. I am making a plea for us to take a logical and sensible attitude to the industry and the people producing the seeds, who have just been given a tongue lashing by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), which I think was hardly justified.
  We make no progress unless we treat our scientists and those in other countries—in this case, most of the research was done in the United States—as sensible human beings.
  Mr. Hayes: I do not claim to have my hon. Friend's expertise in this field. I know that she has carried out academic research into the history of science. Surely she would acknowledge that the difference with this particular challenge is its pace and scale, as I said earlier. She talks about evolutionary change in science, the many historical changes that have taken place and the suspicion that was felt at the time. However, this change is so fundamental. It does not build on what has gone before in a simple way. It is a giant leap into the unknown, is it not?
  Mrs. Gorman: If Conservative Members are a family, there is probably the same latitude between my hon. Friend and me as exists in some other prominent families. I consider the trial of these products essential. The trials are being conducted discreetly and monitored carefully. To try to repress them or to distort or discredit the findings is a reactionary, almost atavistic, attitude to science.
  I make my plea because when politicians consider such matters, we often know little about the science, but we criticise scientists and their motives. Let us remind ourselves that what they are trying to do is to reduce the need for the use of herbicides, such as Round-up, on crops. Those herbicides have been shown to have most undesirable effects on human health. Sensible and progressive attempts are being made to modify the seed so that we can reduce the use of some of those potentially toxic products.
  All that scientists are trying to do is to produce a seed that will need less herbicide to produce a crop or one that will be resistant to the organisms that prey on it. That too

  515
  would give a more successful crop. If the effect of the organisms that destroy crops is reduced, there will be less need to use toxic substances.
  That is the motivation. There is no sinister plot to bring half the population to its knees. Science and industry are trying to improve human progress—to make life better by making more food available.
  One argument that has not been advanced in the debate relates to ethnic farmers. It is said that they will be forced to buy GM seeds and that, as the seeds are not fertile, they will have to be replaced regularly. Of course, that is a silly argument. Farmers anywhere in the world can continue to use the seed they already have if they want to do so.
  Not enough is made of the fact that we in this House are extremely ill-informed by scientists—often it is at the last minute. I welcome the new organisation that the Government will be able to consult. I wish the Government had taken more notice of POST and hope that they will make more use of that excellent organisation; it is on-hand and can be consulted. The Government should not wait until public hysteria has been generated, largely by pressure groups that have their own agenda. The leaders of such organisations, for example, Lord Melchett, Mr. Secrett and others, have all sorts of sub-plots--not least their opposition to the world of commerce.
  We must be well prepared to deal with public concerns when they are raised. In a few years time, we shall wonder what the debate was all about and why we made such a fuss. We have not had the opportunity to undertake proper trials in this country. We should do so, because it would be irresponsible not to do so.
  Meanwhile, we must accept that the Canadians, who have these products, are not out to poison their population—nor is the United States. There is an element of anti-Americanism in some of the literature attacking ideas on these matters. Of course, American farmers see advantages in these products; as they use them, they realise that they do not need so many herbicides and that they can grow food more cheaply.
  The British public do not yet see much advantage in GM products. Most people do not buy soya oil; it occurs only in small quantities in a wide range of foods. As people see little advantage, they decide that they may as well join in the hue and cry created by the pressure groups. Ultimately, those groups will have to eat if not a large slice of humble pie, a large jar of GM-treated soya oil. I wish them joy.
  Although my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) was right to take the Government to task for coming forward yet again with an ill-prepared and ill-digested agenda, it is time that the House took a more tolerant and more sensitive view of scientific events. What progress would have been made if politicians in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had taken such an interest in scientific matters? I can think of many elements of progress that we would not have today if they had taken the approach that has been suggested. It is likely that if we had had our way, many of the progressive moves for the production of better quality and cheaper food would not have happened.
  6.15 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I represent an area that has many biotech companies and I used to work at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, which is the national plant testing authority for most agricultural varieties of seed. Like most Members, I have many constituents who are concerned about the dangers to health and to the environment of GM crops and the food from them.
  I listened carefully to the opening speeches. The opportunism of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) knows no bounds. The Conservative party, when in government, refused to contemplate any labelling scheme. Those of us who fought for such a scheme well remember the opposition to the idea from the previous Conservative Government. The Conservative party in government approved GM foods for sale in this country and it saw no problem in promoting GM crops and GM food.
  In contrast, the Labour party in government has strengthened the regulatory environment. We have introduced the labelling of GM ingredients in food so that people can make informed choices about what they eat. We have also promoted debate so that people are fully informed of the issues. The hon. Gentleman now chooses to take advantage of a commercial error and tries to turn it to his political advantage, instead of debating sensitively and constructively what we can do to avoid such accidents in future.
  I believe that the genetic modification of crops can bring many advantages. It will be easier to produce drought-resistant crops, crops that do well in hostile environments, crops that have medicinal properties and crops that are high in protein and vitamins. However, I agree that it is necessary to proceed cautiously. We do not yet know how many of the crops will react to the environment and we do not know whether there might be future long-term health risks. There is a case for proceeding sensibly with the research.
  We need to examine how best we can grow such crops in the field and examine the likelihood of them spreading beyond the immediate location. We also need to know—this area of research could prove to be extremely interesting—what will happen when farmers make the occasional mistake and when they do not follow the protocols exactly. We need to know what will happen when seed companies make mistakes, because we are beginning to find out that they do.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady says that, broadly speaking, she regards the development of such crops favourably. Does she support the development of crops that contain genes from bacteria that make them resistant to a wide range of weedkiller? When that weedkiller is applied to a field, it destroys everything else and creates an entirely sterile environment with the dangers to biodiversity pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mrs. Campbell: That is an important point. I said that GM crops can bring many advantages. However, like most scientific inventions, the science can be used for good and for ill. We must discriminate between the two. I urge caution, but I think that we shall regret it for ever if we turn our backs on a major scientific advance at this stage.

  517
  It is easy to whip up public hysteria on these issues. The hon. Member for South Suffolk is aware of public anxiety, and I believe that the debate is deliberately designed to feed that anxiety. It is not surprising that there is much public concern about food safety following the crass way in which the previous Conservative Government handled the BSE crisis, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend. When the Conservatives were in government, they cut the research budget for scrapie and other animal diseases. If they had not, the research might have led us to an awareness of the dangers before they got out of hand.
  The Conservatives refused to listen to scientists. The Agriculture and Food Research Council found itself trying to cope with swingeing cuts in its research budget which were imposed by the previous Government, so it could not carry out the necessary research. I remember that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), first mentioned the best available scientific advice after the announcement in the House that BSE posed a potential risk to human health. At that stage, it was rather late for the Government to reassure the public that they knew what they were doing, as clearly they did not.
  The BSE crisis was significant because it shook public confidence in food safety. It was perceived that BSE was caused by unnatural feeding practices, and the public remain suspicious of anything to do with food which seems unnatural. The biotech companies have not helped matters by transferring fish genes to give plants frost resistance and by using a penicillin resistant marker gene to find out whether their experiments have been successful. The biotech industry has been a victim of its own ineptitude and should have recognised at an earlier stage that the public would mistrust those uses and, indeed, find them unnecessary. The industry has paid dearly for its mistakes, and we are paying too.
  Some biotech companies are pulling out of the UK. Dupont, for example, has decided that it will no longer expand its Cambridge operation. We have lost for ever the opportunity to take commercial advantage of genetic modification. Having been vibrant and innovative just a few years ago, the industry has suffered a loss of public confidence, which has led to a retrenchment and firms relocating to the US. That is a great pity.
  The Labour Government listen to scientific advice, not after the event, but at all times. We have increased the basic science budget by more than 16 per cent, but I hope that that we will go further than that. However, that increase shows that the Government recognise the value of scientific knowledge. The Food Standards Agency, set up by the Government, gives advice on food safety, and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment gives advice about releases into the environment. We also have the new independent Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on GM issues.
  Unfortunately, it will take a long time to regain public confidence, but that is a result of the previous Government's mishandling of the issues. It is crucial to that confidence building that an accident similar to the Advanta accident does not happen in future. I know that the Government are doing everything in their power to minimise those risks.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: We are not debating the virtues or otherwise of genetically modified crops. In recent years, Parliament has often debated those issues. A statutory framework is in place and I suspect that there is not much disagreement between the parties on the way in which field crops are going forward.
  Our debate is about a specific incident. The House must focus on the Government's handling of the Advanta seed contamination and the action that the Ministry took once it had that information from Advanta on 17 April. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said about Advanta's responsibility; I accept, of course, that it had a duty of care. However, why did the general manager of Advanta repeatedly say that, at the outset, senior civil servants from MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions told him not to worry and that the matter was not of any concern? He said:
  They told me that they would to make some tests themselves and not to say anything about it until they had sorted that out. I took a lot of comfort from that and as a result did not take any further action to inform farmers or seed merchants.
  Clearly, one or other of those things happened. It is in everyone's interests that whatever minutes exist—I am sure that there are minutes—of meetings between officials and Advanta, they are made public.
  I say to the Minister of State, as I would say to the Agriculture Minister if he were here, that the Government are largely responsible for the concern because they dealt with the matter using a planted question in another place, and nothing is more guaranteed to raise concern that the Government are trying to sneak out unfavourable news. The impression was given that they only did that as a consequence of knowing that the French and other Governments were about to release the information and that they would look misplaced if they did not do so.
  The Minister's explanation that the only reason why he did not give a statement in the House was that the date in question was an Opposition supply day is one of the feeblest that the House has ever heard. It would have been perfectly possible for him to come to the House with a statement, as he eventually had to do—and then there was, understandably, a public outcry.
  The Minister's explanation for the time lapse between April and May was that the Government had been seeking to establish the facts. I am still trying to work out what facts took from 17 April to 18 May—when the statement was made—to be established. Advanta had clearly come to the Government and told them that the seed was contaminated and that the contamination was de minimis—about I per cent. That fact was therefore established right at the outset, as was the fact that the genetic modification was RT73. Can the Minister of State tell the House what other facts were established between 17 April and 18 May which were not immediately known to the Agriculture Minister.
  It would be interesting and helpful to know 'when the Minister was first seized of the issue. When did officials first tell him that there was a problem? As a former MAFF Minister, I imagine that the permanent secretary and officials would have gone to the Minister on 17 or 18 April and gone through all the various options and permutations with him. In his speech today, he gave the impression that be was wanting legal advice. I know that

  519
  there is a convention that Ministers do not share actual legal advice with the House, but it would be helpful if we were told when the Minister first asked lawyers in MAFF or outside for advice and what was the nature of that advice. If we do not receive that information today, we can table parliamentary questions.
  It is surprising that in the Minister's statement to the House on 18 May there was absolutely no mention of any legal advice. The suspicion must be that the legal advice that he has referred to was given after 18 May, when he realised that he was in an invidious position because he could not tell the farmers to destroy their crops, but had to do something to ensure that the crops did not get into general circulation. I suspect that when we question the Minister more closely through parliamentary questions, we will discover that legal advice was not sought until after 18 May.
  In his statement on 18 May, the Minister said that he
  moved quickly to establish the facts.
  What facts? What did he not know on 17 April that took over a month to establish? He also said:
  The advice that the Government collectively have received is that it is not necessary to trace and destroy the crops.
  But there was no mention or advice then of what farmers should do. That has come out in dribs and drabs subsequently. The House should note that the Minister, rather complacently, also said:
  I believe that the response that I have announced today, and which was announced yesterday
  in the other place
  is the right one.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 473–74.]
  Events have clearly shown that it was not the right one. On the Minister's own admissions since 18 May, he and the Government have had to do a considerable amount of work in the European Union and elsewhere and with Advanta to sort things out. They have had to persuade Advanta that it had a duty of care to pay compensation. They have had to work with the EU to produce a scheme that protects payments under the integrated administration and control system, but allows the farmers to move forward and provides them with specific and detailed advice on what they could and could not do with their crops. All of those matters have arisen since 18 May, but they should have been dealt with far earlier.
  The Minister came to the House and quoted from "A Man for All Seasons", looking rather injured and sad as though he could not believe that anyone would want to criticise a nice guy like him, but the truth is that there has been a serious dereliction of duty by MAFF Ministers. I attach no blame to officials in MAFF. Having worked with them, I would say that they are an extremely good team—but the Ministers clearly did not get a grip on the issue. It would be interesting to discover what submissions and minutes went from the private office to various parts of the Ministry. I suspect that the truth of the matter is that the Minister did not get a grip on the issue until quite late in the day. The consequence is that farmers have been put in an invidious position.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who represents a university constituency, is understandably concerned that science generally should not be imputed, but good science has been imputed as a consequence of the way in which the matter has been handled.
  520
  The Minister has much explaining still to do, and the House would be greatly helped if the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) posed in his opening speech were answered in detail, and if that information in its entirety, including when legal advice was sought and its nature, were placed in the Library. Until we get to the bottom of those issues—nice guy or no nice guy—the Opposition will continue to ask questions because the farming community feels that the Government have treated it pretty badly and shabbily and it jolly well thinks that it deserves answers, and answers it will get.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I am pleased that we are debating this subject in the week in which the royal family have also decided to wade into it. I shall particularly refer to comments made by the Duke of Edinburgh, but I only wish that he had had an opportunity to listen to the wise and thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
  What has happened reflects badly on us all, so it would be helpful if we were to begin by taking on board the shared responsibilities and history of neglect in which we have all played a part. Some of those matters were spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), but I would add that we cannot ignore the way in which the whole House drifted without criticism into endorsing the biotechnology patenting regime, under which it has been effectively presumed that people can sell the ownership of life itself. It has launched society into a gold-rush of greed in pursuit of the growing and ownership of crops that no one wants, which is seen as a way not to feed the planet, but to own the food chain.
  I welcome the actions that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken. I also welcome the fact that we have signed up to the biosafety protocol, that we have introduced product labelling and that we are committed to zero contamination of non-GM crops and, belatedly, to the review of separation distances. I hope that that will result in our agreeing with the position taken by the British Bee-Keepers Association, which suggests that the separation distance should be six miles. Even so, we are still getting it wrong.
  I want to make it clear that we are ill-advised to continue with the current GM trials as they are constructed. We are wrong to set standards for animal feed labelling lower than those for labelling food that goes direct to humans. We are wrong not to have introduced our own GM producer liability Bill. Nothing shows that more clearly than the experiences with Advanta.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on getting Advanta to come up with a compensation framework, but I must ask the House whether any of us are surprised that this crisis has been thrown up. Has any of us seriously doubted what has been going on? For almost a year, I have argued that an industry that failed to convince the public would seek to corrupt the food chain so that it could throw up its hands and say, "It's out there—there's nothing we can do." That was a guaranteed certainty, and it does not surprise me that Advanta has suggested a compensation scheme. Look at the wording; it came up with that scheme specifically to say, "But we accept no liability."

  521
  The compensation scheme has been suggested so that no cases go to court, because that would bring into existence a legal framework that would say to Advanta, "You bloody well are liable!" That is what it fears most and what the House ought to push forward. It is sad that the only people who appear to face prosecution are those young kids who go out in the fields and pull up the crops. In Austria, France or Sweden, they would do so under Government instruction. We have a topsy-turvy view of who is responsible for the things that are most damaging to our environment, our society and our long-term future.
  I do not support the current trials because they are based on poor science or non-science and will not show up what the tests do not ask. They will not tell us anything about whether something is safe for human health and will tell us little about horizontal gene transfer. They will tell us nothing about what scientists refer to as biomagnification or of emergent characteristics. All those fundamental issues are central to the challenges presented by the technology, which is why I support the claims made for the five-year freeze programme.
  It is bizarre that we are undertaking trials when there is no public support or demand for them and I read in The Times that so desperate are we to achieve co-operation in the process that the Ministry of Defence has had to resort to conscripting the tenants of its own farms to take part. That is the first occasion in peacetime on which the MOD has had to conscript its own farmers to take part in trials of products that no one wants. I am not sure how it will enforce no-fly zones around its farms, nor am I sure whether it is on the lookout for B52s or in fear of 52 bees.
  The MOD has had to step in to fill the gap because the rest of society is running away from the issues and all that has stopped us becoming a laughing stock is the Duke's intervention. He has stepped in to create his own interesting distraction. It was up to him to make the decision, but he seems to be on particularly dangerous and thin ice in suggesting that there are dangers in cross-breeding with exotic foreign varieties. However, he was wrong to suggest that GM plant growing is no different from conventional plant breeding. Someone has to have a word with him. History does not bear out an analysis that a fish gene has not crossed with a soya bean because one likes polo and the other prefers rugger or one reads The Times and the other the Beano.
  That sort of propagation—the ability of GM technology to produce new products—crosses all the frontiers that nature has ever set for us. That is the issue: not compatibility of interests, but the incompatibility of species. We have been presented with new challenges and we have to analyse the risk and consequences of new toxins being generated, new resistances being created and unexpected further transfers between species taking place. There is indifference to those threats. The Duke of Hazards has ploughed into the debate, leaping into his own car of convenience—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a member of the royal family, which is legitimate to an extent, but he ought to be careful with the words he uses.
  Mr. Simpson: I shall confine myself to saying that we would all be wise to pause before pursuing ignorance into folly. The consequences for society will be profound if we get it wrong.
  522
  I shall set out the six challenges that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, must tackle if we are serious about the debate. First, we should stop GM trials and provide a breathing space for science to set the necessary new benchmarks, against which to measure the consequences of the technology. Secondly, until we have met the first challenge, we should reject the inclusion of GM crops in the national seed list. Thirdly, we should commit ourselves to seed purity standards which ensure that GM free means GM free—that is, zero tolerance. Fourthly, we should introduce compulsory labelling for animal feed that is no less exacting than that required for humans. Fifthly, we should prosecute the polluter, not the protester. Sixthly, we should introduce polluter liability legislation, which requires a compulsory insurance scheme to be put in place before consent is considered.
  Those are challenges not only to the House, but all those outside who advocate charging into the technology. We should tell them to put their assets where there assertions are. Someone has to be held liable, whether we are considering the Crown estate, a personal estate or the House's estate. That person cannot be the farmer or the consumer. We have a duty to establish that as the moral high ground, which we are all willing to occupy.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I want to repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) at the outset. The debate is not about the benefits or otherwise of genetic modification. Conservative Members accept that there are plenty of potential benefits to producers, the environment, consumers, and—as is already happening—health care. Each development has to be properly assessed and trialled. There should not be a blanket moratorium, because that ignores the different stages of each development. The debate is about ministerial competence.
  It is not surprising that the Minister and his supporters have floated several red herrings. They are nothing to do with the debate. It was suggested that the fact that we had licensed the product for food use and for trials meant that somehow everything was all right. We would never suggest otherwise in relation to food safety. Oil does not contain DNA. There cannot therefore be any doubt about food safety. We licensed the product for trials, but that is not the same as wholesale release into the environment, which has happened. It has also been claimed that we told the Minister that he should order the destruction of the crop. We did not. It has been said that we suggested that the Government should pay compensation. Again, we did not.
  I stress that we do not excuse Advanta. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) was right to say that Advanta has some important questions to answer and, I suspect, some liabilities. However, that is not the issue at hand.
  The motion is narrow; it deals with the Government's competence. It was clear from the pained expression on the Minister's face throughout the beginning of the debate that he knew that he was already in serious trouble. I am not talking about his integrity or his personal honesty, but his ministerial competence. He took four weeks to listen to legal advice. We know what that means: he was being told, "You can't say this, Minister; you can't say that, Minister, because if you do, you will have to find the

  523
  money for compensation, and the Government will be liable." Ministerial interest was being put before that of the farmers who were growing the crops.
  The Minister made a most interesting concession. He said that he agreed with the view of the Minister for the Cabinet Office that the details should have come out earlier. He also apologised for not telling Wales and Scotland earlier. After that, I do not know how he had the gall to move the amendment. By making those two admissions, he was three quarters of the way to accepting the motion.
  It is not as though the Government were not warned about the problem of seed purity. In May last year, the report that the Government commissioned from the John Innes centre stated:
  Seed obtained from outside of the UK or the European Union may have different seed production criteria. This may make it difficult to guarantee that it is absolutely free from any GM material.
  Even more recently, our own Select Committee on Agriculture stated:
  We recommend that the Government ensure that the separation distances set out in the SCIMAC guidelines be reviewed if there is clear evidence of cross-pollination.
  Again, that was a recognition that seed purity was a concern.
  The delay caused by the Government's inaction meant that farmers faced the problem of what to do when they were told on 19 May that they may—still only "may"—have sown some contaminated seed. No effort had been made to trace it. The Minister said in his statement that there was no need to trace it. Farmers were left wondering what to do.
  A week later the Minister published some advice, giving farmers a couple of options. Today he announced a third option. However, as you well know from your own background, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the seasons wait for no man. Planting a crop in the middle of April is a very different matter from planting it in the first week of June. There is virtually no mainstream arable crop that can be planted at the beginning of June and expected to produce any saleable crop whatever.
  If farmers had been told in mid-April that their crop could be a problem, they would have had the choice. They could have decided whether to go ahead and take the risk, or to plough it up and sow some other crop, in the knowledge that they would have obtained a harvest of that crop.
  The Minister sings his own praises about his achievement today in Brussels, which will allow farmers to mow their crop and still to claim the whole IACS—integrated arable control system—Payments. That is valuable, but it does not deal with the fact that farmers still had to carry all the growing costs and will get zero crop sales if they take that action.
  We welcome the review of separation distances announced by the Government. I remind them that in three months, farmers will be planting next year's crop, so it is urgent that conclusions are reached on that.
  I have some questions for the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is probably at the shredder, in view of the comment I am about to make. We need the documents to find out what was said. I do not believe that there is smoke without fire. When representatives of Advanta tell us that they were told by officials not to tell anybody else, something needs to be properly explained.
  524
  The Minister has not yet explained to us why he did not impose trial conditions on those crops. He has not explained why he said that it was not necessary to trace crops, when ACRE said that it was. He needs to answer those questions.
  Two years ago, the Minister took office, with agriculture in its entirety facing a crisis. For a while, his self-effacing charm carried him through. Over the past 12 months, the country has begun to wonder what is behind the charm. His record of delivery has been abysmal—an emergency package here, another one there; £1 million dressed up as £500 million; regulations imposed and then costs deferred; give with one hand and take back with the other.
  Only four weeks ago, I pointed out at the Dispatch Box that it took the right hon. Gentleman almost a year to implement any of the proposals that we put forward in May last year to help farming through its current crisis. [Interruption.] It is highly appropriate that the Minister should appear at this point. The debate is about the nadir of his performance. We know of his total inaction for four weeks—as we heard, like a frightened rabbit paralysed in the headlights. He did not even tell Scotland or Wales, and he has now admitted that he was wrong.
  Did no one in the Ministry say on 17 April, "Minister, if we act quickly we will prevent many farmers from sowing the seed"? The fact that the Minister himself did not think to ask the question demonstrates his lack of true understanding of agricultural practice. Even when he did tell the world, he exhibited—as my hon. Friend said—astonishing complacency. Like his leader, he seemed to say, "Trust me; I know what I am doing". A week later, he gave farmers two options, and left it to the company itself to advise destruction of the crop. It is a record of delay and inaction.
  For two years, farming has been in a worsening crisis. When the industry needed Action Man, it got Mr. Slowcoach. When the British landscape is under threat from unauthorised GM planting—against the law, as my hon. Friend said—who is in charge of the landscape? Incapability Brown.
  We have suffered too long from a Government for whom words are everything and action is nothing. Today's debate is just one more example. It is time that they went.
  6.51 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. On hearing the introduction by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I feared for its quality, but that introduction was followed by a number of excellent speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Obviously, I especially commend the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. He committed himself to openness, and, characteristically, responded to all interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Many other hon. Members made thoughtful contributions—in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). The hon. Lady may be embarrassed by that. Perhaps she will return to form next time she speaks.

  525
  Let me remind the House of the Government's priorities on this issue and, indeed, the issue of genetic modification generally. Our priorities are the protection of public health and—equally important—the protection of the environment. I am glad that, throughout the debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House recognised that those were our priorities, and that we have been able to allay anxieties about public health and environmental protection. That is tremendously important and should have been the context of the debate.
  There is a comprehensive United Kingdom regulatory framework that covers all stages of the development and use of GM materials. As we know, it is based mostly on European Union legislation. Some hon. Members referred to that specifically, notably the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). My right hon. Friend emphasised that the issues we have been investigating are issues with clear European Union and international implications, and should be dealt with in that context.
  The Government are advised by a number of expert committees, including the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which undertakes assessments for the purposes of release and marketing of genetically modified organisms, and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which deals with assessments relating to foods and food ingredients. Those committees seek to ensure that advice to Government reflects the best available scientific knowledge.
  The Government have reviewed the regulatory framework and agreed that the existing committee structure is basically satisfactory. However, they have decided that it should be supplemented by a mechanism to allow broader issues relating to genetic modification to be considered.
  Therefore, last year we announced the creation of two strategic commissions: the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. The Human Genetics Advisory Commission has been in place for several months and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission was launched this week. Again, I was glad that that was referred to by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. To take up a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, the Government have set up the new commissions precisely to advise Government on the wider picture, taking particular account of the public acceptability and ethical issues that she raised. Through the commissions and through our work generally, we want there to be an inclusive debate.
  In setting up the Food Standards Agency at the beginning of April, the Government fulfilled a key commitment to provide independent advice to Ministers on food safety issues. It would be good to get a more wholehearted endorsement from the Conservative party of the agency and the work that it does.
  Mr. Paterson: On 9 May, I put 29 questions directly to the Food Standards Agency. None has been answered. Is that an indication of how it will operate in future?
  Ms Quin: Having not seen the hon. Gentleman's 29 questions, I have no idea how long it will take the
  526
  agency to deal with them, but the agency will deal with them as it deals with all other issues—with great seriousness. In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), whom I do not see in the Chamber, he was wrong to say that the agency had not been consulted on the incident. He repeated that. However, he is incorrect. I firmly put it on the record that the agency was indeed consulted and gave advice, which has been put into the public domain.
  I shall respond to some of the issues on openness. My right hon. Friend the Minister has related to the House the information that has been made available: the advice from ACRE and from the Food Standards Agency, the technical information about the sterility of the crops, the European Seed Association letter and the briefing note on the implication for arable area payments.
  If hon. Members consult the MAFF website, they will see that the advice from ACRE and the Food Standards Agency, the advice to farmers, and the questions and answers for farmers and for the wider public are all accessible. Criticisms about lack of openness or secrecy come ill from the Conservative party, given the amount of information that we have put into the public domain and that my right hon. Friend has said will be put into the public domain as a result of some of the questions that have been directed towards him in the debate.
  The words of the hon. Member for South Suffolk on BSE came back to haunt him in the debate. I was reminded of the debate in Westminster Hall last year, when my predecessor spectacularly demolished his similar claims of secrecy and cover-up. Since we have come to power, we have appointed non-scientific lay advisers to every advisory committee. Minutes and agendas of meetings have been made public. Some open meetings have been held and the minutes subsequently published.
  I am glad to be able to reaffirm the Government's position, as set out in our amendment to the misguided motion. I am happy to defend the Government's action and that of colleagues in my Department and elsewhere. They have acted throughout with proper concern for accuracy of information and with concern to make that information available to Parliament—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 267.

  Division No. 223]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Allan, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Baker, Norman

  Brady, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brake, Tom

  Beggs, Roy

  Breed, Colin

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Bercow, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  527

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Bums, Simon

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Cash, William

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chidgey, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Madel, Sir David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Cotter, Brian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cran, James

  Maples, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mates, Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Day, Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan, Alan

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Öpik, Lembit

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Flight, Howard

  prior, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gale Roger

  Roe' Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gamier, Edward

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gibb Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gidley, Sandra

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gill Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

  Gray, James

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gray

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hancock, Mike

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Pear

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor lan (Esher & Walton)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tonge Dr Jenny

  Horam, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Trend Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Johnson Smith,

  Wells, Bowen

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whittingdale, John

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

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wilkinson, John

  Key, Robert

  Willetts, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Yeo, Tim

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Mr. John Randall.

  Leigh, Edward

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Barron Kevin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Beard, Nigel

  528

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Follett, Barbara

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Galloway, George

  Benton, Joe

  Gapes, Mike

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gardiner, Barry

  Best, Harold

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gerrard, Neil

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Borrow, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Grogan, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hain, Peter

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Healey, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Heppell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Caton, Martin

  Hill, Keith

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Chaytor, David

  Hope, Phil

  Clapham, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jamieson, David

  Coleman, lain

  Jenkins, Brian

  Colman, Tony

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cranston, Ross

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darvill, Keith

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Davidson, Ian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Laxton, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lepper, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Leslie, Christopher

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Drew, David

  McCabe, Steve

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ennis, Jeff

  Macdonald, Calum

  Etherington, Bill

  McDonnell, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Flint, Caroline

  McIsaac, Shona

  Flynn, Paul

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  529

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacShane, Denis

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Fit Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

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

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Stringer, Graham

  Mountford, Kali

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Norris, Dan

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Make (N Warks)

  Todd, Mark

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tynan, Bill

  Pike, Peter L

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pond, Chris

  Watts David

  Pope, Greg

  White Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rapson, Syd

  Wills, Michael

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Roy, Frank

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 125.

  Division No. 224]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bayley, Hugh

  Allen, Graham

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Austin, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  530

  Benton, Joe

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gerrard, Neil

  Best, Harold

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Blackman, Liz

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Blizzard, Bob

  Godsiff, Roger

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Borrow, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Grogan, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Hain, Peter

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Browne, Desmond

  Hanson, David

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Burgon, Colin

  Healey, John

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hill, Keith

  Cann, Jamie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hoey, Kate

  Casale, Roger

  Hope, Phil

  Caton, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cawsey, Ian

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Chaytor, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jenkins, Brian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cohen, Harry

  Coleman, lain

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Colman, Tony

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Corston, Jean

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Cox, Tom

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cranston, Ross

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Darvill, Keith

  Laxton, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Lepper, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Linton, Martin

  Dawson, Hilton

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  McCabe, Steve

  Denham, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Dismore, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dobbin, Jim

  McDonnell, John

  Drew, David

  McFall, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ennis, Jeff

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Etherington, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McNulty, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Flint, Caroline

  McWalter, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Follett, Barbara

  Mallaber, Judy

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Galloway, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Gapes, Mike

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Gardiner, Barry

  Merron, Gillian

  531

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Mountford, Kali

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mullin, Chris

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stevenson, George

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Norris, Dan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Plaskitt, James

  Todd, Mark

  Pollard, Kerry

  Touhig, Don

  Pond, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tynan, Bill

  Purchase, Ken

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rapson, Syd

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  White, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wills, Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Allan, Richard

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Baker, Norman

  Chidgey, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Chope, Christopher

  Beggs, Roy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Collins, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Brady, Graham

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brake, Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Breed, Colin

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Bums, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  532

  Flight, Howard

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maples, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fraser, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Norman, Archie

  Gamier, Edward

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gibb, Nick

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gidley, Sandra

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Paice, James

  Gray, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, John

  Prior, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rendel, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Laurence

  Hancock Mike

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hayes, John

  Ruffley, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Russel1' Bob, (Colchester)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hogg Rt Hon Douglas

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Horam.John

  Smith. Sir Robert (WAtVns)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stenley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Johnson Smith,

  Streeter, Gray

  Stunell, Andrew

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Swayne, Desmond

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

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tonge Dr Jenny

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tredinnick, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Trend Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tyrie Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Uoyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Walter Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Yeo, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. John Randall and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's approach to the development of GM technology in agriculture; believes that the Government has responded in a responsible, open, considered and proportionate way to the recent discovery of the adventitious presence of GM seed in conventional oilseed rape seed; supports the priority the Government has given and continues to give to the protection of public health and the environment, and its continued determination to act on the best available scientific advice; applauds the creation of the new, independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on GM issues; welcomes the announcement by the seed company Advanta, following discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that they will provide a fair and equitable compensation package to affected farmers; and commends the Government for the action it is taking at both national and international level to minimise the risk of a similar incident occurring in the future.

PETITIONS

  Sex Offenders
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I wish to present a petition signed by nearly 4,000 residents of Derbyshire and elsewhere.
  The petition
  Declares that further measures are required to control the activities of sex offenders against children once they have been released from prison.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to set up an independent unit to supervise released offenders; to alter parole terms for released offenders; to consider longer prison terms for offenders; to consider electronic tagging for released offenders; to consider changes in the Mental Health Act (to include child sex offenders, to qualify them for treatment); and to provide more protection and help for victims.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I have the honour of presenting a petition from Doreen Rogerson and more than 1,000 residents of Gainsborough and surrounding areas. The petitioners' concern is:
  That Christians and people of other faiths are denied the freedom of expression available to atheists and secular humanists, and that this is a result of current broadcasting
  legislation—which bans them from holding many of the types of broadcasting licence open to other people. It is also a result, as the petition recognises, of the
  Rules and Codes of Guidance issued by the broadcasting regulators.
  They apply special restrictions to the content of religious programming, which do not apply to secular programming. The petitioners call for this discrimination to end. They wish for respectable religious organisations to be able to compete for all types of broadcasting licences, both for television and radio, on a level playing field with everyone else. They wish to be able to turn on their televisions or their radios and tune into programming which reflects their beliefs and values just as easily as they can tune in to any other type of programming.
  The petition concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Manufacturing Grants (Newark)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  7.27 pm
  Mrs. Fiona Jones: First, I congratulate the Minister for Competitiveness, who I understand is not here tonight because his wife has been safely delivered of a baby boy.
  I welcome this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a matter of some concern to my constituents. Newark is a historic market town—it is not, however, a sleepy market town. In common with many other east midlands town, for many years Newark relied for its employment on heavy engineering. Local engineering has now finished, but at its peak, businesses in the area might have employed at least 1,000 people.
  Newark has moved with the times, however, and is now well known as a centre for food manufacturing. Everything from cream cakes to spring rolls are manufactured in Newark. We have a skilled work force who make products to the most stringent standards. Recently, one of the food companies in the town closed, with the loss of 700 jobs. In addition, the collapse of Coats Viyella, a company that supplied Marks & Spencer, has meant that 1,000 jobs were lost in Newark—a devastating blow to the town, which has a travel-to-work population of about 50,000.
  The town has a great deal to commend it. Newark has railway links into the county; it also has the advantage of being on the Al. I need remind no one why the industrial revolution occurred in certain locations. Newark is surrounded by agriculture and horticulture—dairy produce and fruit could easily be transported to the area. The town has ideal communication links; it is set on the Al and the east coast main line runs through it. The work force are skilled in food manufacturing and the Labour-led district council understands the value of inward investment and is committed to providing work for local people.
  One would think that the future was promising. However, I fear that it is not. There is one enormous stumbling block for Newark: it cannot offer new or relocating companies any significant grant aid. The north Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council and Nottinghamshire county council can offer some support, but nothing that is significant for large companies.
  There has been much controversy over the new assisted area status maps—I was disappointed that several Newark wards were excluded. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has recently expressed similar concerns in the Chamber, and that they are shared by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope).
  The allocation of European Union grants has never been without controversy, and I was also disappointed that Newark was not part of an objective 2 area. That was because the town was not close to a large urban area.
  To make matters worse, grants available on the demise of the coalfields left Newark just outside the travel-to-work area, with no acknowledgement of the fact that,

  535
  as one of the towns nearest to pits in the south of the area, miners would have spent a great deal of their income in the town. Retailers in the area suffered quite badly.
  Newark also suffers from its geographical location. Mansfield to the north-west offers significant assistance to new and relocating companies. I shall illustrate the problem by a comparison. If we consider the award of European regional funds and objective 1 status, we find that there is a yes in the cases of south Yorkshire and Mansfield, but a no for Newark. On assisted area status, the picture is: south Yorkshire, yes; Mansfield, yes; Newark, no. On coalfields, the picture is the same. I fully understand the criteria and why those areas have been awarded that status. The problem is that Newark does not yet fit the criteria, even though the town's economic balance has been disturbed. Companies may close, but new industries will not become part of Newark's economy.
  I urge the Government to look carefully at that problem. There should be a mechanism to release some form of grant aid to areas such as Newark so that they are not disadvantaged in the long-term. Perhaps it is time to put a stop to what will inevitably be a merry-go-round of grants. I do not want Newark to become an industrial graveyard.
  7.33 pm
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I echo the congratulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) to my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness and his wife on the happy news of the birth of their baby son.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on raising so movingly the real issues and difficulties facing her constituents in Newark. I myself have an east Midlands seat; I understand only too well the impact of closures such as those she described—especially in the textiles and engineering industries, which in the past have been the staple source of employment for our east midlands constituents. I certainly reassure her and, I hope, her constituents that the Government understand their needs and concerns. We seek to put into place the effective support measures that will enable towns such as Newark and their surrounding areas to move from the sectors of the economy that have been in decline, at least in employment terms, into those, such as the food manufacturing industry that she described, that are growing fast.
  My hon. Friend asked about objective 1 and objective 2 status, and the availability or otherwise of regional selective assistance. The difficulty that we face is that under European Union state aid law—it is, rightly, pretty rigorous on such matters—RSA can be granted only within tiers 1 and 2 of the assisted areas. Our revised proposals for the new assisted areas map were published in April, and following a public consultation, they are now being discussed with the European Commission. However, the Commission must approve our proposals before we can pay any RSA under the new map to any applicant companies.
  Our revised proposals for the new assisted areas map include Elkesley ward—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—in my hon. Friend's constituency. The proposals were drawn up within the very tight constraints that, as she recognised, are set by the Commission. The
  536
  result of those constraints is that we have not been able to include many of the areas that we would have liked to include.
  The other difficulty with the terms for drawing up the assisted areas map is that they do not provide a flexible instrument for responding to sudden changes in economic circumstances. As I understand it, at the point when the criteria for drawing up the map had to be fulfilled, the registered unemployment rate in the Newark travel-to-work area was 2.9 per cent., compared with a regional average of 3.6 per cent. and a UK rate of 4 per cent. Therefore the recent problems, the disruptions and the economic shock waves that my hon. Friend described have not been, and could not have been, taken into account in drawing up the map.
  Instead, the systems of support are designed to deal with long-standing problems such as those faced in the east midlands coalfield. The new map, when approved by the Commission, will remain in place until the end of 2006 regardless of the changes that take place in the meantime. The frustrating fact is that we cannot include every area, and it is always particularly difficult for the urban areas that are next door to the areas that receive RSA to attract inward investment. I well understand the disappointment that my hon. Friend expressed on behalf of her constituents.
  We recognise the need for a more flexible approach that can respond to sudden economic shocks and difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced last July that he was introducing a new funding package worth £45 million over three years for a new discretionary enterprise grant scheme. That scheme targets small and medium-sized enterprises that could grow in the assisted areas, tiers 1 and 2, and in the new enterprise grant areas, tier 3.
  As my hon. Friend will know, just over 20 per cent. of her constituency is eligible for the enterprise grant scheme. It is an important initiative to help areas of special need, and I am delighted that businesses in the east midlands have responded well to its introduction. Since the start of the year, when the scheme officially opened, we have received 34 applications for enterprise grants in the east midlands, seeking grants totalling £1.2 million.
  I know that my hon. Friend would like us to extend the availability of the enterprise grant scheme to the whole of Newark. It is certainly the Government's intention—she will understand that I cannot make any promises—that we, together with regional partners, will consider the coverage of the enterprise grant areas to ensure that they meet regional and local needs.
  That is not all that we are doing to ensure that new jobs are created, new businesses start up and inward investment continues to come into this country, which remains the No. 1 destination for inward investment into the European Union. There are specific sources of support, such as the highly successful SMART scheme, which helps companies to prototype new, often high-tech, developments. That support is available throughout England and is not confined as is regional selective assistance.

  537
  I must end, as I began, by thanking my hon. Friend and congratulating her on drawing to the attention of the House an extremely important issue, and in particular, the concerns and difficulties facing her constituents as a result of recent factory closures and job losses. I can assure her that we in the Department of Trade and Industry are doing everything that we can to ensure that new businesses start up, existing businesses grow and more jobs are created.
  538
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is doing his part to ensure that workers, such as those in the textiles industry, who are made redundant and who will probably not be re-employed in the same industry, are none the less rapidly offered the opportunity to seek the new skills that will enable them to move into the new jobs that are being created.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Gibraltar
[Relevant documents: Fourth report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1998–99 ( HC 366), and the Government's response thereto (CM4470). Memoranda on Gibraltar reported to the House by the Foreign Affairs Committee.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: It is my pleasure to introduce for debate the fourth report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of last Session. I have just been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) that it is a year to the day since the report was published. I do not know what conclusions we can draw from that delay. We also have before us the Government response to our recommendations and various unpublished memoranda, one from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and one, dated 4 June, from the Government of Gibraltar. I know from experience that there is considerable interest in the House in the subject of Gibraltar. It is, therefore, wholly fitting that our report should be brought before this Chamber.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report was unanimous and followed a short but, I hope, comprehensive inquiry. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Committee for working together constructively and speedily to produce a document that has, I hope, been a catalyst for change in relations between this country and Gibraltar. I shall begin with our conclusions to show the spirit in which we worked. In paragraph 125 we say:
Of all our overseas territories, Gibraltar is in the unique position of having to conform to almost all EU regulations and directives. This means that the British Government have a special duty of care towards Gibraltar in the European Union, and places extra responsibilities upon United Kingdom Ministers to uphold the interests of Gibraltar. We urge Her Majesty's Government both to recognise and to act in full accordance with these responsibilities.
That was the theme—the leitmotiv—of our report.
The report was sparked by the fact that, in January last year, the border between Gibraltar and Spain was closed to traffic in a culmination of a dispute about fishing by Spanish vessels in Gibraltar's territorial waters, and Gibraltar became even more prominent on the parliamentary agenda. Thus, the Committee decided that it should look at the situation. One of the great advantages of our Select Committee system is that we can respond flexibly to crises in that way. I have stressed our special duty of care, but we should not forget what the people of the Rock did for the allied war efforts during the second world war.
The Committee visited Gibraltar in March last year. We met the then governor, our former colleague, Richard Luce, the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, and
118WH
the leader of the Opposition, Joe Bossano, all of whom are well known to hon. Members; and Gibraltar is well served by its representative in the United Kingdom, Mr. Albert Poggio.
In London, we took evidence from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), who then had responsibility for Gibraltar in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and from Peter Caruana. We are extremely grateful for the enormous help that we received. During our visit to Gibraltar, which was my first, we were received with great warmth, which made clear to me our special relationship with its people.
We did not take evidence for our report in Spain, and received only one piece of evidence from a Spanish source—although that was important, as it came from Rafael Estrella, the Socialist party's then foreign affairs spokesman. He has a special interest in relations with Gibraltar, because he represents a constituency in the adjoining region—or autonomia—of Andalucia. We would, of course, have welcomed other memoranda, had other Spanish sources responded to our invitation.
We were able to study the proposals for the future of Gibraltar that the then Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Abel Matutes, had made as part of the so-called Brussels process. Those proposals, with their call for joint sovereignty in Gibraltar, were clearly unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians, and must, therefore, eventually be rejected.
We also saw at first hand the threats that Spain has made against Gibraltarian interests, and received much evidence about the effect that Spanish action has had on the life and economy of the Rock. We naturally took the opportunity to visit the border, in company with the Chief Minister, Mr. Peter Caruana, and saw the unacceptable delays.
In essence, our conclusion was that Spain has made many wild and unfounded allegations against Gibraltar. The territory is not the haven for smugglers, drug traffickers and tax evaders that some Spanish propagandists pretend.
On the compliance of Gibraltar with European Union obligations, there were just two remaining regulations with which the Government of Gibraltar had not complied. The recent memorandum submitted to us by the Gibraltar Government states—in response to our report's recommendation that
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue to press for the early adoption of legislation in Gibraltar to bring into effect the Fourth and Seventh EC Company Law Directives
that
The required legislation is now
on
the statute book and operative.
I am delighted that that positive change has occurred since our visit.
We raised important questions about whether Spanish conduct against Gibraltar may not itself infringe EU law. I have in mind not just the disgraceful absence of free movement across the border—of which more later—but such issues as the then non-recognition of Gibraltarian driving licences and passports, the restrictions on Gibraltarian telephone services, and the

119WH
attempts to exclude Gibraltar from the entitlement to benefit from all aspects of its EU membership. We called for more rigorous action in the EU to defend Gibraltarian interests.
Our report was published last June, since when an amendment has been moved—I am delighted to be able to use that parliamentary expression. That amendment is the very welcome, but limited, agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain, which has been hailed by the Government of Gibraltar as a key step on the road to normalisation of relations. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole Committee in saying that we, too, welcome that step forward. We were delighted by the announcement on the agreement that was made on 19 April by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Speaking with due deference, I have little doubt that our report helped to hasten the process.
It is always possible to talk up a dispute into a crisis, but, as our report says,
nothing is to be gained by bombast and megaphone diplomacy.
For that reason, we devoted the last part of our report to an analysis of what we believe the British Government should do to develop relations with Spain. That is important because—I stress this—Spain is an important ally of this country, not least within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There are many areas in which we work extremely amicably with our Spanish partners, and we have many common interests, including, for example, our approach to the intergovernmental conference, which will be concluded in Nice in December. Also, many Britons holiday in Spain and many others live there.
In the past, the temperature of the debate occasionally became too heated because of Gibraltar, and it should be lowered. The meeting of the two Prime Ministers in early April helped that effort. I understand that they have an extremely good relationship—their chemistry is good—which has been used constructively for the benefit of the people of Gibraltar, and we hope that they will go well beyond that first step.
The Foreign Affairs Committee does not believe that co-operation with Spain should in any way be equated with appeasement. The tendency in Gibraltar to criticise successive British Governments in that regard is regrettable. Co-operation is, in our view, the most sensible way forward. In our report, we singled out the airport as a place at which there should be practical, cross-border co-operation to the benefit of Gibraltar and of Andalucia, which is the adjoining region.
The Brussels process, which was started by the Brussels agreement of 1984, was an attempt to develop practical co-operation. However, in our judgment, the process became ensnared in fruitless discussions about sovereignty, and we believe that it is time for the agenda to move on. We therefore propose a new process of regular dialogue on all of the many areas in which agreements and co-operation could yield substantial and beneficial results. In that context, some of the views that have been expressed in Spain and Gibraltar, especially by Rafael Estrella and Peter Caruana, are constructive, helpful and enlightened.
120WH
Our report recommended putting the issue of sovereignty to one side and concentrating on co-operation and on the need to make progress where that is possible. That is surely the only sensible way forward. A banner that was displayed at La Linea last year stated: "Fewer restrictions, more solutions". That is what happened in April's agreement, when a breakthrough was achieved on European Union matters.
A new governor is now in place in Gibraltar. Peter Caruana received further endorsement in the elections that were held in February, and the Spanish elections have similarly consolidated the position of the Spanish Government of Mr. Aznar. Mr. Josep Piqué is the new Spanish Foreign Minister.
However, I do not pretend that everything is rosy. There are unwarranted delays at the border. I believe that now is a propitious time to move forward, and that we should use the limited agreement in April, however welcome it was, as a platform for further advance.
I shall not go through the helpful memorandum in detail—
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman said that a new Government have been re-elected in Spain and that a new Foreign Minister has been appointed. Would not now be an opportune time to press the approach that the hon. Gentleman described because there is every chance that it will be favourably received?
Mr. Anderson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's very wise words will be well received by our Government—I look forward to the Minister's reply—and by the Spanish Government.
The report contains detailed analyses of delays at the border. Obviously, the fact that customs officials operate at the border means that some checking is necessary, but the delays are still being manipulated for political purposes. They can be turned on and off like a tap, irrespective of the amount of traffic—
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Depending on which British Minister is visiting.
Mr. Anderson: Indeed, yes. It is done for quite extraneous reasons. It is wholly unacceptable behaviour by the Spanish Government, and in the new spirit of the April 1999 agreements, something should be done about it.
The only other area in which we hope for progress relates to the delays in telephone operations mentioned on page 6 of the memorandum. In our paragraph 67, we recommended that
the Government take all steps open to it under the Treaties to ensure that a determination is made by the European Commission with no further delay in the case of telephone operations.
The Gibraltar Government responded as follows:
The Gibraltar Government agrees. The situation is now very critical. Gibraltar has run out of numbers for mobile telephones (with a waiting list of 200) and has only sufficient fixed line numbers until the end of this year. This means that Gibraltar cannot comply with its obligations under the telecommunication liberalisation regulations since there are no numbers available for new operators.

121WH
The Spanish Government's refusal to recognise Gibraltar's 350 code is a breach of its obligations under Community Law…There is no indication that the European Commission is prepared to commence formal legal proceedings against the Spanish Government…The Gibraltar Government cannot agree that this issue should be dealt with in a manner which subjects the enforcement of the EU Rights of Gibraltar citizens and companies to a process of bilateral political negotiation between the UK and Spain.
I have not discussed this further matter with the Committee, but I anticipate that there will be total endorsement of the Gibraltar Government's view.
We recognise that much helpful progress has been made, that there is a new spirit of co-operation, and a new platform on which we can build. However, some of the matters that need to be dealt with, such as the telephone question, are critical and urgent while others, including the border delays, are still clearly being manipulated for political purposes.
I hope that the Minister will give the Chamber some assurances on those matters. There are still areas in which the European Commission is trying to avoid taking a decision on matters that are properly its responsibility. I hope that the Minister will also address the question of when we can expect the legislation to extend the European franchise to residents of Gibraltar. I cannot speak for colleagues from other parties, but I would hope that this would be a consensual matter in the House, and that the passage of such legislation could be facilitated in such a way as to avoid falling foul of any pre-election problems.
Mr. Christopher Gill: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that when this matter came before the House some time ago, some of us were very keen that the franchise should be extended and amendments were tabled accordingly, only to be struck down by his Government?
Mr. Anderson: It is not my purpose to find fault with one or other Government. There has been substantial progress, but there remain many problems and this is one of them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a close interest in Gibraltar over the years, will try to ensure that there is no opposition or blockage from any part of the House over which he has some little control.
I hope also that the Minister will confirm the Committee's view that moves towards greater self-government under the Crown in Gibraltar—if that becomes the proposal of the House of Assembly Select Committee currently examining the Gibraltarian constitution—will not be contrary to the treaty of Utrecht. In our view, such a course will not amount to alienation of Gibraltar from the Crown referred to in article 10 of the Utrecht treaty.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report has been a constructive contribution and has helped to encourage people of good will on both sides of the Spain-Gibraltar border to work towards happy co-existence in a historic and beautiful corner of the European Union. The report has been overtaken, in part, but the moves in April are most welcome.
I have one final point. People sometimes ask, "What is the use of Select Committees? Do they have any influence?" In future, I shall answer with one word:
122WH
"Gibraltar". It is not showing too much self-esteem on our part to say that the report made a constructive contribution to the debate, on behalf of Gibraltar and in the interests of promoting better relations between this country and Spain.
2.50 pm
Sir John Stanley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in speaking to a report that was, as he said, unanimously agreed. The tone of the report was both reasonable and firm in its protection of essential Gibraltarian interests. The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of issues on which there has been progress, but I want to speak about three important issues on which practical progress to date has been zero.
First, there is the issue of frontier delays. Like other hon. Members, I was struck by the Foreign Secretary's announcement, made in a written answer on 19 April. I welcome the progress to which he referred, but, as hon. Members will know, frontier delays were not among the items covered in the announcement. Although the Foreign Secretary was singularly upbeat in his announcement, frontier delay is still a serious issue. The Foreign Secretary said that the discussions that had taken place had produced
a very good outcome for the UK, for Gibraltar and for all our EU partners.
He also said that he hoped that they would
help to improve the climate of dialogue and the spirit of co-operation with regard to Gibraltar between Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar—[Official Report, 19 April 2000: Vol. 348, c. 499W.]
In practical terms, there is no evidence whatever that there is an improvement in the "climate of dialogue" or the "spirit of co-operation" with regard to the frontier delays.
We can see minutely whether progress is being made in this area. The Gibraltar Government keep day-by-day records of the average length of the delays for vehicles exiting Gibraltar. The delays are deliberately contrived by Spanish officials and Spanish Ministers have ultimate responsibility for them. Table B of the Gibraltar Government document shows that the average delay time on 19 April—the day on which the Foreign Secretary made his statement about the new spirit of co-operation—was 52 minutes. On 30 May—the latest date we have—the average time was 51 minutes. I was curious about whether there had been a dramatic improvement before our debate, so I spoke to the Chief Minister's office this morning. I was given figures for the past few days, including yesterday—7 June. The delay is still 51 minutes. So, despite the talk of a new spirit of co-operation, all that has been achieved since 19 April is an improvement of one minute in the average delay time on the border. That is not good enough.
One must ask whether the Government's response is good enough. The final part of the Government's response states:
We note the Committee's recommendation that the Government take action under Article 227 of the EC Treaty should the Commission itself fail to take swift action. Ministers have already raised the issue of border delays with the incoming Commission, and will keep the situation under review.
I do not think that keeping the situation under review is anything like good enough. Something much more specific and positive must be done. The Select

123WH
Committee made it clear in its report that, ultimately, if the Commission is unwilling to take action under article 226, individual EU member states have the right, under article 227, to take action themselves against an individual member state. In view of the clear evidence that the Commission has failed to take swift action, which was the benchmark that the Government used in their response, why have the Government not so far initiated proceedings under article 227? When, while these intolerable delays continue, will they do so?
The second issue that I wish to raise, where again, regrettably, there has been no progress, is the use of Gibraltar for NATO defence purposes. A long-standing incongruous geographical feature of the NATO alliance is that at the eastern end of the Mediterranean two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, treat each other as potential belligerents and at the western end, another NATO ally, Spain, treats a fellow NATO ally, Britain, in a Gibraltar context at least, as a military leper, with whom contact should be avoided. That is a serious issue.
I want to look in detail at the Government's response on this point. It is a three sentence response and I shall take each in turn. The first is:
The Government continue to believe that the Spanish imposition of restrictions intended to hamper NATO military activity in and around Gibraltar is an inappropriate approach for a NATO ally.
I fully signed up to the Foreign Affairs Committee's view that we should avoid bombastic terminology and megaphone diplomacy, but that goes far too far in the opposite direction. One member of a serious military alliance is deliberately hampering the agreed military activities of another. Surely wording rather stronger than "an inappropriate approach" would have been justified. The Foreign Office should reflect on the impact such wording has in Madrid when the Spanish Government see that all the British Government are prepared to say in our own Parliament and to our own Foreign Affairs Select Committee is that their activities in deliberately hampering NATO operations and activities are "an inappropriate approach". That does not remotely convey the right message to them.
The second sentence is:
The Government intend to continue bilateral discussions with Spain aimed at maintaining progress towards the lifting of all restrictions, particularly in the light of Spain's recent joining of the NATO Military Structure.
The Government missed a significant moment in permitting Spain to enter the integrated military structure of NATO on 1 March 1999 without resolving that issue or obtaining assurances from the Spanish Government that they would discontinue such hampering of NATO activities. That should have been a major issue in the negotiations, but it appears that it was let slip.
People may say that the previous Conservative Government let Spain into the political structure of NATO in 1982 and did not finally resolve the issue. That is a fair point. Although I was not in the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office then, I remind hon. Members that we had to take into account Spain's important strategic position and the fact that we were still involved in the cold war. It was reasonably seen as
124WH
desirable to get Spain into NATO at almost any price. However, we were in a fundamentally different position in 1999. An important window of opportunity was lost when we let Spain into the integrated military structure without obtaining copper-bottomed assurances that such hampering of NATO's activities in Gibraltar would stop.
The third and final sentence of the Government's response was clearly designed to try to score brownie points with the Committee, which took a strong line on the issue. The Government said:
A move towards normalisation of the relationship between two NATO allies was demonstrated recently when Spain took part for the first time in a NATO communications exercise in which Gibraltar also participated.
I welcome the fact that Spain participated with Gibraltar in a NATO communications exercise, but on the other side of the scale, the Gibraltar Government have said:
Far from doing what the Committee's conclusion and recommendation would expect from her, Spain is actually actively discouraging other NATO countries from visiting Gibraltar with their military ships and airplanes.
That is a more serious downside than the small plus of the communications exercise to which the Government's response refers. My concern is that we are moving backwards and enabling Spain to hamper NATO operations and exercises involving not only British military assets, but those of our NATO allies. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response on that.
The last recommendation on which we have not achieved practical progress concerns the right of Gibraltarians to vote in European elections, to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East referred. Although the Government have seriously failed on that issue, the previous Conservative Government failed equally seriously. Both Governments are culpable for denying Gibraltarians the ability to vote in European elections.
I was delighted that Denise Matthews won her case in the European Court of Human Rights last year, although it is a sad day for the mother of Parliaments when a British citizen must go to that court to establish her right to vote in our democracy. The Government's response makes all the right noises, but does not make a clear binding commitment that Gibraltarians will have their right to vote in the 2004 European elections.
I have just two questions. The Secretary of State's response says:
The Government are working hard to ensure that this extension of the franchise to Gibraltar is achieved before the 2004 elections.
However, the evidence of years and years shows that hard work is not sufficient to achieve success when the Spanish Government dig their toes in on an issue. The Foreign Affairs Committee anticipated that there might be difficulties in implementing the decision that has been made in the European Court and in getting that through the European Union bureaucratic thicket in Brussels. Therefore, in paragraph 92 of its report, the Committee put to the Government a fallback position, in the event of continuing Spanish obstruction:
If there is evidence of Spanish obstruction, we believe that it will be possible—and desirable—for the United Kingdom to act unilaterally, at least as a stop-gap. This could be done by amending British law to allow British citizens resident in Gibraltar

125WH
to register to vote in European constituencies in a similar manner to the extension of the franchise in domestic and EP elections to British citizens resident abroad under the Representation of the People Act 1985.
The Government's response is silent on the use of that unilateral legislative power. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government, if they cannot have their way in Brussels, will discharge their democratic obligations to the people of Gibraltar and implement the unilateral legislative solution that the Foreign Affairs Committee recommended?
The last question arises from the Gibraltarian Government's paper, which says:
Spain has recently informed the EC General Council that it will not agree to Gibraltarians voting in Gibraltar and offering them the opportunity to vote in Spain.
I hope that the Minister will dispose of all the diplomatic language with which his brief and the Government's response are stuffed, and make it absolutely clear that the British Government are adamant that the people of Gibraltar voting in the European elections for the first time in 2004 will vote in one place only—Gibraltar.
3.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I welcome this debate and I am pleased to see so many colleagues from across the political spectrum who, like me, have enjoyed the Gibraltar national day and the hospitality and friendship of the Government and people of Gibraltar and their House of Assembly. I hope that we can replicate this debate annually, at least. Ideally, we ought to have a debate each part-Session. We are focusing on the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but we need to take account of many other issues, including the Government's stewardship, the role of the governor, chief constable and chief justice, all of whom are appointed by Whitehall. Westminster has a duty and an obligation to deal with those issues, but perhaps we can do so on another occasion.
I should like to comment on the Select Committee report. It is fair to acknowledge that much has been achieved since it was published. We should recognise, for example, the purchase of a fast patrol boat, which resulted from financial collaboration between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Gibraltar. The fourth and seventh Euro-directives have been placed on the statute book and problems relating to driving licences have been resolved. The competent financial authorities of Gibraltar have been facilitated by a "post box" system via London. We are also pleased to know that there are currently no fisheries disputes.
What is the kernel of the debate, and why is the Minister in the dock? I hesitate to use that phrase, but I shall justify it in a few moments. Paragraph 125 of the report states:
We conclude that there have been occasions in the past when the British defence of Gibraltarian interests has not been as robust as it should have been. Of all our overseas territories, Gibraltar is in the unique position of having to conform to almost all EU regulations and directives. This means that the British Government have a special duty of care towards Gibraltar in the European Union, and places extra responsibilities upon United Kingdom Ministers to uphold the interests of Gibraltar. We urge Her Majesty's Government both to recognise and to act in full accordance with these responsibilities.
The Government responded by saying:
126WH
The Committee does not cite any occasions when the defence of Gibraltar's interest has not been robust… This Government would reject the claim that it has ever been less than robust in its defence of the interests of the people of Gibraltar, and is encouraged that a full and diligent inquiry by the Committee does not produce any such example.
Whoever penned that has not addressed himself to the contents of the report. Colleagues have already cited examples such as problems at the border. As we sit here this afternoon, the people of Gibraltar and other UK citizens face indefensible frustrations at the border. In extremis, flights headed for Gibraltar were recently unable to use the Spanish airport and were diverted to north Africa. Telephone facilities are another problem, and because of the tardiness of the European Commission and the Spanish Government in resolving it, the Gibraltar Government have been embarrassed commercially and are unable to fulfil other obligations. The franchise to the European Parliament is another major issue.
Will the Minister amplify on his discussions with Madrid? It was reported that he was somewhat pleased about the reduction of the waiting time at the border. He clearly understands that hon. Members regard the existing average waiting time as wholly unacceptable, and I want to know if there is a disagreement between him and us on that matter. If the Minister shares our view that it remains unacceptable, what is he going to do about it? Parliament is entitled to know.
In parliamentary replies, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said that they are continuing to pursue the matter in Europe. Yet the Gibraltar Chronicle reported on 29 November last year that the European Commissioner had said that it was not a matter for him, but should be sorted out bilaterally. The Minister must tell us whether it is a bilateral matter or should be dealt with by the European Commissioner. Can he give us an assurance that the European Commissioner is pursuing the matter with vigour?
On aviation, I should like the Minister to respond to paragraph 2 on pages 3 and 4 of the unpublished memorandum submitted by the Gibraltar Government. It states:
On 3 May this year, a scheduled civilian flight carrying 90 passengers was unable to land at Gibraltar due to poor visibility and after circling for 20 minutes requested on three occasions to divert to Malaga airport. This was refused on grounds that the aircraft had made no attempt to land at Gibraltar. The aircraft was therefore forced to divert to Tangier.
I do not want to sound like a long-playing gramophone record, but what are the Government doing about that?
My colleagues have dealt with the issues of NATO and telephones, but there is one other item on our list that has yet to be covered. We recommended that, as a matter of common sense and courtesy, the Chief Minister should have access to the Prime Minister. However, the Government's response has been rather mean, which simply is not good enough. We should remember that the people of Gibraltar are not represented in this place. We trespassed on that issue in our report and suggested that reform of the other place might facilitate representation. The Government said that we should await Wakeham, but Wakeham failed to comment, so we need to revisit the issue.
Because the people of Gibraltar are not represented in this place, their representatives in the House of Assembly should have greater access to the Prime

127WH
Minister who, ultimately, is their Prime Minister. We should remember that if the United Kingdom were to go to war, Gibraltar and the other overseas territories would not be able to pass a resolution stating, "If you don't mind awfully, we'll sit this one out." They are locked in to our decisions here, and we must recognise that this place is also their legislature.
I am extremely angered by the issue of the franchise for European elections. Originally, Her Majesty's Government were peddling the story that it is not possible to extend the franchise. The Committee stage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill was taken on the Floor of the House, and amendments were tabled not only by me but the Conservative Opposition. The Opposition experienced a Pauline conversion on the matter. Nevertheless, they sought to ensure that there were votes for Gibraltarians in European elections. During the debate, I said:
Reference has been made to arguments advanced in another place by Baroness Symons—
the former Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—
that, somehow, there is an impediment to altering the law without unanimity among EU member states. That is simply wrong in law. It is nonsense, but it is indicative of the kind of stuff that is peddled at an official level in the Foreign Office. Even if I am wrong, it is up to the British Government to challenge such a premise. I am quite confident—I say this with as much humility as I can muster—
[Laughter.]wait for it—
that I happen to be right, and that the Foreign Office is wrong.—[Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 196.]
The Foreign Office was wrong, and I was vindicated. The European Court concluded that the Foreign Office's expensive lawyers had got it wrong and that the hon. Member for Thurrock had got it right.
There is a lesson to be learned here. The same people are still advising Ministers. They have now altered the story and tried to rewrite history. The Minister will say, "Hon. Members and Madam Deputy Speaker, we want to extend the franchise, but we need the agreement of Spain and the European Union." I shall tell the Minister—and I shall quote this on future occasions—that he and his advisers are once again wrong. However, I cannot help but feel that the Foreign Office has displayed a wilful ignorance in this matter. It is unacceptable that it is even deemed to be a matter of competence for the European Union or a foreign Government to decide who or what should be our franchise.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—who I know hopes to catch your eye later on, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I are at different poles on the question of the European Union, but on this matter I wholeheartedly agree with him: it is our exclusive competence to decide who is on our electoral register. We should at least put enabling legislation on the statute book now, so that we do not have to come to Parliament after an agreement, perhaps at the 11th hour.
To underline the poverty of legal advice given to Ministers on this matter I shall quote my hon. Friend the then Minister of State's words in responding to me on 24 February 1998. She said:
128WH
As I have said, there are differences between the status of Gibraltar in the European Union and, for example, the status of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. However, for the purposes of the EU parliamentary elections, it is clear that they have the same status. That is the legal position. If that position were to be changed, it would require a proposal from the European Parliament, and a unanimous decision in Council followed by ratification by all member states. I am sure that the formidable political obstacles that would be encountered by that course of action are more than evident to the Committee.—[official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 608.]
My hon. Friend was proved to be wrong, and I hope that the Government will now have the humility to recognise that, particularly as the Labour Government have an obligation to ensure that the franchise is extended to these people. After all, the people of Martinique and Reunion in the Indian Ocean can vote in the European elections, but our own folk in Gibraltar, to whom we owe so much, are denied that opportunity.
I am sorry to have laboured the point, but it demonstrates that the humility should not be with me but with those on the Government Front Bench, who have repeatedly taken advice given by Home Office officials that, time and time again, has been shown to be flawed and morally wrong.
3.22 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I should say at the outset that I am not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I have read its report with great interest and I congratulate the Chairman and all members of the Committee. The report was interesting and frank. Members of the Committee put clearly to the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), their views on a wide range of issues, which were also evident in their discussions with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana.
Like many other hon. Members I have visited Gibraltar on numerous occasions. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and I went to national day in Gibraltar. It was a moving occasion. I was last there last year, when I led a delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, which was being held there. While there, we heard the views of the Chief Minister, of politicians and of business people, but, above all, we heard the views of the men and women of Gibraltar, and there was no doubt about what is and is not acceptable to them and their country.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that, as other hon. Members have said—and this emerged clearly in the Select Committee report—the views of the Government are not those of the people of Gibraltar. In the elegant presentation of his views, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made it clear that the Government to whom many of us in this Room are proud to belong, sadly, often get it wrong. They get it wrong in Gibraltar and they get it wrong in many other parts of the world that have close links to us through their membership of the Commonwealth. They get it wrong repeatedly. I hope that, as my hon. Friend has said, we will make known to Spain the views not of the British Government, who often put their views forward, but of the people of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.

129WH
The on-going problems that, sadly, Gibraltar faces at the border, where there are many delays in traffic movement, were mentioned earlier. When the CPA delegation was there for a week, we watched, day by day, what was happening. Spain deliberately caused the delays to inconvenience Gibraltar and to disrupt its economy and tourism trade. The Spanish have not suggested that they have other reasons for causing the delays.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) dismissed out of hand some of the accusations that the Spanish Government make against Gibraltar, and our Government should do the same. Neither I nor any other hon. Member is in any doubt about the fact that the Spanish Government's accusations are totally unacceptable to the people of Gibraltar.
There was a vote on the sovereignty of Gibraltar in the 1967 referendum and it is worth spelling out the result. A total of 12,138 people voted to remain linked to the United Kingdom and 44 voted for Spanish control of Gibraltar.
The British Government might say to the Chief Minister, "The 1967 vote took place a long time ago, and the matter should be retested. Let's have another referendum to test the views of the people of Gibraltar by December this year." If they said that, does any hon. Member believe that there would be any change from the 1967 voting figures? I do not, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister does not either.
Many hon. Members have many political interests in Parliament, and I happen to chair the all-party group on the Argentine. The Argentines are hell-bent on trying to take over the Falkland Islands. What do the Government, and what did the previous Government, say repeatedly to the Government of Argentina? They said, "There are things that we will talk to you about, and we want co-operation between our two countries, but we will not enter into a discussion about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands."
I recently hosted a visit that was made by the newly elected Vice President of Argentina. He met various Members of Parliament, and we discussed many things, but there was one matter that we did not discuss—the British Government had made it very clear to the Government of Argentina that sovereignty was not for discussion. I hope that something as forceful as what was repeatedly said to the Government of Argentina will be said to Spain—it is, I believe, our duty to do so.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the Government's propensity to consult the people about many aspects of political life, it is somewhat strange that they are reluctant to consult the people of Gibraltar? Would he recommend that such a consultation should now take place?
Mr. Cox: I note what the hon. Lady has said, and shall deal with that point in a moment.
Paragraph 104 of the report contains two key aspects, one of which I fully support and of one of which I am deeply critical. I support the proposal for the representation of Gibraltar in the House of Lords, which deserves serious consideration. I hope that the
130WH
Minister will not say, "We are sympathetic to that, but we would have to consult the Spanish Government before we could put it in place." Sadly, that is often the tenor of the Government's actions in any dealings concerning Gibraltar. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, if it is the wish of hon. Members that there should be a Gibraltarian representative in the reformed second Chamber, that decision should be taken by the British Parliament.
The aspect of which I am highly critical—this may answer the intervention by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)—is the fact that no meetings between the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the Prime Minister take place prior to meetings between the Spanish Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. According to the report, the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, said that she
spoke regularly with the Chief Minister, and reported on these discussions to the Prime Minister.
That is totally unacceptable. It is an utter discourtesy to the people and to the elected Government of Gibraltar that the British Prime Minister—any Prime Minister, not just the present one—does not meet the elected Chief Minister of Gibraltar before he meets the Spanish Prime Minister for discussions about Gibraltar. Those meetings do not happen often so it would not place enormous pressure on the Prime Minister to do so. When a meeting of such great importance is to take place, and we know that issues concerning Gibraltar will be on the agenda, Gibraltar has a right to ensure that its Chief Minister meets the Prime Minister to discuss those issues.
The next European elections have been mentioned. Comment 13 of the Government response states:
The Government are working hard to ensure that this extension of the franchise to Gibraltar is achieved before the 2004 European elections.
The language should be much tougher than that. Those elections are in June 2004—some four years hence. Are we being told that, between now and June 2004, we are not capable of ensuring—as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said in his forceful speech—that those people will have a right to vote where they want to vote? We know where they want to vote, and the Government should take the necessary action.
My final point concerns the airport. The report and the Government's response discuss the airport's potential for future development, which none of us disputes. However, the action that Spain takes towards flights into Gibraltar is totally unacceptable. I can give an example. I chair the CPA sub-committee that is now preparing for the CPA 2000 conference, which will take place in London and Edinburgh in September. The CPA executive committee held its meeting in Gibraltar on 9–15 April this year to discuss the agenda for this year's conference. Several members of the executive planned to fly into Gibraltar airport, but high winds meant that the aircraft could not land there. They sought permission to land at a Spanish airfield, but it was refused, so they had to fly to Morocco. That is unacceptable. Can the Minister give an assurance that any discussion about the airport will not be a matter solely for the Spanish and

131WH
British Governments? Any changes regarding the airport must take place only with the full and total consent of the people and Government of Gibraltar. We have a duty to make such points in our debate. If we did not, we would fail in our duty, in the light of the Select Committee report.
The Select Committee did a first-class job. The report shows the commitment of many Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, to Gibraltar and its people. That is how it should be. None of us should forget the role that Gibraltar played in the last war. Gibraltar is a Commonwealth country, and I and other hon. Members who are deeply committed to the Commonwealth see us as all being equal. It does not matter whether we live in a big Commonwealth country or a small one. The people of Gibraltar have a right to our support when they need it, and there are many current issues on which they need it. It is the British Government's duty to give them that support and to enter into proper consultation with them. Above all, they should make known to the Spanish Government the views of the Gibraltarian people, which, I regret to say, the British Government often fail to reflect.
3.37 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: It is somewhat disconcerting to take part in a debate where all hon. Members are united in their views on the subject. Everyone who has spoken so far has referred to the issue of votes for Gibraltarians.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) rightly drew our attention to the debates that we had in the House. At that time, many of us were anxious that Gibraltarians be given the vote for the previous European elections, not just the next ones. We felt that there was no impediment to that, and I remember putting to Ministers the same evidence that Michael Llamas, a barrister in Gibraltar, put to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Denise Matthews. I considered that evidence to be entirely coherent and sensible, and hon. Members know that it carried the day, for the court found in favour of Denise Matthews. The Government must do something to correct the situation.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said, when the Government say that they are working hard on a solution, we begin to wonder who is running the show. It should not be a problem for the Government. They can do anything that they want, provided they have the determination. What is lacking is the political will to get on and do it quickly and give Gibraltarians the satisfaction of knowing that their views are represented properly and seriously in Parliament.
Hon. Members have referred to visits to Gibraltar on national day and I, too, have visited Gibraltar on national day. It is a most extraordinary experience. Where else in the world would we, as Members of Parliament, stand in front of 10,000 people who apparently hang on our every word? I was left in no doubt about their feelings about their country's future, which were expressed in a dramatic way and with obvious enthusiasm and with no apparent dissenting
132WH
voices. The hon Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to the referendum in 1967, in which only 44 people voted against Gibraltar remaining British and it is true that Gibraltarians want to remain British.
The other theme that has run through today's debate is border delays. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling rightly said, the delays are contrived; a point that was reinforced by the comments of the hon. Member for Tooting. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding us that delays are consistently of the order of 50 minutes. We have been reassured that the situation is under review, but I ask the Minister to confirm or deny that, when recently addressing an audience in Spain—it might have been in discussions with Ministers—he expressed the view that delays of an hour are acceptable. If the Minister did not say that, I am sure that he will tell us.
To my mind, such a delay is totally unacceptable, as are delays of 50 minutes. Those of us who know Gibraltar—I would imagine that we all do—see no reason for delays of more than a few moments, particularly given that, at certain times of the day, no one is waiting to cross the frontier. Nevertheless, delays are consistently contrived in an unreasonable way, regardless of the time and the press of people who want to cross the frontier.
Reference has been made to the part that Gibraltar has played in our history, not least during the second world war. We must consider the importance to this country of Gibraltar's strategic position and its potential as a strategic staging post for peacekeeping forces. The western community takes our forces to many parts of the world and many naval forces and air forces call in at Gibraltar, which is often 1,000 miles closer to the threat than the home bases. Our aircraft carrier force is now significantly reduced, and Gibraltar constitutes a static aircraft carrier at the entrance to the Mediterranean. In the light of the threats that we are now encountering, it also represents an important staging post for all warships and warplanes. There is no doubt that, when a naval task force was sent to the Adriatic or, more recently, to west Africa, Gibraltar proved a very important asset. That must never be forgotten.
When the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) introduced the debate, he said that the Matutes proposals must eventually be rejected. I question the use of the word "eventually". Many of us here this afternoon feel that the Matutes proposals should be rejected out of hand now. It is not acceptable for the proposals to hang like a sword of Damocles over Gibraltar when they should be struck out and we should proceed on a sounder basis.
One point that has not been raised in the debate is the question of cruise ships calling at Gibraltar. Perhaps the Minister can give us some up-to-date information on that. Cruise ships are becoming an important source of revenue to Gibraltar, which has been extremely successful in diversifying its economy since the time, not so long ago, when it was almost entirely dependent on the armed forces. Their contribution is comparatively tiny now.
In the meantime, the Gibraltarians, to their great credit, have diversified into financial services, and other areas. The same problems apply to cruise ships as apply

133WH
to naval forces. Spain puts restrictions on where they can have called before calling at Gibraltar and where they may call when they leave. That makes it much more difficult for Gibraltar to attract cruise liners to their harbour. The cruise line agents will choose ports on either side of the straits of Gibraltar. This is a serious problem. The Gibraltarians have been successful so far in generating a reasonable amount of cruise business, but just think how much more that could be if these restrictions did not exist.
In relation to another limitation on the diversification that is so important to Gibraltar's economic prosperity, I must repeat the plea made by other right hon. and hon. Members; there must be an early resolution of the question of telephones. Businesses cannot operate today without adequate communications. The stranglehold that Spain is apparently imposing is totally unacceptable. Spain is our ally in NATO and our partner in the EU. It is time that we told Spain in no uncertain fashion how many beans make five. We should not be prepared to take no for an answer, as we have appeared to be in the past.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I come back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. What did we get from Spain in exchange for allowing it to join the integrated command structure in NATO? We appear to have received absolutely nothing. Spain undoubtedly wanted to join the command structure and as we all know, as a consequence, the NATO flag has been hauled down in Gibraltar. That must have pleased Spain, for reasons that the Spanish understand better than I do. I am sure that it gave them some satisfaction. But what did we achieve in return for granting them membership of the integrated command structure? Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will not be such a soft touch in any future negotiations?
3.49 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I have been to Gibraltar only once and that was as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I came to the matters covered in the report totally green and without preconceptions. I should like to offer to colleagues and to people outside the Chamber a few brief observations.
The first is the powerful sense of community identity in Gibraltar. People there truly feel a sense of community and that must be fundamental to our thinking and consideration at either ministerial or parliamentary level. The second is a robust internal democracy, which has allowed full debate on the whole panoply of democratic issues in a small community.
I do not want to go over ground covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), who made a typically forceful contribution in analysing the changes of the past 12 months and the absence of progress on key issues. I shall therefore not cover European election or NATO issues.
The report is not simplistic, populist or instinctive, but well reasoned. Furthermore, a consensus on issues such as this is precious, so Ministers should take it seriously. Not all contributions so far have sufficiently
134WH
recognised the Government's success and achievements over the past 12 months in key respects that were a serious source of concern 12 months ago. I recall getting bogged down in the detail of issues such as the functioning of Gibraltar within the single market, postboxing, justice and home affairs in the context of the Schengen agreement and so forth. Those are meaty parts of our report.
To make a gentle criticism of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, who concentrated on key points where progress had not been made, we should properly acknowledge that the Government's patient diplomacy and the creation of political relationships with their Spanish opposite numbers has achieved considerable progress. Many concerns—about financial services and Gibraltar suffering from the negative elements of belonging to the European Union without reaping the benefits—have begun to be worked through and resolved. Real progress has been made, particularly regarding Schengen and issues of justice and home affairs.
The work done by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in developing contacts and warm relationships with Spanish opposite numbers is an important contribution to British-Spanish relationships and to relationships in Europe. However, that must never occur at the expense of Gibraltar's interests. We are right to remain vigilant about that and to act as a democratic watchdog over the development of British-Spanish relationships, which must never sacrifice key Gibraltar interests. I supported the report's use of the term "special duty of care" regarding Gibraltar, particularly in the context of the European Union but, in any case, because it remains a dependent territory. It is not an independent state, so we have a special and particular responsibility for it.
Before I move on to border issues, will my hon. Friend explain another change that has occurred over the past 12 months and which has not been mentioned in any speech today? I refer to the interesting change of appointment of the governor. I make no criticisms of the new governor, though it is a change not just of personnel, but of policy or approach. The previous governor was a high-profile political appointment. Richard Luce and I had some great debates and arguments over the years, but it was nevertheless a clear decision of the Government of the day to make a political appointment because they considered that the status of the governor in that context was a matter of high politics. I do not impugn in any way the ability of the new governor, who I am sure is very competent, but the decision to change the character of the post requires explanation. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up he will explain the thinking behind the change.
I do not come to this debate with any hostile views about British-Spanish relationships, or with any gung-ho or chauvinistic instincts about Gibraltar, Britain and Spain. I make my final observations more in sorrow than in anger. The way in which the Spanish authorities treat people at the border is a disgrace and is utterly unacceptable. Sadly, the problem is not just the inconvenience or the frustration for people, but the abuse of administrative power and bureaucracy for a political purpose. That is the serious point.

135WH
I shall choose my words carefully here. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, were in the House when Greece, Spain and Portugal were military dictatorships. The wonderful transformation of three autocratic societies into powerful modern democracies has taken place in our parliamentary lifetime. It is therefore extremely worrying to see such behaviour that is more about the old autocracy than the new democracy. Administrative and bureaucratic procedures are being used, about which citizens have no apparent rights of redress. Imagine if our Customs and Excise behaved in that way. The matter would immediately go before the parliamentary ombudsman. There would be questions in the House. There would be that instinctive, natural response in a representative democracy to deal with an abuse of citizens.
Along with other members of the Select Committee, I witnessed that petty bureaucratic behaviour. It was obviously being condoned. It was not being stopped. These were not the arbitrary actions of a couple of overzealous officers who were feeling liverish that day. It was a consistent approach. The evidence provided by the Gibraltar Government shows that it is clearly and methodically organised.
The adjustments in the time delays are a sad indication that this is not a local initiative but a considered administrative decision that is undemocratic and anti-democratic. One of the saddest aspects is that in Spain—a now-thriving democracy—no representatives stand up in the Cortez to condemn the nonsense that is taking place on the border. Many Spanish citizens suffer this bureaucratic abuse.
We cannot allow these issues to go on and on. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling reminded us of the Select Committee's proposal concerning article 277. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked whether the Commission had responsibility. Of course it has; it has a fundamental responsibility. The centrepiece of the European Union is the freedom of movement. The obstruction of that freedom of movement is a blatant administrative and bureaucratic issue. The Commission certainly has responsibility, but so do Ministers.
It was with some concern, therefore, that I read the memorandum from the FCO, dated 22 May. Paragraph 12 states:
Unwarranted delays at the border between Gibraltar and Spain continue, though waiting times for cars have fallen slightly since the Government's last report to the Committee—
4.1 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.16 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Rowlands: I have to put it on record, assuming that the suspension is now over, that I think it is discourteous of the Minister not to be present. My last
136WH
few remarks were to have been personally directed to him, and I wanted him to reply specifically to the points that I am about to raise. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. I hope that the Minister will resume his seat.
Mr. Rowlands: I was about to make my final observations just before the Division bell rang. They were to be directed to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I was about to draw to his attention the memorandum sent to the Select Committee on 22 May in his name. It stated:
Unwarranted delays at the border between Gibraltar and Spain continue, though waiting times for cars have fallen slightly since the Government's last report to the Committee.
There is a difference of one Spanish minute, apparently. The memorandum went on to say:
The Government remain in close touch with the Commission on the issue, and continue to press their concerns on Spain.
That language is wholly inappropriate to the situation that too many citizens of Gibraltar and others are facing. The final sentence states:
Commissioner Vitorino has assured Mr. Vaz that the issue is under active consideration by the Commission.
I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that those words have had the dust blown off them and, apart perhaps from a change in the name of the Commissioner, are identical to those put to us 12 months ago and, no doubt, 12 months before that. They are, therefore, an insufficient response to the situation. Will the Minister tell us what the Commissioner has done? Has he sent formal notes to the Spanish Government, asking for replies within a meaningful time scale? What have Ministers and our people in Madrid done? Have they formally submitted appropriate notes of the kind and character befitting the circumstances that still exist at the border?
I am perhaps rather more tolerant than some other hon. Members. A specific time scale should now be applied to the Commissioner's efforts. If, for example, within a month, there has been no meaningful response from the Spanish authorities to the Commissioner's work, it is the responsibility of Ministers and the Government to activate the article to which our report refers, which was put to my hon. Friend by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. In other words, if the Commission and Her Majesty's Government cannot take appropriate action and receive a proper response from the Spanish authorities in a specific and narrow time scale, the powers available to us under the treaty should be exercised urgently.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister again of what all those who served on the Select Committee agreed to—that Ministers and the House owe a special duty of care to the citizens of Gibraltar.
4.20 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Gibraltar, which is important and timely, but there are concerns about whether Her Majesty's Government will stand firm in their discussions with the Spanish Government over the sovereignty issue. As we know, the Matutes proposals, which would have led to sovereignty of Gibraltar being

137WH
transferred from Britain to Spain, have still not been withdrawn. That should be a major consideration. They should be withdrawn now if Spain wants to prove its worth as a good European partner. That would be a good starting point.
We want to know that the Government will recognise Gibraltar's continued right to self-determination. That is also important, and we need to hear that loud and clear today.
The garrotting of Gibraltar and its economy also concerns me. I cannot think of a better word than garrotting for the slow strangulation of Gibraltar and its people by Spain's bully-boy tactics. I want the Minister to look at the problems of border control. In case he wonders why somebody from Chorley is worried about border controls in Gibraltar, I shall explain. Some constituents of mine visited Gibraltar, enjoyed their day and were coming back across the border. Tragically, there was an incident with a fishing vessel: Spanish fishermen were fishing within Gibraltar's territorial waters. The border was closed. My constituents were trapped in the middle, in neither Gibraltar nor Spain. They were not allowed to go back into Gibraltar or on into Spain. They spent more than 12 hours at the border post. There was no hot food; there was no drinks machine. It was totally unacceptable.
Mrs. Robinson, my constituent, who had tragically lost her husband not long before, was having a holiday to get over that tragic death, and this is how badly she was treated. She asked for help and none was given. The Clayton family, who were with her, gave her support, but to this day we have not had an apology from the Spanish Government. The arrogance of the Spanish ambassador in London was diabolical. Mrs. Robinson and I were given an ignorant reply that said that it was Spain's right to close the border. Thai is not acceptable, nor is it the way to treat European passport holders. I believe that Spain should now apologise and offer compensation to my constituents. The tourism industry is adversely affected when such things are allowed to happen.
I do not know—the Minister will be able to help me—whether Spain's proposal of 50 minutes or an hour has been accepted. It is not acceptable. A maximum of five or 10 minutes is acceptable, and no more. A country such as Spain, which applied to join the European Union and did so, should not breach European law and treat people with European passports in the way that we see day after day. That must be ended.
Some may say that my gunboat diplomacy is not the way forward, but it is not gunboat diplomacy. It is a question of facts and of doing something about it. We have spent too long debating the issue and pussy-footing around with Spain. The time has come to be firm and strong, and to say to Spain, "Please recognise that you are a good European partner. The way to prove that is to accept European law."
Let us see an end to the queues. Obviously, issues of democracy and Europe are involved. We are lucky to be among that luckiest group of people who enjoy democracy. However, everyone should have certain basic rights. It is tragic that a British overseas territory should be denied the democratic right to vote in European elections. We enjoy democracy, and we have preached its benefits around the world. I hope that the
138WH
Minister will ensure that people who are British passport holders have the same right to vote in European elections that we enjoy.
I recognise that time is short. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that people from Gibraltar could be elevated to the House of Lords. Several names spring to mind, but I shall not mention them. France and Spain have no problem offering democracy to their dependencies, and double standards seem to apply in this context. We should end such double standards—they are unacceptable.
The report is helpful because it focuses our minds on the need to make progress. The people of Hong Kong, which was an overseas territory, were let down when we took democracy away from it and gave it back to the Republic of China. Please, let us not do the same with Gibraltar. We should listen to the people of Gibraltar and respect their wishes and views. We let down the people of Hong Kong, but we must not do the same with the people of Gibraltar.
4.27 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I begin by thanking the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for reminding us that Gibraltar provides us with a special duty of care and that Spain has made many unreasonable claims towards Gibraltar which he and his Committee members found to be generally unfounded.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who worked assiduously with other Committee members on the report. He has since passed on the baton of membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee to me. I pay tribute to him for the work that he did—I hope that Committee members recognise that his work made a measured contribution to the Committee's tasks.
I want to discuss some of the speeches that were made today, and I shall begin with the speech that was made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). He set out clearly three salient points, to which I hope the Minister will respond. The first involved the issue of frontier delays. I shall not dwell on that, but it is clear that nothing practical has so far been achieved. A difference of 51 minutes compared with 52 minutes is, frankly, laughable. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman discussed the use of Gibraltar by NATO for defence purposes. He clearly set out the British Government's inadequate response to Spain's efforts to hamper NATO's operations—I believe that he said that we were moving backwards rather than making progress. Thirdly, he said that the right of Gibraltarians to vote in European elections has been a long-running failure on the part of successive British Governments. Many other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon also emphasised that.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made a powerful case about the failure to defend Gibraltar's special interests and to secure its representation in the European Union. He was ably supported in an impassioned manner by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Both hon. Members made us think about the realities of the situation—people are being deprived of basic democratic rights in a part of the world that is sovereign to this country, that

139WH
owes its allegiance to this country and that is owed a duty of care by this country. The relationship works both ways.
I turn to the report. We find ourselves in the strange, if not ludicrous, situation of having to debate a report by the Foreign Affairs Committee a year to the day after its publication. If a week is a long time in politics, surely a year is the better part of a lifetime.
Unsurprisingly, things have moved on. We welcome the agreement that was reached in April, although it made parts of the report somewhat dated, if not redundant. I hope that the Minister recognises that the report informed and guided the Government in their negotiations with Spain and the European Union. It is generally agreed that the negotiations resolved several of the Gibraltar-related issues in the European Union. However, the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Gibraltarian aspiration towards self-determination are part of an exceptionally long-running affair.
It is unreasonable to expect to resolve disputes to the satisfaction of all parties in the short term—and, in some cases, that may never be possible. It is not tenable to argue that the fact that the territory of Gibraltar was achieved by force 300 years ago means that Gibraltar is an irrelevant detail of some distant part of our history. There is a tendency in our culture to reflect on the glories of our earlier conquests with a little too much enthusiasm. Who can blame the Royal Marines, who have a long association with my home county of Hampshire, for proudly bearing the name "Gibraltar" on their battle honours? I believe that that was the first such honour that they gained. It is part of their history that they were in the "van" that scaled the Rock by force of arms around 1700.
It is a fact of history that, in cases without number, the boundaries of nation states have been determined by conflict. In the majority of such cases, those boundaries have stood the test of time and remain intact today. We should make no apology for our history but, now that we are in the 21st century, we must deal with the issues that constrain the well-being and aspirations of the ordinary citizens of Gibraltar.
I am pleased to note that the Government of Gibraltar responded to our report in June—a few days ago—by agreeing to 18 out of our 23 recommendations. The other five recommendations were dealt with, to an extent, in the agreement that the Government announced in April. Those common-sense arrangements are in the interests of Spain, Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and the European Union. That demonstrates that without raising the issue of sovereignty, it is possible to make significant progress. Previous speakers have already pointed out that as Gibraltar's defence role has declined, its role as an offshore financial services centre has increased.
Our debate so far has not highlighted the fact that Gibraltar is the gateway between north Africa and Europe and that it has a vital role to play in the fight against trans-frontier crime in that region. It is in our interests, and those of Spain and the rest of the European Union, to give full support to Gibraltar's commitment to combat the cross-border drugs trade, smuggling and other criminal acts.
140WH
Previous speakers have already referred to the scandal of the restriction of Gibraltar's telephone services. For four years, the Gibraltarian Government have been unable to comply with the European Union telephone liberalisation directives, for three reasons. First, Spain refuses to recognise Gibraltar's international dialling code. Secondly, Spain will not allocate to Gibraltar more than 30,000 numbers in the Spanish telephone system. Thirdly, Spain has prevented Gibraltar's mobile phone network from being granted roaming facilities with Spain. In other words, the Gibraltarian mobile phone network is cut off from the rest of Europe's facility of interchange between the networks.
We know that Gibraltar is an expanding financial centre, the continued growth and development of which is a key aspect of the success of its economy. One of the fundamental necessities of a modern economy based on financial services is robust and expanding access to e-commerce.
The Government are on record as saying that the future of our economy is linked precisely and aggressively with the way in which we develop e-commerce, yet they have done nothing to provide Gibraltar with access to the new economies of the 21st century, despite their awareness of its economy's dependence on that access. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the seriousness of that problem to the Gibraltarians. Without access to modern electronic communications, Gibraltar's economy will be shackled and will face decline in the 21st century.
It is not good enough for the Government to pass the buck to the European Commission, with the matter to be decided as a private complaint. They must not only take all possible steps under the treaties to ensure that a determination is made by the European Commission without further delay, but be proactive in taking all possible steps bilaterally with Spain, so as to ensure that the issue is resolved. There is a major stumbling block to the future economic growth of Gibraltar and consequently to he well-being of Gibraltarian citizens.
Bilateral intergovernmental negotiations are essential, but so are regional level discussions—with the Government of Gibraltar and its agencies and with Seville and its agencies. Their common interests in the development of the region mean that national negotiations must be supplemented by regional dialogue and policy initiatives.
The airport arrangements must be reconsidered. Hon. Members have referred to several incidents highlighting the disgraceful way in which flights into Gibraltar can be hindered by the Spanish authorities. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there has been progress in that respect. The dual mandate plan was rejected, but surely another model can be pursued. For example, the Mulhouse airport arrangements on the Swiss border allow for the sharing of sovereignty.
Gibraltarian representation in the European Parliament remains a major outstanding issue. The Government must admit that they let the Gibraltarians down at Amsterdam. The effective Spanish veto over Gibraltarians' basic human right of representation is not only unfortunate, but unacceptable. The Government must ensure that during any further treaty negotiations, such as at Nice in December, the effects of

141WH
treaty changes on the Gibraltarians must be considered and must be a priority for consultation and agreement. That is not to say that Gibraltar should be an overriding priority and that the British veto should automatically be wielded at the first hint of trouble, but the Government cannot allow Spain to hold all the cards.
We would probably all conclude, rather pessimistically, that constitutional talks on the future of Gibraltar's sovereignty are unlikely to make much progress in the foreseeable future. The positions of the Spanish Government and those of Gibraltar and the UK are too far apart. It is therefore better to take steps to regularise Gibraltar's status in the European Union—and NATO, bearing in mind the points that have been raised today—so that the Gibraltarians are not prejudiced as a result of their historical allegiances in a Europe that is trying hard to turn its back on its fractious past. That must be the Government's objective, to be pursued with diligence and commitment.
During today's debate, right hon. and hon. Members from all parties have expressed their deep frustration, and even anger, at the Government's apparent disinterest in Gibraltar. They seem to regard the matter as a little historical difficulty that is consigned to the margins of current negotiations. That simply will not do.
4.39 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I wholeheartedly welcome the debate and the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). The report pointed up deficiencies in the British Government's current stance towards Gibraltar, and I can only hope that the situation improves.
May I begin by genuinely complimenting all hon. Members who have participated in this afternoon's debate? There have been speeches of real passion and force. I cite in particular the robust speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on NATO and Spanish obligations of membership, and the issue of voting rights. That issue was also discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and—most eloquently—by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
The report concluded that
there have been occasions in the past when the British defence of Gibraltarian interests has not been as robust as it should have been.
I am afraid that the Secretary of State's response to that statement was not encouraging. He said that the Committee had been unable to produce examples of a lack of robustness on the Government's part, yet several such examples are clearly cited in the report. Many have been mentioned this afternoon, and I shall refer to some in my brief remarks.
I, too, welcome the recent Anglo-Spanish agreement, particularly given that its contents were welcomed by the representatives and people of Gibraltar. I also welcome the unblocking of business and the Secretary of State's categorical assurance that the agreement fully upholds Gibraltar's constitutional position. However, the Government of Gibraltar have expressed concern at
142WH
Gibraltar's exclusion from the Schengen information system. As the Chief Minister has made clear, this concern is based less on the practical importance of the system to Gibraltar than the principle that, under pressure from Spain, it should not be excluded against its will from any EU measure. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that principle.
The common thread running through the findings of the report is that the Government must be unequivocal about their commitment to the wishes of Gibraltar's residents. I want to make it clear to the Minister that any equivocation makes it more difficult, not less, to engage in constructive dialogue with Spain, because it encourages the belief that a possible tranche of concessions is in the offing. The objective of British Government policy should be to respond to the wishes of Gibraltarians.
One way in which the Government could demonstrate their good faith in this respect is to reject outright the Matutes proposals on joint sovereignty and, in line with the Committee's recommendation, to do so now. The proposals were tabled in December 1997, but I am told that they remain in the Foreign Secretary's in-tray. Ministers will respond by saying that they will be dealt with at the next meeting of the Brussels process, so I have two questions for the Minister.
First, will he now endorse again Sir Malcolm Rifkind's rejection of the earlier informal joint sovereignty proposals? Secondly, if the Minister still feels that he cannot comment on such a fundamental issue outside the confines of a Brussels process meeting, can he tell the Chamber when the next meeting is due to take place, so that the uncertainty can be ended? Such constitutional issues are not the only ones on which this Government's approach might be described as less than robust.
One year ago, the Select Committee described the delays at the Spanish border as
unacceptable and wholly inappropriate between two parts of the EU.
The on-going delays, as many hon. Members have said, are no less unacceptable 12 months later. If relations are being normalised, why do such delays continue? They inhibit the free movement of people and put Spain in direct breach of its EU obligations. The Foreign Secretary told the Committee that the Government continued to press Spain to act, but the Government's approach does not seem to be having the desired effect.
The Committee urged the Government to initiate proceedings against Spain under article 227 if the Commission was unwilling to take swift action. The then shadow Foreign Secretary supported that call. One year of border delays later, the Government say that the situation is kept under review. Is it not time to do more than simply review? Have discussions on the issue taken place with the new Spanish Foreign Minister? What progress is being made, and why did the recent agreement not refer to action on border delays?
We must consider the crucial issue of the right to vote, for which hon. Members have forcefully expressed support this afternoon. Gibraltarians are the only EU citizens who cannot vote in or stand for European parliamentary elections. In February 1999, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the United Kingdom had violated the European convention

143WH
on that issue. That ruling contrasts with the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which says that Gibraltarians cannot vote as UK citizens in European Parliament elections. Which option will the Government choose? Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that full enfranchisement will be in place by the next European elections in 2004, as the Committee recommends? The overwhelming majority of people in Gibraltar wish to vote in an English constituency. Will the Minister respect their wishes?
I welcome the appointment of my colleagues Lord Bethell, Roy Perry and Dr. Charles Tannock as Gibraltar's representatives in the European Parliament, following a unanimous vote in the Gibraltar legislature. They have tirelessly advocated Gibraltar's interests, like many hon. Members across the party divide.
In the time available, I can touch only briefly on some remaining concerns of Gibraltarians. Other hon. Members have already discussed the issues eloquently. The House will be aware of the Government's U-turn in December 1997 on protecting Gibraltar's interests when discussing the NATO command structure. The Committee said:
We regard it as extraordinary that Spain was allowed to join the integrated military structure of NATO while imposing restrictions on the military movement of one of its partners in the Alliance.
That was a missed negotiating opportunity. What progress is being made to make Spain lift those unwelcome restrictions?
The Committee rightly mentioned future potential in the use of Gibraltar's airport. The Foreign Secretary said that the airport's situation would not change without consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government of Gibraltar would have to consent before any change took place?
Finally, I shall deal with the telephone codes. The Spanish attitude to the 350 code and the mobile network could cause serious long-term damage to the Gibraltarian economy. Does the Minister consider that to be another issue on which action can be taken through the EU to ensure that Spain meets its obligations?
The residents of Gibraltar have expressed concern about the Government's stance on several issues. We debate Gibraltar all too seldom. We have close and sound relations with Spain and the links between our countries are strong and enduring. Spain is a success story, and I applaud the role that it plays so fully in NATO and the European family of nations. However, I trust that the Minister will not issue bland assurances about the vital issue of Gibraltar's future, but will acknowledge and respond to the legitimate concerns of the people of Gibraltar—our friends and fellow Commonwealth members for whom we indeed have a special duty of care.
4.49 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): As this is today's only foreign affairs debate, I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in saying how shocked and saddened we
144WH
were to hear of the death this morning of Brigadier Stephen Saunders and to send his family our deep condolences.
I am pleased to respond to the debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Gibraltar. I know how seriously the Committee takes its responsibilities and I am aware of the depth of interest in Gibraltar, which is borne out by requests for updates to the Government's response to the report and by the continual correspondence that I receive from hon. Members on issues affecting Gibraltar.
I agree with the, hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that we have had an excellent debate and that all who participated spoke with passion and knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that he wants to be remembered for the word "Gibraltar". I thought that he was a Member for Swansea, but he is obviously a Member for Swansea and Gibraltar. We in government will do our best to do justice to the sentiments, emotion, passion and, indeed, logic of what right hon. and hon. Members have said today.
I am privileged to have Gibraltar among my portfolio of countries. I paid my first visit there as the responsible Minister in May this year and held several useful meetings. I had discussions with Mr. Caruana, the Chief Minister of the Government of Gibraltar; with our new governor, David Durie; and with Opposition leaders. I enjoyed walking down the high street and meeting many of Gibraltar's citizens, to whose concerns I listened. I found it a prospering and thriving place.
All right hon. and hon. Members who have visited Gibraltar will know that it is a special place—so special that it can unite, for the first time in my parliamentary lifetime, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). We must obviously cherish the place. Gibraltar has a flourishing people and a flourishing press, especially the excellent Gibraltar Chronicle. The only person I did not meet while I was there was Mr. Albert Poggio, who was in London. There will for ever be a part of Britain that is Gibraltar, in the shape of Mr. Poggio.
As the formal response to the report makes clear, the Government are strongly committed to our relationship with Gibraltar and its people. We view that relationship as a partnership, with all that that implies in terms of responsibilities and obligations. There can be no dilution of the British Government's commitment to Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke with his customary passion. He used the example of his visit to Argentina and his conversations there about the Falkland Islands to argue that our commitment to Gibraltar is less strong than our commitments elsewhere. Let me reassure him and the House that Her Majesty's Government will never—and I mean never—enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes I want to make that absolutely clear.

145WH
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, and that I shall not need to repeat it. That was and remains our view.
Mr. Chidgey: In that case, will the Government reject the Matutes proposals?
Mr. Vaz: I will come on to the Matutes proposals, which many people raised during my visit to Gibraltar and subsequently Spain. We will study the proposals and respond to them. They are part of the Brussels process. However, they must be consistent with the statement that I have just made, which is crystal clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned the referendum in which 44 people voted against remaining linked to the United Kingdom. I am sure that people are still looking for those 44 people. He asked whether I believed that the number voting against would be even lower now. That was an emphatic vote. We can play with statistics, but we cannot argue with them, and those statistics are absolutely clear. In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), we will respond to the proposals when the time is right. When that response is made, the Brussels process will continue, but we shall respond in our own time, considering the situation carefully and consulting constantly.
One feature of the new arrangements was the constant communication between my officials in the Foreign Office, Peter Caruana and the Spanish Government, despite the two elections that intervened. Mr. Caruana won an election in Gibraltar, and Mr. Aznar won an election in Spain. Discussions should take place privately. However, if hon. Members are under any misapprehension, I can reassure them that such matters are discussed all the time. When Mr. Caruana responded on the issue of cruise ships, there was an immediate response from the Foreign Office and an immediate telephone call to Madrid. That process is on-going and important in ensuring that we keep to our responsibilities.
As hon. Members know, the Government are responsible for promoting and upholding Gibraltar's interests in the European Union and other international forums. We have a keen interest in Gibraltar's economic well-being and strongly support its efforts to achieve a diversified and sustainable economy. During my visit, I was pleased to see what the Government are doing, the amount of private sector involvement and the enormous growth in the tourism industry, which is benefiting the people of Gibraltar greatly.
However, it is clear that building a constructive relationship with Spain is an important factor in Gibraltar's well-being. Trust, co-operation and dialogue remain the basis for progress. That is how we managed to achieve so much in our recent discussions. As I said, the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 19 April followed intensive discussions with Gibraltar and Spain. They deal with a range of issues that involve or affect Gibraltar throughout the European Union. The arrangements constitute an import ant package for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and our EU partners. They also show the progress that can be made through quiet diplomacy, dialogue and co-operation.
146WH
We have been helped enormously by input from right hon. and hon. Members who have an interest in Gibraltar and by the report produced by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Hon. Members should be in no doubt about how seriously we view that report and how much it has helped us to achieve our successes.
The arrangements deal with a number of concerns, which found expression in the Committee's report. They resolve the long-standing problems over the designation and role of Gibraltar competent authorities in the European Union. The arrangements mean that the Gibraltar financial services industry can enjoy the benefits of passporting its insurance and banking services into the member states of the European Economic Area. Furthermore, they will make reformatted Gibraltar ID cards acceptable as valid travel documents within the EU. They have led to the adoption by the Home Secretary and his Spanish counterpart of a framework for co-operation between the Spanish and Gibraltarian police and pave the way for the adoption at the May Justice and Home Affairs Council of the United Kingdom's application to join part of the Shengen acquis. Gibraltar will participate in the same elements of the Shengen acquis as the UK, with the exception of the Shengen information system and provisions on cross-border surveillance.
No one has claimed that these arrangements resolve all, or even most, of the outstanding issues affecting Gibraltar within the EU, let alone the bilateral issues between Spain, the UK and Gibraltar. I also know that the apparent lack of movement on border restrictions since the package was announced has caused disappointment and frustration in Gibraltar and in the House, although the border issue itself, did not feature in the talks.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Did my hon. Friend refer to the apparent lack of movement on the border issue?
Mr. Vaz: I will come more fully to the important border issue because many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned it. I am referring to what we discussed and that issue was not included. I have been to the border and I have a sense of what is going on there and I will come to it. I ask my hon. Friend to be patient. The fact that the arrangements do not include any reference to the border problems does not reduce their value. On the contrary, they are a demonstration of the Government's determination to seek solutions to Gibraltar-related problems that protect Gibraltar's interests. I hope that it will be possible to build on the more constructive atmosphere that the arrangements have helped to create. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the role that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar played to help bring about the successful adoption of the arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other hon. Members said that Mr. Caruana has not met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is not true. They were introduced by none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Poggio earlier this year. Obviously that dialogue is important. I have invited Mr. Caruana to come to the UK officially to continue our fruitful and constructive dialogue. He happens to have attended Ratcliffe college, which is just outside my constituency. I have invited him to return to his old school. I also congratulated him on

147WH
taking a lead from our Prime Minister: his son, James Thomas Caruana, was born shortly before I arrived in Gibraltar.
We have an excellent relationship with the Gibraltar Government. That dialogue will continue. I cannot promise you now to arrange a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister but I can assure you that it will happen at an appropriate time, as it happened earlier this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is kind of the Minister to give me these assurances, but they would be better given to the Chamber.
Mr. Vaz: I do indeed give them to the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the appointment of the new governor. David Durie is an excellent choice. It does not in anyway represent a different strategy in dealing with Gibraltar. He has settled in well and developed good links. As someone who knows the European Union extremely well, having served for some time in UKRep in Brussels as a deputy to the current permanent under-secretary in the Foreign Office, I believe that he is uniquely placed to help with these discussions and the on-going dialogue. We must use the expertise of the governor, working with the Chief Minister and the United Kingdom Government, to deal with difficulties.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East and every hon. Member who has spoken today have mentioned the border delays. During my visit to Gibraltar last month I saw the border situation for myself and talked to a number of those affected by the delays. I know that it is an issue of concern to the Select Committee and I acknowledge that it has been raised constructively in the report and in the Chamber today. Having gone to the border with Mr. Caruana, spoken to more than a dozen people who were sitting in their cars waiting to cross the border and looked at what the Spanish authorities were doing when the cars got to the border, I assure hon. Members that it was a concern. That is why I raised it with my Spanish counterpart when I saw him in Madrid. Such concerns are raised on every appropriate occasion by officials in the Foreign Office with their Spanish counterparts. Clearly, if one does not take a car across the border, one is not delayed, and if one takes a moped, one is not delayed, but a person who wants to drive a car between the two areas is delayed.
We have told the Spanish authorities that we understand their need to search and check, but the time spent must be proportionate to what they are trying to do so that people are not inconvenienced and distressed. It is in nobody's interests for people to be inconvenienced. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked whether I said in Spain at a reception or a meeting that I thought that a delay of an hour was acceptable. I certainly did not. Anyone who knows me will know that I consider that a delay of even five minutes in a car, or wherever it is, to be unacceptable. Therefore, of course we did not say that.
A graph has been produced of the time that cars take to cross the border, and I showed it to my Spanish counterpart. What have we done about it? My hon.
148WH
Friend the Member for Thurrock was harsh on me and said, "It's all very well having these graphs and statistics, but what are you doing about it?" We have raised it with the Spanish officials, I raised it with Commissioner Vitorino when he came to London, it has been raised with him in Brussels and it is under active consideration by the Commission. We have made it clear that, on the basis of good will alone, Spain should cut the time that it takes to cross. We have said to Spain, "You have completed these arrangements. What is the point of making it such an issue?" We have made that point on behalf of the citizens of Gibraltar in our discussions with the Spanish authorities and with the commissioner.
Mr. Rowlands: As I and other hon. Members have pointed out, the words "concern" and "active consideration" were used twelve months ago and earlier. What specific action is being taken by the Commission now? Has notice been served on the Spanish authorities? What response did my hon. Friend have to the concerns that he expressed to his Spanish counterpart? I ask whether he had a response saying, "Yes, we will reduce the time. We are planning it. We are reorganising our border arrangements to achieve the minimum time." What has happened and is happening to deal with those concerns and active considerations?
Mr. Vaz: The words "active consideration" by the Commission should sound like words of praise to some hon. Members here, such as the hon. Member for Ludlow. We have made it clear that we expect the Commission to act. As a result of the debate, I will write again to Commissioner Vitorino to remind him in forceful terms of the concerns expressed here today and of my recent visit to Gibraltar and Spain. I shall re-emphasise what we have been saying. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: something must happen. However, there is a danger in talking about figures—and in saying what is acceptable and what is not that those criteria suddenly become a bare minimum and even though it would not be necessary to reach that minimum, those who search the vehicles would seek to do so. That is why we use the word ".proportionate".
When I went to Gibraltar with Peter Caruana and poked my face through the fence—with television cameras and a reporter from the Gibraltar Chronicle present—the cars suddenly went through very quickly. To those hon. Members who say that the only reason the delay was affected was that the Minister of State was visiting, I say that, when I was at the border, people went through very rapidly. However, I am not saying that I would like to go and stand there every week in order to sort out the problem.
As a result of what hon. Members have said today, I shall write again because this is something of which the Commissioner needs to be reminded. It will be appropriate for me to do so, because I have just visited Gibraltar and I can send him the photographs that we took of the waiting cars and ask for action to be taken. However, let us not say what is acceptable and what is not, because if one asked the average citizen sitting in the

149WH
queue at the border, he or she would say that a delay of five minutes was unacceptable. One must be proportionate.
Mr. Hoyle: What is acceptable and what is not should be spelled out clearly. Words and letters are fine, but at the end of the day they will not change the situation. What will happen if this continues?
Mr. Vaz: I have made it clear that we are concerned about the matter. I have raised it with the Spanish Minister for Europe, who is aware of what we are saying. We will take action and write again. I shall also write to the Select Committee, following the action that we have taken, to explain what we have done. I cannot say to my hon. Friend now that, as a result of my letter, the whole situation will be resolved—if only every problem on earth were capable of being resolved by a letter from a Minister of State. That is clearly not going to happen so we must keep up the pressure and remind people of the difficulties that are being faced.
Mr. Gill: Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the Minister will be aware that some tough bargaining must take place later in the year. Is he prepared to say whether Her Majesty's Government will drive a hard bargain in Nice to obtain some satisfaction on this problem, which has gone on for so long? That is how the European Union works; by bargaining and counter-bargaining and by giving something away to get something else. We despair of any satisfaction being achieved by any means other than hard bargaining. Letter-writing and meetings do not seem to be delivering what we require.
Mr. Vaz: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman now feels that there is some use for European Council meetings and that we can discuss these matters and move forward. I am pleased about that, because I have read a number of his speeches on Europe and he is often critical of the effectiveness of those organisations.
I am not drawing up the agenda for Nice. We are about to approach the Feira European Council meeting, and I do not know what its agenda will be. However, I do not have to wait until the meeting in Nice to write the letter. It will be written as soon as this debate is over, and we shall make sure that the Committee is made aware of what is happening. The Commissioner has been to see me to discuss the matter. He is a man of integrity and also a lawyer, although I am not sure whether he is one of those expensive lawyers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock referred. He knows the law, and he knows what needs to be done. That is why I can say that the matter continues to be under active consideration.
Sir John Stanley: Before the Minister leaves this key issue, will he tell the Chamber whether the Government are willing, in principle, to use the article 227 power that they possess, and if so, when?
Mr. Vaz: We always consider any means of fulfilling our agenda, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it is a matter for the Commission. We will continue to focus on that issue in our discussions with the Commission.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Essentially, the Minister is saying that there has been no progress on the issue. He
150WH
has given an undertaking to keep the Committee in touch with developments. Does that mean that he will write to us? I have not spoken to colleagues on the Committee, but I anticipate that there will be some demand for the Minister to come before them to report, after a reasonable period.
Mr. Vaz: I always look forward to my visits to the Committee, and I shall be happy to go before it. Perhaps, "happy" is going too far, but I shall certainly respond to any letter from my hon. Friend, asking me to report to the Committee.
I must move on to other matters that have been raised, including, in particular, the issue of votes in elections for the European Parliament. The right of Gibraltarians to vote in European parliamentary elections is a matter of concern to the Committee, the House and the Government. The Government's commitment to secure the EP vote for Gibraltar is not in question. We tabled proposals in Brussels, during consideration of the common electoral principles dossier, and we will continue to work hard to secure consensus among our EU partners to give Gibraltarians the right to vote in European parliamentary elections. All EU member states should, as a matter of principle, help us to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked why we contested the Matthews case, employing expensive lawyers to do so. The principles went beyond the simplistic conclusion. The case dealt with elections to a supra-national legislature, not just the legislatures of individual countries, so it was important to test the principle before the highest court. Within a month of the decision in the Matthews case, we put forward amendments to the 1976 Act. I was asked by the hon. Member for West Suffolk whether Gibraltarians will vote in the 2004 elections. I do not know, and I cannot answer him today. However, I can say that the Government will work extremely hard to ensure that they get the chance. We will do everything that we can to make it happen, but hon. Members know that we need the agreement of other member states to achieve it.
There is also the issue of whether people will have to vote in Spain. I have my own views on the matter, but I will not announce today where the polling stations will be. Such matters need to be considered carefully, to ensure that the people of Gibraltar feel that they are actively involved in the election campaign. That is crucial.
Mr. Mackinlay: We have now exposed the supine approach taken by the Government and the flaws in their legal and political thinking. The Committee does not accept that this is a matter for our European partners, although we might approach them as a matter of courtesy. It is an important issue of sovereignty and the Government are wrong about it. The issue is for us exclusively.
Is the Minister relying on the opinion, given by Baroness Symons in 1998, that the United Kingdom is constrained without the consent of our partners through annexe 2 of the 1976 Act? If that is what the Government are arguing this afternoon, why are they not raising it at the intergovernmental conference? I asked the Foreign

151WH
Secretary in Committee yesterday, and he said that it was inappropriate. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, who is here today, cannot have it both ways. If they are saying that there is an impediment under the treaty, which I do not accept, they have an obligation to raise it as a substantive issue at the intergovernmental conference and to say that it is a matter on which we shall stick.
Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the legal advice that he has just tendered. On balance, I prefer to accept the legal advice that has been given to me up to now.
Mr. Mackinlay: Which is consistently wrong.
Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend says so, but if he feels that it is wrong, I should be more than happy to study the legal testaments and texts that he puts before me and to consider that. I am talking about principles, and the Government are talking about principles. There is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights that is binding on this country. We want to implement it, ensuring that it happens as quickly as possible, which is why we tabled an amendment to the 1976 Act within a month of the Matthews judgment. We may have contested that judgment, but we accept it, and now it is up to colleagues and member states. It cannot be discussed. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right. He would not expect me to say that he was not, but he is right.
The intergovernmental conference has a short and focused agenda: it is discussing specific points to do with enlargement. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I have been involved in these processes and have attended the meetings, and I can tell him that it has a specific, focused agenda. I know that he is concerned and distressed about these matters and I assure him that we are doing our best to ensure that this matter is dealt with. I want to see the Matthews judgment acted upon, which is why we acted so quickly.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose
—
Mr. Vaz: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time, because I want to cover telecommunications and the airport. I would not want right hon. and hon. Members to say that I had not dealt with their points.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. Specifically on the right of Gibraltarians to vote, can the Minister take back this proposition to his colleagues in the Government? If there is not agreement by a time that allows implementation well before the next European election, we should legislate to ensure that we give Gibraltarians the right to vote. We would, therefore, conform with the convention and the judgment. If the European Union thinks that we are in breach, let it take the United Kingdom Government to court, as it is entitled to do, but we have a duty to honour the court's judgment and a duty to the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman's legal advice is that of a trained lawyer. I am not saying that it is better than
152WH
that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, but it is interesting. His opinion is that we should go ahead, if necessary breaking European Union law—[Hon. Members: "No."]—and wait for it to take us to court. I am sorry: that is what I thought he said.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the Chamber that we shall study these matters carefully. We do not want to disenfranchise the people of Gibraltar. We are seriously focused on this issue and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the judgment is implemented. We live in a democracy. We want to make sure that people participate in elections. That is why we, as elected politicians, knock on people's doors and ask them to vote for us. Of course we want the people of Gibraltar to vote a quickly as possible. We will take the necessary steps, but we will not act unlawfully.
We thank hon. Members for what they have said and for the legal interpretations that they have suggested, and we know that they mean them genuinely, but we must act, and shall act, within the law.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on a point on which I asked for a specific response from him in my contribution, to which he has just responded. He will recall that I asked him for an assurance that in European elections the people of Gibraltar would be able to vote in Gibraltar. I imagined that it would be the easiest possible assurance for him to give. Is he aware that I, and I think other hon. Members, are utterly appalled by his reply and his equivocation on that fundamental point? May I offer him one more opportunity to give this Chamber the absolute assurance that the Government's policy for European elections is to allow the people of Gibraltar to vote in Gibraltar?
Mr. Vaz: I have not equivocated on that matter. I have enormous sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman said. I agree that it is an important and fundamental principle and that we need to study the issue alongside the question of how the people of Gibraltar are enfranchised. I cannot announce today where the polling stations will be. I can say that these matters are serious and fundamental and must be dealt with carefully.
Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry, but I want to follow up the point made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). The Minister has repeated what he said earlier—that he could not comment on the simple question of whether, if the people of Gibraltar have a right to vote, there will be polling stations in Gibraltar for them to vote in. I want the Minister to get up and say that when these matters are resolved, polling booths will be placed in Gibraltar.
Mr. Vaz: I have made my position clear. My hon. Friend and others want me to announce exactly where the polling booths will be, but I have put forward a clear principle that we want the people of Gibraltar to vote in the next European parliamentary elections. I have enormous sympathy with the points made by hon. Members, but I cannot go beyond what I have just said.
Mr. Hoyle: How would my hon. Friend feel if the people of Scotland had to vote in Wales? We are asking

153WH
only for clarification. Will the polling stations be in Gibraltar? People in Scotland would not be expected to travel to Wales to vote. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Vaz: I have made my position clear. I cannot make an announcement today—before the 1976 Act is amended—about where the polling stations will be located. Asking me to do so is asking me to go beyond what I have said. I am not taking any more interventions, because I have answered the point and I want to move on to discuss other matters.
Mr. Spring: On that point, will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: With respect, the hon. Gentleman does not know what the point is. No, I am going to move on to telecommunications. This is an important debate that covers several subjects. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would want me to proceed.
Telecommunications was another issue brought to my attention when I visited Gibraltar. The allocation of telephone numbers in Gibraltar was raised by Mr. Caruana and many officials on my visit. Although the Government have no formal locus in the case brought to the Commission by Gibraltar telephone companies, we have long pressed the Commission to bring about a speedy resolution of it. The shortage of numbers is now acute and we are in close touch with the Gibraltar Government about it. I have already spoken about my discussion with Mr. Caruana and I also raised the issue with my Spanish counterpart in Madrid. I asked him to look again at the problem, which is causing concern, and he promised to do so.
Clearly, Gibraltar is running out of telephone numbers. Mr. Caruana told me that there were only 30 telephone numbers left to be allocated. The request put by the Gibraltar Government to the Spanish Government was for an extra 10 million telephone lines—to deal not just with current, but with potential, usage. It is bizarre that in the year 2000, when so much is said about e-commerce, and the modernisation and globalisation of telecommunications systems, a place such as Gibraltar should be faced with this problem. That is why we raised it and asked for it to be dealt with as a priority issue. It cannot be right for no progress to be made.
The report rightly identified the airport as a key area for potential co-operation to the benefit of the people of Gibraltar and the neighbouring area. As with the border issue, the airport and EU aviation issues were not covered in the recent discussions with Spain and Gibraltar. However, all involved know that the Government are interested in making progress on that matter. We will continue to examine the possibilities for taking the matter forward in close co-operation with the Government of Gibraltar.
I saw the difficulties experienced at the airport. Hon. Members who have flown into Gibraltar will know that, at some point after landing, one can see people crossing the runway to get nearer to the border. I, for one, wondered what those people were doing. It is important to have a modern airport and that issue must be resolved in full consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. That point was put to me many times during my visit. Members of the private sector, including the chairman of GB Airways, urged me to obtain progress as soon as possible.
154WH
The Committee's report concluded with recommendations on handling the Brussels process and the sovereignty question, including the proposals made by Mr. Matutes in December 1997. We will reply to those proposals when the next Brussels process meeting is held.
Mr. Donald Anderson: With respect, when will that be? The schedule is as long as a piece of string.
Mr. Vaz: No meeting has yet been scheduled, but when it is, we will be in a position to respond to the proposals. I think that my hon. Friend knew the answer to his question before he asked it.
Mr. Anderson: That is why I asked it.
Mr. Vaz: He is a good lawyer. Perhaps he should offer legal advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.
Mr. Mackinlay: I have not irritated the Minister, have I?
Mr. Vaz: I can assure—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is very nice to have such a display of interest in Westminster Hall, but perhaps we should all calm down.
Mr. Vaz: I have attended far too many selection meetings with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock to be irritated by him. His contribution on Gibraltar and on other foreign affairs issues is extremely helpful.
Mr. Gill: Instead of legal advice, I suggest that we need an outbreak of common sense. What the Minister said will cause enormous alarm and despondency in Gibraltar. His refusal to say that there would be polling stations in Gibraltar cut right across the assurance that he gave at the beginning of his speech, when he said that sovereignty was not in question. If people cannot vote in their own country, sovereignty is indeed called into question.
Mr. Vaz: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to become too agitated. The record will show that I said that I would not announce the venues of the polling stations in today's debate. I have clearly set out the principles behind the entitlements of the people of Gibraltar. I have also referred to the law. The Government always abide by the law and we will implement the law to allow the people of Gibraltar to make decisions. I will not discuss again the venues of the polling stations.
Mr. Spring: The Minister's view on the intergovernmental conference is incorrect. It provides an opportunity to raise the issue to which we are referring, because one of its key elements is the charter of fundamental rights, which includes the right to vote. If he does not know that, what does he think the conference is about?
Mr. Vaz: I am sorry to correct the hon. Gentleman, who I know is new to his brief. The charter of

155WH
fundamental rights is not part of the agenda of the intergovernmental conference. He can read about the conference on its website. It will deal with three issues that were leftovers from Amsterdam, two of the most important of which are the size of the Commission and the re-weighting of votes. It does not deal with the charter of rights, which is being drafted separately and dealt with by a separate convention, not reporting to the intergovernmental conference, but making a report initially to Feira and later this year to another European Council. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman should read the website with greater care before entering the debate.
The Committee raised the issue of cruise ships, and I can assure hon. Members and members of the Committee that we have raised that matter again. The Spanish authorities have informed us that they do not intend to take any further action. Clearly, the arrival and departure of cruise ships is crucial to Gibraltar's economy because tourism is involved, and we have received extremely important assurances.
The Government have welcomed and valued the Foreign Affairs Committee's interest in Gibraltar. I hope that I have made clear the Government's determination to stand by our commitments to Gibraltar and to uphold its interests. That requires close co-operation with Gibraltar. The general political atmosphere between Spain, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar has improved since the Committee decided to hold an inquiry on Gibraltar.
However, many problems remain to be resolved. I have raised some of them, and hon. Members have raised others. The recent EU arrangements show that those difficulties should be approached with patience, dedication, common sense and good faith on all sides. I know that I can count on hon. Members' continued interest in the area, as we try to deal with those problems. I can assure hon. Members that I will write to the Committee about the points that they have raised and I look forward to appearing before the Committee in the not-too-distant future to deal with any other issues that it considers outstanding.
5.40 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief and I apologise for not being present during the first part of the debate, but I watched most of it on the screen. I want to make two points. The issue that has, rather surprisingly, caused most concern among hon. Members, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and others is the European elections. There may be a dispute about what the law is, but it is better for the British Government to be proactive and to try to assert their competence, rather than wait beyond the time of the next election.
I believe that the people of Gibraltar have not changed their view since I was last there to discuss the matter and other hon. Members have confirmed that. Having been let down by not being allowed to vote last time, the people are clear that it would be unconscionable, unacceptable and entirely inconsistent with the Court judgment if the people whom the treaty entitles to vote in the European elections do not have
156WH
their votes guaranteed in good time for the next election. There is no acceptable alternative. A Court judgment saying that people have the right to vote is no good, when that right cannot be exercised at an election. We missed the boat last time. It could be argued that that was defensible, because the judgment was made late in the day. However, no argument could make that acceptable next time.
The Government may be required to change their policy. They might have to take the view that they cannot wait for an agreement that might not come. Unless the Spanish Government concede that they will agree to the simple principle that, irrespective of other views about Gibraltar, Gibraltarians have the right to vote, the Government have a duty under law to act in accordance with the law. The first step could be for the Government to place their legal advice in the Library and for us to place our legal advice there—we could take it from there.
This late squall on the agenda was not foreseen as a difficulty by right hon. and hon. Members. I refer to the Minister's inability to confirm the location of elections. A strict interpretation of one part of what he said relates to his inability to identify in which street or building an election will take place. However, unless he or other Foreign Office Ministers publicly clarify within hours of this debate that the Gibraltar elections will take place in Gibraltar, they will be in for an extraordinary response. They will face the wrath of all quarters of the House. I cannot undertake not to work with my colleagues to ensure that the matter comes back on to the agenda at an early opportunity. Ministers will be forced either to defend the indefensible or to change their position.
Mr. Vaz: There is no need to come back within hours to clarify the position. I was asked whether I thought that the vote could take place in Spain. I think that it would be daft for a vote that concerns the people of Gibraltar to take place in Spain. Exactly where the polling stations are and how the election will be conducted—whether attached to an English constituency, or whatever—I cannot announce today. Let me repeat that I believe that it would be daft for voting in a Gibraltar election for the European Parliament to take place in Spain.
Mr. Mackinlay: Would the Minister rule it out?
Mr. Vaz: I am happy to say that, yes.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister is now being more helpful. We have only a couple of minutes left, and it would be even more helpful if the Minister made it expressly clear, on the record, that the British Government would not countenance the people of Gibraltar voting anywhere other than in Gibraltar. That would suffice. We would require no further detail. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, that would rule out Spain, but not necessarily a link to British constituencies. The key is that they vote in Gibraltar. If the Minister will affirm that, we will have a much clearer position. I am sure that he and his colleagues would be grateful for the opportunity of clarification.
Mr. Vaz: Again, as I have said before, I am not going to announce today where the polling stations will

157WH
be. I have made it clear that I do not believe that it would be right for the vote to take place in Spain. The hon. Member for Ludlow has asked me how daft I thought it would be for the people of Gibraltar to go to Spain to vote. The issues of whether there would be a link to an English constituency or an overseas list system—or where exactly the vote takes place—will have to be discussed with colleagues in the Home Office, who are responsible for elections. I cannot take that decision or pronounce on it now. As far as I am concerned, the vote should not take place in Spain.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful. I shall not pursue the matter throughout our remaining time, but I should like to secure one further clarification. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked whether the vote would take place in Gibraltar. The Minister need not worry about the method or the name of the constituency. Could we simply have a clear statement that it is the view of joined-up government across
158WH
Departments that the people of Gibraltar's vote in the election for the next European Parliament will take place in the colony of Gibraltar?
Mr. Vaz: It is not for me or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to take that decision. However, as a result of today's debate, I shall write to the Home Secretary to ask whether he has any preliminary views on the matter. We are a long way from ensuring that that happens, but we want to make progress as quickly as possible. I repeat that I shall pass on to the Home Secretary the comments made in today's debate.
Mr. Hughes: It would be in the interests of the Minister's Department, of the Home Office and, most of all—not least because, in negotiations, the Spanish know the score—of the people of Gibraltar that this matter is clarified. If it requires the Home Secretary to secure that clarification, the sooner it is done, the better for the reputation of the British Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Six o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Forms
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123942]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no forms issued by the Department specifically aimed at charities or other voluntary organisations. Where charities are incorporated as companies under the Companies Acts they will of course need to file company accounts and other event-generated forms in the normal way.

  Efforts are continually being made to simplify these forms. A recent example is the repeal of the requirement to list a director's other directorships on the company annual return.

  Forms

    European Structural Funds
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total amount received by the UK under the European Union structura1 funds in each of the last five years. [124743]

    Mr. Caborn
    The total European Union Structural Funds allocation to the United Kingdom for the period 1995–99 is 12,590 million Euros, which is £8,229 million in 1999 prices. The table breaks this total into the yearly sums. This figure includes the European Social Fund allocation.

    Euro million

    £ million

    1995

    2,341

    1,530

    1996

    2,455

    1,604

    1997

    2,552

    1,668

    1998

    2,569

    1,679

    1999

    2,673

    1,748

    The figures in the table are for allocations rather than receipts. Some receipts are not recorded centrally and, in any case, receipts in one year include reimbursement of some claims submitted in respect of previous years, while some claims submitted during the year in question will not be paid in that year. Programmes have until the end of 2001 to spend and claim the amounts allocated and committed for the period 1994–99.

    Petroleum Prices
    Mr. Pollard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of when the OPEC member countries' decision to restore their 298W
    production to pre-March 1999 levels will be reflected in petroleum prices in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [124205]

    Mrs. Liddell
    OPEC production increases, agreed in March 2000, led to a significant fall in crude oil prices, which has subsequently been reversed due to low stock levels and high product demand.

    In recent months, historically low product stocks and significant European refinery maintenance have reduced the supply of petroleum to the market, putting pressure on prices.

    ECGD
    Mr. Stinchcombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to limit the provision of export credits for non-productive exports. [124660]

    Mr. Caborn
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 216–18W

    There are no plans at present to extend this initiative to other countries.

    Power Lines
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received calling for the undergrounding of the proposed Lackenby to Shipton overhead transmission line to prevent damage from lightning storms. [124227]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Other than the hon. Member's letter of 24 May 2000 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to which I am replying separately, I am aware of no such representations.

    Scottish Highlands
    Mr. Charles Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the current economic impact of assisted area status on the Scottish Highlands; and if he will make a statement. [124775]

    Mr. Caborn
    Assisted area status is widely considered to have a positive economic impact on those areas—such as the Scottish Highlands—covered by the assisted area map.

    World Petroleum Congress
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which representatives of the UK Government will be attending the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary this month. [125015]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Department will be represented by senior officials.

    Energy Council
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Energy Council on 30 May. [125577]
    299W
    Mrs. Liddell
    The Council considered several matters of interest to the United Kingdom.

    The centre-piece of the Council was a structured debate on energy liberalisation where the Commission presented a paper outlining progress on building a single energy market with proposals for accelerating liberalisation. Ministers were asked to comment on measures needed to monitor progress, further harmonisation requirements, social implications and public service obligations. The UK welcomed the Lisbon agreement on accelerating liberalisation, called for 100 per cent. liberalisation by a specific date and supported further structural measures including unbundling and regulated third party access. The UK circulated a report on the UK's experience of the social effects of energy liberalisation aimed at providing the Council with a balanced analysis of social effects of energy liberalisation. Also the UK/Netherlands circulated preliminary results of a joint study providing both qualitative and quantitative data on the development of competition in gas and electricity markets across Europe and urged the Commission to take this work forward. The Commission and most member states welcomed this work. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Council adopted conclusions welcoming progress on implementation of the electricity directive and the agreement of the European electricity regulatory forum on a cross border transmission pricing mechanism, effective from 1 October, and acknowledged that further work was needed on congestion management. On gas the conclusions noted the work of the European gas regulatory forum.

    In addition, the Commission presented a draft proposal on access for renewables to the internal electricity market and an energy efficiency action plan. The UK welcomed both dossiers identified as priorities in the UK Presidency. The first is a particularly important single market measure and both are key elements of the energy/environment integration strategy developed as part of the EU's response towards our Kyoto targets. The Council agreed conclusions on the energy efficiency action plan which recognised the need for Community policies and measures to complement, coordinate and add value to national actions, and invited the Commission, working in cooperation with member states, to come forward with specific proposals quickly.

    The Council agreed conclusions on gas security of supply which invited the Commission to continue to monitor the supply position in Europe and to establish a group on an informal basis to discuss mutual areas of interest to improve coordination between member states.

    Also, the Council adopted a decision enabling the European Community to sign an agreement with the United States on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling programmes for office equipment—energy star—and reached political agreement on a draft regulation for implementation of the energy star scheme.

    Finally, the Council noted reports on Euro-Med Cooperation including conclusions and the Energy Charter Treaty.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Grace and Favour Residences
    Mr. Kemp
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the(a) number and (b) locations are of grace and favour residences not within royal palaces. [118871]

    Marjorie Mowlam
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) by the Prime Minister on 5 June 2000,Official Report, columns 50–51W.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Guillotine Motions
    Mr. Shepherd
    To ask the President of the Council if she will list(a) the Bills since May 1997 that have been subject to a guillotine and (b) the date of each guillotine motion, indicating which were all-party programme motions. [124847]

    Mrs. Beckett
    The information requested is as follows:

    Date

    Session 1997–98

    Bills subject to allocation of time (guillotine) motions:

    Referendums (Scotland and Wales)

    3 June 1997

    30 July 1997

    Finance Bill

    14 July 1997

    23 July 1997

    European Communities (Amendment)

    17 December 1997

    Bills subject to allocation of time (programme) motions:

    Scotland Bill

    13 January 19981

    Government of Wales Bill

    15 January 19981

    Regional Development Agencies Bill

    27 March 1998

    Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill

    22 April 1998

    Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]

    19 May 1998

    Human Rights Bill [Lords]

    1 June 19981

    21 October 1998

    Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill

    11 June 1998

    Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]

    16 June 1998

    Landmines Bill

    9 July 1998

    Northern Ireland Bill

    17 July 1998

    Bills subject to Allocation of Time (Business of the House) Motions

    Criminal Justice Bill (Terrorism and Conspiracy)

    2 September 1998

    Session 1998–99

    Bills subject to allocation of time (guillotine) motions:

    European Parliamentary Elections Bill

    2 December 1999

    Local Government Bill

    24 March 1999

    26 July 1999

    Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill

    20 May 1999

    3 November 1999

    Health Bill [Lords]

    15 June 1999

    Immigration and Asylum Bill

    15 June 1999

    9 November 1999

    Tax Credits Bill

    22 June 1999

    Access to Justice Bill [Lords]

    22 June 1999

    Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords]

    8 July 1999

    301W

    Date

    Food Standards Bill

    22 July 1999

    8 November 1999

    Employment Relations Bill

    22 July 1999

    26 July 199

    Greater London Authority Bill

    8 November 1999

    Bills subject to Allocation of Time (Programme) Motions

    Greater London Authority Bill

    13 January 1999

    30 April 1999

    Northern Ireland Bill

    13 July 1999

    Session 1999–2000

    Bills subject to allocation of time (guillotine) motions:

    Representation of the People Bill

    20 January 2000

    8 March 2000

    Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords]

    22 May 2000

    Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill

    22 May 2000

    Royal Parks (Trading) Bill

    22 May 2000

    Television Licences (Disclosure of Information Bill)

    22 May 2000

    Bills subject to allocation of time (programme) motions:

    Northern Ireland Bill

    8 February 2000

    Financial Services and Market Bill

    9 February 2000

    Transport Bill

    9 May 2000

    1Indicates programme motion subsequently amended. For details see Sessional Returns 1997–98)142), pp 10–12.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Opinion Research
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 581W, on opinion research, what steps have been taken to ensure that his Department makes such results publicly available as required by paragraph 19 of the Cabinet Office May 1999 Guidelines on Research into Public Attitudes and Opinions. [124903]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Officials in the Department and its agencies and staff in our NDPBs are aware of their obligations under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, to which paragraph 19 of the Cabinet Office Guidelines refers, and I expect them to ensure that the Code of Practice is followed. A senior official in my Department wrote to all chief executives of DCMS NDPBs on 10 December 1999, drawing their attention to the publication of the Freedom of Information Bill and reminding them of the need to comply, until a Freedom of Information Act is brought into force, with the Code of Practice.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the(a) health and (b) education projects that have been funded from the National Lottery in each of the last two years; and how much each has received. [123634]

    Kate Hoey
    Lottery funding for health and education projects is primarily distributed through the New Opportunities Fund, although some awards made by other 302W
    distributors, such as Sport England, the Arts Council and the National Lottery Charities Board, will certainly have educational or health benefits.

    Over the past two years, the New Opportunities Fund has made nearly 1,000 separate awards distributing £75 million to its educational and health programmes. These awards have included nearly £65 million to 980 out of school hours child care and learning schemes, and £10 million to create six Healthy Living Centres. The Fund is about to begin distributing to NHS Trusts over £90 million worth of equipment for detecting and treating cancer.

    I have asked the Chief Executive of the Fund to write to the hon. Member with full details of all of the health and education awards. Copies of this letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Health Projects
    Ms McCafferty
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the level of funding granted by her Department for reproductive health projects in (1) 2000–01 will be set at 85 per cent. for the entire duration of such projects; [124901]

    (2) 2001–02 will be set at 70 per cent. for the entire duration of such projects. [124902]

    Clare Short
    The levels of funding granted by my Department, under the Civil Society Challenge Fund for new reproductive health projects funded in the following fiscal years, are:funded in 2000–01—up to 85 per cent. funding available
    funded in 2001–02—up to 70 per cent. funding available
    funded in 2002–03—up to 50 per cent. funding available.

    The funding level agreed in the first year of each project will be set for the entire duration of the project.

    Central Reserve (Humanitarian Emergencies)
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times her Department has accessed the Treasury's central reserve to fund humanitarian emergencies this year; and if she will make a statement. [124998]

    Clare Short
    My Department has not accessed the Treasury's central reserve during the 2000–01 financial year. During 1999–2000, DFID accessed the central reserve on two occasions to help fund humanitarian emergencies in Kosovo and East Timor.

    Kosovo
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the United Kingdom's assistance to Kosovo is paid from her Department's conflict and emergency fund; and how much is met from Her Majesty's Treasury's central reserve. [125001]
    303W
    Clare Short
    I refer the hon. Member to page 86 (Box 6d) of the Department for International Development's Departmental Report 2000, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

    Sumatra
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian effects of the recent earthquake in Sumatra. [125019]

    Clare Short
    The worst affected areas are Bengkulu and Lampung Provinces and the island of Enggano. Over 100 people are confirmed as dead and a further 700 people have been injured. These figures are likely to rise. There has been extensive damage to housing and public buildings, including Bengkulu city hospital. Communication with the Bengkulu area is extremely difficult as the telephone system is down and access has been restricted due to damage to the airport, major roads and bridges. However, initial reports indicate that the damage was not as devastating as might have been expected, given the size of the earthquake.

    The Indonesian authorities have rapidly mobilised civil and military assets to respond to the disaster and are supported by the local Red Cross Society. A six-person United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination team has been deployed to the region to assist with the relief effort.

    My Department has contributed £250,000 for the purchase and distribution of relief items, such as shelter, blankets and the provision of clean water and first aid. This support is being channelled through the Red Cross and will target 140,000 of the worst affected people. We will continue to monitor the situation and stand ready to respond further to assessed needs.

    India
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian impact of the drought affecting the Indian states of Rajasthan and Gujarat. [125018]

    Clare Short
    A team from my Department has recently returned from India where they made a humanitarian assessment of the impact of the drought and the likely needs of the population. The team found Rajasthan and Gujarat to be among the three states in India worst affected by the drought. The principal humanitarian impacts of the drought include a significant reduction in household income; an increase in temporary migration; death of livestock; weakening of remaining herds; and health problems associated with scarcity of water and reduced food intake.

    The Government of India have launched a large-scale drought relief effort which appears to be reaching a significant proportion of the affected population. United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations are also active in providing humanitarian assistance to those suffering as a result of the drought.

    We have committed nearly £3 million for relief projects in response to the drought regionally, including Pakistan and Afghanistan which are also badly affected. £500,000
    304W
    of this support is being channelled through Oxfam for their relief programme in Rajasthan and Gujarat. We are considering what further assistance to provide.

    Southern Africa
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made with the implementation of the EU's initiative on prevention of trafficking of light weapons in southern Africa launched in 1998. [125020]

    Clare Short
    Progress has been made in a number of areas. Key organisations such as the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Co-operation Organisation (SARPCCO) have made significant efforts to take forward components of the agreed agenda in order to better address small arms questions, and are playing a growing role in bringing together a regional approach. The regional action programme has itself been an important mechanism around which the actions of donors can be co-ordinated with the needs and priorities of partner countries.

    We have continued to provide support through non-governmental organisations such as Saferworld and the South African Institute for Security Studies (ISS) to take the regional action programme forward. In addition, we are also supporting a number of relevant police and customs service development projects which increase security and thereby decrease the need for, and availability of, small arms.

    We are committed to continuing support for the regional action programme and to working closely with other UK Departments to ensure that this important initiative remains a priority activity for the EU.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Questionnaires
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many questionnaires have been compiled by his Department since 1 May 1997 for public distribution; and what has been the response rate for each. [123611]

    Mr. Hain
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to previous answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe about the questionnaire attached to the "Your Britain, Your Europe" leaflet on 10 April 2000,Official Report, column 77W; on 2 May 2000, Official Report, column 67W; and on 15 May 2000, Official Report, column 28W. In addition, at two FCO Open Days in October 1999 we distributed just under 720 questionnaires to canvass reactions from visitors. We received 227 replies.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the support for the Government forces in Sri Lanka from Israel. [124357]

    Mr. Hain
    None.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 259W, on the inter-Governmental conference, in what manner applicant states will be permitted (a) to operate fisheries within community waters and (b) otherwise to participate in execution of common policies. [124373]

    Mr. Vaz
    (a) Negotiations on Fisheries have started with six applicant countries (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia). The EU Common Positions agreed for these negotiations will make clear that all new member states will be expected to apply the Common Fisheries Policy in full and that access to fisheries resources within. EU waters will be based on the principle of relative stability, which allocates national quotas according to historic catch levels. In their position papers, these countries have accepted the principle of relative stability and are only seeking to maintain access to stocks and waters which they already fish.

    (b) The participation of new member states in the execution of Common Policies will be determined in the accession negotiations. At the opening of the accession negotiations with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia on 31 March 1998 during the UK Presidency, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid down the principles for negotiation, emphasising the necessity of "full acceptance of the actual and potential rights and obligations attaching to the Union system and its institutional framework, known as the 'acquis' of the Union". This principle covers all the Common Policies of the EU. The applicant's acceptance of the 'acquis' may give rise to technical adjustments, and exceptionally to non-permanent transitional measures. The same principles govern the accession negotiations with Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia, which began in February.

    European Judges
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which published documents relating to the Court of the European Communities contain the(a) required qualifications for persons appointed to it as judges and decision makers concerning its preliminary proceedings including those conducted by the advocate general and the Court of First Instance, (b) procedures for their selection and appointment and the names of the persons appointing them and their staff; together with the names and previous experience and qualifications of the current judges and advocates general, together with the dates of their appointment and the expiry of their terms of office. [124638]

    Mr. Vaz
    The criteria for nomination and the appointment procedure for judges and advocates general at the European Court of Justice are set out in Article 223 TEC. The criteria for judges at the Court of First Instance are set out in Article 225.3. Profiles of the judges can be found on the Court of Justice website at www.curia.eu.int.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the 306W
    differences between the commitments (a) made in the final declaration of the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, held in New York in April-May and (b) entered into in 1970 by nuclear weapons states in respect of Article VI of the Treaty. [124794]

    Mr. Hain
    The unequivocal undertaking to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals contained in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference is the most explicit pledge ever made by the Nuclear Weapon States to work for complete global nuclear disarmament. It is an important statement of intent which we hope will provide a timely boost to international non-proliferation and disarmament efforts. The UK played a key role in securing agreement with the New Agenda Coalition for this important achievement.

    EU Council
    Ms Squire
    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 to June and also list the major European Union events for the next six months. [125576]

    Mr. Vaz
    The information is as follows:European Calendar: June-November 2000
    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.

    Date

    Venue

    Event

    June

    6

    Luxembourg

    Social Affairs Council

    8

    Luxembourg

    Education Council

    13–14

    Luxembourg

    General Affairs Council

    13–16

    Strasbourg

    European Parliament Plenary

    15

    Luxembourg

    Research Council

    16

    Luxembourg

    Fisheries Council

    19–20

    Luxembourg

    Agriculture Council

    19–20

    Sta. Maria da Feira

    European Council

    21–23

    Cyprus

    3rd Euro-Mediterranean Conference of the Ministers of Industry

    22–23

    Luxembourg

    Environment Council

    26–27

    Luxembourg

    Transport Council

    28

    Lisbon

    EU/India Summit

    July

    3–7

    Strasbourg

    European Parliament Plenary

    7–8

    Paris

    —

    10–11

    Brussels

    GAC

    15–16

    Paris

    Environment Council (Informal)

    17

    Brussels

    ECOFIN Council

    17–18

    Brussels

    Agriculture Council

    17–18

    Brussels

    Agriculture Council

    20–21

    Lille

    Culture Council (Informal)

    27

    Bangkok

    ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Ministerial

    28–29

    Bangkok

    ASEAN Post Ministerial

    28–29

    Marseilles

    Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

    20

    Tokyo

    EU/Japan Summit

    August

    There are no Councils scheduled for this month

    September

    1–2

    Evian

    Gymnich

    3–5

    Biarritz

    Agriculture Council (Informal)

    15

    Paris

    EU/Ukraine Summit

    307W

    Date

    Venue

    Event

    9–10

    Versailles

    ECOFIN Council (Informal)

    18–19

    Brussels

    General Affairs Council

    25–26

    Brussels

    Agriculture Council

    29

    Brussels

    ECOFIN Council

    28

    Brussels

    Internal Market/Consumer Council

    28

    Marseilles

    Justice and Home Affairs Council

    October

    2

    Luxembourg

    Transport Council

    3

    Luxembourg

    Telecommunications Council

    9–10

    Luxembourg

    General Affairs Council

    10

    Luxembourg

    Environment Council

    13–14

    Biarritz

    European Council

    16(tbc)

    Paris

    EU/US Ministerial Meeting

    16–17

    Luxembourg

    Labour and Social Affairs Council

    17

    Luxembourg

    ECOFIN-JHA Council

    19

    Luxembourg

    Fisheries Council

    19–21

    Seoul

    Europe/Asia Summit

    23

    China

    EU/China Summit

    23–24

    Luxembourg

    Agriculture Council

    25

    Luxembourg

    Education Council

    30

    Paris

    EU/Russia Summit

    (tbc)

    November

    3 (tbc)

    Paris

    EU/Canada Summit

    7

    Brussels

    ECOFIN Council

    7

    Brussels

    Environment Council

    9

    Marseilles

    Education/Youth Council

    13

    Brussels

    Euro-Med Ministerial

    16

    Brussels

    Research Council

    14

    Marseilles

    Euro-Mediterranean Summit

    17

    Brussels

    Fisheries Council

    20–21

    Brussels

    General Affairs Council

    20–21

    Brussels

    Agriculture Council

    23

    Brussels

    Culture/Audio Council

    23

    Montbeliard

    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/SADC Ministerial

    Monthly Forecast of EU Business: June 2000
    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.
    5 June—LUXEMBOURG—ECOFIN Council
    Preparation of the European Council (Santa Maria da Feira)
    The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines—REPORT to the European Council
    Taxation
    Fiscal package, including Taxation on savings
    (poss.) Code of Conduct (Business Taxation)—Report concerning the revision of the Code
    Study on company taxation—Presentation by the Commission
    Ad hoc Working Party on tax fraud—Presentation of a report and possible Council conclusions
    Excise Duties: Derogation given to Denmark, Sweden and Finland on travellers allowances—Presentation of a Commission report
    308W
    Second progress report on the Financial Action Plan—Orientation debate
    Efficient financial management
    Protection of financial interests
    Annual reports on fight against fraud for 1999
    Commission work programme
    AOB

    Date

    Venue

    Event

    June

    6

    Luxembourg

    Social Affairs Council

    7

    Fiji

    ACP/EU Ministerial

    8

    Fiji

    Signing of Post Lomé convention

    8

    Luxembourg

    Education Council

    13–14

    Luxembourg

    General Affairs Council

    13–16

    Strasbourg

    European Parliament Plenary

    15

    Luxembourg

    Research Council

    16

    Luxembourg

    Fisheries Council

    19–20

    Luxembourg

    Agriculture Council

    19–20

    Sta. Maria da Feira

    European Council

    21–23

    Cyprus

    3rd Euro-Med Conference of the Ministers

    22–23

    Luxembourg

    Environment Council

    26–27

    Luxembourg

    Transport Council

    28

    Lisbon

    EU/India Summit

    No agendas yet known.

    Step Change Project
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Step Change Project, listing its aims, objectives and methods. [124332]

    Mr. Vaz
    Following Britain's Presidency in 1998, the Prime Minister called for a "Step Change" in Britain's relations with its European partners. The initiative is intended to increase ministerial and official contacts across Europe and thereby promote British interests in the EU. As Minister for Europe, I co-ordinate Whitehall's "Step Change" efforts through the "Ministerial Group for European Co-ordination" (MINECOR).

    Embassies (Party Political Activities)
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the rules concerning use of British embassies overseas by(a) Ministers and (b) hon. Members for party political activities. [124333]

    Mr. Robin Cook
    It is established policy that Government property should not be used for party political activities.

    Lockerbie Bombing
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he, (b) other Foreign Office ministers and (c) officials were informed of statements made by Mr. Ahmad Behbahani, in respect of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. [124946]

    Mr. Battle
    Officials were informed of Mr. Behbahani's remarks on 5 June 2000. Ministers were informed on 6 June 2000.
    309W
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain and assess the text of the statement made in the USA on 4 June by Mr. Ahmed Behbahani in relation to the Lockerbie bombing; and if he will make a statement. [124897]

    Mr. Battle
    Since Mr. Behbahani's alleged remarks relate to the current trial at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, it would be inappropriate to comment on them.

    Drugs Control
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what scent discussions he has had with the United States counterparts concerning the use of Fusarium Oxysporum in drug eradication strategies in Colombia and Peru. [124999]

    Mr. Battle
    Field trials on Fusarium Oxysporum have not yet been conducted by UNDCP in Colombia. Before these take place further research would need to be carried out inter alia to confirm that it is specific to coca and would not harm agricultural crops and other plant species. Field testing and any subsequent eradication campaign would also have to be approved by the Colombian Government.

    Her Majesty's Government are not funding UNDCP research into Fusarium Oxysporum. The Foreign Secretary has not discussed it with the US Government.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his UN counterparts about the effectiveness of the UN Drugs Control Programme's drug reduction strategy for drug-producing regions. [125017]

    Mr. Battle
    The UK is an active participant in UN drugs policy forums and is a key supporter of the United Nations Drugs Control Programme. In co-ordination with the United States and EU partners, the UK is supporting improved evaluation and management procedures in UNDCP drugs assistance projects. Examples of UK contributions include support for effective action by the UNDCP in reducing the cultivation of coca bush in Bolivia.

    East Timor
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the return of East Timorese refugees from West Timor. [125016]

    Mr. Battle
    More than 162,000 refugees have now returned to East Timor. The UK continues to press the Indonesian authorities to resolve outstanding issues (eg civil service pensions) to allow those refugees who still wish to return to do so safely and speedily.

    Small Arms
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning the implementation of the 1999 EU resolution on combating the excessive and uncontrolled accumulation and spread of small arms. [125021]
    310W
    Mr. Hain
    None, but officials regularly discuss small arms issues with EU counterparts and the Commission. These issues include the implementation of the resolution and the related December 1998 Joint Action on small arms proliferation.

    Rights of the Child Convention
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government plan to ratify the protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibiting states from allowing children under the age of 18 years to fight in armed conflicts. [125022]

    Mr. Hain
    The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 May 2000. It is expected to be opened for signature and ratification later this year. The Government welcome adoption of the Optional Protocol. We are looking closely at the implications for the UK Armed Forces and the measures that would be required to allow the UK to ratify.

    Colombia
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2000,Official Report, column 394W, if he will make a statement on progress made in the hosting of an international gathering to discuss the details of Plan Colombia before the donors conference in July. [125013]

    Mr. Battle
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will host a preparatory meeting of senior officials and technical experts on Colombia on Monday 19 June. The Colombian Government will be represented as well as the Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank, selected NGOs and the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Colombia. We have invited all EU member states, the Commission, Japan, Canada, the US, Norway and Switzerland.

    On 5 June I hosted a meeting in the FCO with academics and NGOs in order to hear a wide range of views of academics, NGOs and officials prior to the London and Madrid meetings.

    Pristina
    Mr. Hilary Benn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Pristina and its effect on the safety of returning refugees. [124906]

    Mr. Vaz
    The security situation in Pristina is described as generally calm by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). There is no general threat to Kosovo Albanian refugees returning to Pristina. In the case of Serb refugee returns, UNMIK and KFOR are doing their utmost to facilitate their return, offering protection where necessary.

  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Housing
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of total capital spending Government spending on housing and construction represented in each of the last 10 years. [123007]

    Mr. Mullin
    Central Government capital expenditure on housing in England as a percentage of total capital public spending for England over the last 10 years is set out in the table. Expenditure consists mainly of grants and subsidies provided through local authorities and the Housing Corporation. By 2001–02, the Government will have doubled the annual level of capital expenditure on housing that it inherited from the previous administration.

    Year

    Percentage

    1990–91

    12.9

    1991–92

    14.7

    1992–93

    16.0

    1993–94

    14.8

    1994–95

    11.9

    1995–96

    10.1

    1996–97

    11.4

    1997–98

    9.7

    1998–99

    10.5

    1999–20001

    10.7

    1Provisional

    Note:

    Calculations based on housing capital expenditure figures in the Department of the Environment Annual Report, 1996, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Annual Report 2000 and Table 4.1 of HM Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2000–01

    London Underground
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which EU legislation governs direct expenditure by London Underground Ltd. and its successors, in undertaking or supervising by a combination of direct and contracted operations, measures necessary to ensure the standards of operational performance required by the long-term contracts proposed by the Government. [124637]

    Mr. Hill
    All arrangements will need to be compatible with the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty and associated legislation.

    Site operator

    Site location

    Type of facility

    Waste planning authority area

    Annual input (tonnes)

    Shanks & McEwan

    Brogborough

    1—

    Bedfordshire

    2,235,514

    Cory Environmental

    Mucking

    1—

    Thurrock

    983,427

    Cleanaway

    Pitsea

    1—

    Essex

    324,659

    Shanks & McEwan

    Stewartby

    1—

    Bedfordshire

    766,707

    Cleanaway

    Ockendon

    1—

    Thurrock

    627,848

    Greenways Waste Management

    Aveley

    1—

    Essex

    381,867

    Viridor

    Gt. Blakenham

    Suffolk

    1—

    264,244

    Camping
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 485W, how many prosecutions under section 59(8) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have been made concerning waste left by unauthorised camping. [124746]

    Mr. Mullin
    The Department holds no central records of prosecutions made under this provision.

    Flight Safety
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the result of the trials on the effects of mobile phones on flight safety carried out by the CAA; what recommendations have been made by the CAA as a result of these trials and what changes will be made to flight safety rules as a result. [124783]

    Mr. Mullin
    The CAA carried out tests on the level of interference from passengers' mobile phones on the avionics systems of two aircraft parked at Gatwick Airport in February. These tests confirmed that mobile phone transmissions (including those made when a phone is on standby) made near an aircraft's flight deck or avionics equipment will produce interference that exceeds certification levels for some equipment. Consequently, the CAA will maintain their policy of prohibiting the use of mobile phones by passengers while an aircraft's engines are running.

    The CAA is also consulting airport operators and airlines about the viability and value of additional measures to further minimise the risks of inadvertent operation of portable telephones. Such additional measures could include reminder notices in airport departure lounges and at aircraft boarding points and the introduction by airlines of detection equipment and related procedures to ensure telephones are switched off.

    The full report of the tests is available on the CAA's web site: www.srg.caa.co.uk/srg/srg—news.asp.

    Waste Disposal
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 570W, concerning the main waste disposal facilities in the East of England, if he will list the quantity of waste dealt with at each facility in 1998–99 or the nearest available year. [124804]

    Mr. Mullin
    [holding answer 7 June 2000]The quantity of waste dealt with, in tonnes of waste for 1998–99 (or the nearest available year), at the main waste disposal facilities in the East of England, is shown in the table.
    313W

    Site operator

    Site location

    Type of facility

    Waste planning authority area

    Annual input (tonnes)

    Cory Environmental

    Stanway

    1—

    Essex

    248,378

    SITA

    Godmanchester

    1—

    Cambridgeshire

    240,510

    Shanks & McEwan

    Arlesey

    1—

    Bedfordshire

    224,203

    Lafarge Redland

    Radlett

    1—

    Hertfordshire

    2—

    Shanks & McEwan

    Dogsthorpe

    1—

    Peterborough

    212,052

    Fenside Waste Management

    Warboys

    1—

    Cambridgeshire

    197,995

    Star Quarry Products

    Hertford

    1—

    Hertfordshire

    2—

    Anti Waste

    Milton

    1—

    Cambridgeshire

    148,383

    Greenways Waste Management

    Ongar

    1—

    Essex

    147,962

    Cory Environmental

    1—

    Barling

    Essex

    144,722

    Anti Waste

    Buckden

    1—

    Cambridgeshire

    139,980

    Pioneer Aggregates Ltd.

    Ware Quarry

    1—

    Hertfordshire

    2—

    Hales

    Ugley

    Essex

    1—

    118,028

    Greenham Construction Materials

    Elsenham

    1—

    Essex

    115,780

    Anti Waste

    Feltwell

    1—

    Norfolk

    113,055

    Mick George Haulage Ltd.

    Southorpe Quarry

    1—

    Peterborough

    108,766

    Hales

    Attlebridge

    1—

    Norfolk

    97,633

    Lafarge Redland

    Roxwell

    1—

    Essex

    96,300

    St. Albans Sand and Gravel

    Ware

    1—

    Hertfordshire

    2—

    St. Albans Sand and Gravel

    St. Albans

    1—

    Hertfordshire

    2—

    Suffolk Waste Disposal Co.

    Lackford

    1—

    Suffolk

    92,624

    M Dickerson

    Hemingford Grey

    1—

    Cambridgeshire

    92,218

    1Landfill

    2Not available

    The data for landfills in Hertfordshire is missing. This is because the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes provision for licensees to request that such information be kept off the public register on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. The Agency is in the process of reviewing these cases.

    Central Railway
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with Central Railway in relation to the company's plans for a high speed freight rail link with particular reference to the part of the route adjacent to or in the vicinity of the M25; and if he will make a statement. [124844]

    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 7 June 2000]None.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contacts have taken place between(a) officials, (b) special advisers and (c) Ministers in his Department and representatives of the Central Railway. [125062]

    Mr. Hill
    Officials met representatives from Central Railway in 1998 to discuss its revised proposals for a freight railway between Liverpool and Lille. Ministers have received further representations from the company from time to time, including copies of its consultation documents.

    Rail Subsidies
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he takes to ensure that Government subsidies to privatised railway companies are not passed on to shareholders. [124805]

    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 7 June 2000]Government subsidies to privatised railway companies take two forms: payments under franchise agreements to passenger train 314W
    operating companies, and grant payments to rail freight operators under the track access and freight facilities grant schemes.

    Franchise subsidies are agreed by the Franchising Director following competitive tender. Franchise payments are for specific contractual obligations, including minimum service levels, which the operator must fulfil.

    Grant payments to rail freight operators are available on application in accordance with the published terms of the grant schemes. The grant payments are calculated at the lower of the environmental benefit gained, the economic need of the business, and, where applicable, the level of track access charge. Grant is paid only where the service or investment in question is actually delivered.

    North Wales Main Line
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 May 2000,Official Report, column 436W, which external consultants the Franchising Director used to satisfy himself of the validity of the Virgin rail study on electrification of the North Wales main line; and what their terms of reference were. [124802]

    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 7 June 2000]The Franchising Director commissioned MVA Ltd. in connection with the Virgin study. Their terms of reference were to make an assessment of the study to allow the sSRA to reach a view on the robustness of methodology and the merits of the proposed North Wales electrification scheme.

    Rail Ticket Pricing
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that rail passengers are not overcharged when buying tickets. [124800]
    315W
    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 7 June 2000]A condition of station operators' licences from the Rail Regulator is that accurate and impartial advice on ticket pricing must be given to passengers.

    Bus Monitors
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bus monitors have been employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate in each year from 1997 to date. [124909]

    Mr. Hill
    The Vehicle Inspectorate employed 12 bus monitors in a successful pilot project in 1999. The same number will be employed in 2000.

    Traffic Commissioner
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the sufficiency of the personnel available to the Traffic Commissioner within the South Eastern and Metropolitan traffic areas. [124908]

    Mr. Hill
    The level of resources, including the number of staff, required to support the Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area is assessed each year as part of the normal budgeting process. More generally, the Traffic Area Network is engaged in a major modernisation programme—called TAN 21—designed to equip all the Traffic Area Offices across the country with up to date management and business systems. This has involved a fundamental review of all the business processes carried out in the offices. The aim is to provide improved support to the Traffic Commissioners and a better customer service to the commercial transport industries.

    Local Government Codes of Conduct
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities which do not include in their codes of conduct the 15 principles of conduct set out in the White Paper, "Local Government: In Touch with the People". [125101]

    Ms Armstrong
    It is not yet a statutory requirement for local authorities to have their own code of conduct. The obligation on local authorities to adopt a code of conduct, based on the general principles of conduct, is contained within Part III of the Local Government Bill, currently in Committee in this House.

    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities which have not yet established formal whistleblowing arrangements in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. [125103]

    Ms Armstrong
    My Department collects no information on whether local authorities have such procedures in place. While many employers, including local authorities, will wish to introduce procedures that facilitate internal whistleblowing, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 does not require them to do so, nor to inform the Government of their actions in this respect.

    South-east Airports
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding projected passenger numbers and numbers of flights into airports in the south-east of England. [124488]

    Mr. Mullin
    None. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) report, "Options for Growth—meeting demand at London's airports", was received by my Department after it had been published and the contents widely reported.

    The work was commissioned independently and there were no discussions between my Department and the LCCI regarding the report.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding new runways in the south-east of England. [124490]

    Mr. Mullin
    The commissioning of the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) study, and the consultation on the proposed appraisal framework to be used in that study, has resulted in a wide range of organisations making representations about new runways in the south-east of England.

    These are being carefully considered as part of the ongoing SERAS work. We are currently in the early stages of assessing options, both at existing airports and possible new sites. We will proceed through successive sifts to narrow down options to a final shortlist, on which there will be a full public consultation before Ministers come to decisions.

    House Demolitions, Liverpool
    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received in respect of the possible demolition of houses in Broad Lane, Liverpool; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement. [125106]

    Mr. Mullin
    I have received a total of nine representations regarding the concerns of tenants and residents in Broad Lane, Liverpool. I have been assured by Liverpool City Council that tenants and residents will continue to be consulted throughout the development of proposals for the area, and my responses have reflected this.

    Oceans
    Dr. Ladyman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent United Nations meeting on the oceans. [125404]

    Mr. Prescott
    The United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea met for the first time in New York last week. This is a new initiative to provide a global forum where we can identify ways to improve co-ordination at a national and international level, in order to ensure effective implementation of the framework provided by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and Chapter 17 of
    317W
    Agenda 21 (Oceans and All Seas). Participants include states, non-governmental and inter-governmental organisations.

    The first meeting succeeded in providing a forum both for a general debate on oceans issues and for a more detailed discussion of particular topics. The scope for further action to counter piracy and armed robbery at sea, and improving co-ordination of global oceans management, particularly by making use of the Secretary General's annual report on all aspects of oceans use, were among the issues covered by the general debate.

    The two issues given special consideration at this meeting were improved fisheries management, particularly to counter the problem of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, and the economic and social implications of marine pollution.

    On fisheries, one of the main priorities to emerge was the need for early adoption by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of an International Action Plan on IUU fishing. There was also support for the newly agreed co-operation between the FAO and the International Maritime Organisation on developing control measures. Regional fisheries organisations were recognised as pivotal instruments through which states can manage particular fisheries, taking account of scientific stock assessments and balancing priorities, including food security and the need for sustainable economic base for fishing communities.

    On marine pollution, the meeting acknowledged the recent progress that had been made in implementing the 1995 Washington Global Programme of Action to Protect the Marine Environment against Land-Based Activities (GPA), but urged states and inter-governmental agencies to do more in this regard. It was also suggested that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) might identify what international support is needed to overcome the obstacles to the implementation of the GPA at national and local levels. The need to integrate action on marine pollution and degradation into mainstream investment programmes, as well as the need for capacity building to facilitate the integrated management of the coastal zone, were both highlighted.

    The report of the meeting will be submitted to this Autumn's UN General Assembly debate on Oceans and Law of the Sea, where I hope it will help produce a focused General Assembly resolution covering the priority areas for action.

    There will be a further meeting of the new process next year. A number of possible issues for special discussion have already been identified. These include improved development and use of marine science, and capacity building in developing countries.

    Particularly today, World Oceans Day, I am pleased to confirm that the UK will continue to support and encourage this new informal consultative process. As well as participating in the meeting, this year we helped to shape the agenda and were able to help broaden participation by funding the attendance of a number of experts from developing countries. I hope that others will follow this lead.

    Central Trains Ltd.
    Mr. Russell Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there is an exemption order for the fleet of new Class 170/5 and 170/6 trains to be introduced into service by Central Trains Ltd. in respect of any of the provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998; and if he will make a statement. [125526]

    Mr. Hill
    We have received an application from Central Trains Ltd. relating to the new Class 170/5 and 170/6 trains they wish to introduce into service. The exemptions have been discussed with our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. An exemption order relating to the exemption of these trains was laid in Parliament on Thursday 1 June. Copies are available from the Library.

    The exemptions will not prevent disabled people from using the new trains. Indeed, we believe that the introduction of the new trains will make a significant contribution to improving mobility opportunities for disabled people.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Maternity Benefits
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed under the Sure Start Maternity Grant scheme; what steps his Department is taking to make sure that people eligible for this grant are aware of it; and if he will make a statement. [124548]

    Angela Eagle
    Sure Start Maternity Grant was introduced on 27 March of this year for babies due or born on or after 11 June. The Maternity Payment scheme remains in operation for babies due or born on or before 10 June. Both schemes will continue to run concurrently during the transitional period. In the first full month of the new payment's operation (up to 30 April), there were an estimated 5,224 claims. During the same period there were 8,430 claims for Maternity Payments. The number of claims made for Sure Start Maternity Grant will inevitably be lower now than they will be when claims for Maternity Payments finally come to an end.

    To raise awareness of the new grant a special leaflet and poster have been produced jointly by this Department and the Department of Health. These are being distributed to outlets likely to be used by lower income families with newly born babies. The leaflet is included in a free pack that expectant mothers can obtain from Mothercare. The leaflet and a poster are being distributed through a number of major retail and pharmaceutical chains. They are also available through doctors' surgeries, through advisory organisations, through key Employment Service offices offering ONE and departmental local offices.

    The leaflet and poster are available in Welsh as well as in English and are available in Braille and cassette versions. Information on Sure Start Maternity Grant is also included in departmental leaflets "Expecting a Baby?" and "Babies and Children". These are available in English, Welsh and eight ethnic languages. To coincide with the launch of the new payment, articles were placed in women's magazines. Advice on the grant can also be accessed through the departmental website pages.
    319W
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will extend maternity benefit to those lower-paid women who are excluded from receiving payment; how many people will be beneficiaries of this payment; and if he will make a statement. [124550]

    Mr. Bayley
    More women will be able to qualify for Maternity Allowance (MA) under new rules which apply to women expecting babies on or after 20 August 2000. The improvements will extend MA to low-paid women who earn at least £30 a week on average, and who are employed or self-employed for 26 weeks in the 66 week period ending with the week before the week the baby is expected.

    Around 11,000 employed women and 2,000 self-employed women will receive a maternity payment for the first time. The changes will also increase MA by 15 per cent. for around 11,000 self-employed women who, until now, received less MA than employed women.

    Pensions
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) are eligible for and (b) claim the state pension in (i) Scotland, (ii) Dumfries and Galloway and (iii) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency. [124729]

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

    There were an estimated 919,600 people of pensionable age resident in Scotland in mid-1998. It is not known how many of these were eligible for the State Retirement Pension.

    31,800 people of pensionable age were estimated to be resident in Dumfries and Galloway unitary local authority in mid-1998 and 14,700 people of pensionable age were estimated to be resident in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency in 1991.

    An estimated 875,500 people were receiving State Retirement Pension in Scotland in March 1999.

    Notes:

    1. Population of pensionable age defined as men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over.

    2. Population estimates provided by the Office for National Statistics and are rounded to the nearest 100 persons.

    3. Population estimates are not available at constituency level. Constituency level data are derived from the 1991 Census.

    4. Numbers of retirement pension recipients derived from a 5 per cent. sample of the Pensions Computer Strategy System. Estimates rounded to nearest 100 persons. Local authority and constituency level data are not available.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the amount of the basic pension would be if it had been uprated in line with hon. Members' salaries since 1987. [124247]

    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 6 June 2000]The basic State Pension for a single person in 1987 was £39.50 a week. By 2000 it would have been raised by a factor of 2.61, had it been increased in line with hon. Members salaries over this period.
    320W
    By definition a salary would be presumed to be enough to live on whereas the basic State Pension is not intended to be more than the foundation of total pensioner income, which for the 1997–98 tax year averaged £132 per week net for a single pensioner, this is of course more than twice the level of the basic State Pension for that year.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were recipients of winter fuel payments in 1999–2000; how many people who were eligible he estimates did not take advantage of these payments; and if he will make a statement. [124546]

    Angela Eagle
    In the winter of 1999–2000 around 10 million people in over 7.5 million households received winter fuel payments.

    In the first three winters of the winter fuel payment scheme, eligibility was based on receipt of one of a number of Social Security benefits. We were able to identify those eligible through the benefit computer systems, and then make payments automatically. There was therefore no need for anyone to claim their winter fuel payment, and all those eligible should have received the payment.

    As a result of changes to the winter fuel payment eligibility rules announced in December 1999, it has been necessary to introduce a claims process so that people aged 60 and over can establish whether they are eligible. The new rules are being backdated to the beginning of the scheme in the winter of 1997–98. The claims process will enable newly eligible people, many of whom are not in receipt of benefits and who will therefore not be identifiable through the benefit computer systems, to claim their winter fuel payments for past winters. It is too early to say what proportion of the newly eligible population will apply for such payments.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Scotland, (b) Dumfries and Galloway and (c) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency have claimed support under the minimum income guarantee. [124714]

    Mr. Bayley
    Approximately 21,000 new claims have been made for the minimum income guarantee in Scotland since its introduction in 1999.

    Current numbers of pensioners in receipt of the minimum income guarantee—February 2000

    Parliamentary Constituency/Local Authority Area/Country

    Number

    Scotland

    162,000

    Dumfries and Galloway Local Authority Area

    4,000

    Galloway and Upper Nithsdale Parliamentary Constituency

    2,000

    Notes:

    1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

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

    3. Sample size 5 per cent.

    4. Figures are allocated by matching the postcode against the 1999 version 2 of the Postcode Directory.

    Source:

    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, February 2000.

    ONE Service
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the ONE service operation currently piloted in 12 locations will be extended to other areas; when the Portsmouth area will be covered; and if he will make a statement. [124554]

    Angela Eagle
    The 12 pilots of the new ONE service are planned to run until March 2002. The pilots have been designed to test the effectiveness of work-focused interviews for all working-age clients and to develop appropriate models for the integration and improvement of welfare services. No decision has yet been made as to when ONE might be extended beyond the current pilot areas.

    Disability Living Allowance (Children)
    Mr. Derek Twigg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of children who had their first claim for Disability Living Allowance disallowed, appealed against the decision in(a) Halton, (b) the North West and (c) England and Wales in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; [123927]

    (2) what percentages of children under the age of five years making their first claim for Disability Living Allowance, had their claim (a) disallowed and (b) allowed in (i) Halton, (ii) the North West and (iii) England and Wales in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; [123928]

    (3) how many children aged under five years in (a) Halton, (b) the North West and (c) England and Wales made a first claim for Disability Living Allowance in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [123929]

    Mr. Bayley
    The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Charlie MacKinnon to Mr. Derek Twigg, dated 6 June 2000:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Alexis Cleveland to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions about claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Due to annual leave
    I am replying on her behalf.
    Information about claims for DLA is not available in relation to an individual constituency or an unsuccessful applicant. However, I am able to provide the information as shown in the attached appendices.
    Information about children who had their first claim for DLA disallowed and then appealed against the decision is shown in Appendix 1.
    The reviews figures noted in the tables refer to claims which were originally disallowed and then subsequently awarded as a result of a review by DLA. The appeal figures refer to claims that were originally disallowed, subject to a review and disallowed and then awarded as the result of an appeal.
    The details about children under the age of five making their first claim for DLA are shown in Appendix 2.
    It should be noted that figures held for Halton Parliamentary Constituency which are relevant, are unreliable because of the small number of cases in the 5% data source. The review figures quoted are for claims which were originally disallowed and awarded following a review and the appeals figures, are for claims which were disallowed after review and subsequently awarded as a result of an appeal.
    322W
    I regret that figures held by the Department for all claims are not in a form that enables me to supply you with the information requested.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Appendix 1:

    (1) Children aged under 16 in England and Wales awarded Disability Living Allowance

    1997

    1998

    1999

    All awards

    34,300

    32,000

    33,100

    On initial claim

    27,500

    26,500

    27,700

    On review

    5,300

    4,000

    4,000

    On appeal

    1,500

    1,500

    1,400

    Appendix 1:

    (2) Children aged under 16 in England and Wales awarded Disability Living Allowance

    1997

    1998

    1999

    All awards

    2,200

    2,900

    4,800

    On initial claim

    1,600

    2,200

    3,700

    On review

    1400

    600

    800

    On appeal

    1200

    1100

    1200

    1Number too small to be statistically reliable

    Note:

    Please note that the figures have been rounded up

    Appendix 2:

    (1) Children aged under 5 in England and Wales awarded Disability Living Allowance

    1997

    1998

    1999

    All awards

    16,500

    15,800

    15,200

    On initial claim

    13,700

    13,500

    13,300

    On review

    2,400

    1,900

    1,700

    On appeal

    500

    1400

    1300

    1Please note that the figures have been rounded up

    Appendix 2:

    (2) Children aged under 5 in England and Wales awarded Disability Living Allowance

    1997

    1998

    1999

    All awards

    1,000

    1,500

    2,200

    On initial claim

    700

    1,100

    1,800

    On review

    1200

    1300

    1400

    On appeal

    1100

    —

    —

    1Please note that these figures have been rounded up

    Pension Books
    Mr. Efford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what performance targets exist for the issue of pension books; [124234]

    (2) what is the average length of time it takes for a widow to receive her pension book from the date of bereavement; [124233]

    (3) how many pension books have been recalled due to errors by the Benefits Agency in each of the past three years. [124235]
    323W
    Mr. Rooker
    The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend. If he has a particular constituency problem then perhaps he will write to me.

    Letter from Charlie MacKinnon to Mr. Clive Efford, dated 6 June 2000:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Alexis Cleveland to reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the performance targets for the issue of pension books, the average time it takes a widow to receive her pension book from the date of bereavement and the number of pension books that have been recalled due to errors by the Benefits Agency in each of the past three years. Due to annual leave I am replying on her behalf.
    At April 2000, 56% of widows and retirement pensioners received their payments by order book, out of a customer base in excess of 11 million.
    The Benefit Agency does not have a target for the issue of order books. It measures performance from the date a claim is received to the date the benefit is awarded. The current clearance targets for straightforward Retirement Pension claims is 95% within 60 days and for Widows Benefit claims 85% in 30 days. On average a Widows Benefit claim is awarded within seven days of receipt of the claim.
    Once the benefit has been awarded on the Pension Strategy Computer System an electronic interface between that system and the Area Computer Centre arranges for the production and issue of the order book to the relevant destination. This can be the post office or the customer's home address.
    I am unable to advise you of the number of pension books that have been recalled over the last three years due to Benefit Agency error as Pension order books are recalled for a number of reasons including changes in customer's circumstances. Detailed records are not kept on the reasons for recall.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Reciprocal Agreement (Yugoslavia)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reciprocal agreement exists between the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia over the payment of social security benefit; which benefits it covers; if it applies to asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [125033]

    Angela Eagle
    The UK has had a bilateral social security agreement with the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia since 1958. Following the break-up of the Republic, the UK continues to apply the agreement to the now separate independent states until such time as revised agreements are entered into with them individually.

    The agreement covers Retirement Pension, Widows Benefit, Incapacity Benefit, contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Maternity Benefits, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and Child Benefit. Where a person does not fully satisfy the conditions for any of those benefits, the agreement can help them qualify if they have contributed to both countries' social security schemes. There is no special provision in the agreement for asylum seekers.

    Fraud
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those local authorities that have not introduced penalties for fraud under the Social Security (Fraud) Act 1997. [125100]
    324W
    Angela Eagle
    All local authorities have the power to offer administrative penalties to those shown to be claiming Housing Benefit fraudulently, as an alternative to criminal proceedings. From 1999–2000, local authorities have been asked to provide data on the number of penalties offered. These figures are not yet available.

    Opinion Research
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 619W, concerning market and opinion research, if he will list the title and purpose of each item of research. [124848]

    Mr. Rooker
    A title and brief description of all research commissioned under the Department's Research Programme, including public opinion research, can be found in the Department's Research Yearbook published annually. A copy of the annual Research Yearbook is available from the House of Commons Library.

    In addition, the War Pensions Agency carries out an annual survey among its customers entitled "War Pensions Agency Customer Research Survey". The objective of this survey is to assist the Agency in determining the needs, expectations and satisfaction of current and future war pensioners.

    A list of research conducted by the Communications Directorate since 1 May 1997 is available in the Library.

    Integrated Child Credit
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of introducing the integrated child credit; what steps are being taken to ensure that the scheme is delivered at the planned time; and if he will make a statement. [124549]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I have been asked to reply.

    The integrated child credit announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech will be introduced from 2003 and administered by the Inland Revenue alongside the employment tax credit.

    The Budget Paper "Tackling Poverty and Making Work Pay: Tax Credits for the 21st century" gives more details of the proposals.

  HEALTH

    Surrey and Sussex Healthcare Trust
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a decision on the future provision of acute services by the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare Trust. [124945]

    Ms Stuart
    Ministers are fully aware of the strength of local feeling about this issue. A final decision, which will be made as soon as possible, will only be made in the best interests of the local community.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 1 February from the hon. Member for Aylesbury about the case of Mrs. Sylvia Morgan. [125063]
    325W
    Ms Stuart
    Unfortunately, we do not appear to have received the hon. Members letter on behalf of Mrs. Sylvia Morgan. If he passes me a copy of the letter I will ensure that a response is forthcoming as soon as possible. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

    Norfolk and Norwich Hospital
    Mrs. Shephard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds there were at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital on(a) 1 June 2000 and (b) 1 April 1997. [125059]

    Ms Stuart
    The Norfolk and Norwich Hospital had six intensive care beds at 1 April 1997 and 1 June 2000. However, as part of their planning for the 1999–2000 winter period, the trust made provision for two additional intensive care beds by transferring resources from its high dependency beds, which reduced in number from six to four.

    We have recently announced a significant investment of £150 million of additional resources to improve capacity of critical care services and the Eastern Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive is currently discussing with Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust how the trust will improve its critical care services for the coming winter.

    Organic Food
    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has carried out on the(a) composition and (b) impact on health of organic food. [118571]

    Ms Stuart
    The Department has not carried out any research on either the composition or impact on health of organic food.

    Responsibility for matters relating to the safety and composition of food now rests with the Food Standards Agency. I am advised by the agency that although it has not carried out any research into the composition of organic food it is aware that a number of studies on this subject have been carried out over the last 10 years. I am also advised that the agency has a programme of research assessing microbiological safety issues that are relevant to the production of both organic and conventionally grown fruit and vegetables.

    Mobile Phones
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Stewart Committee on Mobile Phones and Health. [122311]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Stewart report published on 11 May includes over 30 wide-ranging recommendations. We issued our initial response on the same day and copies are available in the Library. We will implement the research in a comprehensive programme costing several million pounds. We plan to launch this programme by September. Further discussions have been held with the Stewart Group about the provision of information to the public about the use of mobile phone technology. Other recommendations are being taken forward by the appropriate Government Departments and agencies.
    326W
    Mr. Pollard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned on the health risks of(a) mobile telephones and (b) telecommunication masts; and if he will make a statement. [122354]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Department has funded two research projects on possible effects of radio frequency fields similar to those emitted by mobile phones and base stations. (i) a behavioural study of rodents and (ii) a human study involving psychological tests under simulated mobile phone use. The Department is also providing support for the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields Project and a multinational study of brain cancer and mobile phone use.

    Preparations are currently under way to set up a substantial programme of research funded jointly by Government and industry. Details will now be taken forward in the light of the recommendations of the independent group on mobile phones and health (Stewart Report). This report was published on 11 May and copies have been placed in the Library.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the possible links between proximity to mobile phone transmitter masts and the development of cancers; and if he will make a statement. [124095]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Department has not commissioned any research into links between proximity to transmitter masts and cancers. The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart group) was set up to investigate the broader public health implications of mobile phone technologies. The group's report was published on 11 May and copies are in the Library. The report includes a number of recommendations for research which are being taken forward by Government in a comprehensive programme of research costing several millions of pounds. It is planned to launch this programme by September.

    Paramedics
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of paramedics in the Ambulance Service. [122583]

    Ms Stuart
    We have invested a further £21 million this year to support the ambulances in meeting the new national response time performance standards. Meeting the 75 per cent. response time target for immediately life threatening emergencies will require the recruitment and training of significant numbers of paramedics. All 32 ambulance services have presented their plans for improving performance to the National Health Service Executive including the necessary paramedic work force requirements. Currently every frontline ambulance carries a fully trained paramedic.

    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the role of paramedics in the Ambulance Service. [122582]

    Ms Stuart
    Ambulance paramedics have made a very valuable contribution to pre-hospital patient care over the past 10 years. They are playing an increasingly important role in saving lives, particularly the lives of people with heart attacks. Their responsibilities include providing life
    327W
    saving care and drugs to people with immediately life threatening medical conditions. That is why we supported their registration as Professions Supplementary to Medicine last year.

    NHS (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Nicholls
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people each year receive financial assistance after appealing for help with NHS costs using an HC1 form. [122783]

    Ms Stuart
    In England for the year 1999–2000, the Health Benefits Division of the Prescription Pricing Authority issued around 542,000 National Health Service charges certificates (HC2) for full help and around 299,000 NHS Charges certificates (HC3) for limited help following an HC1 claim. People named on an HC2 would be entitled to full financial assistance with NHS costs (e.g. free NHS prescriptions) when they received treatment. People named on an HC3 would have been entitled to financial assistance with health costs (excluding prescription charges) on a sliding scale when they received treatment. The number of people who receive financial assistance in this way is not recorded.

    Chlamydia Trachomatis
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the policies adopted following the recommendations of the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Advisory Group on screening for chlamydia trachomatis; what has been the outcome of the two pilot studies which were set up; and if he will make a statement. [123779]

    Yvette Cooper
    After considering the expert advice, we strengthened our national health promotion on chlamydia and set up a pilot screening programme to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of opportunistic screening. The pilot is under way and will run until 31 August. The results will be used to develop future policy on national screening programmes and we aim to identify possible policy options by the end of this year. These data will also be considered as part of the national sexual health strategy currently under development.

    Surgical Instruments
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to ensure that surgical instruments used in NHS hospitals are sterile. [123724]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Department and the National Health Service are aware of the need to maintain high quality decontamination procedures to ensure that surgical instruments used in NHS hospitals are sterile. In August 1999, as part of the Department's initiatives on Infection Control, particularly relating to the risks posed by surgical instruments, a comprehensive package of extant decontamination guidance was issued free of charge to all NHS Trusts under Health Service Circular (HSC) 1999/179 Controls Assurance in Infection Control: Decontamination of Medical Devices.

    The HSC emphasised the importance of implementing existing guidance on the cleaning and sterilisation of medical devices. We have also asked NHS Estates (an executive agency of the Department of Health) to
    328W
    undertake an assessment of current decontamination practices across healthcare sectors in England, including NHS hospitals. The review is due to be completed at the end of June 2000. The need for further policy, advice and guidance will then be reviewed.

    Cancer
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of cancers in the United Kingdom which were caused by infections in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [123795]

    Yvette Cooper
    There is some evidence to show that certain cancers may be linked to infections (notably stomach, liver, cervix, penis and Non-Hodgkins lymphoma). We are not able to identify the percentage of cases of these cancers which are caused in this way.

    New Variant CJD
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how long after the death of an individual that individual's medical records are kept; whether an individual's medical records are kept for a different length of time if they die from new variant CJD; and if he will make a statement. [124088]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Department issued guidance to healthcare organisations in 1998 and 1999 (Health Service Circulars 1999/053 and 1998/217), which advised that hospital medical records for deceased patients should be kept for a minimum of eight years and similar records held by general practitioners for a minimum of 10 years. Such records are often retained for a longer period of time in certain cases such as maternity and mental illness.

    The National CJD Surveillance Unit collates detailed information on patients who have had CJD of any type, including copies of medical records wherever possible. It is expected that this information will be held by the unit for the foreseeable future.

    Vaccines
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent advice his Department has(a) sought and (b) received concerning the effectiveness of the purification process for removing bovine material from vaccines in the early stages of manufacture; what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of this process; and if he will make a statement. [124086]

    Yvette Cooper
    For those vaccines which use bovine material in the early stages of their manufacture, manufacturers are required to provide supporting evidence to the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) that the purification process is properly controlled and validated, to ensure the removal of such material. The Committee on the Safety of Medicines advises the MCA on the suitability of the purification process and its validation.

    Skin Cancer
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recent inquiry commissioned by the NFU into the alleged link between skin cancer and pylon lines; and if he will make a statement. [123907]
    329W
    Yvette Cooper
    No assessment has been made into the alleged link referred to in the question although the general allegation of an association between power line and health effects has been widely researched. The Department of Health Radiation Protection Research Programme has its own ongoing investigations and also contributes to the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields Project. In 1992, the National Radiological Protection Board's (NRPB) Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation examined in detail the evidence for an association between the incidence of cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields and concluded that there was no clear evidence of an adverse health effect at the levels of electromagnetic field to which the public is normally exposed. The NRPB Advisory Group keeps the relevant research under review and will be publishing a comprehensive overview of electromagnetic fields and cancer later this year.

    Laptop Computers
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1907. [123737]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 25 May 2000]The figures for laptop computers reported lost or stolen belonging to the Department and its agencies for the period covering May 1997 onwards are shown in the table.

    Date

    Number lost or stolen

    1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

    23

    1 April 1997 to 31 March 1999

    19

    1 April 1997 to 31 March 2000

    18

    1 April 1997 to 31 March 2000

    1

    Total

    61

    Farnham Hospital
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the NHS press notices in which Farnham Hospital is named for the past three years. [124229]

    Ms Stuart
    This information is not held centrally.

    Officials at South East Regional Office have, therefore, asked West Surrey and North and Mid Hampshire Health Authorities for copies of all National Health Service press notices issued in the past three years in which Farnham Hospital is named.

    These will be placed in the Library in due course.

    Alcohol Abuse
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when lie plans to publish a national strategy for dealing with alcohol abuse; and if he will make a statement. [124699]

    Yvette Cooper
    We plan to publish a consultation paper later this year, which will allow a period for comment, prior to the publication of the strategy.

    MMR Vaccines
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 349W, on MMR vaccines, if he will provide the (a) current and (b) projected total costs of meningitis C vaccine purchased by the NHS as part of the current vaccination programme. [123166]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]The cost of vaccine purchase is commercially confidential. However, at the end of the programme we hope to be able to give an aggregate cost for the whole programme including vaccine purchase, distribution, implementation, information and publicity.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Butler Report
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Solicitor-General if the report by His Honour Gerald Butler QC concerning the handling of the case of Rv. Doran and others has been delivered; what information concerning it will be published; and what action the Government plans to take in response. [124941]

    The Solicitor-General
    The report by His Honour Gerald Butler QC was delivered on 14 April. On 22 July 1999,Official Report, columns 607–09, the Attorney-General indicated the Government's intention to make a summary of the report and its recommendations available to both Houses. In the event, it is possible to make the report available in full, and the Attorney-General has therefore today lodged a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, together with a copy of the Government's response. In addition, the summary included in the report and the inquiry's recommendations, together with the Government's response to them, are being made publicly available on the HM Customs and Excise internet site (http://www.hmce/gov.uk), and copies of the full report will be available on request to HM Customs and Excise at a cost of £8.

    All the recommendations made to the Attorney-General in the report which are capable of acceptance immediately have been accepted. Further work is required by other recommendations and such work is being set in hand.

    With the agreement of the Chairman of Customs and Excise Commissioners, His Honour John Gower QC, assisted by Sir Anthony Hymenoid KCB QC, has agreed to carry out an immediate review of the role of Customs as a prosecuting authority. The terms of reference are:
    Having regard to the Butler Report and the Hosker Report, the tripartite system operated within Customs and Excise in relation to the investigation and prosecution of offences, and to all other relevant considerations, to examine

    (1) whether or not some or all of the prosecutions at present conducted by the Solicitor's Office of HM Customs and Excise should continue to be conducted by
    331W
    (2) to the extent that it is concluded that the Solicitor's Office should not continue to conduct some or all of those prosecutions, whether such prosecutions should be conducted by an existing prosecution authority, or by some other body.
    and to make recommendations.
    The Attorney-General anticipates receiving this report by the end of October this year.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Solicitor-General what targets he has set the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of the number and duration of adjournments in magistrates courts proceedings. [125038]

    The Solicitor-General
    No specific targets have been set by the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of adjournments. The service is working with other criminal justice partners to reduce the number of avoidable adjournments, which impact on a number of the Government's over-arching objectives for the criminal justice system; particularly those for dealing with cases with appropriate speed and meeting the needs of victims and witnesses. Adjournments may be caused by a combination of factors not necessarily within the control of any one agency, and it would not be appropriate to target the prosecution alone.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Solicitor-General how many Crown Prosecution Service inspectors there are; how many(a) are women, (b) are from ethnic minorities, (c) have disabilities and (d) were formerly Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors, and in what grades; and if he will make a statement. [125078]

    The Solicitor-General
    There are three categories of inspector within the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate—casework inspectors, business management inspectors and legal inspectors at levels B2, D and E respectively. The breakdown by reference to gender and ethnic origin is set out in the table.

    Male

    Female

    Ethnic minority

    Casework Inspectors

    0

    5

    2

    Business Management

    1

    11

    0

    Legal Inspectors

    8

    6

    2

    1This person has been appointed and takes up the post on 12 June 2000.

    The Chief Inspector and three Group Directors (SCS level) are all male. None comes from an ethnic minority. No inspector has declared himself/herself disabled.

    The Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate at present constitutes a unit within the CPS, but will become an independent statutory body subject to enactment and implementation of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill now before Parliament. All staff are at present therefore employed by the CPS. It is intended that the Inspectorate should in future be staffed by a combination of inspectors who have served in the CPS and others who have not and will therefore bring an external perspective to its work.

    Most inspectors are now recruited by open competition. Ten out of 14 legal inspectors served in the CPS immediately before joining the CPS; one served in
    332W
    HM Customs and Excise (although she had in the past been employed by the CPS); one served as a trade union national officer for four years (while remaining employed by the CPS); and two joined from private practice. Both business management inspectors were recruited by one competition from outside the civil service. The casework inspectors all joined the Inspectorate from the CPS itself.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Solicitor-General how many Crown Prosecution Service inspectors have undergone race awareness training; what the training consisted of; and if he will make a statement. [125079]

    The Solicitor-General
    With the exception of three inspectors who joined in April and May 2000, all inspectors have had racial awareness training. The common features of the training may be summarised as follows:

    1. All the staff with line management responsibility have been required to attend a formal course run by the CPS on Human Awareness and Racial Equality.

    2. All staff have been required to participate in discussion groups based on a showing of the CPS Equality and Diversity video.

    3. An Inspectorate training event (involving all staff) in May 1999 incorporated separate presentations and discussion sessions led by a senior lawyer within CPS Policy Directorate and by the Director for Criminal Justice and Race at NACRO. A similar training event in May 2000 included a presentation by a senior lawyer within CPS Policy Directorate and by the Director for Criminal Justice and Race at NACRO. Newly appointed inspectors will undergo race awareness training as part of a personal development plan which all staff must have. The Inspectorate keeps under review the need for training to ensure that no discriminatory practices occur within the Inspectorate itself; in addition, inspectors must be properly equipped to examine diversity issues in all aspects of the inspection process.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 369W, on the Crown Prosecution Service, if the Crown Prosecution Service has completed its consideration of how the recommendations of the Employment Tribunal in its decision in the case of Bamieh v. CPS (Case No. 2202655(98)), concerning temporary acting-up posts should be met; and if he will make a statement. [125104]

    The Solicitor-General
    The Crown Prosecution Service has implemented the Employment Tribunal's recommendation concerning temporary acting-up posts as Prosecution Team Leader. With effect from 29 February 2000, such opportunities have been advertised in the weekly guide to CPS business which is circulated to all CPS staff. The CPS will be monitoring each acting-up appointment and at the end of the twelve-month period covered by the recommendation will be considering whether this practice should be adopted permanently into the Department's deputising and temporary promotion procedures.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Solicitor-General if all Chief Crown Prosecutors have received race awareness training; if the Equality Committee of the Crown Prosecution Service has completed its review of training; and if he will make a statement. [125107]

    The Solicitor-General
    All Chief Crown Prosecutors have seen an internal video to raise awareness of equality issues in the Crown Prosecution Service. In addition, the Chief Crown Prosecutors discussed the issues raised at their recent (April) conference. All of the 42 CCPs and
    333W
    ACCPs have attended a formal training event for racial equality and human awareness. The Equality Committee has agreed an action plan to review and amend the content of 60 internal courses and a number of new courses by the end of December 2000.

  DEFENCE

    Medical and Dental Officers
    Dr. Naysmith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces. [125580]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has made recommendations on the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces. Consistent with the awards recommended by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body, and to maintain comparability with the salary scales of NHS doctors, the Review Body recommends that all medical and dental officers should receive a general 3.3 per cent. increase in basic pay. The Review Body also recommends a number of additions to the pay scales for consultants and general medical practitioners to reflect additional payments already agreed for comparators in the NHS. In addition, Service medical and dental officers receive the same rate of X-factor as combatants, which increased by 1 per cent. from 1 April 2000.

    The Government have decided to accept the Review Body's recommendations and these will be payable in full from 1 April 2000.

    Service Children's Education Agency
    Jean Corston
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Service Children's Education Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [125579]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets for 2000–01:To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 2 at the end of Key Stage 1 in:
    Reading—88 per cent.
    Writing—91 per cent.
    Spelling—75 per cent.
    Mathematics—92 per cent.
    To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 at the end of Key Stage 2 in:
    English—78 per cent.
    Mathematics—76 per cent.
    Science—81 per cent.
    To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 at the end of Key Stage 3 in:
    English—82 per cent. Mathematics—71 per cent.
    Science—71 per cent.
    To maintain a three year rolling average percentage of Year 11 pupils in SCE achieving five or more higher (A*-C) grades in GCSE of 47 per cent.
    To meet a three year rolling average of subject entries achieving passes at grades A-C level of 56 per cent.
    334W
    To achieve as a minimum a "satisfactory" standard in each OFSTED school inspection.
    To respond in full to customers seeking educational advice from SCE(UK) within the following timescales:
    92 per cent. within 10 working days of receipt (remainder within 20 working days of receipt).
    To develop a pilot scheme in 2000–01 to produce a measurement of "value added" in SCE schools for 2001–02.
    To achieve index of satisfaction with SCE within the Army Spouses Continuous Attitude Survey above 362 overall.

    Budget Allocations
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the budget allocation is for (1) the Defence Dental Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125088]

    (2) the Army Training and Recruiting Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125096]

    (3) the Army Training and Recruiting Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125087]

    (4) the Army Base Repair Organisation for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125095]

    (5) the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125093]

    (6) the Defence Housing Executive for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125089]

    (7) the Army Technical Support Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125097]

    (8) the Defence Aviation Repair Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125091]

    (9) the Defence Communication Services for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125086]

    (10) the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125094]

    (11) the Defence Analytical Services Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation; [125090]

    (12) the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2000–01; and when the agency received its budget allocation. [125092]

    Mr. Spellar
    The information requested is set out in the table.

    Agency

    Budget allocation (£ million)

    Date agreed

    Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

    54.416

    31 May 2000

    Army Base Repair Organisation

    65.28

    22 May 2000

    Army Technical Support Agency1

    —

    —

    335W

    Agency

    Budget allocation (£ million)

    Date agreed

    Army Training and Recruiting Agency

    680.996

    15 May 2000

    Defence Analytical Services Agency

    4.499

    17 May 2000

    Defence Aviation Repair Agency

    189.196

    22 May 2000

    Defence Bills Agency

    15.305

    16 May 2000

    Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency2

    —

    —

    Defence Communication Services

    348.1

    22 May 2000

    Defence Dental Agency

    36.429

    25 May 2000

    Defence Housing Executive

    373.315

    31 May 2000

    1The Army Technical Support Agency was disestablished with effect from 1 April 2000

    2The budget allocation for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency has yet to be determined

    Royal Fleet Auxiliaries
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sailings of each of the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, Brambleleaf, Bayleaf, Orangeleaf, Oakleaf, Fort Victoria and Fort George in the past year. [125084]

    Mr. Spellar
    The information requested is set out below:

    Date

    Sailed from

    RFA Brambleleaf

    30 June 1999

    Gibraltar

    16 July 1999

    Devonport

    24 September 1999

    Wallsend after refit

    1 October 1999

    Loch Striven

    25 October 1999

    Devonport

    2 November 1999

    Loch Striven

    19 November 1999

    Devonport

    24 November 1999

    Gibraltar

    1 December 1999

    Soudah Bay

    7 December 1999

    Algeciras

    8 December 1999

    Tangier

    9 December 1999

    Gibraltar

    14 December 1999

    Loch Striven

    17 January 2000

    Devonport

    24 January 2000

    Devonport

    31 January 2000

    Devonport

    15 February 2000

    Devonport

    28 February 2000

    Garelochhead

    14 March 2000

    Loch Striven

    20 March 2000

    Devonport

    21 March 2000

    Devonport

    8 April 2000

    Gibraltar

    17 April 2000

    Devonport

    24 April 2000

    Devonport

    1 May 2000

    Spithead

    7 May 2000

    Cherbourg

    29 May 2000

    Devonport

    2 June 2000

    Devonport

    RFA Bayleaf

    14 June 1999

    Devonport

    21 June 1999

    Loch Striven

    11 July 1999

    Gibraltar

    12 July 1999

    Tangier

    13 July 1999

    Algeciras

    14 July 1999

    Tangier

    17 July 1999

    Gibraltar

    22 July 1999

    Devonport

    6 September 1999

    Garelochhead

    8 September 1999

    Loch Striven

    29 September 1999

    Brest

    13 October 1999

    Loch Striven

    336W

    Date

    Sailed from

    22 October 1999

    Garelochhead

    8 November 1999

    Torbay

    12 November 1999

    Southampton

    15 November 1999

    Spithead

    22 November 1999

    Rotterdam

    5 December 1999

    Antwerp

    11 January 2000

    Garelochhead

    16 February 2000

    Gibraltar

    20 February 2000

    Gibraltar

    20 March 2000

    Devonport

    5 May 2000

    Gibraltar

    8 May 2000

    Tangier

    10 May 2000

    Algeciras

    19 May 2000

    Las Palmas

    21 May 2000

    Gibraltar

    27 May 2000

    Soudah Bay

    RFA Orangleaf

    26 June 1999

    Dubai

    10 July 1999

    Abu Dhabi

    21 July 1999

    Doha

    15 August 1999

    Dubai

    25 August 1999

    Bahrain

    12 September 1999

    Dubai

    1 October 1999

    Dubai

    22 October 1999

    Wudam

    20 November 1999

    Dubai

    3 December 1999

    Dubai

    11 December 1999

    Dubai

    14 December 1999

    Bahrain

    6 January 2000

    Dubai

    19 January 2000

    Dubai

    24 January 2000

    Kuwait

    16 February 2000

    Salalah

    2 March 2000

    Dubai

    20 March 2000

    Dubai

    17 April 2000

    Dubai

    22 April 2000

    Fujairah

    12 May 2000

    Dubai

    20 May 2000

    Kuwait

    28 May 2000

    Jebel Ali

    RFA Oakleaf

    1 June 1999

    Gibraltar

    22 June 1999

    Gibraltar

    10 November 1999

    Gibraltar

    10 December 1999

    Augusta

    7 January 2000

    Gibraltar

    8 January 2000

    Tangier

    9 January 2000

    Algeciras

    18 Janurry 2000

    Garelochhead

    10 February 2000

    Devonport

    27 April 2000

    Falmouth after refit

    24 May 2000

    Devonport

    30 May 2000

    St. Helier

    5 June 2000

    Devonport

    RFA Fort Victoria

    3 July 1999

    Rosyth after refit

    12 July 1999

    Glen Mallen

    20 July 1999

    Loch Striven

    6 August 1999

    Devonport

    21 August 1999

    Glen Mallen

    6 September 1999

    Devonport

    13 September 1999

    Cherbourg

    20 September 1999

    Devonport

    3 October 1999

    Devonport

    4 October 1999

    Spithead

    25 October 1999

    Devonport

    1 November 1999

    Devonport

    15 November 1999

    Loch Striven

    29 November 1999

    Brest

    2 December 1999

    Devonport

    13 December 1999

    Devonport

    18 January 2000

    Loch Striven

    337W

    Date

    Sailed from

    25 February 2000

    Crombie

    6 March 2000

    Devonport

    21 March 2000

    Devonport

    14 April 2000

    Loch Striven

    26 April 2000

    Glen Mallen

    3 May 2000

    Devonport

    9 May 2000

    Toulon

    20 May 2000

    Akrotiri

    7 June 2000

    Muscat

    RFA Fort George

    7 June 1999

    Glen Mallen

    8 August 1999

    Glen Mallen

    19 August 1999

    Devonport

    27 August 1999

    Alicante

    4 September 1999

    Augusta

    8 September 1999

    Izmir

    7 October 1999

    Soudah Bay

    16 November 1999

    Mersin

    19 November 1999

    Akrotiri

    1 December 1999

    Thessaloniki

    3 December 1999

    Soudah Bay

    9 December 1999

    Malaga

    18 January 2000

    Glen Mallen

    24 January 2000

    Gibraltar

    1 February 2000

    Augusta

    13 February 2000

    Fujairah

    17 February 2000

    Dubai

    3 March 2000

    Fujairah

    15 March 2000

    Beira

    20 March 2000

    Beira

    30 March 2000

    Mombasa

    16 April 2000

    Augusta

    23 April 2000

    Cadiz

    30 April 2000

    Brest

    22 May 2000

    Dakar

    Tanker Ships
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what commercial tanker ships his Department has chartered to move fuel between British naval bases in the past 12 months. [125085]

    Mr. Spellar
    In the past 12 months the Ministry of Defence has not chartered any commercial tanker ships to move fuel between British naval bases.

    HMS Cambridge
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the closure of HMS Cambridge. [125010]

    Mr. Spellar
    The proposed closure of HMS Cambridge is now subject to formal consultation, which is not due to complete until 26 June 2000, and a formal statement on the closure cannot be made until after this date. However the recommendations of the Investment Appraisal were that, following the cessation of live gunnery firing at HMS Cambridge, it was likely that the remainder of the establishment's training activity, namely Non Firing Gunnery Training, Board and Search Training and Naval Military Training, could be delivered more cost-effectively elsewhere. Indications are that the earliest date that a co-ordinated closure could be achieved is April 2001. Live firing for initial and career course training ceased in October 1999.
    338W
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings will accrue from the closure of HMS Cambridge. [125056]

    Mr. Spellar
    Following the cessation of live gunnery firing at HMS Cambridge, it was likely that the remainder of the establishment's training activity, namely, Non Firing Gunnery Training, Board and Search Training and Naval Military Training, could be delivered more cost-effectively elsewhere. The completed Investment Appraisal shows that, against a capital cost of £7.8 million, the projected overall savings to the Ministry of Defence over the 25 years appraisal period would be £112 million (net present value £49 million). The capital cost is for transferring training to HMS Raleigh, HMS Collingwood and HMS Dryad.

    Missiles
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what live-fire training exercises are planned to take place in the next 12 months using Sea Eagle missiles. [125005]

    Mr. Spellar
    I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training exercises involving the live firing of Sea Eagle missiles have taken place in each of the past 10 years. [125081]

    Mr. Spellar
    I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training exercises involving the live firing of Exocet missiles have taken place in each of the past 10 years. [125008]

    Mr. Spellar
    I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to procure further stocks of Exocet missiles for use by the Royal Navy. [125006]

    Mr. Spellar
    We have no plans to procure further stocks of Exocet missiles for use by the Royal Navy. The Exocet missile system has been gradually withdrawn from service since October 1997 as it has become obsolete. The removal of the Exocet system from service is more than adequately offset by other very capable systems deployed in many other ships in the Royal Navy, including the superior Harpoon Anti Ship missile.

    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of(a) Exocet, (b) Sea Eagle and (c) Sea Dart missiles are retained by the Royal Navy. [125011]

    Mr. Spellar
    Both Exocet and Sea Eagle were formally removed from Royal Navy service in 1999 and all remaining missile stocks are currently subject to disposal action.
    339W
    The Sea Dart remains in operational service. Accordingly, I am withholding detailed information on this system in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Exocet missiles are routinely carried by Type 22 Frigates in service. [125007]

    Mr. Spellar
    Exocet missiles are no longer in Naval service, and none are carried by Type 22 Frigates in service.

    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what upgrade and refurbishment work is planned to take place on the Royal Navy's stock of(a) Exocet and (b) Sea Dart missiles in the next 12 months. [125012]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Royal Navy's Exocet missiles have become obsolete and have gradually been withdrawn from service. Therefore no upgrade or refurbishment work on these weapons is planned. The removal of the Exocet system from Service has been offset by other very capable systems deployed throughout the Royal Navy. A contract for the final phase of the Sea Dart missile refurbishment programme was placed on 23 May 2000. This is to ensure that the Royal Navy has sufficient serviceable Sea Dart missiles until 2015, the current planned out of service date for the weapon system.

    Meet Your Navy Programme
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which ships have been withdrawn from the Meet Your Navy programme running from 26 May to 9 July. [125058]

    Mr. Spellar
    RFA Fort George was withdrawn from the Meet Your Navy programme to support operational commitments in Sierra Leone, but has been replaced by RFA Olna.

    Nuclear Submarines
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submariners are allocated to crew each decommissioned nuclear submarine. [125057]

    Mr. Spellar
    Eleven nuclear submarines have left RN service, of which two continue to be manned by a reduced ship's company (Valiant with 22 personnel and Renown with 43 personnel) until they complete the de-fuel, de-equipping and lay-up process.

    Partnership for Peace
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's officials last met their Croatian counterparts; and what discussions were held on the Partnership for Peace initiative. [125003]

    Mr. Hoon
    My officials last met their Croatian counterparts for UK-Croatia Bilateral Defence Talks held in the UK on 19 April 2000. The Croatian delegation was led by the Assistant Minister for Policy, Mr. Ivan Kozlica, who covered a wide range of subjects focusing on the new Government's commitment to root and branch reform of the armed forces.
    340W
    Discussions also touched upon Croatia's potential entry into the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. The Croatian delegation reiterated not only their Government's strong commitment to meeting the internationally agreed conditions for PfP membership, but also Croatia's intention to play a more constructive role in regional security.

    Given the momentous political changes over the last six months the UK was pleased to support Croatia's early admission to PfP, which was achieved at the Florence Ministerial on 24 and 25 May.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role Britain has played in Partnership for Peace activities with Croatia. [125004]

    Mr. Hoon
    Croatia was admitted to the Partnership for Peace programme during the Florence Ministerials on 24 and 25 May 2000 and is now eligible to participate in Partnership for Pt ace (PfP) activities. Prior to that date Croatia, not being a PfP member, did not take part in PfP activities. Croatia is now deciding on the activities in which she will participate and will be an effective contributor to PfP.

    Israel
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits have been made by Defence Procurement Agency personnel to Israel in the last year. [117560]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 3 April 2000]This information is not held centrally, but from a survey of the present DPA organisation I understand that there were 13 such visits by staff.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Enterprise and Skills Development
    Dr. Iddon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives his Department have established within schools to encourage the development of enterprise and skills relevant to business. [123347]

    Jacqui Smith
    The new National Curriculum, which will be introduced in schools from autumn, encourages schools to provide enterprise education to develop pupils' confidence, self-reliance and willingness to embrace change. We are also working with the Department of Trade and Industry to develop a website to support teachers in this.

    Physical Education
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in reaching the target of two hours physical education a week for pupils at all key stage levels. [123348]

    Jacqui Smith
    We have set a very clear aspiration that all schools should provide two hours of physical activity a week, both within and outside lesson time. We are now working to inspire schools and partners in the sports sector to deliver this through the Sport Strategy.

    New Deal (Over-50s)
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's new deal for the over-50s. [123349]

    Ms Jowell
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched New Deal 50 Plus nationally in April and I am pleased to announce that in its first foul weeks over 1,700 people have gone back to work with the help of the Employment Credit. We plan to Tend a total of £270 million to the end of this Parliament on this targeted help for people over 50 looking for work.

    Employment Service Direct
    Mr. Singh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average weekly number of jobs secured through the Employment Service Direct. [123351]

    Ms Jowell
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton),Official Report, column 410.

    Our most recent records show that between January 1999, when Employment Service Direct began, and 19 May 2000, the average weekly number of jobseekers who have been helped by the Service is 1,148.

    Between January 2000 and 19 May 2000, the average weekly number is 1,319.

    New Deal (Yorkshire and Humberside)
    Mr. Quinn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employers have signed up to support the New Deal in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. [123352]

    Ms Jowell
    By the end of April, 7.000 employers in Yorkshire and the Humber Region had signed agreements supporting the New Deal.

    Failing Schools
    Mr. Geraint Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what incentives he is planning to encourage successful teachers to move to work in failing schools. [123353]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The new pay system for teachers, which comes into effect from 1 September 2000, will introduce more flexibility for schools to make recruitment and retention payments to classroom teachers in challenging situations. From September such payments will be worth up to £3,765 for schools in inner London in special measures, and can be paid as salary enhancements or as one-off bonuses. In September 1999 we introduced flexibility within the pay system to offer head teachers significantly increased rewards if they perform well at schools deemed as failing.

    Mr. Rowe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the number of failing schools. [123343]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a wide range of representations on failing schools from hon. Members and other interested 342W
    parties. We are particularly encouraged that because of decisive action by this Government, the time it takes to turn around a failing school has fallen from 25 months under the Conservatives to 18 months now. The imposition of a deadline for improvement has been the key factor in this.

    New Deal (Administrative Burden)
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the burden of administration for employers wishing to participate in the New Deal. [123354]

    Ms Jowell
    The New Deal is an unqualified success. 70,000 employers have signed up to New Deal and over 200,000 young people have left and found jobs. Paperwork is kept to a minimum needed to safeguard public funds.

    Information and Communication Technology Learning Centres
    Mrs. Betty Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the development of information and communication technology learning centres. [123355]

    Mr. Wills
    In the March 1999 Budget the Chancellor announced the development of around 700 ICT Learning Centres across England. The initiative is targeted at disadvantaged communities, including: the 2,000 most deprived local authority wards; rural areas with significant transport and deprivation problems; and disadvantaged client groups with low or no ICT skills.

    This initiative centres on people living and working in the most disadvantaged communities and will provide access to ICT and learning into disadvantaged communities to bridge the gap between those in society who have access to ICT and those who do not. Early centres were announced in October. A further round of centres were announced in January when the prospectus for the main rollout of the programme was published. Over 300 applications have been received for the first phase of the programme. The first successful projects will be announced in September.

    Employment Zones
    Mr. Tom Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Employment Zones in helping the long-term unemployed into work. [123356]

    Ms Jowell
    It is too early to assess the effectiveness of the 15 Employment Zones that were launched in April and May of this year. The Zones will be operational until March 2002 and we will, of course, be monitoring and evaluating their progress over the next two years.

    Performance-related Pay
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the anticipated take-up rate of performance-related pay for teachers. [123357]
    343W
    Ms Estelle Morris
    All teachers who apply for assessment at the performance threshold and are assessed as meeting the national standards will pass. We have set no limits on take-up.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment upon what aspects of his performance-related pay proposals teachers from the SEN sector have made representations. [123358]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a variety of representations on the new pay structure for teachers, including a number from heads and teachers involved in providing for SEN. He has made clear his intention that teachers from the SEN sector should be able to benefit from the new pay system in the same way as other teachers.

    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received on performance-related pay for teachers. [123368]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    On 2 May we launched consultation on the draft School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document with the statutory consultees. These are the organisations we are required to consult with as part of the Review body process: teaching and headteachers' unions, governors' representatives and the National Employers. The consultation will run until 2 June. We will take the consultation responses into account in finalising the text of the Pay and Conditions Document, which will come into force from September 2000.

    Specialist Schools
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Sports Colleges he expects will result from the next round of specialist school designations. [123359]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    All of the applications received in the June 2000 Sports College competition will be considered in relation to the published criteria. It is not possible at this stage to estimate the number of designations we will make. We expect to be on schedule to reach the target of 110 Sports Colleges by 2003 as set out in the recent Sports Strategy "A Sporting Future for All".

    Top-up Student Fees
    Mr. Rammell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his response to the Russell Group of Universities' proposals for top-up student fees. [123360]

    Mr. Wicks
    The Government have legislated to prevent higher education institutions from charging "top-up" tuition fees. We are putting increased resources into higher education. This is an 11 per cent. increase in real terms amounting to an extra £1 billion in the four years from 1998.

    Adult Literacy and Numeracy
    Mr. Watts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to improve levels of adult literacy and numeracy. [123361]
    344W
    Mr. Wicks
    The Government are committed to tackling poor literacy and numeracy among adults. Last year we announced an additional £17 million to support the first phase of our campaign, and many of the new measures announced at the time are now in place or are well on the way. On 22 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment dedicated a further £20.25 million this year to improving adult and family literacy and numeracy skills. He will announce a full national strategy later this year and is putting in place a new Adult Basic Skills Strategy Unit within this Department to drive forward its implementation.

    New Deal (Subsidised Employment Option)
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of people on the New Deal are undertaking a subsidised employment option; and what proportion of people having taken this route have remained in employment with the same employer six months after the subsidy has finished. [123362]

    Ms Jowell
    At the end of February 2000, 129,000 young people were on the New Deal. Of these, 8 per cent. (10,600) were on the Employment Option.

    We do not collect separate figures for the numbers of young people who remain with the same employer six months after the subsidy finishes. The findings from a survey of employers will be published in the autumn.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting Government targets for increased participation rates in full-time education for young people aged 18 to 21 years. [123363]

    Mr. Wicks
    The Government's plans provide scope for participation by young people aged less than 21 entering full-time higher education undergraduate courses to reach 35 per cent. by 2002. Some 31 per cent. entered in autumn 1998; information on those who entered in autumn 1999 will be available by end summer 2000.

    Other than this there are no Government targets specifically concerned with the full-time participation in education of those aged 18–21.

    Agency Lecturers
    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the use of agency lecturers by colleges. [123365]

    Mr. Wicks
    We have been very disturbed by reports about the treatment of staff by some employment agencies, and suggestions that some have sought to circumvent employment legislation. We are working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry, which is in the final stages of revising the regulations which govern the conduct of employment agencies. We hope to have these in place later this year. We remain committed to ensuring that all those in the work place, whether they find work through agencies or otherwise, are treated fairly.

    Early Years Learning
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to evaluate European best practice in early years learning. [123366]

    Ms Hodge
    The research and evaluation division of my Department maintains a watching brief on research which is being undertaken in other European countries, to assess good practice in early years learning and to inform the development of policy in this country. We are participating currently in a Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Policy, which is being undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD review will compare practice in 12 countries, including the UK, and is expected to publish its report in 2001. The report will provide objective commentary on policy and practice in the UK, within an international context.

    Dance and Drama Students
    Mr. Michael J. Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on support for dance and drama students. [123367]

    Mr. Wicks
    The Dance and Drama Awards announced by my right hon. Friend on 27 November 1998 have been a great success. These scholarships have been taken up fully and over 830 students have started training. A similar allocation has been made for the second intake in September 2000.

    The awards have enabled an unprecedented number of students from low income families to enter training and to study for further and higher education qualifications. We have increased the level of maintenance available to further education students by 300 per cent. to £3,000 a year, to support them through their training. Students on higher education courses have access to the same financial support as other undergraduates, including student loans.

    Other dance and drama students also have access to support towards their fees and maintenance in the publicly maintained further and higher education sectors.

    Manufacturing Training
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department has taken to improve training for work in manufacturing industry. [123369]

    Mr. Wicks
    We are creating the Learning and Skills Council, which will work closely with National Training Organisations to address workforce development for all sectors, including Engineering Manufacture.

    My Department has recognised a network of 76 National Training Organisations (NTOs) to provide the pivotal role in helping to modernise the education and training system needed to deliver the skills for greater competitiveness and employability. We have supported NTOs in several initiatives, including the development of
    346W
    Foundation Modern Apprenticeships, Advanced Modern Apprenticeships and National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs).

    Remploy
    Mr. Caton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been provided to Remploy to enable it to implement its modernisation strategy. [123370]

    Ms Hodge
    I was pleased to announce on 12 May that the Government would be providing £5 million to help Remploy carry out its modernisation strategy. This is on top of the £1.5 million that we made available to Remploy last year and a further £1.5 million for this year to support the restructuring of their factory provision. This, along with the proposals for modernising supported employment I also announced on 12 May, will increase greatly the numbers of disabled people moving into mainstream employment.

    New Deal
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the New Deal. [123372]

    Ms Jowell
    The latest figures show that by the end of February 2000, 199,340 young people had gained jobs through the New Deal for Young People. These figures highlight the excellent progress we are making towards our commitment to help 250,000 young people into work through the New Deal in the lifetime of this Parliament.

    Evaluation from independent organisations show that approximately 50 per cent. of those leaving unemployment through New Deal would not have done so in the absence of the programme.

    Furthermore, three quarters of young people believe that the personal adviser played a pivotal role in supporting them through New Deal. This continuity and support is unlike anything seen on previous programmes.

    Thames Gateway
    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on plans to increase employment opportunities in the Thames Gateway area. [123371]

    Ms Jowell
    The Government attach great priority to the Thames Gateway. We want the area to become a hub for development and regeneration. We have therefore announced plans to establish a Strategic Partnership and Excellence Body, designed to give a new momentum to development in the area and to ensure that regeneration and economic expansion can be delivered in a sustainable way.

    In the light of the job losses announced by Ford in Dagenham, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have announced a 10 point plan for the regeneration of the area. The Employment Service already has a presence on the site through its job shop. There will also be a role for the TECs initially,

    347W
    and subsequently the Learning and Skills Councils, for Business Links and then for the Small Business Services. We are in discussions with Ford about the wider implications for local businesses and for those in the supply chain.

    Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which sections of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 have not yet been subject to a commencement order. [122500]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The following sections of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 are not in force:

    Section:

    39 (1) (partly in force: for the purpose of making regulations only)

    112 (3)

    115 (2),(3)

    128

    134 (2)

    Schedule:

    30, paragraph 28 (2)(b) repealed (never in force)

    30, paragraph 64,65

    30, paragraph 70 (partly in force)

    30, paragraph 109 (partly in force)

    30, paragraph 114 (partly in force)

    30, paragraph 116 (partly in force)

    30, paragraph 138

    30, paragraph 185 (partly in force)

    31, (partly in force)

    FHE Institutions (Criminal Records)
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will issue guidance to institutions of(a) further and (b) higher education in respect of the admission of applicants with criminal records. [123249]

    Mr. Wicks
    In November 1999, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) extended the funding of widening participation to new categories of student. One such category was ex-offenders. The Council has introduced a new code in the Individualised Student Record (ISR) to show that additional funding is being claimed for widening participation because the student is an ex-offender. Some colleges asked whether they would be required to ask all students at enrolment whether they were ex-offenders. The Council provided written advice to all colleges that this was not the case. Where a student's eligibility for widening participation emerges during their programme of study, the institution may amend its data and the additional funding will be allocated for the whole of the teaching year covered by the ISR return. Information provided on enrolment forms is collected and used by the FEFC for the collection and analysis of statistical data, and is shared with other organisations for the purposes of detecting fraud. The FEFC is registered under the Data Protection Act 1984. There are no plans for the introduction of guidance to further education institutions in respect of the criminal records of applicants for admissions at the present time.
    348W
    In respect of Higher Education, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) application form includes a declaration by the applicant about criminal convictions. If this section is not completed, the form is returned to the applicant and it is not processed until it is. Institutions, however, may make their own decision about whether there are still concerns about an applicant.

    The declaration was included in the application process two years ago in response to concerns that in a few instances victim and attacker had been accepted by the same institution. There is no guidance from UCAS to institutions about how they should deal with applicants with convictions—it is purely a matter for individual institutions. However, some professions have their own guidelines—for example, teaching and social work—which would guide institutions. The UCAS process also covers some further education institutions offering courses of higher education.

    Citizenship Studies
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will define those elements of citizenship studies which are affected by the new international dimension to the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [124748]

    Jacqui Smith
    International issues are currently covered in a number of National Curriculum subjects, such as Geography and History. From September 2002, when Citizenship will become statutory in secondary schools, pupils aged 11–14 will be taught about the world as a global community, and the political, economic, environmental and social implications of this, and the role of the European Union, the Commonwealth and the United Nations, and pupils aged 14–16 will cover the opportunities for individuals and voluntary bodies to bring about social change in Europe and internationally; the United Kingdom's relations in Europe, including the European Union, and relations with the Commonwealth and the United Nations, and the wider issues and challenges of global interdependence and responsibility.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124127]

    Mr. Blunkett
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]: During the period 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000, special advisers in this Department travelled overseas on two occasions. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

    Teachers and Lecturers (Salaries)
    Mrs. Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the starting salary for(a) a newly qualified teacher and (b) a further education college lecturer in England. [124171]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    A newly qualified teacher with a second class honours degree or above starts at £16,050 pa; others start at £15,141 pa. If they work in London they also receive London allowances ranging
    349W
    from £591 pa to £2,316 pa. All schools can make additional payments to teachers to address recruitment and retention difficulties. From 1 September 2000 these allowances will range from £909 pa to £3,765 pa.

    It is for each college in the further education sector to decide the salary of its staff. The Sixth Form Colleges' Employers' Forum recommend a minimum starting salary of £15,412 for teachers in Sixth Form Colleges who have a second class honours degree or better.

    Mrs. Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the maximum pay for(a) a qualified teacher in England and (b) a further education college lecturer, on average, in England. [124172]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The pay reforms that we are introducing from 1 September introduce two pay ranges for teachers. The maximum that a classroom teacher can earn purely by incremental progression is £23,958 pa. However, they will then be able to apply for "threshold assessment" and if successful will move to an upper pay range which starts at £25,959. They will have the prospect of moving through four further points, subject to strong performance, to a maximum of £30,018 pa. Classroom teachers may also receive other payments on top of their basic pay. These include: London allowances ranging from £591 pa to £2,316 pa; recruitment and retention allowances ranging from £909 pa to £3,765 pa; management allowances ranging from £1,485 pa to £9,573 pa; and special educational needs allowances ranging from £1,515 pa to £3,000 pa.

    It is for each college in the further education sector to decide the salary of its staff. Statistics on average salaries of further education staff are not held centrally.

    Primary Pupils (Spending)
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 November 1999,Official Report, column 525W, on primary school pupils, when he will write to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. [124428]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The figures required to enable me to reply to my hon. Friend's earlier question are expected to become available shortly. I shall write to him and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Online Computer Training Initiative
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the UK online Computer Training initiative will be evaluated; if there will be a control group; and if he will make a statement. [124663]

    Mr. Wills
    The UK online Computer Training initiative will be evaluated firstly by collecting data for a monthly management information report. This will be available from the beginning of August. Further and more detailed reports will be produced in September. The longer-term evaluation of the initiative will be carried out in April 2001. Evaluation will track individual clients to see how the course has altered their chances of employability. We are interested to find out how provision like this can make a change for people who may be at risk of missing out on the benefits of ICT skills in the modern work place.
    350W
    The control group for this initiative will be drawn from people who have not attended the course and will allow us to make a direct comparison between people who have attended the course and those who have not.

    Once we have established what the scheme has achieved I will make a statement as to how we can apply the lessons we have learned.

    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people he estimates will participate in the UK online Computer Training initiative. [124664]

    Mr. Wills
    Government Offices for the regions have contracted for 50,000 courses to be offered in England under UK online Computer Training. Clients will be directed to courses via the learndirect service. Demand for the courses has been very high: Learndirect received their hundred-thousandth inquiry about this scheme on 6 June 2000. While we anticipate that 50,000 people will benefit directly from the training, we believe that the advertising that supports the scheme will lead people into other courses as well. We will evaluate the benefit to other schemes of the advertising campaign for the UK online Computer Training initiative.

    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how long the UK online Computer Training initiative will operate. [124665]

    Mr. Wills
    UK online Computer Training is a one year initiative and is due to complete in March 2001. The future of the initiative will be decided once reliable management information becomes available and a sound evaluation has been carried out. It is still very early in the life of this initiative, although early indications are very favourable.

    School Science Laboratories
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department has implemented to update school science laboratory facilities. [124796]

    Jacqui Smith
    Under the New Deal for Schools programme, 151 projects for improving science laboratories have been funded at a cost of just under £37 million. A further £60 million is being allocated from the Capital Modernisation Fund to tackle deficiencies in school science over the next two years. This will enable around 400 more improvement projects to be implemented at those schools most in need.

    Staff Secondments
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 554W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124817]

    Mr. Wills
    [holding answer 7 June 2000]: All of the secondments listed were for a period of 12 months or less, with the exception of the secondment from Glaxo Wellcome which lasted for a period of 14 months.

    Computers for Teachers Scheme
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the efficiency of the system for reimbursing teachers under the Computers for Teachers Scheme; and if he will make a statement;[122769]

    (2) what estimate he has made of the average time between the purchase of equipment under the Computers for Teachers Scheme and reimbursement. [122770]

    Mr. Wills
    The Computers for Teachers Initiative was launched on 12 January 2000. It offers a £500 subsidy towards the purchase of a computer for serving teachers and is free of tax. It has proved very popular with teachers and 18,000 applications have been received. The first phase of the scheme was closed on 30 April, with a deadline for receipt of applications of 5 June. 2,470 teachers have already received their reimbursement. The average time between application and reimbursement is about eight weeks, mainly due to incomplete forms in around half of the applications received, which then need to be followed up. Where a form is properly completed, the subsidy can normally be paid more quickly. Additional staff and telephone lines, as well as a dedicated website, were provided to deal with the volume of interest.

    New Deal (Local Authorities)
    Helen Jackson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal placements have been offered this year by local authorities. [123350]

    Ms Jowell
    We do not hold figures which show separately how many New Deal placements have been offered to people by local authorities.

    Waiting list data from May 1997 to July 1999: Welsh residents waiting for in patient or day case treatment

    Bro Taf Health Authority

    Dyfed Powys Health Authority

    Actual date

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    31 May 1997

    17,513

    —

    —

    14,064

    —

    —

    30 June 1997

    17,364

    -149

    -0.9

    13,915

    -149

    -1.1

    31 July 1997

    17,191

    -173

    -1.0

    12,615

    -1,300

    -9.3

    31 August 1997

    16,942

    -249

    -1.4

    13,449

    834

    6.6

    30 September 1997

    17,043

    101

    0.6

    13,970

    521

    3.9

    31 October 1997

    17,119

    76

    0.4

    13,963

    -7

    -0.1

    30 November 1997

    17,210

    91

    0.5

    13,836

    -127

    -0.9

    31 December 1997

    17,920

    710

    4.1

    14,070

    234

    1.7

    31 January 1998

    17,854

    -66

    -0.4

    13,267

    -803

    -5.7

    28 February 1998

    18,222

    368

    2.1

    14,330

    1,063

    830

    31 March 1998

    18,524

    302

    1.7

    14,428

    98

    0.7

    30 April 1998

    18,679

    155

    0.8

    14,141

    -287

    -2.0

    31 May 1998

    18,495

    -184

    -1.0

    14,310

    169

    1.2

    30 June 1998

    18,922

    427

    2.3

    14.353

    43

    0.3

    31 July 1998

    18,763

    -159

    -0.8

    13,993

    -360

    -2.5

    31 August 1998

    18,483

    -280

    -1.5

    14.192

    199

    1.4

    30 September 1998

    18,045

    -438

    -2.4

    14.036

    -156

    -1.1

    31 October 1998

    18,265

    220

    1.2

    13.789

    -247

    -1.8

    30 November 1998

    17,914

    -351

    -1.9

    13,387

    -402

    -2.9

    31 December 1998

    17,838

    -76

    -0.4

    13,510

    123

    0.9

    31 January 1999

    18,024

    186

    1.0

    13,392

    -118

    -0.9

    28 February 1999

    17,585

    -439

    -2.4

    13.280

    -112

    -0.8

    352W
    However, Local Government National Training Organisation figures indicate that local authorities have taken on over 4,200 people into New Deal options.

    College Principals
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) further education college principals and (b) sixth form college principals are (i) in post and (ii) from ethnic minorities. [124690]

    Mr. Wicks
    Two of the 320 principals of general further education, tertiary and specialist colleges are from ethnic minorities. None of the principals of the 104 sixth form colleges is from an ethnic minority.

    The Government are encouraging the Commission for Black Staff in Further Education in its aims of challenging racism, breaking down barriers for black staff and raising achievement for all who work and learn in further education.

    We shall also require the Learning and Skills Council to promote equality of opportunity and report annually to the Secretary of State on this issue.

  WALES

    NHS Waiting Lists
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes there were each month in Welsh NHS waiting lists in each health authority area from May 1997 to July 1999. [124328]

    Mr. Hanson
    The information my hon. Friend has requested is in the table:
    353W

    Waiting list data from May 1997 to July 1999: Welsh residents waiting for in patient or day case treatment

    Bro Taf Health Authority

    Dyfed Powys Health Authority

    Actual date

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    31 March 1999

    16,918

    -667

    -3.8

    13,009

    -271

    -2.0

    30 April 1999

    16,822

    -96

    -0.6

    13,517

    508

    3.9

    31 May 1999

    17,041

    219

    1.3

    13,693

    176

    1.3

    30 June 1999

    14,328

    287

    1.7

    13,292

    -401

    -2.9

    31 July 1999

    17,325

    -3

    0.0

    13,436

    144

    1.1

    Gwent Health Authority

    Morgannwg Health Authority

    Actual date

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    31 May 1997

    14,490

    —

    —

    9,521

    —

    —

    30 June 1997

    13,821

    -669

    -4.6

    9,310

    -211

    -2.2

    31 July 1997

    13,749

    -72

    -0.5

    9,271

    -39

    -0.4

    31 August 1997

    14,259

    510

    3.7

    8,880

    -391

    -4.2

    30 September 1997

    13,619

    -640

    -4.5

    8,714

    -166

    -1.9

    31 October 1997

    13,855

    236

    1.7

    8,989

    275

    3.2

    30 November 1997

    13,579

    -276

    -2.0

    9,162

    173

    1.9

    31 December 1997

    14,135

    556

    4.1

    9,619

    457

    5.0

    31 January 1998

    13,954

    -181

    -1.3

    9,650

    31

    0.3

    28 February 1998

    14,246

    292

    2.1

    9,985

    335

    3.5

    31 March 1998

    14,357

    111

    0.8

    10,131

    146

    1.5

    30 April 1998

    13,954

    -403

    -2.8

    10,167

    36

    0.4

    31 May 1998

    14,284

    330

    2.4

    10,296

    126

    1.2

    30 June 1998

    14,544

    260

    1.8

    10,436

    143

    1.4

    31 July 1998

    15,658

    1,114

    7.7

    10,429

    -7

    -0.1

    31 August 1998

    15,550

    -108

    -0.7

    10,536

    107

    1.0

    30 September 1998

    14,831

    -719

    -4.6

    10,660

    124

    1.2

    31 October 1998

    14,330

    -501

    -3.4

    10,380

    -280

    -2.6

    30 November 1998

    13,860

    -470

    -3.3

    10,256

    -127

    -1.2

    31 December 1998

    13,804

    -56

    -0.4

    10,209

    -44

    -0.4

    31 January 1999

    13,646

    -158

    -1.1

    10,070

    -139

    -1.4

    28 February 1999

    13,279

    -367

    -2.7

    9,877

    -193

    -1.9

    31 March 1999

    12,916

    -363

    -2.7

    9,467

    -410

    -4.2

    30 April 1999

    13,065

    149

    1.2

    9,867

    400

    4.2

    31 May 1999

    13,170

    105

    0.8

    9,998

    131

    1.3

    30 June 1999

    13,230

    60

    0.5

    9,775

    -223

    -2.2

    31 July 1999

    13,463

    233

    1.8

    9,737

    -38

    -0.4

    North Wales Health Authority

    Grand total

    Actual date

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    31 May 1997

    12,598

    —

    —

    68,186

    —

    —

    30 June 1997

    12,973

    375

    3.0

    67,383

    -803

    -1.2

    31 July 1997

    13,942

    969

    7.5

    66,768

    -615

    -0.9

    31 August 1997

    14,314

    372

    2.7

    67,844

    1,076

    1.6

    30 September 1997

    14,439

    125

    0.9

    67,785

    -59

    -0.1

    31 October 1997

    14,361

    -78

    -0.5

    68,287

    502

    0.7

    30 November 1997

    14,458

    97

    0.7

    68,245

    -42

    -0.1

    31 December 1997

    15,185

    727

    5.0

    70,929

    2-684

    3.9

    31 January 1998

    15,399

    214

    1.4

    70,124

    -805

    -1.1

    28 February 1998

    15,733

    334

    2.2

    72,516

    2,392

    3.4

    31 March 1998

    15,979

    246

    1.6

    73,419

    903

    1.2

    30 April 1998

    16,406

    427

    2.7

    73,347

    -72

    -0.1

    31 May 1998

    16,687

    281

    1.7

    74,069

    722

    1.0

    30 June 1998

    16,892

    205

    1.2

    75,147

    1,078

    1.5

    31 July 1998

    17,107

    215

    1.3

    75,950

    803

    1.1

    31 August 1998

    17,255

    148

    0.9

    76,016

    66

    0.1

    30 September 1998

    16,697

    -558

    -3.2

    74,269

    -1,747

    -2.3

    31 October 1998

    16,263

    -434

    -2.6

    73,027

    -1,242

    -1.7

    30 November 1998

    15,850

    -413

    -2.5

    71,264

    -1,763

    -2.4

    31 December 1998

    16,003

    153

    1.0

    71,364

    100

    0.1

    31 January 1999

    15,207

    -796

    -5.0

    70,339

    -1,025

    -1.4

    28 February 1999

    14,042

    -1,165

    -7.7

    68,063

    -2,276

    -3.2

    354W

    355W

    North Wales Health Authority

    Grand total

    Actual date

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    Number

    Change month on month

    Percentage change per month

    31 March 1999

    13,005

    -1,037

    -7.4

    65,315

    -2,748

    -4.0

    30 April 1999

    13,236

    231

    1.8

    66.507

    1,192

    1.8

    31 May 1999

    13,045

    -191

    -1.4

    66.947

    440

    0.7

    30 June 1999

    13,654

    609

    4.7

    67.279

    332

    0.5

    31 July 1999

    13,677

    23

    0.2

    67,638

    359

    0.5

  PRIME MINISTER

    Civil Service (Political Neutrality)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made to the rules on political neutrality of the Civil Service. [123131]

    The Prime Minister
    None.

    Central Railway
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Prime Minister what recent contacts have taken place between his policy unit and representatives of Central Railway; and if he will make a statement. [125060]

    The Prime Minister
    My staff and I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Magistrates Courts (Adjournments)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what targets he has set magistrates courts for the number and duration of adjournments. [125039]

    Jane Kennedy
    The Lord Chancellor has set no targets for magistrates courts in terms of the number and duration of adjournments although he has spoken out strongly against any culture of granting adjournments too readily. The Government are committed to reducing delay in the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor has encouraged benches to give rigorous consideration to requests for adjournments, whether from the prosecution or the defence, to the amount of time sought and whether it is genuinely required in the interests of justice.

    Civil Law Convention
    Mr. Hope
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Government will ratify the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on corruption; and if he will make a statement. [125583]

    Mr. Lock
    I am pleased to be able to announce that the Lord Chancellor has today signed the Civil Law Convention during the course of the Conference of the European Ministers of Justice.

    The Government have strongly supported the programme of action undertaken by the Council of Europe in the fight against corruption. The Civil Law Convention
    356W
    is an innovative and important international legal instrument which will enable victims of corruption to obtain appropriate remedies in the civil courts of all states who ratify the Convention. The United Kingdom is not in a position to ratify the Convention at present, because the requirements of the Convention with regard to the rules of limitation for civil proceedings go further than is provided for by current UK law. However, the Law Commission is currently considering the rules relating to limitation of actions and the Government will review this issue as soon as the Law Commission's Report is available.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Cattle Diseases
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on future testing in England for the cattle diseases enzootic bovine leukosis and brucellosis. [125582]

    Ms Quin
    We are issuing a consultation paper on proposed changes to the way cattle health testing for enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL) and brucellosis is carried out in England. This is part of a GB wide initiative and is a direct result of our gaining of "officially EBL free" region status within the EU and the continued recognition of GB status as an "officially brucellosis free" region within the EU.

    It is proposed to amend the EBL Order to take account of new reduced test frequencies. For dairy cattle these would reduce milk testing from three times a year to twice in every fifth year. For beef suckler herds these would reduce blood testing from once every second year to once every fourth year. The proposed reductions are in line with veterinary advice. We aim to have the new arrangements introduced by September this year and fully effective by April next year.

    No changes are currently proposed for brucellosis testing. Test frequencies for brucellosis are currently subject to review but results are not expected before August. GB has had low or no incidence of brucellosis since 1993.

    Since these proposals would require changes to the EBL Order we are also proposing to simplify publication of the list of laboratories approved to do milk testing and clarify the use of laboratory approval. We propose that these changes are also carried over into a remade Brucellosis Order and that both new orders take full account of devolution.
    357W
    I am pleased that, in this consultation, we are able to recommend reducing monitoring for EBL in England now that we have "officially EBL free region" status for GB. This reduces costs and burdens for both industry and the public purse and is in line with EU requirements.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter of 28 April from the hon. Member for Ludlow about abattoir closures. [123097]

    Ms Stuart
    I have been asked to reply.

    I replied to the to the hon. Member on 22 May.

    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to reply to the letter of 18 October 1999 from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, in respect of which a reminder letter was sent on 17 February. [124807]

    Ms Quin
    I replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East on 7 June.

    Crop Contamination
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government plan to make public the location of crop sites sown with Advanta rapeseeds contaminated with GM rapeseeds. [124156]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]The company is taking action to inform affected farmers. There are no safety implications which would necessitate identifying the location of affected crops.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what obligations EU member states have to inform one another and the Commission of incidents in which conventional crop seed traded across international boundaries is found to be contaminated with genetically modified crop seed. [124150]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]I am not aware of any specific obligations that require member states to inform one another and the Commission of incidents involving the contamination of non-GM seeds with GM seeds. However, member states have exchanged information on a voluntary basis and have been making public statements about such incidents.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received concerning the date that the German authorities discovered that conventional Advanta rapeseed had been contaminated with genetically modified rapeseed. [124149]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]Advanta have told me that the German authorities informed them of their findings on 3 April.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the advice he has received from the(a) Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, (b) Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and (c) Food Standards Agency, about the risks to human health and the environment from the contamination of Advanta rape seed by GM crops. [124137]
    358W
    Mr. Nick Brown:
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]The advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, and the Food Standards Agency has already been placed in the Libraries of the House and is available on the MAFF website.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in full the information made available by Advanta UK on the contamination of conventional rapeseed with genetically modified rapeseed. [124147]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]The main points of the information provided by Advanta were described in the Government's announcement on 17 May and in my statement of 19 May. The company also published information in a news release on 17 May.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he received, prior to being made aware of the contamination of conventional Advanta rapeseed with genetically modified seed, of similar incidents involving crop seeds imported into European Union member states, indicating when each such report was received. [124145]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]None.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government have designated an acceptable level of seed purity in the case of conventional crop seeds in relation to contamination with GM seeds. [124153]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]There are currently no levels set for the presence of GM seeds in non-GM seeds. The Government will be participating in discussions within the EC and the OECD on this matter.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government were first (1) advised by Advanta Seeds UK that supplies of its conventional rapeseed contained genetically modified rapeseed; [124143]

    (2) informed that supplies of conventional Advanta rapeseed had been or may have been contaminated with genetically modified rapeseed. [124144]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]DETR and MAFF officials were informed by Advanta Seeds UK on 17 April that supplies of conventional Advanta rapeseed might have been affected by the presence of genetically modified rapeseed.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the announcement about the contamination of conventional Advanta rapeseed was made on 17 May. [124146]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]The announcement on 17 May was made to inform Parliament and interested parties of the action which the Government were taking to address the issue of seed purity.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which statutory bodies prior to 17 April had a legal responsibility to ensure the seed purity of imported supplies. [124165]
    359W
    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]The legal duty and responsibility to ensure the seed purity of imported supplies lies with the seeds authorities in the producer country and with the seed merchant marketing the seed in this country.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the separation distances between GM and non-GM crops. [124164]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 5 June 2000]Yes. I announced this in my speech to the House earlier today.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer given on 17 May 2000,Official Report, column 173W, if the report on the study of seed sourcing and the possibility of GM seed in imported seed is now available. [125581]

    Ms Quin
    The report of the preliminary findings of the study has been placed in the Library of the House and will be made available on the Ministry website. The Government inspection programme being undertaken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be focused on those imported seed species which are identified as most likely to be affected. Further studies are in hand.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from the European women's lobby on gender-sensitive asylum policy; and if he will make a statement. [123615]

    Mrs. Roche
    Recent representations from groups representing women's issues have focused on the treatment of women seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, the delay in resolving asylum claims and the support available for women awaiting the outcome of their applications.

    All applications, whether from women or men, are considered in accordance with the criteria set out in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. To qualify for asylum, a person must be outside her/his country of nationality and have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

    Asylum applications1, excluding dependants, by port of entry May to December 1997

    Port

    May

    June

    July

    August

    September

    October

    November

    December

    Total

    Aberdeen

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    *

    5

    Ashford

    *

    5

    5

    *

    *

    5

    *

    *

    20

    Belfast

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    *

    *

    5

    Birmingham

    5

    5

    *

    *

    5

    5

    5

    5

    30

    Bristol (sea)

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    5

    *

    5

    Cardiff

    —

    *

    —

    5

    *

    *

    *

    —

    10

    Cheriton

    —

    *

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    5

    Unknown

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    *

    *

    Dover

    80

    95

    100

    95

    155

    215

    145

    205

    1,090

    360W
    Caseworkers dealing with these applications are given awareness training in gender and cultural matters and special training is given for dealing with those who have been tortured. It is recognised that women's experiences as asylum seekers may be different from those of men and their applications are handled with due sensitivity.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what detailed programmes the Government(a) has in place and (b) has planned, to improve the education, skills and qualifications of asylum seekers; what are the costs of these programmes; and if he will make a statement. [123729]

    Mrs. Roche
    Asylum seekers who receive a positive decision on their application are eligible to enrol on courses at further education colleges. Asylum seekers who have not received a decision on their application after six months can seek permission to work and as part of this can gain access to work based learning. The costs of this would be borne by the Department for Education and Employment, but information relating to the costs of educating asylum seekers is not recorded separately.

    School-age children (under 16 years of age) of asylum seekers are entitled to attend school irrespective of when the application for asylum was lodged. The costs to the Department for Education and Employment of providing places in schools for the children of asylum seekers are not recorded separately.

    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who entered the United Kingdom at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick, (c) Stansted and (d) Luton airports since 1 January have claimed asylum on arriving at these airports. [124482]

    Mrs. Roche
    The information requested is given in the table:

    Applications1 for asylum received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by port of application, January to April 2000

    Total

    Heathrow

    3,000

    Gatwick

    1,215

    Stansted

    340

    Luton

    25

    1Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have claimed asylum at each relevant port in the United Kingdom in each month since 1 May 1997. [125105]

    Mrs. Roche
    The information requested is given in the tables.
    361W

    Asylum applications1, excluding dependants, by port of entry May to December 1997

    Port

    May

    June

    July

    August

    September

    October

    November

    December

    Total

    Edinburgh

    *

    *

    *

    10

    *

    5

    —

    —

    15

    East Midlands

    —

    *

    —

    *

    *

    —

    *

    *

    5

    Felixstowe

    5

    *

    10

    5

    5

    *

    *

    10

    40

    Folkstone

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    *

    —

    5

    Gatwick North

    265

    245

    190

    125

    160

    110

    95

    180

    1,380

    Gatwick South

    90

    80

    95

    135

    105

    110

    90

    80

    790

    Glasgow

    —

    *

    *

    *

    5

    5

    *

    5

    20

    Harwich

    5

    *

    5

    15

    5

    15

    15

    30

    95

    Hull

    —

    —

    —

    *

    *

    *

    —

    5

    5

    Immigham

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    Leeds Bradford

    *

    *

    5

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    10

    London City (air)

    5

    5

    5

    20

    10

    35

    45

    55

    180

    Liverpool

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    *

    *

    *

    10

    Luton

    5

    *

    *

    *

    5

    5

    5

    5

    25

    Manchester Terminal 1

    5

    *

    *

    *

    *

    —

    —

    *

    10

    Manchester

    Terminal 2

    15

    15

    30

    20

    15

    15

    10

    20

    145

    Newhaven

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    5

    Tyne

    *

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    5

    Plymouth

    5

    *

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    5

    10

    Poole

    —

    —

    *

    *

    —

    —

    *

    —

    5

    Portsmouth

    *

    —

    —

    5

    —

    5

    —

    —

    10

    Prestwick

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    Ramsgate

    5

    5

    10

    10

    5

    5

    *

    5

    45

    Sheffield City

    —

    5

    *

    —

    *

    *

    —

    *

    10

    Humberside (air)

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    Stansted

    15

    10

    25

    30

    35

    35

    40

    50

    240

    Southampton (sea)

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    —

    —

    *

    5

    Swansea

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5

    —

    5

    Heathrow Terminal 1

    130

    90

    125

    170

    140

    155

    170

    210

    1,185

    Heathrow Terminal 2

    250

    210

    245

    145

    140

    195

    160

    300

    1,645

    Heathrow Terminal 3

    190

    190

    245

    190

    225

    270

    260

    335

    1,905

    Heathrow Terminal 4

    105

    130

    160

    110

    140

    90

    80

    145

    960

    Teesport

    15

    *

    —

    *

    *

    —

    —

    —

    20

    Waterloo

    160

    175

    280

    415

    160

    150

    120

    195

    1,660

    Others

    15

    10

    —

    10

    5

    —

    —

    5

    35

    Total

    1,365

    1,285

    1,545

    1,530

    1,345

    1,445

    1,265

    1,865

    11,645

    1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'= 1 or 2

    Asylum applications1, excluding dependants, by port of entry January to December 1998

    Port

    January

    February

    March

    April

    May

    June

    July

    August

    September

    October

    November

    December

    Total

    Ashford

    5

    *

    5

    5

    —

    5

    5

    *

    5

    *

    5

    5

    35

    Belfast

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    5

    *

    *

    5

    *

    *

    *

    15

    Birmingham

    5

    5

    15

    *

    *

    *

    5

    5

    5

    10

    5

    10

    60

    Bristol (sea)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    5

    *

    *

    *

    *

    10

    Cardiff

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    —

    *

    5

    5

    *

    5

    15

    Dover

    240

    260

    265

    155

    225

    255

    325

    450

    540

    480

    475

    570

    4,235

    Edinburgh

    —

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    —

    *

    —

    5

    15

    East Midlands

    —

    *

    *

    —

    —

    *

    *

    —

    *

    *

    —

    *

    10

    Felixstowe

    5

    *

    10

    10

    5

    *

    5

    *

    5

    5

    5

    50

    Folkstone

    —

    —

    5

    *

    5

    —

    15

    5

    *

    —

    —

    *

    30

    Gatwick North

    125

    230

    100

    90

    115

    155

    160

    135

    195

    175

    175

    285

    1,940

    Gatwick South

    105

    65

    75

    90

    105

    115

    135

    105

    130

    135

    105

    145

    1,305

    Glasgow

    5

    5

    *

    —

    5

    *

    5

    *

    5

    5

    *

    5

    30

    Harwich

    25

    15

    30

    50

    50

    60

    55

    85

    85

    90

    45

    45

    630

    Hull

    —

    *

    *

    —

    *

    5

    *

    10

    *

    5

    10

    5

    40

    Leeds Bradford

    5

    *

    *

    *

    —

    *

    *

    5

    *

    *

    *

    5

    25

    London City (air)

    —

    10

    10

    45

    20

    30

    35

    30

    45

    60

    35

    40

    395

    Liverpool

    *

    *

    —

    *

    *

    *

    —

    *

    —

    *

    —

    —

    10

    Luton

    5

    5

    5

    5

    5

    10

    10

    5

    *

    *

    5

    5

    60

    Manchester Terminal 1

    *

    —

    —

    5

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    5

    —

    *

    20

    Manchester Terminal 2

    30

    20

    25

    20

    15

    25

    30

    30

    75

    40

    35

    35

    385

    Newhaven

    —

    *

    —

    *

    *

    —

    10

    10

    25

    5

    10

    5

    75

    362W

    363W

    Asylum applications1, excluding dependants, by port of entry January to December 1999

    Port

    January

    February

    March

    April

    May

    June

    July

    August

    September

    October

    November

    December

    Total

    Norwich

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    5

    *

    10

    Tyne

    —

    *

    5

    *

    5

    5

    5

    *

    15

    5

    10

    5

    55

    Plymouth

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    5

    Poole

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    Portsmouth

    —

    *

    *

    *

    10

    10

    *

    10

    10

    5

    15

    5

    75

    Ramsgate

    5

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    5

    Sheffield City

    *

    *

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    *

    *

    —

    10

    —

    20

    Humberside (air)

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    Stansted

    40

    15

    15

    20

    25

    30

    20

    25

    30

    15

    35

    40

    300

    Southampton (sea)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    *

    Swansea

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    Heathrow Terminal 1

    215

    160

    185

    135

    150

    140

    150

    230

    200

    350

    240

    245

    2,425

    Heathrow Terminal 2

    200

    180

    195

    265

    170

    215

    260

    410

    500

    305

    395

    250

    3,345

    Heathrow Terminal 3

    185

    185

    250

    240

    220

    265

    315

    320

    335

    220

    245

    285

    3,080

    Heathrow Terminal 4

    135

    110

    140

    140

    140

    115

    140

    165

    165

    175

    165

    180

    1,775

    Teesport

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5

    *

    5

    —

    —

    —

    5

    20

    Waterloo

    210

    205

    220

    215

    180

    320

    245

    320

    200

    200

    200

    290

    2,810

    Other

    20

    15

    —

    *

    5

    10

    15

    15

    —

    *

    —

    —

    20

    Total

    1,605

    1,490

    1,555

    1,500

    1,465

    1,790

    1,940

    2,395

    2,585

    2,295

    2,230

    2,495

    23,345

    1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2

    Asylum applications1, excluding dependants, by port of entry January to December 1999

    Port

    January

    February

    March

    April

    May

    June

    July

    August

    September

    October

    November

    December

    Total

    Aberdeen

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Ashford

    5

    *

    5

    5

    10

    20

    10

    10

    5

    *

    5

    10

    85

    Belfast

    5

    —

    *

    —

    *

    5

    *

    —

    *

    *

    *

    —

    10

    Birmingham

    15

    5

    10

    5

    5

    5

    10

    5

    *

    5

    5

    5

    75

    Bristol (sea)

    5

    —

    —

    —

    *

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    *

    5

    Bournemouth

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Cardiff

    *

    *

    5

    —

    *

    —

    *

    5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    10

    Coqelles

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    Dover

    600

    485

    470

    435

    480

    585

    670

    605

    510

    630

    680

    710

    6,860

    Edinburgh

    *

    5

    *

    *

    —

    —

    5

    *

    —

    *

    —

    5

    15

    East Midlands

    *

    —

    *

    *

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    *

    —

    —

    Felixstowe

    *

    5

    5

    15

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    25

    Folkstone

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    10

    *

    5

    —

    —

    —

    *

    15

    Gatwick North

    190

    195

    205

    180

    210

    215

    240

    230

    220

    185

    215

    305

    2,590

    Gatwick South

    125

    95

    75

    50

    120

    70

    75

    80

    115

    120

    80

    185

    1,190

    Glasgow

    5

    *

    5

    *

    10

    —

    *

    —

    *

    *

    *

    —

    20

    Harwich

    60

    40

    35

    40

    40

    45

    25

    20

    60

    50

    35

    55

    505

    Hull

    5

    *

    *

    5

    *

    *

    *

    —

    20

    35

    65

    10

    140

    Leeds Bradford

    5

    5

    5

    *

    *

    5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    20

    London City (air)

    30

    25

    70

    35

    25

    60

    40

    70

    15

    10

    10

    15

    405

    Liverpool

    —

    —

    —

    5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    —

    5

    Luton

    5

    *

    *

    —

    10

    15

    10

    10

    10

    5

    5

    10

    80

    Manchester Terminal 1

    —

    *

    *

    —

    5

    —

    —

    *

    *

    5

    5

    *

    15

    Manchester Terminal 2

    20

    15

    10

    10

    10

    10

    15

    10

    15

    15

    10

    15

    155

    Newhaven

    5

    *

    5

    5

    *

    5

    *

    5

    —

    —

    *

    —

    25

    Norwich

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Plymouth

    *

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    *

    5

    *

    *

    *

    —

    5

    Poole

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    Portsmouth

    10

    5

    5

    5

    15

    5

    5

    15

    *

    *

    10

    75

    Ramsgate

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Sheffield City

    *

    —

    *

    —

    —

    *

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Humberside (air)

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Stansted

    20

    15

    30

    20

    20

    20

    20

    35

    85

    55

    35

    80

    435

    364W

    365W

    Asylum applications1, excluding dependants, by port of entry January to December 1999

    Port

    January

    February

    March

    April

    May

    June

    July

    August

    September

    October

    November

    December

    Total

    Southampton (sea)

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5

    *

    5

    Swansea

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5

    —

    5

    Heathrow Terminal 1

    175

    120

    160

    195

    185

    190

    260

    350

    395

    400

    440

    550

    3,420

    Heathrow Terminal 2

    200

    205

    245

    215

    385

    420

    510

    520

    365

    295

    265

    215

    3,870

    Heathrow Terminal 3

    270

    185

    190

    250

    245

    190

    255

    270

    280

    250

    280

    430

    3,095

    Heathrow Terminal 4

    120

    120

    110

    95

    145

    150

    115

    140

    120

    120

    170

    165

    1,570

    Teesport

    5

    —

    *

    *

    *

    *

    —

    10

    5

    5

    *

    5

    30

    Tyne

    5

    5

    *

    —

    5

    10

    *

    5

    *

    5

    *

    5

    40

    Waterloo

    265

    270

    260

    270

    435

    605

    515

    195

    180

    175

    160

    250

    3,580

    Other

    50

    *

    *

    *

    —

    —

    200

    140

    245

    185

    35

    215

    1,075

    Total

    2,200

    1,800

    1,905

    1,870

    2,360

    2,640

    2,980

    2,740

    2,645

    2,550

    2,510

    3,250

    29,455

    1Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2

    Asylum applications1, excluding dependants, by port of entry January to April 2000

    Port

    January

    February

    March

    April

    Total

    Ashford

    5

    10

    10

    10

    35

    Belfast

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    Birmingham

    *

    5

    *

    *

    5

    Bristol (sea)

    *

    5

    *

    *

    5

    Cardiff

    *

    —

    *

    —

    —

    Coqelles

    —

    *

    —

    —

    —

    Dover

    690

    640

    645

    410

    2,385

    Edinburgh

    *

    —

    —

    5

    5

    Felixstowe

    —

    15

    5

    —

    20

    Folks tone

    —

    5

    —

    —

    5

    Gatwick North

    205

    200

    250

    160

    815

    Gatwick South

    125

    95

    125

    55

    400

    Glasgow

    *

    *

    *

    *

    —

    Harwich

    45

    30

    40

    30

    145

    Hull

    20

    *

    10

    5

    35

    Leeds Bradford

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    London City (air)

    10

    10

    10

    15

    45

    Liverpool

    —

    —

    *

    *

    —

    Luton

    5

    10

    5

    5

    25

    Manchester Terminal 1

    5

    5

    5

    *

    15

    Manchester Terminal 2

    15

    25

    10

    5

    55

    Newhaven

    —

    —

    *

    —

    —

    Plymouth

    —

    *

    *

    —

    —

    Poole

    10

    —

    —

    —

    10

    Portsmouth

    *

    10

    —

    *

    10

    Stansted

    50

    140

    115

    35

    340

    Heathrow Terminal 1

    210

    220

    245

    145

    820

    Heathrow Terminal 2

    245

    200

    200

    145

    790

    Heathrow Terminal 3

    265

    230

    270

    175

    940

    Heathrow Terminal 4

    120

    105

    135

    90

    450

    Teesport

    —

    *

    *

    —

    —

    Tyne

    *

    5

    10

    —

    15

    Waterloo

    220

    295

    310

    315

    1,140

    Other

    *

    *

    *

    200

    200

    Total

    2,245

    2,260

    2,400

    1,805

    8,710

    1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2

    366W
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people the National Asylum Support Service(a) has dispersed and (b) plans to disperse to each of the cluster areas listed in the letter to all hon. Members of 25 May from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche); [125055]

    (2) if he will list the local council areas to which asylum seekers have been dispersed by (a) local authorities and (b) his Department; and how many dispersed asylum seekers are resident in each such area. [125064]

    Mrs. Roche
    As of 2 June, 2,049 asylum seekers, including dependants, have been dispersed by the National Asylum Support Service. They have been dispersed to Scotland, the North East, the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside, West Midlands, East Midlands and Sussex. The figures also include a small number of asylum seekers with specialist medical needs who have been provided with accommodation in London. The number of future dispersals to particular areas will depend on a number of factors including the type of accommodation required by asylum seekers and its availability in any area.

    The National Asylum Support Service does not record details of the local council areas to which it disperses asylum seekers.

    Information of the type requested on dispersal by local authorities under the interim arrangements is not held by the National Asylum Support Service. This is a voluntary scheme between local authorities and is sponsored by the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the people aboard the Afghan airline hijacked to Stansted are still in the United Kingdom; what is the status of each of their asylum claims; and if he will make a statement. [125032]

    Mr. Straw
    Of the 170 people on the plane, 81 have left the United Kingdom, 89 remain in the United Kingdom, including 12 who are the subject of criminal charges in relation to the hijacking. Of those remaining who have applied for asylum, nine have been granted asylum including six as dependants, and 36 have been refused including five dependants. All of the latter have
    367W
    appealed against refusal and the substantive hearings commenced on 8 May. Of the remaining 32, 14 are the dependants of those facing charges and their applications will not be considered until the outcome of the prosecution is known. A further two originally faced charges which were subsequently withdrawn, and consideration is being given to their applications and those of their eight dependants. The wife and six children of one of those facing charges—who had originally applied as his dependants—have now applied in their own right and consideration is being given to their applications also. One application awaits consideration of information from The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Consideration of further action will be given as soon as the outcome of the appeals is known.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and dependants sent to Oakington detention centre have(a) been granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, (b) been dispersed to other accommodation in the United Kingdom, (c) left the United Kingdom, (d) been detained elsewhere and (e) absconded from Oakington. [125050]

    Mrs. Roche
    As at the end of May, of those asylum seekers and their dependants who were sent to Oakington, three were granted asylum and three granted exceptional leave to remain; 147 were dispersed to other accommodation, mainly under the National Asylum Support Service scheme, and 101 were granted temporary admission and released to private addresses; 26 main applicants refused asylum have left the United Kingdom, 11 of whom were removed after their appeals had been dismissed. In addition, 16 main applicants and seven dependants withdrew their claims and departed before being accommodated at Oakington. Forty nine were detained elsewhere and seven have absconded, of whom three have been apprehended.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and dependants have been sent to the Oakington detention centre since it was opened; and how many of those people have had their cases decided while at Oakington. [125052]

    Mrs. Roche
    As at 31 May, 338 main applicants and 23 dependants have been accommodated at Oakington since the centre opened on 20 March. A total of 265 applications have been decided at Oakington.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time that an asylum seeker sent to Oakington resides there. [125051]

    Mrs. Roche
    The majority of asylum seekers whose cases have been processed have remained seven days or less.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to open further detention or reception centres to house asylum seekers; how many people these centres will accommodate; what will be the start-up costs and running costs of each new centre; and if he will make a statement. [125098]

    Mrs. Roche
    We have made clear on a number of occasions that more detention places are required to support our commitment to remove people whose asylum 368W
    applications are refused and subsequently do not leave the country voluntarily. We have not yet determined precisely how many detention places are required or how they should be provided but, because of the lead-in time, planning notifications have been submitted to local authorities for the provisions of centres on the DERA (Tunnel) site at Thurleigh in Bedfordshire, at Harmondsworth and at Aldington in Kent. Together these three sites would deliver about 1,800 extra places. Potential suppliers have been asked to prepare proposals on that basis, but estimates of start-up and running costs will depend upon the outcome of the competitive tendering process.

    We have no current plans to open further reception centres, but are keeping the need for additional facilities under review as capacity at Oakington increases.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have information available on the number of asylum seekers being supported by each local authority. [125034]

    Mrs. Roche
    In the reply I gave the hon. Member on 7 April 2000,Official Report, column 633W, I explained that the Home Office had launched an exercise to obtain information from local authorities on how many asylum seekers they were supporting, together with the status of those asylum seekers and where they were being accommodated. The exercise is still on-going and, at this stage, I am unable to say when it will be concluded. The information requested will be available once the exercise is completed.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is towards the proposal that the European Court of Justice should have jurisdiction over asylum matters in accordance with Article 68. [125046]

    Mrs. Roche
    Article 68 of the Treaty of the European Community already provides for the highest domestic court to refer to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling on an issue concerning the interpretation or validity of a Community measure made under Title IV (which covers immigration and asylum policy), or on the interpretation of Title IV itself. In the context of the current Inter-Governmental Consultation negotiations, the Government will be seeking an amendment to article 68 to ensure that cases that require a preliminary ruling can be quickly referred to the ECJ, in order to facilitate the prompt resolution of such cases.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units of accommodation for asylum seekers are(a) being provided and (b) planned to be provided by each regional consortium; how many asylum seekers have been dispersed to such accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [125061]

    Mrs. Roche
    The arrangements with the regional consortia enable the amount of accommodation provided by each region to vary over time according to the changes in demand for accommodation. As there are ongoing negotiations with the regional consortia about the provision of accommodation, information relating to these negotiations is currently commercially confidential. The Scottish Regional consortium has provided 441 units of accommodation to date.
    369W
    As of 2 June, 2,049 asylum seekers including dependants had been dispersed.

    Criminal Assets
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit on the pursuit and seizure of criminal assets, following tie recommendations of the Third report of the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation; what action he proposes to take following the report; what discussions(a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) his officials have had with (i) the Minister for the Cabinet Office, (ii) the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, (iii) the Prime Minister and (iv) officials in the Cabinet Office regarding the report; if he will place a copy of the report in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [123788]

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibilities for policy on the confiscation of criminal assets have been transferred to the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [123789]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 5 June 2000,Official Report, columns 105–07W.

    Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) indictable and (b) either way offences were tried at the Crown court in each of the last five years for which figures are available indicating for each year (i) what proportion of either-way offences reached the Crown court (A) by the defendant electing jury trial and (B) on the direction of the magistrates, (ii) what proportion of trials for each type of offence resulted in a guilty verdict after a plea of not guilty, (iii) what proportion of trials for each type of offence resulted in a guilty plea and (iv) what proportion of trials for each type of offence resulted in an acquittal. [123861]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 25 May 2000]: Official statistics do not include separate information on plea for those who elect Crown court trial. The available information is contained in the following tables:

    Number of cases finalised at the Crown court by type of indictable case, committal and year, 1994–98—England and Wales

    Triable-either-way (TEW)

    Defendant elected

    Direction of magistrate

    Year

    Indictable only

    Number of cases

    Percentage of TEW cases

    Number of cases

    Percentage of TEW cases

    1994

    19,237

    25,178

    35

    46,258

    65

    1995

    21,779

    26,114

    33

    53,210

    67

    1996

    23,993

    22,870

    32

    48,748

    68

    1997

    26,546

    21,783

    28

    56,021

    72

    1998

    26,918

    18,537

    28

    46,835

    72

    1999

    27,721

    18,969

    32

    40,378

    68

    Source:

    Crown Prosecution Service
    370W

    Proportion of defendants tried at the Crown court by type of indictable offence and plea, 1994–981—England and Wales

    Percentage

    Not guilty plea

    Year

    Guilty plea

    Convicted

    Acquitted

    Indictable only offence2

    19941

    —

    —

    26

    19951

    53

    22

    26

    1996

    55

    20

    25

    1997

    54

    21

    25

    1998

    53

    18

    29

    Triable-either-way offence2

    19941

    —

    —

    18

    19951

    68

    14

    18

    1996

    70

    13

    17

    1997

    71

    12

    17

    1998

    66

    13

    21

    Total

    19941

    —

    —

    20

    19951

    66

    15

    19

    1996

    67

    15

    18

    1997

    68

    13

    18

    1998

    63

    14

    23

    1Data by plea are available only from July 1995

    2Based on the defendant's principle offence

    Source:

    Home Office Court Proceedings Database

    Laptops
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123738]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 25 May 2000]Since 1 May 1997, three laptop computers belonging to the Home Office have been lost. Nine have been stolen from the Prison Service and the Prison Service Ombudsman and 10 have been stolen from the Home Office.

    Community Service Orders
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been given a community service order by courts in the Greater London Area in each of the last three years. [124481]

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

    Number of persons given a community service order for all offences at all courts within the Metropolitan police area1 by sex, 1996–98

    Male

    Female

    1996

    5,353

    539

    1997

    5,695

    594

    1998

    5,370

    596

    1Including City of London

    Mike Tyson
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has investigated the leaks in the press on 12 May, which stated that Mike Tyson would be granted his visa. [124655]

    Mr. Straw
    No. Although the press reported that Mike Tyson would be granted an entry clearance, a decision on Mr. Tyson's application had not been made by 12 May (indeed, the application itself was only made in the United States of America on that day). The media reports were, therefore, entirely speculative.

    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he made of the arguments in relation to creating a precedent at the time of his authorisation of Mike Tyson's visit to the UK in January. [124740]

    Mr. Straw
    It was clearly indicated in January that there were exceptional circumstances in granting Mike Tyson entry on that occasion. In communicating my decision to him, it was made clear that this decision in no way set a precedent for any future applications he might make to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor or in any other capacity. Any such application would be considered under the Immigration Rules taking all relevant circumstances into account.

    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with whom he consulted between 3 and 17 May on Mike Tyson's visa application. [124654]

    Mr. Straw
    I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 24 May 2000,Official Report, columns 493–96W.

    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took to inform himself of reasons why Mike Tyson should not be granted a visa. [124656]

    Mr. Straw
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) on 18 May 2000,Official Report, columns 209–10W, where I stated clearly that I weighed up both the factors against granting Mr. Tyson entry clearance and those for.

    Ms Jenny Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he met regarding Mike Tyson's recent application to enter the United Kingdom; and on what dates. [124461]

    Mr. Straw
    As stated in the reply I gave the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 24 May 2000,Official Report, column 495W, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Ballieston (Mr. Wray) and his delegation, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), Lord Brooks of Tremorfa and Stephen Davies, on 3 May. In addition, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), also met my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones), together with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 17 May.

    Visa Applications
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in changing the law on visa applications, he is minded to fast-track applications involving 372W
    (a) weddings, (b) funerals and (c) visiting seriously ill people when in any such case there is a proven close family relationship or other reasonable cause for requesting a short visit. [124739]

    Mr. Straw
    I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals set out in the consultation paper I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) on 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 210W. These are concerned solely with Immigration Rule 320(18), which deals with the refusal of entry to those with criminal convictions.

    Arrangements for processing entry clearance applications differ from post to post, but every effort is made to deal with applications in urgent or compelling compassionate cases as quickly as possible.

    Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which have come into force, indicating the date on which each came into force and (b) the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which have yet to come into force and the projected date on which each will come into force. [124443]

    Mrs. Roche
    Section 170 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 lists those of its provisions which came into force on Royal Assent. The Schedule to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No.4) Order 2000 (SI 2000 No. 1282 (C.38)), specifies the provisions which commenced on 22 May 2000 and lists those provisions which have been brought into effect by earlier Commencement Orders.

    We are keeping implementation of the Act's remaining provisions under review. However, our current intention is to phase implementation of the major provisions as follows:
    Provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
    June to September 2000
    Carriers' Liability provisions in Part II
    From October 2000
    Bond scheme for visitors pilot provided for in section 16 and 17 of Part I;
    Single, comprehensive appeal process provided for in Part IV and related provisions in sections 10–12 and 23 of Part I;
    Under Part V, the regulatory body established by the Immigration Services Commissioner will begin to consider applications for registration and exemption. The Immigration Services Tribunal will be established;
    Fingerprinting provisions in Part VII;
    Statutory management and operation of detention centres under Part VIII;
    Powers of superintendent registrars regarding marriage in Part IX and their duty to report suspicious marriages in section 24 of Part I.
    From April 2001
    Code of practice on restriction on employment in Part I;
    Immigration control: facilities and charges provisions in Part I;
    Bail provisions in Part III;
    Full implementation of the scheme to regulate immigration advisers and immigration service providers under Part V.

    Harassment (Formal Warnings)
    Mr. Goggins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many formal warnings have been issued to(a) juveniles and (b) adults under powers contained in the Harassment Act 1997 in (i) Manchester, (ii) Trafford, (iii) Greater Manchester and (iv) England. [124525]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Records of formal warnings are not held centrally.

    Schengen Information System
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2000,Official Report, columns 52–53 W, on the Schengen Information System, when he made an application for participation in that system; what reply he has received; and if (a) Iceland and (b) Norway participate in the manner for which he has made application and without any additional condition. [124378]

    Mrs. Roche
    The United Kingdom's application to participate in parts of the Schengen acquis, including the Schengen Information System (SIS), which was made on 20 May 1999, was agreed by the Justice arid Home Affairs Council on 29 May 2000. The SIS will be a valuable weapon in the fight against organised and international crime as part of Schengen co-operation agreements.

    Iceland and Norway's applications to become associated members of Schengen were agreed in December 1996 within Schengen structures and subsequently in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Schengen Protocol in Council Decision 1999/437/EC. They are not expected to have implemented the Schengen acquis fully until next year. When they have done so, they will participate in the SIS in broadly the same way as the United Kingdom will do when it has implemented the acquis. The principal difference will be that the United Kingdom has not sought access to, and exchange of, immigration data contained in the SIS as it will not participate in those parts of the acquis which concern external frontier controls.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Hilary Benn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries he proposes to undertake about housing conditions in Kosovo for those refugees expected to return from the United Kingdom by 25 June. [124907]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Home Office receives regular up-to-date information regarding housing conditions in Kosovo from a range of sources including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

    Opinion Research
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 623W, concerning market and opinion research, if he will list the title and purpose of each item of research, stating in each case whether the results will be published. [124899]
    374W
    Mr. Straw
    For the available information, I refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 392W, and to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the then Minister of State, Home Office, to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 23 February 1998, Official Report, columns 51–52W, and the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on 3 July 1998, Official Report, column 287W. Details of the eight completed and a further eight on-going additional items to add to this list have been placed in the Library.

    Racial Discrimination
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is concerning the burden of proof in cases of alleged racial discrimination. [125053]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    This Government welcome the agreement of the European Community Directive on racial discrimination, which includes a provision requiring the respondent, once a prima facie case of discrimination has been made by the complainant and accepted by the court or other instance, to demonstrate that there is a reasonable explanation for the practice or criterion concerned. This applies only to civil cases.

    This does not represent a major change in terms of United Kingdom legal practice. Under current United Kingdom law, United Kingdom tribunals can and do, if faced with facts which raise a presumption of discrimination, draw inferences that discrimination has occurred.

    Immigration
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people are employed and at which grades in(a) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and (b) the Immigration Service;[125044]

    (2) if he will list the locations where members of the Immigration Service are employed, indicating in each case the number of staff and their grades. [125043]

    Mrs. Roche
    On 1 June 2000, there were a total of 6,817 staff employed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, of whom 2,786 were employed within the Immigration Service and 4,031 were generalist grades. A breakdown by grade is as follows:

    Grade

    Number

    AA

    814

    AO

    1,370

    Assistant Librarian

    1

    Chief Typing Manager

    1

    Executive Officer

    1,002

    Higher Executive Officer

    459

    Industrial

    9

    Information Officer

    3

    Personal Secretary

    34

    Senior Executive Officer

    96

    Senior Personal Secretary

    3

    Support Grade Band 1

    12

    Support Grade Band 2

    171

    375W

    Grade

    Number

    Support Manager 2

    1

    Support Manager 3

    1

    Typing Manager

    2

    Typist

    52

    Total

    4,031

    Assistant Immigration Officer

    284

    Immigration Officer

    2,053

    Chief Immigration Officer

    391

    Inspector

    56

    Interpreter (Permanent)

    2

    Total

    2,786

    There are 69 locations where members of the Immigration Service are employed and the breakdown by grade, including staff who are in training, in each of those locations is as follows:

    Location

    A10

    10

    C10

    HMI

    Total

    Aberdeen Airport

    1

    8

    1

    0

    10

    Apollo House IS HQ

    2

    41

    26

    2

    71

    Assigned Overseas

    0

    25

    23

    0

    48

    Beckett House

    5

    62

    12

    3

    82

    Belfast

    2

    7

    1

    0

    10

    Birmingham Airport

    6

    38

    6

    2

    52

    Bournemouth

    0

    3

    0

    0

    3

    Bristol Immigration

    Office

    0

    10

    0

    0

    10

    Bristol Airport

    1

    2

    1

    0

    4

    Brize Norton

    0

    2

    0

    0

    2

    Cambridge Airport

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Campsfield House

    0

    4

    1

    1

    6

    Cardiff

    2

    8

    0

    0

    10

    Cheriton

    0

    62

    6

    0

    68

    Croydon Enforcement Unit

    7

    13

    5

    1

    26

    Dominion Court, Solihull

    1

    9

    4

    0

    14

    Dover East

    48

    194

    28

    5

    275

    Dover Hoverport

    6

    1

    2

    0

    9

    East Midlands Airport

    4

    13

    2

    0

    19

    Edinburgh Airport

    0

    6

    1

    0

    7

    Felixtowe

    0

    3

    0

    0

    3

    Feltham Green (POU)

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    Gatwick Airport

    3

    3

    1

    0

    7

    Gatwick Atlantic House

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Gatwick North

    25

    131

    23

    2

    181

    Gatwick South

    37

    151

    21

    4

    213

    Glasgow

    0

    0

    2

    1

    3

    Glasgow Airport

    2

    23

    2

    0

    27

    Gravesend

    0

    12

    2

    0

    14

    Grenadier House

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    Harwich

    0

    32

    6

    1

    39

    Heathrow TN1

    28

    131

    22

    4

    185

    Heathrow TN2

    23

    134

    28

    5

    190

    Heathrow TN3

    16

    208

    34

    5

    263

    Heathrow TN4

    18

    127

    24

    3

    172

    Hull

    0

    9

    2

    0

    11

    Humberside Airport

    0

    5

    0

    0

    5

    Leeds/Bradford Airport

    1

    14

    2

    1

    18

    Liverpool

    0

    7

    1

    0

    8

    London City Airport

    2

    16

    2

    0

    20

    Luton Airport

    2

    22

    3

    0

    27

    Manchester Airport

    8

    82

    14

    3

    107

    Newcastle Airport

    0

    8

    1

    0

    9

    Newhaven

    0

    14

    1

    0

    15

    Newport Olympia House

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    North Shields

    0

    7

    1

    0

    8

    376W

    Location

    A10

    10

    C10

    HMI

    Total

    Norwich Airport

    0

    5

    0

    0

    5

    Oakington

    1

    13

    4

    0

    18

    Plymouth

    1

    9

    1

    0

    11

    Poole

    0

    6

    1

    0

    7

    Portsmouth

    0

    31

    3

    1

    35

    Preston

    0

    3

    0

    0

    3

    Queen Annes Gate

    0

    1

    1

    0

    2

    RAF Mildenhall

    0

    3

    0

    0

    3

    Ramsgate

    0

    6

    0

    0

    6

    Sheffield

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Southampton

    0

    8

    1

    0

    9

    Southend Airport

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Spring Gardens NCIS

    1

    3

    0

    0

    4

    Stansted Airport

    3

    60

    10

    2

    75

    Status Park 2

    14

    68

    16

    4

    102

    Status Park 3

    12

    70

    19

    3

    104

    Stockton on Tees

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Swansea

    0

    2

    0

    0

    2

    Teesside Airport

    1

    7

    1

    0

    9

    Tinsley House

    0

    3

    1

    0

    4

    Waterloo International

    0

    94

    14

    1

    109

    West Drayton

    0

    7

    6

    2

    15

    Location not specified

    1

    1

    0

    0

    2

    Total

    284

    2,053

    391

    56

    2,784

    Eurodac
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on whether the implementing powers under the Eurodac Regulation should be exercised by(a) the Commission or (b) the Council. [125049]

    Mrs. Roche
    The European Parliament is to be reconsulted on the Council's proposal to reserve these implementing powers to itself, rather than delegate them to the Commission. A copy of an Explanatory Memorandum has been sent to the Scrutiny Committees setting out the Government's position on the draft regulation. A copy will be available in the Library.

    Equal Treatment Directive
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the proposed EU Directive against racial discrimination with existing British race relations legislation as it affects the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [125080]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    (The Directive is a European Community Directive, not a European Union Directive.)

    No assessment Of the Directive's compatibility as it affects the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is necessary. Immigration functions are not covered by the fields listed under the scope of the Directive in article 3(1). Furthermore, the United Kingdom secured the addition of paragraph 3(2), which states:
    This Directive does not cover difference of treatment based on nationality and is without prejudice to provisions and conditions relating to the entry into and residence of third-country nationals and stateless persons on the territory of member states, and to any treatment which arises for the legal status of the third-country national and stateless persons concerned.

    Thus the social protection-type functions carried out by the National Asylum Support Service are not covered by the Directive either.
    377W
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations he has consulted on the impact of the draft EU Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. [125042]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    (The Directive is a European Community Directive, not a European Union Directive.)

    The Home Office has consulted: all relevant Whitehall Departments, and the devolved administrations; a range of business organisations and employee organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Construction Federation, the Small Business Centre, the Institute of Personnel Development, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Trade Union Congress; and some 80 non-governmental organisations working in the race relations field, including the Commission for Racial Equality and the European Monitoring Centre.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) British businesses and (b) other organisations of implementing the proposed EU Directive on the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. [125054]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    (The Directive is a European Community Directive, not a European Union Directive.)

    Since a final version of the text was only agreed yesterday, it has not been possible to carry out a full assessment of the cost to British businesses and other organisations of implementing the European Community Directive on the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. A copy of the Regulatory Impact Assessment has been placed in the Library. It has been prepared on the basis of an earlier draft of the Directive, which addressed the potential costs of the proposed Directive, the contents of which have been shared with representatives of the business community.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward further amendments to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill[Lords] in respect of the EU Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or national origin. [125041]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We have no such plans. The main purpose of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is to extend further the Race Relations Act 1976 to the police and other public authorities, meeting a key recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report. It would not be within the scope of the Bill to seek to implement the measures contained in the European Union Race Directive, which would have implications for the private sector as well as the public sector. In addition, the timing of the Directive does not fit in with that of the Bill. We are hopeful that the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will receive Royal Assent by the summer. By contrast, although political agreement on the Directive was reached at the European Union Social Affairs Council at its June meeting, the Directive will now be subject to legal scrutiny and will not be adopted before the Council's October meeting, from which time the United Kingdom 378W
    will have three years to implement it. In these circumstances, it would be unwise to attempt to make unnecessarily speedy amendments to legislation which is already passing through Parliament.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which aspects of education will be covered by the draft European Union Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the draft Directive with the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 relating to duties imposed on educational bodies; and if he will make a statement. [125031]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    (The Directive is a European Community Directive not a European Union Directive.)

    Our Race Relations Act has, since 1976, fully covered the education sector in the United Kingdom and the Directive has limited coverage in respect of education. The areas where the Directive will primarily come into play are those which deal with such schemes as exchange of best practice and encouraging co-operation between educational bodies in different member states and student and teacher mobility schemes such as exchanges.

    Justice and Home Affairs Council
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proceedings and conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 29 and 30 May. [125040]

    Mr. Straw
    I am writing to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, in accordance with established practice, to report on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 29 May. I will arrange for a copy of that letter to be placed in the Library.

    Dublin Convention
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Commission Working Paper, "Revisiting the Dublin Convention". [125048]

    Mrs. Roche
    The European Commission has produced a working paper entitled "Revisiting the Dublin Convention". This seeks to initiate debate on the Dublin Convention as the first step towards developing Community legislation for determining which member state is responsible for considering an application for asylum submitted in one of the member states, as required by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Government's view of this document can be found in the Home Office Explanatory Memorandum dated 10 May, a copy of which is in the Library.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the quarterly statistics on the Dublin Convention exchanged between member states under the terms of decision 1/97. [125047]

    Mrs. Roche
    I have arranged for copies of these latest statistics to be placed in the Library.
    379W
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the Government's policy to seek to replace the Dublin Convention with a system which allocates responsibility for an asylum applicant to the last known transit country within the EU. [125045]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Treaty of Amsterdam requires that a Community instrument must replace the Dublin Convention by May 2004. The Commission has already presented a working document entitled "Revisiting the Dublin Convention" to the Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting held in Brussels on 27 March.
    380W
    The next step in the process will be the circulation of a Commission questionnaire to evaluate the operation of the Dublin Convention as it stands. The Government see evaluation as central to the development of a new draft measure. We must build on the results of the forthcoming evaluation to ensure the development of a more robust and efficient new mechanism in this field. At this preliminary stage, however, the Government consider that the underlying premise of the Dublin Convention (that the State responsible for an applicant's entry into European Union territory is responsible for the determination of any resulting asylum claim) provides a proper model for any future measure.

  TREASURY

    Pensioners (Tax)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners pay tax and at what

    Number of pensioners1

    Million

    Marginal rate

    1996–972

    1997–982

    1998–992

    1999–20002

    2000–012

    2001–022

    0% (non-taxpayer)

    6.8

    6.7

    6.6

    6.8

    6.5

    6.7

    10%

    —

    —

    0.1

    0.7

    0.9

    0.8

    20%

    2.3

    2.4

    2.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.6

    22%, 23% or 24%

    1.4

    1.4

    1.5

    2.4

    2.5

    2.5

    40%

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    Total

    10.7

    10.7

    10.7

    10.8

    10.8

    10.8

    1Women aged 60 or over, men aged 65 or over

    2The estimates are rounded to the nearest 100,000

    Note:

    The estimates are based on the Survey of Pen onal Incomes and consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

    Marginal Deduction Rates
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the taxes and benefits taken into account in calculating the effect of Government reforms on marginal deduction rates, as shown in Table 4.2 of the Red Book, HC 346. [122498]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 16 May 2000]: A marginal deduction rate (MDR) measures how much of an additional pound of earnings is deducted through the combination of taxes and/or reduced entitlement to benefits and/or tax credits. The figures in table 4.2 of the Red Book are for working households in receipt of income-related benefits or the Working Families Tax Credit where at least one person works 16 hours or more a week. The calculation of an MDR therefore incorporates Income Tax (taking into account personal allowances and tax credits such as the Children's Tax Credit) employee National Insurance Contributions, and income-related benefits and tax credits, namely the Working Families Tax Credit, Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit.

    Tax Credits
    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the number of projected claimants of the(a) Working Families Tax Credit and (b) Disabled Person's Tax Credit for the years (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [123798]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 25 May 2000]: Table C12 in the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report shows projected expenditure on the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC). These projections were based on the expectation that up to 1.4 million individuals and families will benefit from WFFC and DPTC.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of children which his policies have lifted out of poverty between 1997–98 and 2000–01, based on a poverty line of(a) 50 per cent. of mean income
    382W
    rates; and how many (a) paid no tax before the Budget and (b) are paying no tax after the Budget. [117517]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 4 April 2000]: Only around 40 per cent. of pensioners currently have any income tax to pay. Estimates for the number of pensioners by different marginal rates are given in the table:

    before housing costs, (b) 50 per cent. of mean income after housing costs, (c) 60 per cent. of median income before housing costs and (d) 60 per cent. of median income after housing costs, indicating in each case the cash value of each threshold. [123716]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Based on a threshold of 60 per cent. of median income, after housing costs, there will be a total of 1.2 million children in households lifted out of poverty as a result of measures announced this Parliament. Figures for this and for other proportions of the median are given in Box 5.1 on page 86 of the Budget 2000 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report.

    A threshold at 50 per cent. of mean income would be very similar to the 60 per cent. of median income threshold used above. Any difference in results using this threshold would be rendered insignificant by the sampling and estimating errors involved in these calculations.

    The number of children lifted out of poverty before housing costs is similar to the after housing costs figures. As before, the differences are small and rendered insignificant by the sampling and estimating errors involved. However, as the number of children in poverty in 1997–98 was lower before housing costs, the proportional reduction in child poverty arising from Budget measures would be greater.

    Latest statistics on household incomes (covering 1997–98) can be found in "Households below average incomes 1994–95 to 1997–98" published by he Department of Social Security.

    CITES
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) investigations and (b) successful prosecutions Customs officials have conducted with regard to breaches of CITES legislation in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [124050]

    Dawn Primarolo
    HM Customs and Excise do not hold central records of the number of endangered species related investigations undertaken by its staff in any given period.
    383W
    In the period 1995 to date, the Department made 2,174 detections of live species or derivatives covered by CITES legislation. Of these, however, the vast majority were either tourist souvenirs (85 per cent.) or relatively small commercial quantities where there was insufficient evidence of deliberate criminal activity to warrant action beyond seizure of the goods.

    During this period Customs has mounted four successful prosecutions, all resulting in custodial sentences.

    Single Ombudsman Service
    Mr. Efford
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Financial Services Authority to publish its response to the consultation on the Single Ombudsman Service; and if he will make a statement. [124944]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Financial Services Authority published its response to the consultation on the Single Ombudsman Service on 24 May on the internet and on 1 June in hard copy form. I understand the FSA has sent a copy of its response direct to my hon. Friend.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he plans to take to compensate those contributors who were wrongly advised to continue to pay the married women's option in the national insurance scheme. [125102]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Government's policy is to provide sufficient information to enable women to make an informed choice about their election to pay reduced rate contributions.

    Opinion Research
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 585W, on opinion research, what steps have been taken to ensure that his Department
    384W
    makes such results publicly available as required by paragraph 19 of the Cabinet Office May 1999 Guidelines on Research into Public Attitudes and Opinions. [124904]

    Mr. Timms
    The Treasury take full account of the Cabinet Office Guidelines on Government Research into Public Attitudes and Opinions, which were published on 12 May 2000.

    Taxation (I-E Formula)
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000,Official Report, column 524W, on Taxation (I-E Formula), in respect of each rate of tax shown in the table, what is his estimate of a 1 per cent. reduction in each of the rates shown for tax years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [125120]

    Dawn Primarolo
    No estimates are available.

    Correspondence
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter of 21 October 1999 from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, in respect of which a reminder letter was sent on 17 February. [124806]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I replied to the hon. Member on 23 November 1999 and am sending him a copy of my letter.

    Inter-Governmental Conference
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have taken place on the rebate of the contribution of the United Kingdom to the EU Budget at the Inter-Governmental conference considering the prospective Treaty of Nice; and what has been the percentage Change in the UK's(a) gross and (b) net contribution to the EU (i) taking into account and (ii) not taking into account the rebate in the last five years. [125252]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    No such discussions have taken place. Details of the United Kingdom's gross contributions, abatement, public sector receipts and net contributions for he period 1973–74 to 1999–2000 can be obtained from various Departmental Reports of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments—or, previously, Government Expenditure Plans.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Criminal Law of Self-defence
Lord Acknerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are contemplating amending, or otherwise altering, the criminal law of self-defence, and, if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, it is well established in English law that a person may use reasonable force in self-defence or in the defence of his or her family or property. What is reasonable in a particular case is ultimately best left to a jury to decide in the light of the circumstances. We remain unconvinced that a change to the law on self-defence is required.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not take time dissembling gratitude for a wholly unsatisfactory Answer. The Minister is no doubt aware of the decision of this House in the case of R v. Clegg, the soldier who shot dead the occupant of a motor car that went past a checkpoint in Northern Ireland.
Does the Minister recall the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which was agreed to by all his fellow Law Lords, in which he said that the recommendations for a change in the law were all one way and entitled to great weight? The recommendation to which he referred was, principally, the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its 14th Report in 1980 in which it stated:
"Where a person kills in a situation in which it is reasonable for some force to be used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime but the defendant uses excessive force, he should be liable to be convicted of manslaughter not murder if, at the time of the act, he honestly believed that the force he used was reasonable in the circumstances".
That recommendation—
Noble Lords: Too long!
Lord Ackner: My Lords, that recommendation was approved by your Lordships' Select Committee which considered murder and life imprisonment, of which I was a member, in 1989. How can the Government leave the position in the state it is now?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I did not think, for a moment, that I would satisfy the noble and learned Lord with my response. I have listened carefully to what he said, but we remain of the view that what we have is about right. It has to be a
1232
judgment taken on what is reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. We think it is right that a jury should decide in the light of those circumstances. We believe that that is the best way to conduct such matters. That would also appear to have been the view of much of the judiciary, much of the police service and of many Members from the party opposite, both in government and in opposition.
We fully understand the case and circumstances which have given rise to this extensive debate. However, we believe that we need to stay where we are, and be reasonable, proportionate and sensible in the circumstances. I well understand the fears and concerns that lie behind the Question.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the recent publicity is not so much the matter of self-defence but the lack of what every citizen expects as of right; that is, proper police protection? That applies particularly to rural areas. It is quite clear that people who live in isolated communities are not given what is their civil right; namely, proper police protection. How do the Government intend to address that problem?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I well understand the point made by the noble Lord. It is for that reason that in setting up the crime fighting fund we added an extra sparsity factor which will benefit the more rural areas. However, we are all subject to the problem of the time that it takes for the police to arrive at an incident. I well remember having exactly the same problem when I was burgled for the fourth and final time in an 18-month period some five or six years ago. I was obliged to apprehend the burglar myself—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am no "have-a-go hero", but I was somewhat enraged. He spent two years behind bars and had 60 other offences taken into consideration. I hope that lie is now recovering from his heroin addiction as a consequence.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House believe that the law on this should be reviewed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am intrigued by that. The Leader of the Opposition may have been of that view, but it certainly does not appear to be shared by the Shadow Home Secretary, She made it plain on the "Today" programme that she believes that the law is entirely adequate.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is this not another example of the desirability of getting rid of the mandatory life sentence for murder so that the sentence can be tied to the seriousness of the offence?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that this runs as a debate, particularly in legal circles, and has done since the sentence of hanging was

1233
abolished in the mid-1960s. However, there is considerable discretion within the term "life" and in mandatory sentencing. I think it is best to leave things as they are. Successive generations of the judiciary have been happy with that. I believe that the system works well as it is.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is less burglary in rural New England than there is in rural England, and that that is mainly because in rural New England householders need have no inhibitions about defending themselves, their families and their property?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that may well be the case. However, I believe that by and large we live in a civilised society. The murder rate in the United Kingdom is admirably low. I have little doubt that that has much to do with our very tight and restrictive laws on such things as guns. Not everyone shares that view, but I hold it firmly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why a mandatory life sentence is not mandatory?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is mandatory, but there is a tariff set. I think that that point is widely understood.

Rice Genome Project
3.9 p.m.
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What United Kingdom involvement there is in the International Rice Genome Project; and when it will be completed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the John Innes Centre in Norwich has been involved in planning the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, through membership of the steering committee, since its inception in 1997. The centre, together with European Union colleagues, has undertaken preparatory work to sequence part of the rice genome.
Subject to funding, the international project is due to be completed by 2006. The bulk of the work is being carried out in Japan, although the USA, China and other countries are also contributing significantly. The John Innes Centre is co-ordinating a consortium of European laboratories to sequence a considerable part—10 to 15 per cent—of the genome.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Government give every possible support to this vitally important project? It should lead to the development of improved rice with increased nutritional content and much less demand on scarce resources such as land and water. Does the Minister agree that an important breakthrough in the programme was the recent
1234
decoding of the genetic sequence? Incidentally, that was carried out by Monsanto—a company with which I have no connection—which is often reviled. Does the Minister also agree that on this occasion it should be congratulated on setting an example to other companies in making the benefits of the genome information freely available?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are giving every encouragement to that project and shall continue to do so. The noble Lord is quite right that Monsanto made available a working draft of its decoding of the genome. But that is only a working paper; there is still a great deal of work to be done. However, those who are taking part in the sequencing project appreciate Monsanto's gesture in making that information available free of any copyright or patent restriction.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology recently drew attention to the splendid speech made by a Brit—Professor Gordon Conway, currently president of the Rockefeller Foundation—which he addressed to the Monsanto board last July? At that time he pointed out that by genetic modification of rice, the yields were already rising dramatically (a 40 to 50 per cent increase) and the nutritional quality improved greatly. Is not the message that if real advantage can be seen, as the third world countries certainly do see, there is nothing to fear from this technology?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government take the view that where it is appropriate and beneficial for this technology to be used in developing countries, all support should be given to that technology.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it may put a lot of people's minds at rest on this subject if we can be assured that a large bank of existing genetic material is kept of the plants that are being genetically modified? If something goes wrong, we shall then have something to fall back on.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is true of all modification, whether it is genetic modification brought about by modern techniques or by any form of breeding. It is desirable to be able to retrace one's steps if any change has been made, however beneficial.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a trustee of the John Innes Foundation. Does the Minister agree that enormous interest has been shown around the world in genome sequencing? Is it not desirable, if possible, for the intellectual property rights to remain within the scientific community, particularly at the national academies of those countries most likely to benefit?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, clearly the important issue of intellectual property rights arises.

1235
The noble Earl is aware of the controversy in the United States in relation to the patent rights on part of the human genome project between the Sanger Centre and a private developer. Of course, no patent can be taken out on indigenous plants. It is only where there is a degree of invention that that is possible. But it is enormously important that it should not be possible to patent a scientific invention which should be generally available for the benefit of the world.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, despite the great benefits from genetic engineering, there may also be great drawbacks? As with nuclear power, from which many people benefit greatly, awful forces may be unleashed by such a development.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept the scientific basis for the analogy which the noble Earl seeks to draw. The case for genetic modification has to stand on its own and not by analogy with nuclear power.

Zimbabwe: Elections
3.14 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the arrangements for international monitoring of the elections in Zimbabwe are satisfactory.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we are pleased that the Government of Zimbabwe have accepted international observers to observe the elections to be held in that country on 24th and 25th June. We are satisfied with the speedy response to send observers from the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community, the European Union, South Africa and the United States. The United Nations development programme is co-ordinating the arrangements for the various teams. The first observers arrived over the weekend of 3rd and 4th June and we understand that there will be around 300 observers in total.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the latest measure of intimidation devised by Mr Mugabe's so-called veterans is that, when they encounter a mother carrying a baby and she declines to attend one of Mr Mugabe's party meetings, they seize the baby, raise it in the air and drop it on the ground? As it is only a short time since Mr Mugabe lost the referendum, and the only important political development since that time has been his campaign of intimidation, is it not clear that if he wins the election, it will only be because of that campaign of intimidation? Who will brief the monitors?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Peter Hain, said on 5th June, neither Britain nor the international community can make this
1236
election fair; only Robert Mugabe can do that. We are well aware of the stories which the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, mentions. Intimidation is definitely taking place in Zimbabwe; of that there is no doubt. But we shall not pre-empt the observers' verdict or the verdict of the people of Zimbabwe.
It is important to make the point that the opposition parties in Zimbabwe have not walked away from the elections. As they have not walked away from them, then neither should we. But we deplore the pressure that they are put under. It is vital that they be allowed to campaign freely, and we hope that the observers will play their role in trying to make that happen.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in those circumstances, which are well known to the international community and everybody else, the only role that the observers can play is to legitimise the incoming government, which will undoubtedly be led by Mr Mugabe and be a totalitarian, vicious regime?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the more than 300 observers who will be deployed to Zimbabwe will do a good job. They will consist of 160 from the European Union, led by Pierre Schori, an MEP who was a former minister in Sweden for international development. He is extremely experienced in the field of foreign politics. The Commonwealth is sending at least 45 observers and they will be led by General Abubakar, the former head of state of Nigeria. I shall not list the others. As everyone will understand, the figures are fluid.
Noble Lords must not pre-empt everything and say, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, implied, that nothing the observers report will be able to be taken seriously enough for people to judge whether or not the elections have been fair. I believe that the observers will do a good job. We shall study with great care the reports they give to the international community on what happened during the elections. That is all the international community can do at this time.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate what arrangements have been made and assurances given for the personal safety of the many observers whom she mentioned will be there?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the United Nations development programme is co-ordinating the teams of observers. The arrangements for each team will be the responsibility of the organisations, such as the European Union and the Commonwealth.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, first, is it correct that British citizens are being refused admission as observers to Zimbabwe? Secondly, is it not one of the most prominent features of this tragic situation that the Movement for Democratic Change and its leaders are showing such amazing courage in the face of these hideous threats; and, indeed, of actual deaths? Is not by far the most important thing now to ensure that the observers stay on for some weeks after the election, thereby indicating that the international

1237
community has some interest in protecting these brave people against the reprisals that will certainly come—not just those in the verbal sense but reprisals in terms of murder and mayhem?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I certainly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the courage of the opposition in Zimbabwe. I believe that those people are showing remarkable courage in the face of unbelievably bad behaviour. We are well aware of President Mugabe's remarks about British observers. Of course, it is for the Commonwealth and the European Commission to make decisions on the composition of their observer team. But, at present, one Briton has been proposed as an observer with the Commonwealth team while the European team has three Britons. It will be up to the organisations, whose teams consist of many different nationalities, to look after that situation. We are not sending a British observers' team as such, but Britons are certainly part of the teams from the various organisations that are going to the country to observe the elections.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness observed the report in today's edition of the Harare Financial Gazette, which states that President Mugabe will issue a decree providing that observers will have to undergo a process of accreditation by the Registrar General, whose activities they are supposed to monitor? Does she not think that, under this system, those concerned will be able to refuse to allow particular observers into the country whose background, or origins, they do not like? Has the Minister also noted the claim that tens of thousands of voters are finding that their names have been left off the electoral role?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Yes, my Lords. I am aware of both those matters. I know that the accreditation situation is being negotiated right now, as we speak. The UNDP, which is co-ordinating the teams, will be involved in the process, as will the UN, the European Union and the Commonwealth Secretariat. The organisations that are sending the observers must be satisfied that their observers will be allowed to do the job that they have been assigned to do.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is not possible to hold free and fair elections in a culture which has a climate that refuses to accept liberty of opinion and refuses to uphold the rule of law? In the absence of those things, not only can there not be free and fair elections, but also the people themselves are subject to the abuses of political power.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Yes, my Lords, I hear the wise words of the right reverend Prelate. Of course, Zimbabwe is not the only country in the world in which such remarks can be made. As an international community, we must do whatever we can to try to
1238
ensure fair and just elections. Given the timescale allowed, the international community has responded to the situation in Zimbabwe very speedily and in considerable numbers in order at least to try to ensure that there is a minimum of fairness. If these elections are judged not to be fair and just by the observers, that message will go out to the international community who will respond fittingly to Zimbabwe.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords—
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross-Benches. There may, in any event, be time for the noble Duke.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following on from what the Minister has just said, does she agree that the success of this election-monitoring process depends on the local trained monitors for 4,000 polling stations? Is there anything that this Government can do to support the Churches and civil society which are in the process of training these very important people?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for having raised that question. We are giving, and have given, aid to NGOs for the precise purpose of training people to try to carry out fair and just democratic elections.
Noble Lords: Montrose!
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I believe that the next Question has been called.

Asylum Seekers: Dispersal Policy
3.25 p.m.
Lord Greavesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the report by the Audit Commission Another Country—implementing dispersal under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we greatly welcome the report of the Audit Commission on the dispersal arrangements. The field work for the report was undertaken between October 1999 and March 2000, and draws its conclusions from the effectiveness of dispersal operations under the voluntary arrangements. Therefore, it does not properly reflect the changing nature of the asylum service and the ways in which we are driving new arrangements forward. It makes a useful contribution to the continuing

1239
development of our policy. Many of the conclusions and recommendations made in the report have been implemented, are being developed, or are under active consideration.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The new arrangements came into force on 3rd April. Can the noble Lord tell us why the Government have used only private sector operators since then at both national and local level in England, some of which—such as, Clearsprings (Management) Limited, Adelphi Hotels Limited and Cross Construction of Brierfield in Lancashire—appear to be less than suitable for the purpose? Is it not the case that the new arrangements are proving to be bad for the asylum seekers, bad for the local communities in which they are being settled, and bad for taxpayers who are being asked to fund what appears to be a considerable amount of profiteering by the private sector?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord's conclusions. We believe that the scheme currently in operation is proving to be extremely effective. It is providing valuable accommodation. Not all of the accommodation is in the private sector. The arrangements that have been made are effective and are providing a satisfactory level and quality of accommodation. The National Asylum Support Service fully investigates any complaints made and works very closely on them.
Much attention has been paid to Landmark in Liverpool and its activities. The two tower blocks of self-contained flats were previously used by Liverpool City Council—a well-known Liberal Democrat council—prior to the Government making available useful access to them under the new national scheme.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the proceedings on the 1999 Act many. Members of your Lordships' House raised two specific concerns about the dispersal policy? The first was precisely that hard-to-let properties on sink estates might well be used by councils which might be keen to try to maximise revenue from asylum seekers. Secondly, can the noble Lord give some assurances to the House about the position of unaccompanied minors? Many people are worried that they are being dispersed rather than being placed into a suitable environment. After all, they are children and should have access to people of a similar cultural and linguistic background.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we must obviously try to seek a balance in terms of the quality of accommodation. I do, indeed, recall our important debates on the matter during the passage of the legislation. We are giving most careful consideration to all the accommodation that is being used. We take great care in that respect. Inspections are made, and the services of the local authority involved are made use of, as well as those of the Health and Safety Executive.
1240
As regards the noble Lord's second point, I can confirm that the treatment and care of minors is one of those matters to which we pay the highest regard. We gave assurances during the passage of the legislation and we shall continue to give such assurances. However, if the noble Lord has knowledge of cases and instances where he feels that the service is falling short of those very high standards, I should be most grateful to learn of them.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is not the Audit Commission report a shocking indictment of Labour's record on asylum and, indeed, a personal embarrassment to the Home Secretary who claimed that his policy of forced dispersal was an answer to all the problems? Only half the original target has been met in terms of accommodation. Are not local authorities being asked to pick up the tab for this asylum folly? As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the present shambles is unfair to everyone. It is unfair to local authorities, to taxpayers and to genuine refugees.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am intrigued by the noble Viscount's observations which verged on a political rant. However, he made serious points. We believe that our dispersal system is working well. It certainly works far better than the voluntary dispersal arrangements which we established with consortia prior to the introduction of the national scheme. We also believe that we are on track with policy. The number of asylum seekers is coming down. The number of applications being considered is increasing in terms of the volume of decisions taken—last month one of the highest-ever figures was recorded in that regard. We now believe that we have a firm grip on the policy. I greatly regret the way in which noble Lords opposite who are members of the Conservative Party have sought to use this issue in a totally shabby way, having left our Government with an absolute shambles of a system. We are now putting a sound system in place which is fair and proper. We are exercising that policy justly and fairly and in the interests of the British public.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister would wish to note—
Noble Lords: Order!

Utilities Bill
3.31 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order paper. In so doing, as the order of consideration of clauses is somewhat unusual, I ought to say a few words about it. The reason for taking the clauses out of their numerical order in the Bill is because the Bill is largely a rewrite, with amendments, of large parts of the Gas Act and the Electricity Act. We believe that it is for the convenience of the House to be able to

1241
consider comparable topics at the same time rather than have to move around the Marshalled List, as it were. The proposal we are putting forward has been agreed through the usual channels. It is the same as the procedure adopted in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Utilities Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 9,

Clause 13,

Clause 10,

Clause 14,

Clause 11,

Clause 15,

Clause 12,

Clause 16,

Clauses 17 to 28,

Clause 74,

Clause 85,

Clauses 29 to 31,

Clause 73,

Clauses 32 to 39,

Clauses 80 to 82,

Clause 40,

Clause 84,

Clause 41,

Clàuse 86,

Clause 42,

Clause 87,

Clauses 43 to 50,

Schedule 4,

Clause 83,

Clause 51,

Schedule 5,

Clause 52,

Clause 88,

Clause 53,

Clause 89,

Clause 54,

Clause 90,

Clause 55,

Clause 91,

Clause 56,

Clause 92,

Clause 57,

Clause 93,

Clause 58,

Clause 94,

Clause 59,

Clause 95,

Clause 60,

Clause 96,

Clauses 61 to 68,

Clause 97,

Clause 69,

Clause 98,

Clauses 70 to 72,

Clause 101,

1242

Clauses 75 to 79,

Clauses 99 and 100,

Clause 102,

Clause 3,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 103 to 105,

Schedules 6 to 8,

Clauses 106 and 107.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the decisions of the usual channels have not always been fully approved by Members of your Lordships' House and that taking clauses out of their numerical order often causes confusion in the course of Committee or Report stages? Although on this occasion we shall consider carefully whether the considerable alteration is justified, the Government and the committee which considers these matters should be very reluctant indeed to change the numerical order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the points that the noble Lord raises. I respect his judgment in this matter. The usual channels in this case are the relevant Front Benches who are responsible for the large majority of the amendments that are tabled. If we are wrong, the procedure will be seen to be wrong. However, it worked in another place. We believe that it will help the consideration of the Bill. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Postal Services Bill
3.34 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, before we proceed further I wish to ask the Minister a question of which I have given him notice.
I understand that yesterday the Prime Minister made a most interesting speech to the National Federation of Women's Institutes. I very much regret that I was not present to hear it as I might have joined in at some stage or t' other! However, he referred to his concern about sub-post offices—a matter with which I believe everyone in this House is concerned. He also said that the Government intended to make a statement about what they would do to help sub-post offices in the future. As we are about to embark on the first day of the Committee stage of the Postal Services Bill, will the Minister tell us when the statement will be made? Will it affect the Bill? Will it mean more government amendments? Will it make our

1243
amendments ineffective? Have we wasted much time trying to make everything right? I hope that the Minister, who smiled at me so nicely across the Dispatch Box, will give the House a satisfactory reply.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I support my noble friend's comments, which are absolutely right. I have it on good authority that the Prime Minister said:
"You have a strong campaign on rural post offices. I want to preserve them too … Later this month we will publish plans that allow people to carry on taking out pensions and benefits in cash and that will protect rural post offices and offer them a new lease of life".
I am not entirely sure—my source did not tell me this—whether he said "We will publish plans" or "I will publish plans". However, it is not surprising that I have my suspicions about that. Nor did my source tell me whether the word "that" in the sentence,
"that will protect rural post offices and offer them a new lease of life",
referred to the taking out of pensions and benefits in cash or to something else. If it refers to something else, again my noble friend is quite right to say that that will affect proceedings on the Bill. It is bound to, at some stage. Have we already wasted much time? Are we about to waste much time second guessing what the Prime Minister or, indeed, the Secretary of State might say by tabling amendments, manuscript amendments and so on, in order to clarify the position? If the noble Lord will clarify the position now, we should all be extremely grateful. That would probably help him too.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, the comments of my two noble friends raise the question: what did the Prime Minister say in his speech to the Women's Institute yesterday? Is the noble Lord aware that I have tried to obtain from No 10 Downing Street a transcript of the speech as delivered? I am informed that no such document exists. I already have in my possession the speech as it was intended to be delivered, which, in the way of the Government's presentation, had been issued in advance. Printed in large letters across the top are the words,
"Subject to check on delivery".
Now we are told that the Prime Minister dropped substantial parts from his prepared speech. Which bits stayed in and which were left out?
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about time wasted in preparation. On Monday this week the Secretary of State attended the Communication Workers Union conference. He said that the report from the PIU is imminent. We heard at Second Reading that it hoped to report to the Prime Minister
1244
soon after Easter. Can we be told whether that report is imminent or whether it will be produced in some weeks' or months' time?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my ex-house companion at Eton replies, I hope I may say a few words.
Noble Lords: Privilege!
The Earl of Onslow: The only two members of my house who were not thought fit for government office were the noble Lord and myself. They were right about myself but wrong about the noble Lord.
If the Prime Minister implied in his speech that he would change his policy, either the Bill ought to be taken away and redrafted or it is flannel. Which is it?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, again before the noble Lord responds, I agree with the points raised by my noble friends. Unlike, I suspect, other Members of the House, I have been dealing with this particular issue during the passage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. It has raised enormous problems because we have not been able to get any answers. I can tell noble Lords that, for good reasons, there was due to be a meeting this morning with Alan Johnson, where at least some light may have been thrown on the issue. That meeting had to be cancelled. If the Minister can respond to this matter it would be extremely helpful, not only to many of us working on this Bill but also to those of us who have been doing a large amount of work on the other Bill.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, before the Minister replies, if he is aware of what the Prime Minister said, perhaps he can tell your Lordships' House before more amendments are tabled and before any amendments are debated. If he does not know what the Prime Minister said—and, more importantly, if he does not know what the Prime Minister meant, which is more likely—there is no case for the Committee stage to proceed.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is very nice to see that the Women's Institute has in filtrated this House. I am sure that it will lead to good things.
If the members of the Women's Institute had listened to what the Prime Minister said yesterday, they would have a clearer picture. The position is very clear. The PIU report on post offices will be published shortly. This will, of course, be done with due respect for the parliamentary conventions. These issues do not impinge directly on the Bill before us, although the report may well help inform decisions on whether schemes under Clause 102, the subsidy clause, are needed.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Question is that the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill. As

1245
many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think that the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
3.45 p.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be agreed to?
Lord Skelmersdale: If my Motion on the Marshalled List were to be taken at face value it would be a wrecking amendment. Such was never my intention. But recent Rules of the House—which I must confess I do not like one little bit—make it virtually obligatory to announce one's intention to ask general points on a clause or schedule by putting down a Motion that such be opposed. In the good old days, of course, one just stood up and spoke. Be that as it may, I was trying to be good.
I have, or rather had, two questions—both of which have been somewhat pre-empted by the Secretary of State's announcement today. I cannot believe that he was so frightened of what I might say—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would be helpful to the speaker if those who are leaving the Chamber would do so silently.
Lord Skelmersdale: I was saying that I have been pre-empted by an announcement today of the Secretary of State, Mr Byers. I cannot believe that he was so frightened of what the House might say or do, or indeed what I might say or do, that he decided to come clean. That said, it is annoying, to say the least, that not once but twice in the past 24 hours we have been pre-empted by announcements by two members of the Cabinet.
We have had already a short discussion of the Prime Minister's activities yesterday, but I venture to suggest that your Lordships as a whole will not know who the members of the postal services commission are to be. That is one thing that I sought to discover.
The other matter has also disappeared—namely, how can it be that paragraph 1 of the schedule states that,
"The Commission shall consist of…a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State",
and no fewer than three other people appointed by him after consultation with the chairman and the chief executive. However, paragraph 5 goes on to say that
1246
the commission shall appoint the chief executive. It looks to me as if the chief executive was to have had a hand in appointing himself—which, of course, is all wrong. At this point, perhaps I may say that I am delighted that, unlike in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, there was in the department every intention of having a chairman and a chief executive. On that Bill, I understand, the jury is still out.
I said that I have been pre-empted. Mr Byers announced today that he had appointed not three but five other persons to join with the chairman and chief executive designate. I understand that these are: Mr Robin Aaronson, who is a director of the London office of a firm of business consultants and a trained economist; Ms Julia Kaufmann, who is, of course, currently a director of the BBC's "Children in Need" appeal, but I understand that that is coming to an end; Ms Janet Lewis-Jones, who has a portfolio of appointments which includes the British Board of Film Classification, the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority and the British Waterways Board; and Mr Ken Olisa, who is chairman and chief executive of a company working with IT innovators and investors. He is also governor of the Peabody Trust and, I am sure, of many other organisations. Then, surprise, surprise, there is Mr Tony Cooper, who is a very senior trade unionist. He is general secretary and chief executive officer of the Engineers' & Managers' Association and a member of the TUC General Council.
I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some further information about the appointments. Are there to be any more appointments and has the chairman yet decided on a quorum to put to the first meeting? Will the meeting be during or after the Bill receives Royal Assent? Are we, in short, going to be pre-empted by further announcements on the Post Office during the course of the proceedings on the Bill? I, for one, believe that already the Government are, to say the least, in danger of being accused of contempt of the House, on which of course there are other grounds into which it would be inappropriate to go just now.
The position of the chief executive having a hand in appointing himself also applies to Schedule 2, which deals with the consumer council for postal services. I could have fired the same warning shot across the Minister's bows on that matter by giving notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Schedule 2 be the second schedule to the Bill, but I did not think that that would be right. However, depending on the answer I receive from the Minister, I may have to do something similar by means of a more direct amendment on Report.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Perhaps I may say to the Minister that I am extremely flattered to be described as a member of the Women's Institute. I am not, but as he described us collectively as that, I might as well say that at all times I found members of the institute to be excellent. I consulted the institute on almost every consumer matter on which I had to have

1247
a common sense view. I spoke at two of its annual conferences and found that the Women's Institute was very good at listening.
My question about Schedule 1 concerns the terms of appointment. The schedule states that an appointment shall not exceed five years. However, paragraph 3(5) states:
"No person shall be prevented from being a member of the Commission … merely because he has previously been a member of the Commission".
That seems to be a little contradictory. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I should hate it if my comments were thought to be in any way derogatory of the Women's Institute. I was in fact suggesting that it would be a good development for the House if such an infiltration took place.
I was asked about the appointments to the postal services commission. First, perhaps I may say that those appointed seem to be admirable people. I can assure the noble Lord that those are all the appointments to the postal services commission. I was asked about the five-year term. We believe that an appointment should not last longer than that, but there may well be circumstances in which a person does very well on the commission and the Government would wish to appoint him a second time. That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable position in these circumstances. The reason is that the person should come up for re-appointment. The appointment should not go on longer, but people should not be excluded from being re-appointed simply because they have already served one term.
Lord Skelmersdale: This is Committee stage so I am allowed to speak again and cross-question the Minister. He did not refer to my point about the anomaly of a chief executive seeming to have a hand in the appointment of himself. I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me on that point.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am not certain that I understand the point that is being made. The commission appoints the chief executive. In that sense, it seems to me to be perfectly sensible that the commission should do that.
Lord Skelmersdale: The chief executive is already a member of the commission. The whole thing seems rather odd.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is not at all an unusual procedure. It is not unusual for a board to appoint a chief executive when that chief executive might well be a member of that board.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Consumer Council for Postal Services]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 77, line 5, leave out ("Minister for the Civil Service") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 2. The need for these amendments arises as a result of further advice from the Cabinet Office that as primary responsibility for approving the terms and conditions of employment of NDPB staff rests with the individual departmental sponsor Ministers, the Secretary of State and not the Minister for the Civil Service should be specified in these two subsections. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think I am right in saying that "the Secretary of State", when referred to in legislation, means any Secretary of State. Therefore, although the Minister refers to the department in this instance—indeed, one can kick off with the department advising the current Secretary of State or any Secretary of State at the moment for the Department of Trade and Industry—in theory, anyway, any Minister so designated as a Secretary of State could conduct activities under the Bill. Is that not the case?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may point out that all legislation is framed on precisely this basis.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My only comment on this matter would be—I would not question the advice that would come from the Cabinet Office, and I would accept obviously that that would be brought back here—that the Bill has been through the House of Commons. Why was it not felt necessary to deal with the matter then? Why has this come out as an afterthought, as it were?
Viscount Goschen: Before the Minister responds, can he advise the Committee whether the other references in the Bill to the "Minister for the Civil Service" still stand and are still valid? Can the Minister explain to the Committee whether that is a known statutory position, unlike the term "Secretary of State" which is well understood in legislation? Have there been precedents where the office of Minister for the Civil Service has been referred to?
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: This schedule relates to the appointment of the members. Can the Minister say whether any current members of POUNC have been approached to see whether they are willing to be appointed? They have the background knowledge and they have been serving consumers extremely well. I do not think that anyone in either House has paid a tribute to them, so on this occasion I should like to do so. I should like to ask the Minister whether such an idea has been considered.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The matter came to the House because we had fresh advice. The Cabinet

1249
Office plays no role in agreeing terms and conditions for staff of individual NDPBs. That was the situation. Members of the commission were appointed according to the Nolan rules. As I said, I believe that suitable people have been approached. I add my tribute to those people who I think have done an extremely good job; no doubt they were considered in this context.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to address the specific points that I made about the position of the Minister for the Civil Service.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Viscount asked whether it is usual to refer to the Minister for the Civil Service in these terms. As the provision has now been taken out of the Bill and replaced by the "Secretary of State", I think that the point no longer arises.
4 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: With the greatest respect to the Minister, there are other places in the Bill—for example, line 12 on page 77—where there is reference to the Minister for the Civil Service. I do not believe that that reference is covered by the amendment.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I can see no reason that he should not be referred to in legislation in the same way as there is reference to the Secretary of State.
Viscount Goschen: With the greatest respect, there appears to be some confusion. The Minister has said that the references will be changed, but clearly there are some references that are not addressed by the amendment. Does the Minister consider that those references should be changed by further amendments, or does he believe that the references to the Minister for the Civil Service are now correct?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: With this amendment we are changing the person who makes the decision. The references to the Minister for the Civil Service, as they apply to him, stand; but in this particular case the person who takes the decision has been changed.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I find the Minister's explanation somewhat confusing. I accept that the Minister may not be confused, but I am. I would be happy if he could clarify the matter for me. My noble friend pointed to the fact that on page 77, in lines 5 and 6, in the paragraph dealing with staff, the Cabinet Office has advised the Minister that the reference to the Minister for the Civil Service to be changed to the Secretary of State. However, only a few lines later it says that,
"The Council shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service".
So it appears that the Minister for the Civil Service is to be paid, but the Secretary of State will take the decisions. I wonder whether something has been left out of the amendment.
Lord Haskel: Is it possible that this is not a matter of "joined-up government"?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is a simple matter. Previously, the subparagraph stated:
"The appointment shall be on such terms and conditions of service as the Minister for the Civil Service may approve".
but now it will state:
"the Secretary of State may approve".
That is because, under the procedures that now exist, the Secretary of State makes such decisions and not the Minister for the Civil Service.
There is no reason to change other references to the Minister for the Civil Service. In this amendment we are changing the person who will take the decisions. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do if, as in this case, on the basis of fresh advice, it becomes clear that he is the person who decides. That is not an unreasonable position to take.
Lord Skelmersdale: Can the Minister give us a commitment that references to the Minister for the Civil Service in the Bill will be looked at to ensure that the Bill is drafted as the Government intend?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall certainly do that. It was unfortunate that we did not get it right first time. We are now correcting the matter and I shall make certain that any other references are correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 77, line 6, leave out ("Minister for the Civil Service") and insert ("Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Duty of the Commission to ensure provision of a universal postal service]:
Lord Lairdmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("() Where the Commission has imposed such a condition, it must include a condition that the designs and illustrations on adhesive postage stamps proving the payment of the public tariff (as mentioned in section 4(1)(b)) reflect the entire United Kingdom as well as its history and culture.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 standing in my name. In any revamping of the postal services we should ensure that items that are collected and in which people have an interest— namely stamps—should advertise the virtues of our country. They should reflect all sections of the United Kingdom, its culture and its history. It is extremely important that, whenever the commission licenses bodies that are likely to undertake those tasks, it ensures that the tasks are undertaken in a way that reminds everyone that it is the postal service of the United Kingdom.
Recently I was distressed—perhaps this is why I have tabled this amendment—to discover that the current postal service has decided not to celebrate the bicentenary of the creation of the United Kingdom in 2001, but instead it has decided to celebrate pond life. I am not against pond life—some of my best friends

1251
actually like pond life—but that will not capture the ethos of the United Kingdom in the year when we should be celebrating the bicentenary of the creation of the United Kingdom. I want to ensure that, in future, we do not become the laughing stock of postal services around the world, as we have over the issue of pond life.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Laird. Like him, I hope that every thing celebrates the United Kingdom. I feel strongly that we should always celebrate the United Kingdom. However, I have some concerns about this amendment because I fear that it may be too prescriptive and practically impossible to implement.
As far as the design of stamps is concerned, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have their own designs of definitive stamps. The noble Lord may be talking about sets of commemorative stamps that are produced from time to time showing pictures of birds or artists and so on. I believe that it may prove difficult to insist that such commemorative stamps, which may be only four in number, contain such matters. I totally agree about the United Kingdom, but I am concerned about how this measure would be implemented.
Lord Swinfen: No matter from what part of the United Kingdom stamps originate, they all have on them the sovereign's head. That is a unifying factor. There have been rumours—maybe no more than suggestions—that the European Commission wants to produce a European stamp that would be used throughout the EC and may not allow individual nations to use their own stamps. Therefore, I believe that this amendment, or something like it, should be accepted.
Lord Patten: On this amendment, I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. He has raised an extremely important point. This is the upper of the two Houses in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It seems extraordinary, according to answers elicited from Her Majesty's Government by the noble Lord!I follow his lead in this matter—that at present the Government have no intention of celebrating the anniversary of the creation of the United Kingdom in 2001. I cannot imagine another country in the world that would not celebrate such an event. The noble Lord has put his finger on the fact that the Post Office appears to have other priorities. I am the owner of a decent and deep pond in Somerset. I shall conduct a focus group among its inhabitants to see whether they would prefer to have their stamp, or whether they would consider that the history of the United Kingdom is more important.
Perhaps interest groups around the country could be consulted. I pick, entirely at random, the Women's Institute. As the Committee knows, I am not a boastful man, but it may be useful to put on the record that, like my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, when I have spoken to that institute I have received a warm reception. I believe that it would consider it extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government do not wish to promote next year's anniversary.
1252
We do not want the Minister to find himself in difficulties, so if the amendment is imperfectly worded, perhaps he can give the Committee an undertaking to return to the matter on Report. I believe that characteristically the noble Lord has put his finger on the point. I am right behind him.
Lord Skelmersdale: I believe that a nugget can be found here, but I see a slight problem. The noble Lord will be familiar with the hand of Ulster on stamps issued in the Province. No doubt he will also be aware of the reproduction of the Welsh leek and the Scottish thistle on stamps. I cannot see how one can get around the problem without doing away with those symbols.
None the less, I believe that it is absolutely right that the Post Office should consider a special issue to celebrate the bicentenary of the United Kingdom. I hope that it will be one of the first subjects to be debated by the new commission. Incidentally, I have not yet been told when the first meeting of that body is due to take place.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I know that the subject of stamps arouses keen interest among many people. However, their design and illustration is not a matter for primary legislation and the proposed amendment would be unnecessarily restrictive. Furthermore, it would be unworkable. I suspect that it would be difficult to reach a consensus on what reflects the entire United Kingdom.
The Government are content for the. Post Office company to choose the themes for its annual stamp programme, as it does at present. What is depicted on stamps is entirely a matter for the company to decide, in consultation with the Stamps Advisory Committee. I should point out that the Post Office undertakes a great deal of research on what people would like to see represented on stamps. For myself, I believe that that is probably a better way of discovering what people want rather than turning it into a political issue, which certain groups might seek to exploit.
The position taken by the Government as regards the Post Office is entirely in line with the established practice followed by successive governments since the establishment of the Post Office in 1969.
I am not aware of any proposals for uniform European stamps. Postage stamps are particular to postal operators and there are no plans to merge all the different EU postal groups. While I understand the interest of the noble Lord in these matters, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Laird: I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks and I take on board many of the points that he makes. However, we wish to see postal services in place that reflect accurately the country they serve. That is not unreasonable. I understand the point made by the Minister on market research, but I believe that no market research projects have been undertaken or focus groups set up—including those for children—recently in Northern Ireland. That is a shame when one considers that Northern Ireland is a part of the

1253
United Kingdom with its own stamp regime, a point made earlier by several noble Lords. Perhaps the Minister can write to me on the matter.
What we would like to see is a form of design that reflects the entire United Kingdom across the complete range of stamp values. It is a pity that we do not occasionally highlight points that are good about the United Kingdom as a whole. Indeed, sometimes stamps are produced that make me wonder why the sovereign's head is not depicted in red; she must be very embarrassed to have her head put on such stamps. We should select themes and issues that reflect the whole nation in all its diversity and we should emphasise its collective worth and strengths. Whatever postal authority is in place in the future, it should ensure that it looks after the nation as a whole.
I shall reserve the right to hold further consultations on this issue and I may refer to it again in the future. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Provision of a universal postal service: meaning]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("one delivery of relevant postal packets is") and insert ("two deliveries of relevant postal packets are").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 7. I should tell the Minister that both are probing amendments.
The Government are providing for one delivery of mail every working day and one collection of mail every working day. That is what we already expect, although I believe that it cannot always be achieved. The Bill excuses all geographical considerations such as, for example, the remoter parts of the United Kingdom where such a rate of delivery and collection is simply not reasonable or practical. It also excuses "other circumstances".
Those other circumstances are not defined, but common sense suggests that they may include strikes, snowstorms and events of that nature. However, one objective of the Bill is to enable the Post Office to improve and expand its services. The Post Office is of course a labour-intensive industry and a major part of its costs is the wage bill. There is no doubt that postmen work very hard. A great deal of their work is, rather like an iceberg, hidden beneath the surface. It is not a matter only of someone slipping a letter through the letter box. The mail has to be sorted by the postman into the correct order in which he will deliver it from door to door. Nevertheless, especially since the advent of electronic sorting methods—pioneered by the British Post Office—there is now a considerable amount of slack time available to the staff.
1254
Freed of the Treasury's insatiable demands for money, we hope that the Post Office will be able to improve its services. Were one to ask the public what improvements they most want to see, at the top of the list would be speedier and more frequent collections and deliveries; the one invariably follows from the other.
I am sufficiently old-fashioned to convert prices into pre-decimal money. However, I feel that I must stop saying that kind of thing when speaking from the Dispatch Box. I know that in the past I have said that I will not even use automatic machines. I should get myself modernised! Nevertheless, it is true that I do tend to think of such prices in pre-decimal money. As far as I am concerned, the cost of sending a letter by first-class mail is still five shillings and fourpence. Nowadays the Post Office has to compete with fax transfer, which is quicker, cheaper and much more reliable than the post. It also has to compete with e-mail, which is even faster and cheaper than the fax. The only way in which the Post Office will be able to meet such competition is by offering improved services.
We want the Post Office to be able to meet the new competition. I believe that that is the wish of every Member of the Committee. The current dictionary of buzz words includes the phrase, "value for money". I believe that the value for money to be found in my 5s.4d. is that someone at the Post Office should send my letter on its journey by, at the most, 12 hours after I have put it into the letter box and that letters arriving at my local sorting office should not lie in the pigeonhole for up to a whole day before someone delivers them.
I realise that that costs money, but the Post Office has the money and it could do no better than spend its resources on an improved service to customers. Nothing will be more valuable to customers and it will ensure that the Post Office survives well in the new climate. Furthermore, I think that the situation will certainly improve once the Post Office does not have to pay large dividends to the Treasury. I beg to move.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Almost every point made by the noble Baroness in moving the amendment is absolutely right. I am also sure that all postal workers, men and women, will be delighted by her comments on the efforts made by them in their day-to-day work. I offer my general support to the amendment and I welcome the fact that both Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 are probing amendments. That gives us a chance to get matters right because, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, it will not be practicable to deliver twice a day all over the United Kingdom. Reference has been made to pre-decimalisation. I can remember back to before the Post Office cuts. We used to undertake 18 deliveries a week and in certain areas of London we made six collections a day. That of course is no longer possible.
As regards the proposal for a second delivery, only yesterday I heard the regulator addressing a large audience. He stated that he was going to obey the law. Here we are discussing the law, not the wishes of a commission or the hopes of the Post Office

1255
management. The regulator referred to the law on service standards that will be laid down by Parliament. Some work needs to be done on this provision in order to ensure that two deliveries are practicable. A degree of flexibility will be required. That is for a good reason: a reserve must be provided for when the unexpected happens. A second delivery can ensure that first-class mail that should have caught the first delivery arrives. The first-class mail may not have arrived for the reasons already mentioned, or perhaps there has been an accident involving a vehicle. If we are to retain first and second-class services, the second delivery is another means of dealing with second-class mail. The second delivery makes it possible to deal with any overhang from the first delivery.
I also welcome the reference to "collections" in Amendment No. 7. It is not good enough merely to say that there should be one delivery a day. A good number of businesses depend on several collections a day. In my time we had to work collections in with other jobs to ensure a constant flow of mail throughout the day, not just during a specified time when the streets were full and sorting offices blocked up. Additional thought should be given to this part of the Bill. I suggest that the Minister takes this matter away and looks at it again.
Baroness Oppenheiin-Barnes: I entirely support the principle of my noble friend's amendments. To talk about improving the service assumes that the service is at present acceptable. It is not. At this stage I do not refer to postal workers but to management. Consumers have little or no relevant access to any complaints procedure. I live in a block of flats in central London. On some days of the week that block of flats does not receive any postal delivery whatever, never mind two, and that may go on for two or three days. Therefore, first-class mail takes five days to arrive. A person who has purchased a first-class stamp is entitled to expect his mail to be delivered within that period.
I have more resources and background knowledge than the average consumer to deal with this problem. When it happens I ring up the customer services department of the Post Office and speak to some extremely polite people. They say that the situation is awful and that they will respond immediately. Two days go by but nothing happens. I then ask for the telephone number of the manager who is responsible for deliveries. Finally, I manage to contact that individual and tell him that the whole block of flats has not had a delivery for three days. I also explain that I have spoken to the customer services department, which produces a laugh. Having been asked exactly what the problem is, I tell him that we have not received any mail. His response is that he must ask the postman. I ask what is the point of that because I or anybody can ask the postman. He then asks what kind of investigation I want him to carry out. I point out that he has the means to investigate.
To cut a long story short, I received another telephone call three days later and an interim letter from the chairman of the Post Office to say that he was
1256
looking into the matter. That was two weeks ago. As I did not receive any mail this morning he may already have replied to me in time for this debate. However, I have not yet received it.
Late one evening I received a telephone call. A small, tired voice said that the Post Office was having trouble with its deliveries and did not know what to do about it. A package of mail for my block of flats had been found and it was intended to send it round by special van. However, he said that he did not know what was happening. He was so despairing that I felt sorry for him and, having thanked him, put down the telephone. However, that was not the end of the story. Three days later I received a call from the users' committee and was told that, following my inquiry of two weeks ago, the Post Office had been contacted and it had been discovered that there was a problem with Saturday deliveries. Why? The Post Office had decided to pay its postmen only half-wages for delivering on a Saturday. I expressed surprise that there were any deliveries at all on Saturday and said that if I was a postman I would not bother.
I seek to illustrate to the Committee the difficulties experienced by the average consumer who is faced with a faulty delivery service which does not keep to its contract and ignores its liabilities. For a number of people late mail means all kinds of financial consequences: cheques do not arrive and bills are not paid. Therefore, I heartily support my noble friend's amendments on the basis that they seek to ensure a better service. I hope that the whole of the Bill is aimed at giving consumers greater access and making the Post Office more accountable.
Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that in an ideal world there should be two deliveries a day. However, to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, it is no use having two, three or even four deliveries a day if the letters do not arrive on time. Is the Minister aware—of course he cannot be—that yesterday I received at my home in Kensington an official parliamentary communication with the facsimile signature of the Chief Whip in an A4 envelope post-marked 31st May? In other words, it had taken seven days for that communication to travel less than four miles as the crow flies. That is not by any means an isolated incident. The year before last I received in one batch on about 19th September 31 letters, most of which were first class, which had been forwarded from London just before August bank holiday. Therefore, they took 21 days to arrive. One hears of such incidents the whole time. Surely, although frequency of delivery is a good idea the need for punctuality is a priority.
Viscount Goschen: Further to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, does the Minister believe it is appropriate that some definition of time performance should be included on the face of the Bill? Does he believe that guidance should be given to the commission on this matter? I agree with the point already made that merely to specify frequency of

1257
collection and delivery does not ensure a postal service. There are no defined targets in the Bill. Perhaps they are to be found in another part of the Bill, in which case I should be very interested to hear about them from the Minister. If not, does the noble Lord believe that average delivery time targets are appropriate for postal service performance?
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps the Minister can enlarge on the expression "geographical conditions" in Clause 4(1)(a). I realise that someone who lives on the Isle of Sheppey or the Isle of Skye will probably receive only one delivery a day because of the very great distances. I live in the country about seven miles from the main sorting office and one and a half miles from the village post office—I am fortunate still to have one—that delivers my mail. First, what distance from the main sorting office is being considered? At the main sorting office the mail is sorted electronically if it bears the proper post code, which I know is of assistance. Secondly, what is meant in Clause 4(1)(a)(ii) by "from each access point"?
Baroness Strange: I should like to make one brief intervention which is not wholly relevant to the point but is not entirely irrelevant either. I quote the following poem written by my father for a pantomime some years ago:
"Do you remember in 1908.
Long, long ago, long ago,
When the posts were on time,
And the trains never late?
Long, long ago, long ago".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has taken us back slightly further in her reminiscences than the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, did. I rather thought that noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was going to go the whole hog and tell us that she was dandled on Sir Rowland Hill's knee in the early 1840s and invited to lick a Penny Black stamp and place it on an envelope, but she disappointed me.
Lord Swinfen: Will the noble Lord give way? He cannot be so ungallant as not to think that the noble Baroness is of tender years.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My problem is that I did not believe that she could remember before decimalisation of the currency.
The effect of Amendment No. 4 would be to require, as a matter of law and in all but exceptional circumstances, that the universal service is only provided if there are at least two deliveries of relevant postal packets every working day. Amendment No. 7 makes the same requirement for at least two collections every day from each "access point"—which, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is, broadly speaking, a pillar box. As this is the first of a number of amendments dealing with Clause 4 and as
1258
the issues apply to amendments from Amendment No. 4 to Amendment No. 18, I think it necessary to comment generally on the status of Clause 4 and how the provision will work.
Before turning to the detail of the standards laid down in the clause, I should say that the Government are, and always have been, fully committed to a universal postal service and a uniform tariff. We were the first United Kingdom government to make this a statutory commitment. We did so through the postal services regulations in 1999. Before that, believe it or not, throughout the history of postal services in this country, there was no statutory backing at all for the quality of service provided by the Post Office. Our regulations last year transposed the European Union postal services directive into European law, and it is that directive which is reflected in Clause 4.
The meaning of "universal service" as set out in the Bill is in line with the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Union directive. There is no need for us to change the directive unilaterally. It represents the minimum service that customers in the United Kingdom can expect.
I say that it reflects the minimum level of service. It does not, of course, reflect the level of service which we expect from the Post Office company. Nothing in the Bill will undermine the current levels of service enjoyed by Post Office customers. I say that with due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who are clearly receiving a service that is well below the acceptable standard.
The European Union directive requires the Post Office company, through its licence, to agree and observe the quality of service standards. These will be published, and they will be monitored by the postal services commission and by the consumer council. The commission will have the power to take enforcement action, and to fine the Post Office or the other licence holder for having failed to meet its agreed service standards without reasonable excuse. That provision is new: it had never been the case until last year and the further provision in the Bill. There have never been sanctions against the universal service provider; there has never been any possibility of fines or penalties for failure to perform. That is a real advance and should be recognised as such.
We are setting up the postal services commission in order to establish the terms of the licence with the Post Office company, the universal service provider. I suggest that it is not for the Government to set the new service standards but for the independent regulator. It is certainly the Government's expectation that the standards set in the licence will be at least as demanding as the current quality service targets. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Will the noble Lord clarify one point. I understand that there will be sanctions and penalties. But how will individual consumers benefit—those who may have suffered

1259
losses through the Post Office not doing as the commission requires it to do—except perhaps through the future performance of the Post Office?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has had a distinguished governmental career in consumer protection. In the short debate on whether the House should dissolve itself into a Committee, she referred to the Post Office Users' National Council. The Bill sets out in some detail the procedures for consumer protection. When we come to that part of the Bill, we can certainly debate that. The whole object of having a consumer council is that individual consumers such as the noble Baroness will have an opportunity to protest and their protests will have to be listened to. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that that is a significant advance in consumer protection.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about "exceptional circumstances". One cannot provide for exceptional circumstances. Almost by definition, one cannot prescribe what they will be. They will have to be considered by the commission on a case-by-case basis. They are likely on the whole to be temporary. Where they can be identified in advance, as they might be in, say, remote islands of the west of Scotland, they must be notified by the operator, not only to the postal services commission, but also to the European Commission. So there is an extra level of protection in certain circumstances.
To return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, the Government are replacing the Post Office Users' National Council with a strong national body. I should have said that, until that body is established, complaints should be made to the existing Post Office Users' National Council, which is being reinvigorated with Peter Carr as its new chairman.
I gave a short and perhaps slightly flippant answer to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about what is an "access point" and what are "geographical positions". An access point is defined in Clause 4(6). The term "geographical conditions" has its natural meaning—that is, areas could prove inaccessible because they are very isolated, difficult to reach in bad weather, or otherwise difficult to get to. Examples would be properties at the top of a mountain, or islands where there is an infrequent ferry service. That applies both to deliveries and collections.
My remarks should be taken as applying to all amendments from Amendment No. 4 to Amendment No. 18. I hope it is clear that what we are talking about is minimum standards, not the standards that we actually accept. The Government cannot see any reason to put a gloss on the postal services directive. In particular, there is no justification for prescribing unnecessarily areas which should be operational matters and should be the subject of the licence between the commission and the licensees.
Beyond guaranteeing a single delivery and collection every working day, it is a commercial matter; it is for postal operators to decide how they
1260
organise their operations best to meet the needs of users, subject to regulatory scrutiny. If that means a minimum of two deliveries or collections, that is best dealt with not on the face of the Bill or by gold-plating the postal services directive, but by the regulator setting additional service standards in the licence. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will not press the amendments.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he can help me. I listened yesterday to Martin Stanley's very clear address to the conference. He said that he will be responsible for service standards. However, he said:
"We do not report to the Minister. We do what the law tells us to do".
If the law refers to "at least one delivery or collection", and someone then makes a complaint that it is not sufficient, he will openly say, "I am obeying the law. That is what Parliament has asked me to provide—a minimum of one delivery". If that is the case, the provision needs to be re-examined.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have not seen the text of the speech, but I suspect that Martin Stanley was being elliptical.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: It was perfectly clear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is true that he does not report to the Minister. But when he says that he does what the law tells him to, the law not only sets out the minimum standards in Clause 4 but sets out the basis on which the postal services commission will license the operator to carry out the service. It is that law—namely, the licence contained within the law—to which I am sure Martin Stanley was referring.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that long answer. I should say at this stage that when he is talking about the universal service obligation we very much applaud the fact that the Government have decided to put that into law. I say that because I usually find every possible excuse to say why I do not agree with what the Government are doing. They cannot always be wrong. On that basis I feel it is right that I should give credit where credit is due.
I started my discussion on Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 by saying that they were probing amendments because I believe that it is all very well for the Minister to say all we can do is to put down the minimum standards that are necessary. The fact remains that part of the Bill is to deal with competition.
The postal services directives—the new European directives—certainly talk at great length about liberalising the market. If the Post Office that we all love so much and want to survive has to compete with various other bodies in a much more liberal market—a market in which the monopoly area is shrinking and where e-mail, fax and the other factors of human error and late delivery mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, and the noble Lord, Lord

1261
Monson, have to be considered—attention will have to be given to issues that the consumer finds extremely important, particularly the point that the noble Lord. Lord Clarke, made just now. I was not privy to what he heard, and certainly I have not seen it. As this is a probing amendment, I shall withdraw it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, does that—and I know that I am taking a lot of time on a single amendment but I think it is worth it because we are dealing with principles that apply throughout the amendments on Clause 4—she has just said some very remarkable things for a Conservative. She has said that she thinks there is a danger, with increased competition, that the universal service will be put at risk.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: No. I shall read very carefully what I did say. That certainly is not what I meant. What I meant was that we welcome the universal service obligation, but the Post Office itself, the new plc, may be at risk if there is all this competition with everything else and if the Post Office does not put itself into a position where it becomes more valuable to the consumer, particularly with e-mail. I said it was a probing amendment, and I hope that the Minister will take it away to consider. Therefore, we were hoping that there would be some further provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Post Office is able to compete in a way that will make it possible for people to continue to use it. That was the point I was making. I hope that the point is very clear in Hansard. I certainly do not say things that I think will be remarkable for a Conservative.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept that, of course. It may be that I was being elliptical. One has to take the Bill as a whole and take the balance between the service obligation and the reserved area provided in the European Union directive that allows member states to reserve part of the postal market in it as necessary to ensure and fund the provision of the universal postal service. That is the bargain that is struck, so to speak, in the European directive and in this legislation. It allows people acting in this area to cross-subsidise otherwise unprofitable aspects of the universal service such as long-distance deliveries at a uniform tariff. It is a requirement of the European Union postal services directive that the reserved area cannot be any greater than that needed to support the universal postal service. It is a matter, of course, for the regulator to advise the Secretary of State on the appropriate level of the reserved area, but it is clear that we shall be setting the level of the reserved area to ensure that the universal service provider is able to carry out its obligations.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No: 5:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("working day") and insert ("day except Sundays or Bank Holidays").
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee who were present on the occasion of Second Reading or who have read Hansard will recall the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, leaping, into the gap to praise the draftsman for Clause 117. I see that the Minister is smiling, so he clearly remembers the event. It is possibly Clause 118, but my memory does not stretch that far and I do not have Hansard with me. None the less, the reason for his praise was a list of definitions incorporated in one or two places in the Bill. One such definition is the phrase "working day" referred to in Clauses 4 (1)(a)(i) and (ii).
Perhaps I have been lax in not doing so earlier and declaring my interest in the use of postal services—I did on Second Reading, but I have not today—namely, as a director of a mail order business.
It is in the interest of everyone who uses postal services that the working day should include Saturday. In Clause 117—at page 69 line 37—that is included. We all rely on having as close as possible to a daily delivery of post, a matter referred to by many Members of the Committee. I believe that it is so important that the universal postal obligation is described in full at the front of the Bill that the words describing "working day" in Clause 117 should be promoted in the Bill to this particular place. I beg to move.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Perhaps I may be somewhat pedantic. If this amendment were carried, the Christmas pressure period in the Post Office would be thrown into chaos because in some years one Sunday has to be used and in some years two Sundays are used to clear the mail. I also declare an interest, and I apologise for not doing so earlier.
Lord Monson: I see one other slight problem. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, uses the phrase "bank holiday" whereas the definition in Clause 117 uses "public holiday". Most public holidays are bank holidays but it is conceivable that a one-off occasion occurs where the Government may declare a public holiday in honour of some anniversary which is not a bank holiday. It would obviously be desirable, if this amendment goes any further, for the words "bank holiday" to be changed to "public holiday".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very much relieved by what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said because my brief tells me to say that his amendment is entirely unnecessary, a definition already being provided in Clause 117. I thought that he was under the illusion that his amendment would strengthen the provisions of the Bill, but since he recognises that it does not, it simply brings the amendment forward from Clause 117 to Clause 4. I think therefore that we are on all fours except as to where it is appropriate to have the full definition of a "working day."
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should have risen before the Minister.
Amendment No. 5 refers to page 2, line 26. Line 26 of the Bill states:
"at least one delivery of relevant postal packets is made every working day."
My noble friend referred to Clause 117 which states:
"'working day' means—
"(a) in relation to the collection and delivery of letters, any day which is not a Sunday or a public Holiday".
I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about a public holiday or bank holiday. Paragraph (b) states:
"in relation to the collection and delivery of postal packets other than letters, any day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday".
Amendment No. 4 refers to postal packets. Therefore the amendment is necessary because the provision is not in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for anticipating what I shall say. As we are all agreed, the purpose underlying Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 is to require that deliveries and collections are made every day except Sundays and bank holidays for all postal packets whether parcels or letters; or, to be precise, whether or not they are letters.
In relation to letters, other than bringing forward the full definition, the amendment is unnecessary. The meaning of "working day" is defined in Clause 117. It provides that in relation to letters 'working day" means any day which is not a Sunday or a public holiday. That is unchanged.
In relation to parcels and packets, "working day" means any day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday. The universal service standard is to provide a five-day parcel service and a six-day letter service. The effect of the amendments would be to bring the requirement for deliveries and collections for parcels and packets into line with that for letters.
This is not in accordance with the European directive on postal services, which requires as a minimum one collection and one delivery every working day on no fewer than five days a week. The minim um standard is met in the requirements we impose for both letters and parcels. But for letters we have gone one step further. It is an element of gold-plating. We require a Saturday collection and delivery. Those requirements are in line with the current practice of the Post Office. The Post Office and other postal operators are free to deliver on other days if there is demand for it. As my noble friend Lord Clarke said, in the Christmas period one has to deliver on Sundays. I used to earn a little pocket money as a schoolboy doing that in the Christmas period.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: I hope that a schoolboy was never employed by the Post Office. I hope that it was a student.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was as a schoolboy—probably breaking the law. Do not tell the head postmaster in Beaconsfield!
1264
The Post Office and other operators are free to deliver on other days if there is a demand. As I think will be well known, Parcelforce does not guarantee a Saturday delivery but it does deliver on a Saturday.
I turn to Amendment No. 6 which makes an additional requirement. I understand that it was not spoken to but it is grouped with Amendment No. 5.
Lord Skelmersdale: Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendment No. 5 but it has not been spoken to. There is, of course, nothing to stop the Minister speaking to it in advance of anything any other noble Lord may say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, or the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to speak to it now and I can then respond.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister will be pleased to hear that my speech will be brief.
I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 together. They modify the requirement for daily collections and deliveries, by providing that they should be before midday, especially for buiinesses depending on their mail. There is nothing more frustrating than to wait for the post to arrive. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Although the noble Baroness is not in her place at present, no doubt she will read Hansard tomorrow. She spoke of the frustration involved when domestic mail arrives the third, fourth or even fifth day after collection. In business that is more than frustrating. It is not only time consuming, it costs money. That is important because such post may be more critical than domestic post.
However, in common with a large part of the population, many Members of the Committee leave, as I do, before the domestic mail arrives. My office does not expect to receive the mail until about 11.30. That is late when people want to start work on it. That is why we have tabled Amendments Nos. 6 and 9.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Where I live in Scotland, post is not delivered until after 1 p.m. and often after 2 p.m. Under the Bill, will the operators be obliged to deliver at an earlier time? I do not know how they would manage to do so in a remote district such as Upperglen.
Also, there appears to be no reference to collections on Sunday. Will Sunday collections cease?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me make it clear, as I did in my response to Amendment No. 4, that there is no intention that there should be any deterioration in quality of service as a result of the Bill. In Clause 4 we are discussing the minimum obligation which is set down in the European Union postal services Directive. If in parts of Scotland that means that there is a single collection and single delivery—I understand that in any remote area that could be after midday—I think that that meets the minimum requirements. As to the

1265
actual service requirements which will be the subject of the licence, that is a matter for negotiation between the commission and the Post Office company. We shall have to see how successful they are in securing improvements in services which noble Lords around the Chamber have demanded so eloquently.
I have a slight nostalgia for the Financial Services and Markets Bill. At least no one understood that Bill so they could not intervene from personal knowledge. On this Bill it is clear that everyone has personal knowledge and hard luck stories and it is entirely proper that I should listen to them.
Perhaps I may respond to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. The effect would be that at least one delivery should be by midday and that, under Amendment No. 9, there should be at least one collection of postal packets each working day. The problem is that that is irrespective of what is best for customers. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I have exchanged experiences of small business operators on many occasions. In my experience the most important factor was to receive the first post early in the morning, by 8 a.m. or 8.30. Whether the subsequent post arrived at 11 a.m., 12 p.m. or 1 p.m. was a secondary consideration. There is no specific benefit on insisting on collections before midday. For some customers an evening collection might be more appropriate than a midday collection. Delivery by midday is no use to a business which needs its mail, as mine used to do, by not later than 8.30 in the morning.
In Clause 4 we have set out the minimum standards. The commission will work to secure higher standards. I suggest that the amendments which go beyond the European directive are inappropriate. I hope that noble Lords will not press them.
Lord Skelmersdale: I, for one, am extremely flattered that the Minister prepared such a long answer to an amendment which both he and I admit is unnecessary. I thank him for that.
The Minister did not refer the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to Clause 4(1)(a) of the Bill which states that,
"except in such geographical conditions or other circumstances as the Commission considers to be exceptional"
—that presumably covers the example the noble Lady gave—the provisions will be the norm across the country. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, rather disturbed me. He referred to deliveries on Sundays during the Christmas period, which happen from time to time, and which we welcome. From a rapid glance at the Bill while he was speaking, it appears that they are not covered by the Bill. Will the Minister check that because that would be in all our interests? Unless the Minister wishes to respond now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, it does not appear in the minimum standards on the face of the Bill, but
1266
it is one of the issues which the postal services commission will be negotiating with the operators in the licence.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is not that so much, but whether the Bill would allow it if the post office commission, as one would fully expect, continued to cause the Post Office to operate that particular system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, for the second time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 34, after ("tariff") insert ("including first and second-class pricing").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the question of second-class post. The Bill provides for a uniform tariff country-wide. It is a basic requirement that it should cost no more to post a letter to an address in the next street than to the remotest part of the Western Isles. Londoners, for example, subsidise the cost of deliveries to the Hebrides: and so they should. It costs the same to send a parcel of the same weight to anywhere in the country: and so it should. But there is a service which enables the public and businesses to reduce the expense of posting their mail. It is called second-class mail. In return for agreeing to a less frequent service, with priority given to first-class mail, the cost of a letter can be reduced from 27p to 19p.
Many businesses especially use second-class mail to reduce the cost of sending out non-urgent mail such as circulars and so forth. Millions of letters are mailed at Christmas by second-class mail. Many people would have to reduce the number of Christmas cards they sent if it were not for the second-class facility.
The amendment, which is simple and does not need much explanation, is to ensure that the facility is not withdrawn by the new Post Office company in the interests of boosting its profits. There have been some articles in various newspapers that say the second-class mail might very well be at risk, and I very much hope that the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may add my support to the points made by my noble friend Lady Miller. Clearly, the guarantee of two standards of postal services and two tariffs is extremely helpful both to businesses and private individuals. Does the Minister feel that the wording of Clause 4(1)(b) is conducive towards permitting this? The Bill states:
"in accordance with a public tariff".
Should that not be,
"in accordance with public tariffs which are uniform"?

1267
In other words, it would specify deliberately on the face of the Bill that there is more than one tariff.
Baroness Byford: I also rise to support my noble friend's point. I, like others, have been quite concerned about the rumours going around that the second-class mail may be withdrawn in the future. Would the noble Lord the Minister clarify that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I start by putting the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, at rest. Tariff does not mean a single price. A tariff can have any number of ranges of prices, different speeds of delivery and different weights. That is the nature of a tariff. It is not a single price. There is nothing sinister in the use of the words "a single tariff".
I think that I can also put the minds of the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Byford, at rest. There is no intention whatever in this Bill to make it necessary or possible to withdraw the first and second-class post. That is a matter for the operators and the commission. The commission will no doubt make its requirements known to the operators when it is seeking to negotiate a licence.
The common understanding is that the services represent the first and second-class postal services currently provided by the Post Office. We do not believe that it is necessary to make specific reference to the present services of one postal operator in a clause which is designed to be universal.
There is no threat in this Bill to first and second-class post.
Viscount Goschen: I quite accept the noble Lord's clarification of the word "tariff". I am sure it is defined somewhere in law. If it does allow for separate pricing, I am very pleased to hear that. I entirely accept the noble Lord's assurance.
However, does he believe that simply stating that there is an understanding that the first and second-class post will continue is good enough? The Bill is extremely specific in many circumstances—for example, regarding geographical coverage and so forth—but it is not at all specific regarding the provision of first and second-class post. Many people and businesses in this country would consider such a guarantee to be exceptionally important. Would it not be sensible to write that on to the face of the Bill, so that the Minister's assurances that he has no understanding that there are any proposals to withdraw one or other of the services could be turned into concrete legal fact?
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may also follow my noble friend on that subject? I am slightly anxious that the provision is not on the face of the Bill. Will the noble Lord confirm that if the commission decided to do away with the second-class postal service the commission would have to come back to Parliament for approval, or could it be done without
1268
Parliamentary approval? If the latter is the case, surely the former option, of having it on the face of the Bill, is desirable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had hoped that by taking my response to Clause 4 at somewhat inordinate length I had dealt with the issues in all of the amendments, and in particular in this amendment. I am sorry that I failed to do so. The point I tried to make about the whole of Clause 4, and all the amendments to it, is that Clause 4 represents the minimum standards in conformity with the European postal services directive, and no more than that. The actual level of standard will be a matter for the licence between the commission and the operators.
We do not think it appropriate to prescribe on the face of the Bill all of the improvements to the minimum standards, some of which already exist and some of which might result from the negotiations between the commission and the operators.
The basic structure of this part of the Bill is that there is a European Union directive which requires a universal service provision. That is required through a licence. The operator is required to agree on quality standards and to observe quality of service standards. Those quality of service standards are published; they are monitored by the postal services commission and by the consumer council; and, for the first time, as I have said, there are penalties if they are not met.
There is a whole range of other things we would like to have, including first and second-class post, midday delivery, 7.30 a.m. delivery, and collections on Sundays. There are all kinds of things we would all like to have from the postal services, but I suggest that it would be inappropriate to put them all on the face of the Bill in addition to the minimum standards which are required by the European directive.
The whole point is that we are setting up an independent commission whose responsibility it is to ensure that services meet consumers' needs. I am sure the members of the commission who have just been appointed will read what noble Lords have said and will take their passionate defence of first and second-class post very seriously.
Viscount Goschen: The Minister cannot pray in aid the fact that he is putting into effect European Union legislation and that there should be no more and no less. During our debate on Amendment No. 5 he conceded that he had deviated from that course when it had suited him and felt it appropriate. Why not in these circumstances?
We are not talking about a "not before 7.30" provision or some more trifling point. This issue is fundamental and I believe that my noble friend Lady Miller has identified an important omission.
Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend responds, I hope to encourage the Minister to reconsider the proposal. During an earlier discussion, he spoke proudly of the fact that written into the Bill is the responsibility for a universal delivery service. If that is

1269
so important—and I accept that it is—it is equally important to have on the face of the Bill a requirement for a second-class service.
My noble friend Lady Miller referred to "old money". I am afraid that my brain will not work with the old money, but I know that for many pensioners there is a big difference in the cost of a first-class stamp, at 26p, and the cost of a second-class stamp, at 19p.
I hope that, as a result of our gentle persuasion, the Minister will be willing to take the proposal away and reconsider it. If it is so important to have a universal delivery service on the face of the Bill, I believe that it is even more important to have provision for a second-class stamp and that that will not preclude people from using the service as all Members of the Committee want.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am always responsive to gentle persuasion, but I am afraid that the purpose of Clause 4 is to set out the minimum standards as required by the European directive. I—and I am sure other Members of the Committee—can think of many additional qualities they would like from a postal service, but it would not be appropriate to put them on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was interested to hear the Minister's view that it would not be proper to gold-plate the European directive which deals with the provisions in Clause 4. I am always hearing that the Government are gold-plating almost every directive which comes across from the EU and that we must go along with it. However, this proposal is something else. Line 11 on page 69 defines "postal services" and a second-class post could easily sit in there.
The Minister made a great deal of saying that we would all like to see many other items on the face of the Bill; for instance, delivery before midday, every day and so forth. I understand why they cannot be included and his explanation that the Bill is designed to deal with the minimum service. But we are talking about something which is already a service; we already have first and second-class post. Old age pensioners in particular rely on the second-class post, but its provision is not in the Bill and the Minister cannot even take away the proposal for consideration. Such concern has been reported in the media and it has been tested.
All that makes me believe that I should test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Harrison: Clause 4 seeks to enact the EU postal services directive, which specifically mentions the universal service obligation. Earlier today, a Member on the opposite Benches, who has since left his place, raised the spectre of the European Union introducing a "portable" stamp that is usable throughout the EU, letting yet another hare run for the Eurosceptical press to pick up.
1270
Is it not worth making the point that it is because we have an EU postal service directive that we for the first time, through this Government, are putting into legislation the requirement for a universal service which I beg to suggest will be universally accepted and applauded by the people in this country? Is not the distinction that we are not seeking to gold-plate, because we are enacting the EU postal services directive? I believe that there would be agreement in the Committee that too much legislation, which was lean and mean and originated from Brussels, found gold-plating in this Parliament and that that practice has been unacceptable.
Lord Sharman: I have listened with great interest to what has been said on both sides of the Committee and find it astonishing that there is a focus on one service within the Post Office. It seems to me entirely proper that the Bill should set out the minimum universal postal standard. I can think, for example, of recorded delivery and registered post, both of which are important to many parts of society, but neither of which are set out on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we either go the whole hog and include a list of services which we believe to be part of the universal service, or we quite properly leave it to the postal services commission. That is what I believe we should do.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As regards delivery services, I view any directive of the EU with suspicious eyes. In my experience, those services in Europe are not a patch on ours and often do not involve a delivery to a person's house; letters are left in boxes at the end of roads. I am not impressed with or happy about the idea of relying on the European Union directive.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before putting the amendment to the Committee, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, looks at page 69, line 23, which gives a definition of registered post. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Chadlington, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Courtown, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cox, B.

Attlee, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Blaker, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bowness, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Burnham. L. [Teller]

Flather, B.

Buscombe, B.

Fookes, B.

Byford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goschen, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hanham, B

1271

Henley, L. [Teller]

Onslow, E.

Higgins, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hogg, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Howe, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Lucas, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Luke, L.

Rees, L.

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

Mavhew of Twysden, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Milier of Hendon, B.

Seccombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Moynihan, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Naseby, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northbrook, L.

Vivian, L.

Northesk, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alii, L.

Hoyle, L.

Amos, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jacobs, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Barker, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Billingham, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Borrie, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brookman, L.

Layard, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lipsey, L.

Chandos, V.

Longford, E.

Christopher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

[Teller]

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McNally, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Desai, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dholakia, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Eiisington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Molloy, L.

Elder, L.

Monson, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Filkin, L.

Newby, L.

Gale, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Geraint, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goodhart, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grabiner, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Greaves, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harrison, L.

Sharman, L.

Haskel, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hayman, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

1272

Strabolgi, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Taverne, L.

Walmsley, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Whitaker, B.

Thornton, B.

Whitty, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Wilkins, B.

Tope, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turnberg, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L

Uddin, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("and prices shall be geared to costs").
The noble Baroness said: As the amendment states, it is intended to ensure that prices are geared to costs. The need for the Post Office to link costs to prices was emphasised by the Government in the July 1999 White Paper entitled, Post Office Reform: A world class service for the 21st century:
"The Post Office should not, therefore, charge different prices to different customers, or categories of customers, for the same service where the differences in prices do not reflect the quantity, quality or other characteristics of the service supplied".
The reason was set out clearly earlier in the White Paper at paragraph 26:
"[The regulator] will also need to ensure that there is no abuse of a dominant position, for example by the Post Office using predatory pricing to deter or drive out competition".
The amendment is in line with the requirements of Article 12 of the European Union postal services directive. I have no idea which of the two noble Lords opposite will answer. I suggest that it will probably be the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as he seems to be dealing with the whole of Clause 4. Therefore, I believe that he will be pleased that at this stage I am trying to bring the amendment into line with the directive. As he seems to be keen that everything should be ihus—no more, no less—I hope that eventually he will agree with me.
I am sorry to trouble Members of the Committee with another full quotation but it is necessary to illustrate how wide the Bill is from our legally binding EC obligations. Article 12 of the directive provides,
"Member states shall take steps to ensure that the tariffs for each of the services forming part of the provision of the uniform service comply with the following principles:
"prices must be geared to costs; member states may decide that a uniform tariff should be applied throughout their national territory,
"the provision of a uniform tariff does not exclude the right of the universal service provider(s) to conclude individual agreements on prices with customers".
Article 12 of the directive could very well be described as defining the essential ingredient of a universal postal service. The directive emphatically rules that prices of each of the services forming the universal service must be geared to costs. The

1273
amendment incorporates that requirement into the Bill. I am prepared to concede that the phrase "geared to costs" is somewhat ambiguous and that some improved definition is called for even though the words used follow those of the directive.
If the Minister will accept the principle of the amendment, which merely puts into effect, no more, no less, our obligations under EU law and, even more importantly, the Government's own policy as set out in the Government's White Paper, I shall gladly discuss with him some possible improvement in the wording. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her explanation of the amendment. She is right in saying that the provision in Clause 4(2) is in line with the definition of the universal postal service in Article 3 of the EU postal services directive, and the further provisions in the directive at Article 12 regarding tariff principles and transparency of accounts.
We have not included a specific reference in the legislation to prices being geared to costs. That is not because we do not think that such a link should exist—it should—but that it is a matter best enforced by the postal services commission through the licence, as I mentioned earlier in response to amendments to Clause 4.
We intend that the Post Office plc will be granted a licence that will take effect from the first day of the new licensing regime. The licence will be agreed between the Post Office plc and the commission. It will include provisions which satisfy the detailed requirements under the EU postal services directive. A draft outline licence was placed in the House Library on 11th February 2000.
The document illustrates the kind of terms and conditions that the Government expect to see in the Post Office plc's licence. The outline of the proposed licence states at paragraph 5 that the commission is expected to prepare proposals for a price control structure and that the Post Office plc will be obliged to obtain the commission's permission before setting any new prices in relation to the universal postal services.
The commission will take into account the relationship between costs and prices as it is required to do by the directive, which has direct effect on the national regulatory authority. The amendment would not make matters any clearer; it is already clear. Indeed, it could have the unfortunate effect of restricting competition in certain circumstances. While the directive requires that universal postal services are geared to costs, there is no requirement that the ability to negotiate individual prices should be restricted in that way.
The effect of the amendment would be to limit competition. Constraining the universal service provider in the way envisaged by the amendment might prevent volume users of postal services from
1274
negotiating commercial discounts. That would put the universal postal operator at a competitive disadvantage.
The restriction imposed by the amendment would apply to all the services within the universal service, irrespective of whether such services are within the area to be reserved for licensed postal operators. It would be particularly undesirable for those parts of the universal service, such as parcels and registered post, which are outside the licensed area and subject to full competition.
I am afraid I cannot agree that the amendment would be in the interest of users of postal services. On the basis on which I started out, that is, that the postal services commission will be regulating the prices of universal services in line with the requirements of the directive, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have to tell the Minister that I am somewhat disappointed with his answer but not unduly surprised. I find it extraordinary that the Minister feels that the Government cannot put what I propose on to the face of the Bill. He is certain that it will be a matter for the regulator and will be in the licence when it is set out. Therefore, it will be there at some stage.
I find it extraordinary to rely on the fact that something will happen when one considers the words in the Government's own White Paper. We have a directive on the matter, yet we are left in the position that the Government hope that it will be in the licence. It may not be. I do not think that what we say here will have any effect on what the commission decides to put into the licence.
However, I shall read carefully the comments of the Minister. In the course of his detailed answer he mentioned that he thought the proposal would restrict competition. There is no way that any Member of the Committee sitting on this side of the Chamber would wish to restrict competition. We are all for competition. We believe that it is healthy and will make for a better service for the consumer using the services of the Post Office. Whether it is on the face of the Bill or goes into the licence, one would have thought the effect is the same. However, as I have said, at this stage I shall read carefully what the Minister has tried to persuade me to believe will be an excellent position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("20") and insert ("10").
The noble Baroness said: I suspect that this is the last amendment that I have tabled to Clause 4, but it is by no means the last amendment I am proposing to the Bill.
The considerable importance of the amendment is not reflected by its brevity. It brings the definition of a "relevant package" down from 20 kilograms to

1275
10 kilograms. In other words, it reduces the Post Office monopoly on packages up to 20 kilograms down to those up to 10 kilograms.
For the benefit of those Members of the Committee who, like me, still think in pounds and ounces, here we go again. Twenty kilograms is 44 pounds. That is the equivalent of the amount of baggage carried free on an economy-class flight. The proposal in the Bill is partially inconsistent with the EU postal services directive which fixes the figure at 10 kilograms but permits individual governments to increase the ceiling to what is proposed in the Bill; namely, 20 kilograms. As drawn, the Bill would subject commercial couriers to unfair competition.
A universal service provider, such as Parcelforce, would be able to cross-subsidise its delivery of packets and packages weighing up to 20 kilograms. I said that the importance of the amendment is not reflected by its brevity. The point I make is that 20 kilograms is an enormous parcel weight. I believe that it should be reduced to 10 kilograms. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may follow on from the comments of my noble friend Lady Miller and press the Minister to explain to the House how he would justify the figure of 20 kilograms. My noble friend put forward a powerful argument against having a band between 10 and 20 kilograms. There may well be equally powerful arguments for why that should not be so. However, there is an important issue here about the cross-subsidisation of parcels within the range of nought to 10 kilograms and from 10 to 20 kilograms. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There certainly is a good reason. Let me repeat for the record that the Government are committed to preserving the universal postal service; that is, the delivery of letters and parcels to any part of the United Kingdom at a uniform tariff. We feel that that is enormously important and believe that the public feel it to be important also. That is why we enshrined the universal service obligation in legislation through the Postal Services Regulations 1999.
Amendment No. 12 would reduce the scope of the universal service from that proposed in the Bill. It would halve the maximum weight under the universal postal service obligation from 20 to 10 kilograms—I cannot remember how to work that out in pounds.
The point is that the EU Postal Services Directive allows the Government to extend the scope of the universal postal service for clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal packets from 10 to 20 kilograms; in other words, that is already envisaged in the directive and we are taking one of the options available to us. If we extend it in that way we allow domestic users to benefit to the same extent as those posting items to the UK from other member states.
The directive requires member states to deliver within their territories packages received from other member states up to 20 kilograms. When we made the
1276
postal services regulations in 1999 we took the view that there should be no discrimination between users on the basis of where they were posting packets. And we ensured that postal users in the UK would enjoy a right of universal service that was at the very least as good as that available anywhere else in Europe.
We did not want the situation where we could post to anywhere in the UK from outside the UK, elsewhere in Europe, at the same tariff, whereas, by dint of the 10 to 20 kilogram range being outside the universal postal service, there could be differential charges for different destinations within the United Kingdom. It is for that reason, fundamentally, that this amendment is not to the benefit of postal users and the Government cannot accept it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister will not be surprised that I am somewhat disappointed by his reply. I shall read what he said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McNally: I gave notice of my intention to raise this question. I noticed, when reading the Bill, that in Clause 6 there is no reference to how a prosecution might start in Scotland. I am certain that it is intended that Clause 6 should have effect in Scotland. I believe this to be an almost wholly reserved matter and that no devolution issue arises here. I note that in the Explanatory Notes it is said that prosecutions in Scotland will be started by the Lord Advocate. Why therefore does it not say that on the face of the Bill? Or is it intended that the Scottish Parliament should legislate for this element of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is simple. We have a complicated system of a range of prosecuting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Scotland the system is very simple. In Scotland it is virtually only the Lord Advocate who can initiate prosecutions and therefore it is not necessary to say so in the Bill.
Clause 6 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 7 [Exceptions, from section 6]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("£1") and insert ("50 pence").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. I am pleased to say that we have now reached Part II of the Bill and have left Clause 4 behind us.

1277
These amendments are designed to modify the Post Office monopoly by reducing the ceiling in value of money and weight where that monopoly exists. The amendments enable the Government to implement their own policy, which they have reversed since it was first announced.
On 16th September 1999 the Government placed an expensive display advertisement, seven inches by seven inches, in the Sunday Times, seeking candidates for the chairmanship of the postal services commission. It said,
"the Government is granting the Post Office greater commercial freedom but is convinced that successful reform requires more than this. It requires greater competition in the postal market; already a major first step towards liberalisation has been taken with the halving of the monopoly currently enjoyed by the Post Office to 50p from April 1st 2000".
The Government laid an appropriate statutory instrument before Parliament in October.
On 8th December the Government tabled a Motion to revoke their own statutory instrument. The Minister for Competition had the embarrassment of trying to explain away that massive U-turn to the committee in the other place. He produced a reason which I can only describe as pathetic. He said that the Government had been persuaded by an "eloquent and persuasive argument" contained in a report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, that the regulator should set the limits of the reserved area.
I described the reason as "pathetic" because the report of the Select Committee was published on 14th September 1999, having presumably been in the Minister's hands for some time before that. In any event, 14th September was two days before the advertisement which appeared in the Sunday Times and well before the Government's statutory instrument was first laid before Parliament.
It does not take a detective to see what happened to cause that U-turn. I believe it was pressure from the unions and the Government decided that that is what they would do. It is another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. If and when the regulator changes the boundaries of the monopoly, the Government will be able to trot out their usual excuse, "Its not my fault, guy".
I turn now to Amendment No. 14. I believe that there is an even blacker cloud looming on this horizon. On 30th May it was announced that the Dutch Internal Market Commissioner at the EC is planning to reduce the monopolies enjoyed by the post offices of the 15 individual member states down to a nominal 50 grams. That is about one envelope and a couple of sheets of A4 paper. The chief executive of the Post Office, Mr John Roberts, reacted by pointing out that that proposal would jeopardise existing services, forcing it to charge more for mail delivered to remote areas. He said that the proposals would risk damaging postal services throughout the EC.
While the Conservatives support the greater liberalisation of postal services, we remain committed to the maintenance of the universal service obligation.
1278
My honourable friend, the Shadow Secretary of Trade and Industry in the other place, tabled numerous Questions today on this very point, one even asking the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he would support a levy on postal licence holders to create a fund to support the universal service obligation. We would not like to see domestic customers facing the higher prices that have been the case in some of the more, so-called, "liberalised" regimes elsewhere.
In view of the dire warning from Mr Roberts that I just quoted, I suggest to the Government that, although they and the unions—and perhaps many people—do not much like the present amendment that I have tabled, it might be better than nothing. It would reduce slowly and gradually the monopoly area, which is what the Post Office said that it could live with. I believe that it would be a very good thing to bring in certain disciplines. I suspect and very much hope that the Government will be able to tell us that they will push this directive aside for as long as they can, but, in the end, it will no doubt be brought forward. We must ensure that our Post Office is prepared for this development. If we protect the Post Office in a way that is too easy, we shall make its position very difficult. I believe that my amendment is just one step forward: it is not the giant leap that we may be ordered to take at some stage.
In its 1997 manifesto, the Labour Party said that,
"effective competition can bring value and quality to consumers … In utility industries"—
I assume that postal services could marginally be described as one of the latter—
"we will promote competition wherever possible".
As I have already said, we admire competition, but we do not want it thrust forward in a way that makes it impossible for the Post Office to live within it. That is why we are reintroducing these two amendments that were introduced in the other place. We hope that the Government will be able to accept them. It would help to make life easier for the Post Office if they were to accept these modest amendments now, thereby preparing it for what might happen in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I wonder whether the Minister recognises the following words:
"A number of very different postal markets are now fully liberalised: Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and Argentina have all abolished their monopolies … As a first step the Government is halving the monopoly from £1 to 50p. … An order under section 69 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 has been laid and with Parliamentary approval this reduction in the monopoly will take effect from 1 April 2000".
Those words appear in the department's White Paper on the Post Office.
As my noble friend Lady Miller said, the Government were forced to back off from their proposal to reduce the monopoly to 50 pence—as, indeed, we established in this Chamber when I laid a Prayer against the second order negating, as my noble friend pointed out, the first order—in order to avoid defeat at the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth. Speaking at a fringe meeting at the

1279
conference, the CWU's spokesman, Derek Hodgson, warned that the union also wanted a commitment in Labour's next election manifesto not to privatise the Post Office. He was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying:
"If they don't back off, they have got a tight on their hands and they have got a light that they can't possibly win".
The situation has become even more confused during the past month. In a recent article in The Times Graham Corbett, the new Post Office regulator, said that he would consider the abolition of the monopoly on letters and parcels costing under £1a plan that was immediately attacked as "backdoor privatisation". He also hinted at job cuts, saying that he expected the business to be more efficient and that the most obvious way of curbing costs would be to reduce the Post Office's 160,000-strong labour force. He continued thereafter, but the remainder of the article is not really germane to this matter. I believe that any reasonable man—certainly a visitor from the planet Mars—would ask: what on earth is going on? Is it not about time that the Government stood up and were counted?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As the noble Baroness made clear, she is well aware of the twelfth report of the Trade and Industry Committee published on 14th September 1999. In that report, the committee recommended that the Government consider withdrawing the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999, which would have reduced the monopoly to 50 pence in price and 150 grams in weight from 1st April this year, so that the postal services commission could consider evidence put to it of the effect of a reduction in the monopoly threshold and recommend to the Government an appropriate threshold. After very careful consideration the Government accepted that recommendation. I believe that that shows very clearly that we take both the Trade and Industry Committee and the postal services commission very seriously.
We shall be remitting the issue to the commission as soon as possible and urging it to treat this as a high priority. Having accepted the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Committee, it would clearly be wrong to accept an amendment to the Bill that would reduce the scope of the reserved area before the commission has even begun to consider evidence and consult interested parties.
The overriding duty of the commission is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service—the delivery of letters and parcels to any part of the United Kingdom at a uniform tariff. It is vitally important that all users, wherever they work or live in the UK, should be assured of these essential services. The Government place an enormous weight on the value of this obligation. We believe that greater competition must not undermine these services. We recognise that this is what users of postal services expect.
However, we do not believe that greater competition is incompatible with the provision of a universal postal service at a uniform tariff. We remain totally committed to greater competition in postal markets. Greater competition in postal markets will be a spur to
1280
efficiency, which should bring benefits for consumers in terms of choice, price and quality, while universal service obligations are maintained.
As far as concerns the European Commission, we expect a proposal to be issued formally within the next few days. There will then be a substantive discussion between member states and the Commission about the issue that it raises. In general terms we welcome the framework proposed by the European Commission that the first stage of liberalisation should be a reduction in the price/weight threshold and that there should then be time to adjust to that reduction and a further review of its impact before any decisions are made about the next phase. But we shall need to give careful consideration to the price/weight threshold and, in particular, to determine an appropriate level proposed for a first step. As I said, the key objective is to ensure the maintenance of a universal service and to promote the interests of consumers.
We are giving the commission a free hand to decide on what changes to the reserved area are compatible with the provision of a universal postal service; indeed, it could come forward with a recommendation for 50p or 150 grams, as proposed in the amendments. However, the commission might find in favour of a completely different figure. Under the existing Postal Services Directive, the reserved area can only be set at a level necessary to ensure the maintenance of the universal service. I am sure that the commission will do a thorough job and consult all interested parties. We should leave the commission to get on with its work and not seek to prejudge it. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Viscount Goschen: I heard what the Minister said about remitting the issue to the commission, but perhaps he could clarify the following point.. Should the commission decide, for example, to reduce the weight from 350 grams to 150 grams, can the noble Lord explain by what means that could take legal effect?
Lord Monson: While the Minister is considering his response to that question, can he tell the Committee, first, the earliest and the latest date, respectively, when the commission might be expected to report? Secondly, can he say whether the abolition of the Post Office monopoly in certain thinly populated Scandinavian countries mentioned by Conservative noble Lords has led to any deterioration in services for people living in outlying areas?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As regards the universal service obligation, the situation remains the same. Therefore, there has not been any deterioration in that sense. As I understand it, it is for the commission to determine its own views. That will then become the standard which the people involved in the licences will have to accept. It would be put into effect by way of the affirmative order procedure under Clause 8.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: With regret, I have to tell the Minister that I find his answer unsatisfactory,

1281
particularly because he referred to the report of the Trade and Industry Committee published on 14th September. That was the critical point I was making. The report was published on 14th September. It is important that the noble Lord has a note of that date, because that is what I am talking about.
In my opinion the Secretary of State probably had that report earlier as, invariably, reports are given to Secretaries of State before they are published. However, if that is not the case and he received it only on 14th September, the Government cannot use that as an excuse for not modifying the monopoly when the advertisement to engage a regulator, which appeared on 16th September, refers to the "halving of the monopoly". Therefore that information was in the hands of the Secretary of State on 14th September. The statutory instrument was not laid until October. If the Government wished to change their mind, they must give a better reason than the information contained in the Select Committee report. That has nothing to do with it. The Government had that in their possession certainly six to eight weeks before the statutory instrument was laid.
The real reason for the Government's change of mind was as my noble friend indicated; namely, that at the trade union meeting it was made absolutely clear that all hell would be let loose—that is not a phrase that is suitable for the House of Lords; I shall rephrase it—or that there would be trouble if the measure was not revoked. That is the important point. The very least I expect the Government to do is to admit that they gave in to the trade unions, because that is exactly what they did. There are no two ways about it. It has nothing to do with the report. If it concerned the report, the Government would not have submitted the advertisement that I have mentioned. I regret that I have to inform the Minister that his reply is unsatisfactory. He should know that we on this side of the Committee are aware of the relevant dates and that I shall challenge him, albeit charmingly. I challenge him because these are important matters. It is necessary to be honest with each other across the Dispatch Box and to say what the position is.
The noble Lord has talked about protecting the universal service obligation. We also want to protect it. However, we make the point that eventually the monopoly will be modified. The Chief Executive of the Post Office, Mr John Roberts, said that the Post Office would be able to cope with the change if it was introduced gradually and it was given time to absorb it. However, it will not be able to cope if a European directive suddenly imposes it.
I understand that the Minister said that the regulator can include the measure in the licence, if he so wishes, and that the Government will leave the matter to him to decide. However, that may cause difficulties. I remember that no sooner had Mr Graham Corbett been appointed than he said that he would get rid of the monopoly altogether. That has never been denied by the Government. People in the Chamber and elsewhere are entitled to know whether the monopoly will be protected. If it is decided to get
1282
rid of the monopoly altogether, what will the Government say to the Post Office when they did not help to prepare it for the change by accepting our amendment?
The Minister has made quite clear that he does not intend to accept our amendment today. I think that he is wrong in that. Had we not lost the previous Division so heavily I would have pressed this amendment to a Division. However, I do not wish to lose this amendment as it is an important measure that seeks to protect the Post Office. I hope that the Minister will get his dates and his information right and give the correct reason for the Government's withdrawing the statutory instrument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: We now move to the part of Clause 7 which covers derogations from the Post Office monopoly. Some of them are straightforward. The first two are unlikely to involve any money changing hands. However, I am concerned about Clause 7(2)(d) which states that the monopoly is not broken by,
"the conveyance of an overseas letter out of the United Kingdom"
by anyone other than the Post Office, as I read it. One rather wonders why that is the case. At the moment it is perfectly normal for Post Office Counters to issue, for example, air mail cards and air letters. As I understand it, they are totally within the province of the Post Office. They are delivered by the Post Office and sent to Heathrow, Gatwick or wherever and are transmitted out of the country. That is done by the Post Office. With the exception of emergency circumstances—we shall discuss those later in the Bill—I cannot see why the conveyance of an overseas letter out of the United Kingdom is not the prerogative of the British Post Office. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I find this amendment rather surprising given that it has been a longstanding, practice that all overseas letters are exempt from the reserved area. Clause 7(2)(d) simply updates the position that has existed for many years that all outward bound overseas letters are exempt from the reserved area. In previous legislation the exemption referred to carriage via an aircraft out of the United Kingdom, but it was also interpreted by the Post Office as applying to mail carried by sea as well as through the Channel Tunnel in more recent times.
The Government received representations from the competitors to the Post Office for overseas letters and consulted the Post Office on this change. I can see nothing objectionable in this provision and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have been educated this afternoon and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 47. at end insert—
("(q) the conveyance and delivery of election addresses").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 16 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 17. Clause 7 contains a series of exceptions from the restrictions on the provision of postal services contained in Clause 6. Surprisingly, election addresses are not directly included in this list.
An election address is defined in Amendment No. 17 as,
"a communication provided for by section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983".
Therefore there is no possibility of confusion there.
Election addresses are currently delivered by the Post Office. I thought at first that they might be covered by stretching the meaning of Clause 7(2)(c), but even if the Post Office could be described as a "messenger", election addresses are not delivered singly unless there is only one elector in a house. Much as it would like us to think it is, the Post Office could not claim to be
"a personal friend of the sender",
as described in Clause 7(2)(b). Therefore I suggest that election addresses are not covered in that clause.
It might he argued that an election address is not a letter. However, as election addresses these days usually contain a facsimile letter which begins with the words, "Dear elector" and ends with the words "Yours sincerely"—if the people concerned are desperate to get your vote they are even more polite—I believe that they constitute letters.
However, this simple, non-controversial and certainly non-destructive amendment, which the Minister need not he frightened of, would put the matter beyond doubt and beyond argument. It would enable carriers other than the Post Office to tender for this business in the appropriate way. I hope that the Government will accept it as a wholly constructive contribution to the Bill. I sense from across the Dispatch Box that the Minister would like to please me in respect of a measure that would not harm the Bill. This amendment might well be that measure. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me on a couple of related aspects of this clause. If he wishes, I shall address these matters at the clause stand part stage, but they are close enough to what my noble friend seeks for me to introduce them into this debate.
As I understand it, the kind of activities which would ordinarily take place now by way of people distributing letters and circulars on behalf of clubs, societies or political parties of which they are
1284
members, or businesses which are touting for business, will be permitted under this clause hut, in the second case, they will be limited generally to occasions where such letters are not personalised.
Clause 7(1)(c) states:
"the conveyance and delivery of a single letter by a messenger".
I take it that that means that a messenger can carry a large number of messages but only one for each person—in other words, a messenger can be sent to deliver a press announcement to 150 different addresses and provided that only one was delivered to each person, or perhaps delivered to each address, that would be all right. Or are we really trying to put motor-cycle messengers out of business entirely by saying that they can carry only one letter on their pillion at any time?
I do not see where in the clause is the mechanism for the delivery of press announcements or for the delivery, for example, of letters from a local Conservative association to its members by people who cannot be considered as "friends.' under subsection (2)(b); or for some larger club, when it has membership correspondence to send out, getting its members to do the deliveries rather than paying postage. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that is allowed under this clause, and perhaps he could show me where.
So far as concerns commercial deliveries, as far as I can see, the ordinary stuffing of leaflets through a door is clearly no problem because the correspondence is not addressed in a particular way; but if anything is personalised by a business—suppose, for instance, it had gone through the electoral register for names and addresses and so on—that correspondence would be caught and covered. That seems fair enough to me.
But perhaps the Minister can tell me what would happen if I, as a company, generate a circular and provide it to a direct mail organisation to carry out the personalisation and make the delivery. Under the terms of Clause 117, is that letter—which has come from and been created by the direct mail organisation, although it contains no mention of the organisation's existence—their letter; or is it my letter, in which case, as I have had nothing to do with sticking the address on it, can I be said to be the sender? Does that kind of disconnection from the function of addressing and creating the letter allow someone to get round the inhibitions in this clause?
Viscount Goschen: I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that there is some very vague drafting contained within this clause. However, having said that, the Government or the draftsmen have clearly gone to considerable lengths to try to include every eventuality with a number of derogations.
As to the points addressed by the amendments, I hope that the Minister will be able to give my noble friend Lady Miller some satisfaction in connection with the delivery of election addresses. We know that there has been a certain reluctance on the part of the Government in this House to facilitate the delivery of election addresses. But we now know that the

1285
Government have had a change of heart—which is, of course, entirely welcome because we believe in putting such matters to the people as well as possible.
Further to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas, subsection (2)(i) contains the words,
"the conveyance and delivery of letters by a person who has a business in those letters".
I, too, am interested in where the difference lies. Where a company employs an agent, does that agent still have a business interest in those letters? Clearly an agent does have an interest of some kind because it is being paid to perform that function. But I feel that the wording of that paragraph is open to abuse and I should welcome clarification from the Minister on that point.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I do not think that the amendment is either destructive or controversial; it is simply unnecessary in this context.
As the noble Baroness is probably aware, this Bill was amended in another place to ensure that the one free postal communication provided for by Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 would continue to be provided free of charge by a universal service provider. Given that Section 91 of the 1983 Act provides for only one communication, and that it will continue to be provided for free, I am not sure what purpose could be served by this amendment.
Presently, where candidates want to send more than one postal communication during an election, they must pay normal postage. While I can see some advantage in them being able to put out this service to competitive tender, I cannot see what the justification would be for politicians being able to do so when equally, if not more, important communications from, for example, health authorities, charity appeals and so on were subject to normal postage.
Clause 7(2)(c) is not designed to allow the conveyance of more than an individual letter. Leaflets not addressed to an individual are not covered. Direct mail falling within the limits of the reserved area would be a letter and therefore would be covered. The noble Lord gave a number of specific examples and I shall be happy to write to him on those points.
With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister said that he felt that the amendment was unnecessary. I often respond that if it is not necessary, it does not matter if it goes in; and if it goes in, it does not matter because it is not necessary. The noble Lord could have humoured me. However, I am absolutely certain that I will find another occasion during the course of the evening when maybe on a non-controversial, non-destructive, simple amendment the noble Lord may choose to humour me. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Licences: conditions and other provisions]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
("() Licence fees paid pursuant to subsection (2) shall be applied only for the purposes of enabling the Commission to perform its duties under sections 11 to 14 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: As the marginal note makes quite clear, Clause 13 relates to conditions and other provisions in licences. The amendment I am asking the Committee to consider was not considered in another place.
Clause 13(2) quite rightly provides for the commission to be able to charge for the grant of a licence. Obviously the cost of this will be not merely the cost of typing the physical piece of paper but will entail the work of investigating the applicant, the legal expenses of drafting and negotiating the licence, future renewal of licences, supervision of the licensee and a contribution towards the infrastructure costs of the commission. I do not believe that there can be any argument with any of that.
I am even prepared to assume the inference of the word "reasonable" as an adjectival qualification of the fees. I should have been inclined to include that word as an amendment, but my experience of the major Bills I have debated on behalf of the Opposition in your Lordships' House is that asking for the word "reasonable" to be included anywhere produces a Pavlovian reaction on the part of the Government and the response that the use of the word is "unnecessary". We have had that reaction tonight, although it was nothing to do with the word "reasonable". As if this Government or any of its agencies could in any way ever be unreasonable.
Amendment No. 18 seeks to restrict the use to which the commission may put the licence fees that it charges to the cost of its licensing functions. Whatever those costs are, that is fine, but that is what the fees should be used for. In other words, the licence fees that it charges should be restricted to its actual licensing functions. What must not happen is for the commission to charge more than the actual cost and then to use the surplus money for other purposes. I shall not speculate on what those other purposes might be. One could be some form of self-advertising, such as has been indulged in by the Independent Television Commission, or a campaign like that of the Milk Marketing Board—not "Drinka pinta milka day", but "Post a piece of mail a day". I am sure that there are many fertile minds in the commission who could find a use for the excess funds. In fact, to adapt a well known proverb, "The devil does find work for idle hands".
The amendment follows the precedent set in the Broadcasting Act 1990 as to the use of licence fees payable under that Act. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give that some consideration. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have a slight problem with the wording of the amendment. I am still not sure, having heard the noble Baroness, what the intention of the amendment is. She may be able to help me when she replies. We think that it is intended to restrict the ability of the commission to collecting licence fees only for the purpose of performing its duties under Clauses 11 to 14. That may be what she said. However, the effect of the amendment is to allow the licence fee to be collected according to the terms of the licence, but to restrict the use to which the licence fee can be put to the performance of duties under Clauses 11 to 14. It does not matter very much because I can see that the intent behind the amendment is good. The intent is to get an assurance from us that the licence fee is not a form of taxation. I can give the noble Baroness that assurance.
The clause, as drafted, allows the commission to recover its costs in line with normal practice. Perhaps I may give the example of the utilities sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, quoted one piece of legislation as a precedent, but I should like to quote as precedents the Electricity Act 1989, the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Gas Act 1995, which were passed by the previous government and drafted in much the same way as this clause. The clause allows the commission to recover its costs in line with normal practice. Therefore, "licence fee" can include the costs not just of administering the licence in its crudest form—that is dealt with in Clauses 11 to 14 of the Bill— but also the associated costs of regulation that the commission must hear; for example, Clause 15 is about references to the Competition Commission. Clearly, that is a cost which the postal services commission will have to incur. It seems to us entirely proper that these costs, or, for example, the costs of monitoring international development for their potential impact on the universal service, should be paid for out of the licence fee.
The amendment would prevent the commission in effect from carrying out those functions. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall certainly read carefully what the Minister has said. It is interesting that he referred to Clause 15 and said that if the commission was too closely restricted in what it could do with the licence fee it would pre-empt the costs that would be involved in referring matters to the Competition Commission. I think that that is interesting because Clause 15 is a brand new clause that had to be included in the Bill because of the discussions in the other place, but the actual wording of the clause regarding the costs of the licence was already there. However, I accept what the Minister is saying. I shall read his words carefully in case I am still not happy. But it may be that he has managed to give me some small comfort. I take pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) Every licence granted for the provision of a universal postal service shall contain an express provision prohibiting the licencee from imposing any condition (save as provided in subsection (2B)) on the addressee of mail and in particular (without limiting the effect of this subsection)—
(a) requiring the addressee to provide a receptacle for the receipt of mail anywhere other than at the main doer of the building to which the mail is addressed; and
(b) in the case of a building in multiple occupation, requiring the installation of individual postal boxes in the lobby or elsewhere.
(2B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2A) a licencee shall be entitled to impose reasonable conditions on the manner and place of delivery where there is any hazard to the postal worker required to make the delivery.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 19 is to require the commission, by law, to impose a condition on the licensed holders of universal service licences. That condition is to prevent licence holders from requiring householders, or others, to install a postbox at the front boundary of a property, or, in the case of a block of flats or offices, having to install banks of letter boxes in the entrance lobby of a building. In the case of, say, farmhouses, the building may be some distance from the highway. Even in a town the front door and the letter box may be at the end of a long drive, up a steep flight of steps, or both, as I can personally attest to, as I am sure can many Members of the Committee, after 30 years of canvassing and leaflet delivery.
If it is thought fanciful that a licence holder would try to impose such a condition as a means of reducing the cost of making deliveries, perhaps I ma3, tell the Committee what has happened in my own borough, and, I suspect, in most people's boroughs. Despite the statutory obligation on the local council to remove household refuse, several years ago my council insisted that refuse was placed in the so-called wheelie bins, which have to be positioned precisely at the boundary otherwise the rubbish is not collected. Either the street has to be cluttered up with unsightly refuse bins or we have the job of lugging the wheelie bins from the back of the house on collection days. In some roads that looks absolutely appalling. It is also a not so subtle way of rationing the amount of refuse that a householder can require to be collected, because the council takes away only what you have managed to put into the bin.
I do not think that it is beyond the realms of possibility that it will eventually occur to licence holders that, since labour is the largest part of their costs, they could save a great deal of money if the postman did not even have to step off the roadway in order to deliver mail. If the box was right there at the edge of the street it would save time, be quicker and so forth. I say nothing of the risks of theft and vandalism if letter boxes are sited at the front gate.
My proposed new subsection (2B) in Clause 13 is intended to ensure that the licensee is not required to send his postmen and postwomen to hazardous addresses such as building sites, or, more usually, to

1289
where there are ferocious dogs. It is possible that the Minister will tell us that under Clause 13(3) it really is a matter for the commission to decide on the conditions in the licences. But I am not sure that that is right. Clause 4 of the Bill sets out certain minimum requirements for the provision of a universal postal service, as the Minister told us on several occasions when dealing with all our Clause 4 amendments. That clause, drafted by the Government, sets a precedent for statutory guidance on the conditions to be included in licences. The Post Office itself has been able to perform its functions of providing a universal pre-paid delivery service for 160 years—160 years next month—without imposing any conditions such as are addressed by this amendment. Amendment No. 19 simply ensures that the addressees of mail shall not be put to expense or run security risks in order to receive their letters merely to enhance the profits of licence holders. I beg to move.
Lord Harrison: Is it possible to find another bin in which to post the spelling as proposed in this amendment of "liceneee" with a "c". The word should be spelt with an "s". It is not just this amendment that has that fault. Others on the Marshalled List of amendments have that misspelling.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was hoping that my noble friend Lord Clarke would give us the benefit of his experience on this matter. I was only a temporary postman at Christmas many years ago and so I do not have anything like my noble friend's knowledge of the subject.
The amendment would prevent licence holders from imposing any condition on the addressee of mail. In particular it refers to whether the mail should be delivered at the front door or in a postal box in the lobby of a building in multi-occupation. It refers to any condition except as provided in subsection (2B). I would draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to Clause 89. It provides for a scheme in relation to services provided by a universal service provider which determines the charges, the other terms and conditions and the proposed procedures for dealing with complaints. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree—she certainly has not tabled any amendments that show any disagreement—that this is a valuable provision in the Bill. But, in effect, it would be wiped out by Amendment No. 19.
The amendment would cover all the services of the universal service provider, not just those concerned with the universal service. As I said, it would override the provision for schemes in Clause 89. The thrust of the amendment, as presented, is directed at delivery to the main door or to the lobby of a house in multiple occupation. The delivery of mail to a box at the front of a property, or a requirement that the point of delivery of letters is at a maximum distance from the nearest road is a common condition in many administrations overseas, for example, in New Zealand and the United States. But there are no
1290
proposals from the Post Office, the postal services commission or the Government to have such a scheme in the UK.
For most people in the UK the normal point of delivery is the front door and we expect that to continue to be the case. If a universal service provider were to propose such a radical departure, we would expect the commission to take a close interest in the matter and to act accordingly. In other words, that is one of the conditions that could well be in the licence. I am sure that the commission, acting responsibly, will seek to ensure either that it does not happen or that if it happens a suitable penalty is imposed.
However, we have a policy of giving the commission as much flexibility as possible on the terms and conditions of the licence and we believe that this amendment is too prescriptive. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am happy to tell the Minister not to worry because I do not intend to press the amendment. I have clearly said that the Post Office has managed to perform its functions very well without requiring anybody to put up a post-box. The Minister made the point that abroad, certainly in America, one can see post-boxes placed at a distance away from the houses. Especially in films one sees postmen throwing mail across gardens.
For the reasons that I have mentioned, such as postmen having to walk as far as they do, new licence holders may decide that they want to follow the American custom rather than the custom employed presently whereby postmen put mail through our letterboxes. The Minister has said that that will be a matter for the commission and that he does not want to make matters too difficult for the commission. My next amendment, Amendment No. 20, will try to alter that because I would be deeply aggrieved if that were not in the licence. I have seen a draft licence—of course, nothing like that is in it, although the commission has not yet considered the matter—but I would be deeply aggrieved if we had the continental or American style of mail delivery imposed upon us and we lost our letterboxes. Like the Minister, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, did not give us the benefit of his wisdom, but I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 9, line 23, at end insert—
("()The Secretary of State may by order prescribe such general provisions and general conditions as he shall deem appropriate to be included by the Commission in all licences or categories of licences or licences to be granted to particular classes of licensees.
() Every licence granted by the Commission shall contain the reservation of the power to amend it to conform to any requirements of a direction made by the Secretary of State after the issue of the licence.").

1291
The noble Baroness said: Throughout the course of the proceedings on this Bill in the other place and in your Lordships' House the Government's response to amendments to improve the working of the Bill has been, and no doubt will be in relation to later amendments, to accept, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the principle involved and to say that the matter is something that should be left to the commission to include in any licence. But that is only partially satisfactory.
There may be matters regarding the potential conduct of the business of a universal service provider or a licensee on which Parliament would wish to have some say, but it will have been deterred from doing so because of assurances by the Government that the particular concern would or could be dealt with better within the licence. Similarly, on reflection, the Government may want to ensure that a particular policy is followed by the commission. It could cover cases, as discussed under Amendment No. 11, on which the Government may have a view as to what the commission should have in its licence.
This amendment is not prescriptive because it gives the Government the entirely discretionary power to direct the commission to include particular provisions in licences. They can exercise that power as they think fit. To ensure that there is the proverbial level playing field between early and late licensees, the amendment requires the commission to reserve the power to alter any licence retrospectively. The power to intervene in the contents of licences will be exercisable only by order.
If this amendment is accepted, a further amendment will be needed to Clause 114(9) so as to include it in the category of orders requiring a positive resolution of both Houses. That will ensure that Parliament fully investigates any proposed ministerial intervention.
The last thing the Opposition want is for the Government to intervene in the day-to-day running of the Post Office and the businesses of the licensees. As we are putting the postal business under the supervision of the regulator, by all and every means let him get on with regulating. We are putting an essential industry into the hands of a commissioner who will have the powerful discretion to regulate it and any new, similar companies that he may choose to permit to participate in this area.
We are handing over an institution that has been an agency, first, of the King and then of the Government for some 500 years and which has existed as a general post office for 340 years. There will be no parliamentary control and no direct accountability. I believe that it is essential, certainly during an initial running-in period and until all the possible wrinkles have been ironed out, to ensure that the regulator—the commissioner—does not do or does not fail to do something that is undesirable in the form of the licences that he issues that could otherwise be cured only by fresh, primary legislation. It is essential to leave some reserved power in the hands of the Secretary of State in case something important has been overlooked in the drafting of the Bill. That is not
1292
impossible considering the number of amendments and new clauses that the Government introduced during the passage of the Bill in the other place.
As I mentioned, I have seen a pro forma of the proposed licence. I am sure that when fleshed out it will prove to be a workable document. However, due to the lack of research facilities, I have not had the opportunity to check the draft against, say, licences of utilities like rail or TV licences, so I cannot comment on it in that respect. We do not want some universal service provider or licensee to boast, in the notorious phrase of a TV executive in the early days of independent television, that he has received a licence to print money.
The object of the amendment is simply to ensure that the Government retain some element of control so that if something goes wrong the Secretary of State will not be able, as the Government do from time to time, to disclaim responsibility.
If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is to respond—I can usually tell who will respond by seeing which noble Lord is looking up as I come towards the end of my speech—I remind him that this amendment is non-prescriptive because it need never be used. If the Secretary of State and Parliament consider that whatever the commission has put into the licence is totally adequate, then nothing needs to be done. But if something is left out, it would be difficult to find time for new legislation. We already have great difficulty in dealing with the legislation already passing through the House. I beg to move.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: I have resisted the temptation to tell the Committee all about the difficulties of delivering mail to tower blocks and country mansions, and about the problems involved in bending down to letter boxes situated at the bottom of doors because I did not think those matters would be important to our proceedings. However, I think that the amendment before us is important.
This amendment will cover the points that we have only just discussed on the previous amendment. It is necessary to include what I would describe as a catch-all authority for the Secretary of State because I am worried about maintaining high standards of service in areas other than simple delivery and collection. I refer, for example, to the redirection service, the provision for people to collect their mail, access to hours of opening for sorting offices and so forth. These matters should be taken account when granting licences to operators who will be in competition with the Post Office and who may not wish to offer such services.
Detailed provision needs to be made for specialised services. For example, how many times should an operator attempt to deliver a letter? Will the Post Office still be obliged to make several attempts using form 739, or will they be able to say, "We've tried once, now it's too bad"? There is also the complex question of the redirection or disposal of undelivered mail that is held in sorting offices.
I think that this is a common-sense amendment because it provides for circumstances that may arise but have been overlooked. That would not be

1293
surprising, given the drafting of the Bill and the number of amendments being tabled by the Government. However, I shall again resist the temptation to be critical, save to say that I think we should look at this proposition very carefully and see whether the Secretary of State could be vested with a degree of authority in order to ensure that the necessary requirements are placed on the licensee.
Lord Bowness: I support the amendment that has been moved by my noble friend. Can the Minister explain, when he comes to reply—and, I suspect, resists the amendment—why there is a fallback position allowing the Secretary of State to intervene in the case of modifications proposed by the commission, but not, as I read it, such a reserve power for the granting of the licence? I believe that I have interpreted the provision correctly, but I hope that I shall be put right if I have not. If that is the case, I shall certainly support my noble friend. It seems to me, if reserve powers are to be provided in order to deal with any modifications, that powers should also be in place to oversee the granting of the original licence.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend Lady Miller referred to a model licence which, I gather, was made available to Members of the Standing Committee in another place. My noble friend appears to be remarkably privileged. I do not know whether noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have received copies of the model licence, but I most certainly have not. It would be extremely useful to be able to see it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Perhaps I may intervene. I did not receive the model licence. Indeed, in the debate on Second Reading I made the point that everyone else seemed to have seen the model licence—or rather, the draft licence—but that I had not. I said at the time that I wished I had been able to see it. Subsequently someone did send me a copy, but I do not think that it was circulated to all Members.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A copy of the draft licence was placed in the Library of this House on 9th February.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I wished only to make the point that, although my noble friend thought that I had had a form of privileged access to the draft licence, in fact I had not. I raised the issue on Second Reading, but I cannot recall whether it was mentioned at the time that a copy had been placed in the Library. However, as I have said, someone was kind enough to send me a copy of a draft licence—which was indeed a rough draft and did not tell me very much.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful for that information. I shall now trawl the Library in search of a copy of what my noble friend has referred to as the draft licence. Although I have not seen it, I would probably call it a model licence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is called an outline of a proposed licence. I shall ensure that it is sent to every
1294
noble Lord who is taking part in this debate and, indeed, to all noble Lords who took part in the debate on Second Reading.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. From my point of view it is far easier if the noble Lord can arrange to send me a copy rather than having to search for it in the Library.
I think that my noble friend Lady Miller and my noble friend Lord Bowness, who is in his place behind me, are right to say that we should start these proceedings with some form of standard conditions, whether or not they are contained within the draft licence. It would be sensible for Parliament, especially in light of the fact that it has insisted on being involved in any changes to the standard conditions, to be involved in drawing up the standard conditions themselves, whatever form their initiation may take.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to specify general provisions which could be included in all licences or licences of certain categories and that the commission should have a general condition in every licence allowing it to amend a licence to include general conditions specified by the Secretary of State.
It may be that the intention here is to provide all licence holders with a level playing field and, on the face of it, that seems to be an admirable objective. However, I should like to explore the proposition a little more. I realise that a power of this type would mirror the situation in the Utilities Bill where the Secretary of State has a general power to impose standard conditions on a licence. The purpose of that is rather different, as those who are to take part next week in our debates on the Utilities Bill may discover. In those circumstances, the standard conditions could be varied by the Secretary of State without the consent of all of the licensees. In other words, if only a small minority, say, less than 10 per cent, objected to a change in a standard condition, that small minority could be overruled in the interests of the large majority. It is for that reason that standard conditions have been proposed in the Utilities Bill.
However, in reality the situation is not analogous. We expect there to be a far smaller number of licence holders in postal services than in the utilities. Indeed, it is more than likely, in the short term at least, that we shall see only one universal service provider.
However, we have made provision in Clauses 100 and 101 for the Secretary of State to intervene in the interests of national security to give directions, to ensure compliance with Community obligations and to comply with international obligations. Other than in those limited but important circumstances, we believe that the independent regulator should have the responsibility for licence conditions, including any general ones that the regulator might wish to stipulate.
We are dealing here with a situation where the first licensee of the commission will be the Post Office plc, in which the Government are shareholders. Because of

1295
that, we feel that it is far more likely that we shall achieve a level playing field between licence holders if the independent regulator is in charge of the licence conditions rather than the Secretary of State, who also represents the largest shareholders in the licensee. He would have virtually unlimited powers to intervene.
In the case of postal services, where the Post Office will remain in public hands and, we expect, will be a licence holder, we think that it is particularly appropriate that the roles of government as regulator and shareholder should be kept apart as far as possible. That is why we have set up an independent commission to deal with licence conditions.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, intended to create a level playing field here—she did not quite say that—I have every sympathy with that aim. However, surely the most effective way to deal with this is to leave it in the hands of the independent regulator.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The second part of my amendment certainly did seek to create a level playing field, thus ensuring that operators who apply for a licence later do not secure better terms than those who apply earlier. That essentially was the purpose of the amendment.
I have listened carefully to the Minister's remarks and I am grateful to him for telling the Committee that there is to be a general power for the utilities. As I mentioned earlier, I have not had the opportunity to research each individual case.
I think that what the Minister has said will be acceptable, but I should like to read the account to be entirely sure of that. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 26, after ("lie") insert ("or, in Scotland, be competent").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 83, 84 and 105. These are small technical amendments designed to ensure the Bill's compatibility with Scottish law, which I hope will not cause Members of the Committee any concern.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 83 simply add the Scottish legal equivalent of the term "lie" to Clauses 13 and 90 where no action shall lie in respect of licence holders or universal service providers. These corrections to the Bill make it correct for the purposes of Scots law.
Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 83 and 105 change the reference in the Bill to a penalty or charge being recovered as a civil debt by making it clear that recovery is to be by this method only in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scottish law does not require the method of recovery of debt to be enunciated and these amendments will ensure that the Bill is silent on the method of recovery to be used in
1296
Scotland. The amendments merely bring the Bill into line with the normal practice with regard to the law in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [References to the Competition Commission]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 21, after ("may") insert ("at any time, and at least once every three years after the last such reference, shall").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. As I have mentioned, Clause 15 was inserted into the Bill as an afterthought, following the Committee stage in another place and shows all the signs of the Government legislating on the hoof.
We believe it is appropriate that there should be the facility to refer the activities of those providing postal services to the Competition Commission. I should perhaps remind the Committee that I am a former member of the Competition Commission, although in my day it was called the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I should also reassure Members of the Committee that I am not trying to drum up business for my former colleagues.
Postal service providers will, of necessity, be few in number and the temptation to indulge in anticompetitive practices will surely be there. I question whether the powers in this clause include overseas providers to the commission. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. If they do not, then this is a matter calling for a further amendment so as to ensure that overseas providers have to play by the same rules as our domestic ones. The new, belated clause requires some fine tuning.
Amendment No. 22 supports the power of the postal services commission to refer matters to the Competition Commission at any time it considers it appropriate to do so. It adds a requirement that there shall be an automatic referral to the Competition Commission once every three years for it to conduct an overview of this vital public service.
I cast no aspersions on any intended members of the postal services commission, or indeed on any of the regulators of other industries. But there is always a danger that they may become so involved with the organisations they supervise that they accept as reasonable practices that may not prove so in terms of independent review.
I also call to mind occasions when complaints about a particular industry have not been referred to the Competition Commission when there has been a reasonable demand that they should be on the grounds that the initiative should come from the Office of Fair Trading, which, for whatever reasons, has taken a different view. This small amendment simply requires the Competition Commission to look at the industry at least once every three years.

1297
Amendment No. 23 deletes the words "specified in the reference" so that, once a matter is in the hands of the Competition Commission, it may look further afield if it thinks it appropriate without being told that it is not within its immediate terms of reference. That is especially appropriate bearing in mind that, under the previous amendment, once postal services are placed before the Competition Commission, it need not look at them again for three years.
I accept that under Clause 15(2) the postal services commission can supplement a reference that is already under way. That is the point of my amendment—namely, to strengthen the subsection by ensuring that the power to vary references to the Competition Commission does not apply to the automatic triennial that I have proposed.
Amendment No. 24 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 23. The three amendments are entirely constructive. They are designed to strengthen the powers in the clause and I hope that the Government will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Newby: For a moment I thought that we were again debating the Financial Services and Markets Bill. There, too, we heard a proposal for an automatic review of the workings and codes established by the FSA. The view that we took then, which we take also in relation to this amendment, is that review is fine when there is a purpose to it, but to have automatic reviews every three years—to pluck the plant up by the roots, whether or not there is any suggestion that it might be necessary—seems to us a superfluous requirement.
Clause 15 enables the commission to make a reference whenever it wants. It is a flexible provision. If there is no suggestion that a reference is necessary, the commission will not make one. That is by far the most sensible way to proceed in this case rather than putting in place an unnecessary and onerous triennial provision.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 22 to 24. The amendment before the Committee would have the effect of subjecting every licence holder to a Competition Commission inquiry at least once every three years. It is a welcome variation on an amendment moved in another place that would have restricted the postal services commission to only these references, but it would still leave an unsatisfactory state of affairs and I shall be asking the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
The aim behind the amendment seems entirely laudable; namely, to subject licence holders to regular regulatory review. However, that rather ignores the fact that the postal services commission will subject licence holders to more regular and detailed review. It is the postal services commission that is best placed to carry out this function, not the Competition Commission.
1298
Furthermore, I would not wish to devalue the effect of a Competition Commission reference so that it becomes a regular chore. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. A reference is an extremely serious matter; it will take considerable management time and will carry an estimated cost of £1 million plus for the company involved. It seems unjust and burdensome that a company with model relations with the regulator should have to be subjected to this. Similarly, why should a burden like this apply to a new entrant with perhaps limited resources?
The noble Baroness is concerned about the question of regulatory capture. There is always a concern that, however well-intentioned regulators and the regulated are, they can fall into a cosy relationship. However, we believe that the postal services commission, especially with its panel of commissioners rather than one regulator, will be highly effective.
Perhaps I may deal also with the question of the overseas postal operator. If such an operator applies for and receives a licence to operate in the UK postal services market, he will be subject to the competition provisions in the Bill. All postal operations are subject to general competition law outside the Bill.
Therefore, while I applaud the intention behind the amendment, I believe that the Bill as drafted puts in place a much more even system of regulation than that suggested by the amendment. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I accept the Minister's explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 20 [Application of competition legislation to references etc.]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 15, line 42, at end insert—
("(6) Section 82(1) and (2) of the 1973 Act (prejudicial information and absolute privilege) shall apply to notices given by the Competition Commission under section 19(6) or (8) above as it applies to reports made by the Competition Commission under that Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small technical amendment which will extend the relevant parts of Section 82 of the Fair Trading Act to the notices issued by the Competition Commission under Clause 19. This means that the Competition Commission will be required to have regard to the need to exclude, so far as practicable, any matter which relates to the private affairs of an individual, where the publication of that matter would or might, in its opinion, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and any matter which relates specifically to the affairs of a

1299
particular body of persons, whether corporate or uncorporate, where publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Competition Commission, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body, unless in its opinion the inclusion of that matter relating specifically to that body is necessary for the purposes of the report. The amendment also extends to the commission absolute privilege for the purposes of the law of defamation and allows it to publish notices in the same honest and open manner as its reports. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Financial penalties]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert—
("(3)) No penalty imposed by the Commission under this section may exceed 10 per cent of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with such provisions as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief in explaining the purpose of Amendment No. 26. When the Bill was in Committee in the other place the clause was not examined at all. I suspect that that was because the timetabling was much more difficult in another place, which is not able to go through every clause line by line as is our practice. It is important that we debate these matters, even if they are very small. The clause gives the commission the power to impose financial sanctions in the form of a penalty. It is right that Parliament should look at that sanction and decide whether it really intends to give the regulator absolute unfettered power to impose any penalty that he thinks fit without limit for any offence, serious or trivial. Some Acts of Parliament provide for unlimited penalties but they are for criminal offences, not for what in essence are actions similar to a breach of contract where the perpetrator's licence may be revoked straight away and his business is closed down, or his licence is not renewed in future, and in addition he is liable to pay a penalty.
I believe that an unlimited penalty is not called for and is grossly excessive. The amendment that we propose follows, word for word, an identical provision in the Government's own Competition Act 1998. I believe that in the interests of consistency the Government should follow their own recent precedent and not allow such an unfettered discretion for what may turn out to be—we know not—quite a small offence. If it was a serious offence undoubtedly the licence holder would lose his licence and his business would be finished, and he would also face a penalty. But Parliament should decide what the penalty should be; it should not be unfettered. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: Having sat peacefully for four hours and heard the noble Baroness, with great charm, again and again move amendments which have not been received kindly, I now stand up to support this amendment, which I believe has substance. This is a low
1300
margin business and a 10 per cent penalty could easily equal three years' profits. Unless this provision is moderated I believe that it may kill a entrant to the marketplace. Therefore, in the interests of competition I believe that there should be moderation in this matter. As the Government are a shareholder a 10 per cent fine on the Post Office may amount to £500 million. Perhaps that is a worthy limit.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The power to impose penalties is there to ensure compliance with licence conditions and other obligations. The amount of penalty must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The Bill does not specify a limit on the penalty that can be imposed under these provisions. Perhaps I should attempt to damp down some of the wilder speculation about the scale of penalty that is likely to be imposed. The clause is quite clear that the penalty must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The penalty could be very large but only if the breach in question had been sufficiently serious, and had done enough harm, to warrant a heavy penalty. In other cases where the breach was less serious the amount involved would be smaller.
To ensure transparency, the commission is required to publish its policies with regard to calculating the amount of a penalty and to have regard to them when imposing a penalty. Such policies may include, for example, having regard to the need to secure compliance, the consequences of the breach and deterrence of future breaches. In addition, there are detailed procedural requirements for the imposition of a penalty, including requirements on the commission to publicise its intentions, provide notices with prescribed information and receive and consider comments from interested parties. There are also procedures for modifying the penalty and notifying the company concerned and interested parties of the final decision on the imposition of a penalty. The licence holder may apply to the commission to pay a penalty in instalments.
The licence holder may also make an application to the court to question the validity of a penalty order on prescribed grounds; that any of the relevant procedural requirements have not been complied with and that has substantially prejudiced the licence holder's interests; that the imposition of the penalty is not within the commission's powers; or that it is unreasonable to require the penalty, or any portion of it, to be paid by the date by which it is required to be paid. The requirement to pay a penalty is suspended until the case is determined. The court may quash o r reduce the penalty or extend the timescale to pay. I t may also require interest to be paid on the penalty or on any reduced penalty that it may substitute.
It is important to stress that under these procedures a licence holder will be able to challenge the amount of any penalty, because the commission has power under Clause 30 only to impose a penalty that is of such amount as is reasonable. If the amount is unreasonable the imposition of the penalty will not be within the power of the commission under that clause. Accordingly, if a licence holder challenges the amount

1301
of a penalty on the grounds that its imposition is not within the commission's power under Clause 30 the court will have to consider whether it is reasonable. If it does not consider that it is reasonable it may quash or lower the penalty as it thinks appropriate.
The Government believe that the interests of consumers should be at the heart of regulation. That objective cannot be fulfilled unless the commission has the necessary powers to enforce the obligations that companies have taken on in respect of consumers. At the same time, the powers that they propose are appropriately framed by due process, the requirements of transparency and the right of companies to challenge the imposition of a penalty in the courts. On that basis, I commend these provisions to the Committee.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who has spoken in support of this small amendment. It is extraordinary that under the Bill,
"the Commission may impose on the licence holder a penalty of such amount as is reasonable".
Given the number of times that we have tried to insert "reasonable" into clauses only to be told that it has no meaning because it is a purely subjective matter, it is extraordinary that in this case that term is regarded as appropriate. A breach of a contract—which is what this would be, a breach of a licence—is a breach of a contract. It is not a criminal offence in the sense of harming someone. Practically every criminal offence one knows of has an upward and outward limit as to what the penalty can be. One would have thought that the penalty suggested in this amendment is more than sufficient. I am amazed that the Government feel that it is appropriate to leave this in the hands of the regulator.
I understand what the Minister said—that we are trying to do this for the benefit of the consumer. It is not as though we are talking of danger to health, to life or to limb; we are talking of postal services. A breach would probably mean immediate loss of the licence, loss of the business and the penalty. As to the idea that it can be an unlimited penalty so long as it is reasonable, I ask reasonable to whom? For an individual to have to go to the courts is somewhat unfortunate. However, it seems that the Government have made up their mind. I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Interest and payments by instalment]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 23, line 35, leave out ("by the Commission").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor technical amendment designed to correct a small error in the drafting of the Bill, namely that the date required
1302
under Clause 36(1)(c) may be specified either by the commission or may have been specified by the courts following appeal under Clause 36.
Under the clause as amended, the date that applies can be the commission's or the court's if a successful appeal had been made by the licence holder. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Recovery of penalties]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 25, line 8, leave out from ("holder") to end of line.
Page 25, line 9, at end insert ("and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland such penalty and interest may be recovered as a civil debt due to the Commission").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Register]:
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 25, line 30, at end insert ("including that person's commercial interests").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
Clause 38 relates to the creation and maintenance of a public register of licences. The first three amendments relate to subsection (5). Amendment No. 30 slightly modifies subsection (5) which authorises the commission to exclude from the register material which,
"would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the person's interests".
I believe that I may have made a mistake. Amendment No 32 that does not relate to subsection (5); it relates to subsection (8). The amendment was drafted in the Public Bill Office; it was simply a paving amendment. I did not correct my note accordingly.
Amendment No. 30 slightly modifies subsection (5) which authorises the commission to exclude from the register material which,
"would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the person's interests".
The need to protect commercial interests was also recognised elsewhere in the White Paper, referring to the Post Office's five-year plan. It states:
"The aim will be to report [to Parliament] once the Strategic Plan has been approved (though commercially confidential details of the Plan will not be revealed)".

1303
This concept of commercial confidentiality was also reinforced by the 12th Report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when it was considering major acquisitions by the Post Office. It states:
"We recommend the greatest possible degree of transparency compatible with the genuine requirements of commercial confidentiality when considering this and future purchases by the Post Office".
The subsection we are considering does not say what is meant by "interests". It could perhaps be argued that it merely refers to personal interests or social interests. The amendment that I have down makes it abundantly clear that commercial interests are included.
In the White Paper the Government stated:
"The Regulator will have the power … to publish information for the benefit of consumers and in the interests of good regulation, subject to tests relating to substantial harm, including … commercial confidentiality and public interest".
This amendment has the objective of clarifying the clause, not detracting from it in any way.
Indeed, in subsection (7) it recognises the need to protect a person's commercial interests, although I think it would work only if the Secretary of State was to get advanced notice of the intended contents of the register, because it would be too late after the publication.
The amendment secures the protection of confidential commercial information that licensees may have disclosed to the regulator as part of the application process. It is entirely consistent with the objective stated in the White Pa per which the draftsman has not fully covered in the present wording of the section.
When a similar amendment was put to the committee in the other place the Minister for Competition argued against it on the grounds that he thought that the rights of individuals are protected sufficiently by the clause as drafted. Dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s will do no harm whatsoever and it will put the matter beyond doubt. I should ask the Minister to let me know when he replies as to where would be the harm if this were to be absolutely clarified.
The Minister had a more cogent argument against the amendment in the other place, where other amendments to this clause put down by my honourable friends would have deleted certain provisions and would have limited the commission's discretion. I will not trouble the Committee with the details, but it is sufficient to say that I would be nowhere near as ambitious as my honourable friends in the other place. I have focused my amendment on the very narrow issue of commercial interests.
With that concession from us in mind, I hope the Government will now find it possible to accept that the mild, clarifying Amendment No. 31 provides a right of appeal to the Secretary of State by anyone who objects to an entry in the register. This follows my remarks about subsection (7). The Secretary of State has the power to order the commission not to enter material that he considers is against the public interest or an individual's commercial interests. However, there is
1304
nothing in the Bill to encourage the Secretary of State to make a decision on any problem or even to consider it. The object of Amendment No. 31 is simply to provide the machinery to start the Secretary of State's thought processes or to bring a problem to his attention.
The whole machinery of objection and the removal of material from the register seems to be accompanied by the sound of slamming of stable doors. Once the material has entered the public domain through publication the damage would already have been done. The Government should provide machinery for consultation and objections to be dealt with in confidence before publication, perhaps introducing amendments at the next stage of the Bill. The Minister will understand that I seek only to make a helpful suggestion. It is not for me to do the Government's drafting. Perhaps the Minister will wish to consider the amendment.
Finally, Amendment No. 32 provides another means of enabling public access to the register by electronic means. Public registers such as the Companies Register are already accessible via the Internet. There is no reason why the new commission should not begin by providing data instantly by what will be a common means of publication. I am sure that the omission from the Bill of a similar provision is merely an oversight. I beg to move.
Lord Sharman: I am uncertain why a person's interests do not include commercial interests.
More importantly, if the amendment were accepted, I do not understand why it is possible to charge a fee for access to the register by conventional means whereas there is no provision for charging a fee for access by electronic means. The assumption may be that provision of information electronically incurs no cost, which it does. I should like access to be on a comparable basis, whether electronically or conventionally. That clarification would be helpful.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Lord asks me to comment on why a person's interests should not include commercial interests. The White Paper refers to commercial interests. One assumes, therefore, that the word "interests" was not considered sufficient. I seek to reinforce the wording of the Bill. Nowhere does it state that interests include commercial interests. However, the White Paper and the Select Committee report refer to commercial interests.
As regards reference to the Internet, I seek to suggest that we embrace the modern idiom with regard to the Post Office. That is hard for me to do, I hasten to say. However, I felt that it was an appropriate amendment.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I can see that the main reason behind the amendments is to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect the rights of individuals. That is something on which we can all agree. However, we believe that the rights of individuals are sufficiently protected by Clause 38 as drafted.

1305
We believe that there is no need to refer explicitly on the face of the legislation to a person's commercial interests (as proposed by Amendment No. 30). The clause as drafted refers to a person's interests. We believe that this subsumes his commercial and all other interests. However, we shall check whether that is a correct interpretation. It is clearly the intention underlying the provision.
Amendment No. 31 is undesirable. It would undermine the independence of the commission by substituting for its discretion what would amount to a formal mechanism for persons to appeal to the Secretary of State if they object to an entry, with a view to the Secretary of State directing the commission not to make an entry or to delete an entry if he so decides. There is no restriction on the grounds on which such objections may be made. Such a procedure would be an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on the Secretary of State and would limit the discretion and independence of the commission without substantively increasing the protection of individuals.
There is already power in subsection (7) for the Secretary of State to direct the commission not to enter in the register anything that he considers would be against the public interest or any person's commercial interests.
Inevitably this procedure would also result in delays in getting information on the register and of the register containing less up-to-date information than is appropriate in the interests of good, fair and open regulation. The presumption must be that entries are made. It should be only in exceptional circumstances that an entry is not made, and provision for that is provided for fully in the clause as drafted.
As the appointed regulator of the postal market, with clear duties and day-to-day responsibility for regulation, no one is better placed than the commission to weigh up the merits of an entry in the register and to decide what is in the public interest in relation to the keeping of this register.
Amendment No. 32 is different in that it seeks to promote access to information on the register rather than limit the extent of that information. Clause 38(2) provides for the register to be kept in such form as the commission considers appropriate and I have no doubt that the commission will wish to consider whether the register should be placed on the Internet. But I do not believe that we should prescribe this possibility on the face of the legislation. It is interesting to consider what the legislation would have said if it had been produced five years ago. It would not have referred to the Internet. We cannot rule out something completely different in five or 10 years. Therefore to insert into the legislation the specific technology to be used is unnecessary and restrictive.
Clause 38 as drafted provides adequate safeguards for individuals. Subject to the one point which we shall consider, I ask the honourable Member to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I sometimes wish that I were an honourable Member of another place. It is not
1306
that I do not wish to be in this Chamber, with the standard of debate and the admirable way in which the Minister deals with the debate. It could never be matched in another place. However, it would have been nice if some constituency had wanted me at some stage or another—but what can I say?
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing that he will consider whether the phrase "a person's interests" includes his commercial interests. It is a small point, but if the wording does not include commercial interests it is a valuable consideration.
In speaking to Amendment No. 31, I believed that the Minister might refer to subsection (7) which provides that the Secretary of State may direct the commission not to enter information. I do not think that is quite the same as giving someone the opportunity to appeal if he believes that information prejudicial to his commercial interests may be entered in the register. The Minister was kind enough to say that he will consider Amendment No. 30. I shall not move Amendment No. 31.
I agree with the Minister on Amendment No. 32. As the noble Lord pointed out, Clause 38(2) provides that,
"the register shall be kept in such form as the Commission considers appropriate".
What is appropriate at one time may not be so at another. Perhaps it would be too prescriptive to have such a provision in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Duties in relation to social and environmental matters]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 28, line 29, leave out ("arrange for") and insert ("publish").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 34, 40 to 44, 49 and 54 to 57. These are genuinely minor drafting amendments to change the language used to describe the functions of the Secretary of State, the commission and the council with respect to publishing information. The existing wording used both "publishing" and "arranging to publish". We consider that there is a possibility that it might be interpreted as implying two different activities. We do not intend any difference between the use of the two phrases. To make things clear, all occurrences of the words "arranging to publish" have been replaced with "publishing". "Publishing" should be taken to mean that the person or body in question can either publish the information themselves or arrange for it to be published. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("to be published").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Tobin Tax
7.31 p.m.
Lord Juddrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will undertake an official inquiry into the practicability of an international tax on currency transfers (Tobin Tax) as a means of mobilising funds for world development.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask this Question with some trepidation because others who will speak have a great deal of highly relevant expertise. It will therefore be particularly important to hear from them.
At the outset, I must declare an interest. I am an unremunerated member of the OXFAM association and a former director of that organisation. OXFAM, together with other kindred development NGOs, has demonstrated a good deal of interest in the virtues of the so-called Tobin tax, first proposed by Nobel prize-winning economist James Tobin in the 1970s.
In this context, I believe special mention should be made of War on Want which has been playing a leading role in the discussion. As, indeed, War on Want have eloquently spelt out, speculators gambling on currency movements care little about the human costs of what they do. They ruthlessly exploit a financial system which has conspicuously failed to work in the interests of the poor of the world. When the system goes into crisis, the remedies for recovery advocated by the IMF are often the final calamity for the most vulnerable people.
The existing global financial system is just not designed to withstand or resist globalised speculative shock waves. As we have recently seen in Thailand, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil and elsewhere, huge speculative flows mean that economies can collapse like a house of cards within days or even hours. There is no international institution with the funds to intervene to counter speculation. At the same time, in this age of liberalisation, only a very small number of countries still have capital controls at their disposal.
Ironically, as George Soros himself has put it:
"Financial markets are inherently unstable. They have acted like a wrecking ball, knocking over one economy after another. The swings cannot be avoided altogether but they need to be brought under control".
1308
Like many others, I believe what needs to be examined by government is whether a Tobin tax on foreign exchange transactions could not at least alleviate some of the most damaging excesses of financial markets: whether it might not be able both to play a part in calming speculation and also in mobilising potentially billions of pounds in the fight for the elimination of poverty, whether that poverty be in the developing world, or, to our shame, in wealthy nations of the world like our own.
It has been estimated that, even allowing for the calming effect, a 0.25 per cent tax could possibly yield as much as 250 billion dollars per year.
In the 1998 crisis it has been estimated that during the first few months 10 million people lost their jobs, with millions more subsequently pushed into poverty and debt. In Brazil, for example, 30 billion dollars in capital fled the country in just a few weeks, deeply damaging future long-term investment prospects. More generally, in affected countries, as governments seek to prop up their currency, debts increase and grim cuts in already minimal health, education and welfare programmes, coupled with unemployment, cruelly punish the weak.
At this point I should perhaps underline the background. With the encouraging exception of DfID here in the UK, international aid flows have deteriorated in the past decade from approximately 70 billion dollars to approximately 50 billion dollars per year. Indeed, OECD has calculated that they have fallen 15 per cent in the past two years.
There seem to be three principal reasons for the increasing interest in what a Tobin tax might have to offer. First, the volume of foreign exchange trading has by far outstripped the amount necessary to finance trade in goods and services. Approaching 2 trillion US dollars a day is being traded and only five per went—I repeat, only five per cent—of this is necessary for financing trade in goods and services The rest is speculative. It is sobering to contrast this with 1975 when 80 per cent of transactions were trade related.
Secondly, globalisation and deregulation have exacerbated volatility. Pessimism and optimism unrelated to economic realities cause violent fluctuations. It is these which aggravate the social havoc and human misery.
Thirdly, a Tobin tax is seen as a useful and effective way to assist in raising the resources for economic and social development.
There are obviously questions a government review would need to examine. What would really be the effect on world trade? Would it be adverse or would it indeed be beneficial because greater confidence about exchange rate levels would permit better planning and forecasting of trade transactions? Advocates of the tax argue that as trade is essential for economic growth a small tax of 0.25 per cent is unlikely to prove restrictive. It is just as well to remember that some 40 per cent of current trade takes the form of shipments between the branches of trans-nationals, financed by

1309
bookkeeping entries rather than currency conversion. Consequently, most of these transactions are not liable to tax.
There is the question of what transactions should be subject to tax. To be effective, its scope would almost certainly need to be wide. Virtually all foreign exchange transactions would surely have to be covered, including spot and forward transactions, foreign exchange swaps, and contracts involving the right to purchase currency at a future date. Clearly, definitions would need to be revised from time to time if innovative methods of evasion became evident.
What about collection? Over 80 per cent of foreign exchange transactions occur in no more than nine countries. In 1998 32 per cent were negotiated in London. Is there not therefore a case to concentrate it initially on the nine and a few others? What kind of international agreement would make most sense? What kind of national supportive legislation is required? Would the national central banks have a key role? Would the continuous linking settlement bank be relevant?
This brings us to the application and administration of the revenue. What should be the respective roles of the international financial institutions, of the mainstream UN system, and of the regional organisations and banks?
Here I would just underline that Jubilee 2000, which has been so warmly commended by the Government, has estimated that to wipe out the south's unpayable debt requires 160 billion dollars. It is illuminating to compare this figure with the 250 billion dollars a year a Tobin tax of only 0.25 per cent might yield.
I touch briefly on evasion. Would speculators find a way to avoid payment? Income, value added, property and inheritance taxes all suffer some evasion, but they still prove worthwhile sources of revenue. In any case, electronic tracing will become constantly more effective. Even if speculators were tempted to achieve evasion by more complicated methods of transaction, the costs and risks involved could well prove a disincentive when compared with the cost of a small tax itself. As for havens, if transactions were to be taxed at the site of deals this would complicate the attractions of relocation. Anyway, the cost of relocation would again have to be weighed against the cost of a minimal tax level.
It is also worth considering whether, if necessary, higher levels of tax could be imposed as a deterrent at the point at which transactions made via havens entered into the official world markets.
The question remains as to whether a Tobin tax would have prevented the last crisis in south-east Asia. In my view, there can be no doubt that other regulatory measures would have been necessary. But, equally, I am certain that a Tobin tax could have played a vital part. For the future, there is also the concept of the so-called "Spahn mechanism", which would involve a two-tier system; a minimal normal rate and a higher rate to be triggered at times of turbulence.
1310
People have asked about job losses in the City of London. Those have to be contrasted with the potentially immense social benefits around the world and the continuing life and death issues if we do not take action. They also should be seen against what anyway happened on Black Wednesday.
I have raised these questions—and there are many others—not because the Government have not yet committed themselves in principle—I wish that they had—but because I believe that there is a groundswell internationally in favour of some kind of Tobin tax. It is a groundswell strengthened by a sense of moral outrage at what goes unchallenged today. It is therefore sensible to start looking constructively at the issues involved. This Government have established an enviable reputation for their commitment on international development and related financial challenges such as debt. To take forward an inquiry of the kind I propose would be to build on that record. Either, in the end, we are for social responsibility or we are not.
7.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating this debate on a subject which is both important and timely. I fully recognise that in a free market currency transactions are essential. But the percentage of those transactions which are at present related to trade and industry is tiny. As the noble Lord emphasises, it amounts to perhaps as little as 5 per cent. The rest is simply short-term speculation.
James Tobin's original suggestion for a tax on currency transaction was to counteract some of the volatility caused by this speculation. That may be a necessary and laudable aim, but it is one primarily for economists to debate. My concern is that money could be made available from such a tax to support different aspects of the work of the United Nations and, in particular, development projects.
If people want to speculate, in a free society that is up to them. But a free society can only be truly free if it is set within a moral framework whose purpose is to serve society as a whole. Taxation is an essential and legitimate means of ensuring that some of the wealth generated by the market goes to help those least able to benefit by it—and, indeed, sometimes those who are suffering most as a direct result of it. We accept that a percentage of the profits which come from betting on horses goes to benefit the racing industry. Is it any less appropriate for a percentage of the profits on short-term financial transactions to go to the benefit of the human project as a whole?
Such a tax would not in any way hinder essential currency transactions for it would be small—perhaps as little as 0.1 per cent—and it would bite only on short-term transactions. About 80 per cent of transactions involve round-trips of fewer than seven days and more than 40 per cent involve round-trips of two days or fewer.
Of course, inevitably, a number of questions have been raised. Is it really feasible to enact this kind of tax? We already have a stamp duty on shares and

1311
stocks which are traded on the market—in fact, a bigger one, at 0.5 per cent, than what is envisaged for the Tobin tax.
Then it is thought that the diversity and complexity of the world's financial markets would make it impossible to collect such a tax. But in fact the main financial centres are relatively few. The UK has approximately 32 per cent of the market; the United States has 18 per cent; Japan has 8 per cent; Singapore has 7 per cent; Germany has 5 per cent; Switzerland has 4 per cent; Hong Kong has 4 per cent; and France has 4 per cent. That is a very limited number which it would be possible to involve in the tax.
Of course, people would try to find ways around such a tax. No doubt some rogues would arise. But as the Canadian Greens wrote, referring to the G7 Halifax meeting which discussed the Tobin tax proposals:
"Piracy for the most part was brought under control when nations co-operated to bring the open seas under the rule of law. Should we not be preparing a foundation for renewed order before the financial pirates have appropriated all of the world's wealth?".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, dealt most convincingly with that point.
Would governments be motivated to bring about such a tax? If they received 50 per cent of the taxation for their own country, as has been suggested, I believe that they would be. Furthermore, I believe that nation states will increasingly see it as being in their interest to achieve international co-operation in controlling the world's financial institutions. Some governments have already begun to see this. For example, the Canadian House of Commons, by 164 votes to 83, voted,
"That in the opinion of the House the Government should enact tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community".
The nations of the world have already shown that when it comes to the remission of unsustainable debt of the poorest countries, significant action can be taken. The Jubilee 2000 campaign, initiated by the Churches and supported so strongly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has achieved, although not everything yet, what most people would have regarded as impossible a few years ago. Then it was thought as belonging to Never Never Land; a fairytale. Discussion of the Tobin tax is at an early stage and may arouse the same kind of feelings. But there is no reason to believe that a similar political will cannot be engendered. I believe that it can and should be.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing the debate. It comes as no surprise that someone who has been so long and so profoundly committed to global economic and social development—as has been the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who spoke most impressively— should focus our attention on this tax.
Earlier this month, the World Bank, my former employer, published an alarming report on the prospects for Africa in the 21st century. Earlier this week, the Bank for International Settlements warned
1312
that the recent high volatility in the equity and exchange markets looked likely to continue. A few days before that, the Financial Stability Forum warned some of the leading offshore financial centres that they would have to improve standards of supervision and transparency.
In their differing ways, these are all developments relevant to a discussion on instituting an international tax on currency transactions as a means of mobilising funds for international world development. Many of these issues have been extensively addressed in OXFAM GB's thoughtful discussion paper. I congratulate OXFAM on producing such a useful document.
In six minutes it is impossible to do justice to such a complex proposal, which has already been extensively explored over the past 22 years. The best one can do is to state one's position as succinctly as possible and hope that noble Lords will take it on trust that one's conclusions are based on a careful weighing of the arguments of experts on both sides of the issue and including therein the moral argument.
Of course, the Tobin tax, globally accepted and successfully implemented, could provide very substantial new funds for development purposes. I think in particular of the 250 billion dollars that could be realised from a 0.25 per cent tax and what that could do to reduce the crippling debt burden of the poorer countries in place of the painfully slow and inadequately funded multilateral arrangements currently in place.
Mobilising funds for development was not, as has been pointed out, the primary objective of Professor Tobin's original proposal in 1978. He saw it as a byproduct. But if there were a single justification for it today, that would be it. I say that because I am as sure as I can be that, as a means of discouraging volatile short-term trading and its destabilising effects and as a means of enhancing national control over tax policy, the tax simply cannot pass the test. And, left with the revenue mobilisation as a sole objective, in my view it cannot pass that test either because, regrettably, it cannot be implemented effectively as an international tax.
As a means of discouraging short-term trading, I agree that such a tax, if set high enough, would make the round-trip movement of large sums of money in and out of countries more costly. However, the cost to traders of moving to non-tax jurisdictions is also high, and if the tax is low they will not readily be deterred from unproductive but profitable speculation. Further, investors who speculate in, say, a possible 15 per cent devaluation of a currency will not be deterred by a Tobin tax, even if set as high as 0.25 per cent. Those are the speculative operations that do most or the damage.
I happen to be among those who believe, although many do not, that reducing the volume of short-term trading, which in turn reduces liquidity, carries the serious risk of increasing and not decreasing volatility I believe that the more players there are in the market,

1313
the wider and more diverse the views on where the market is likely to go and the lower the risk of the herd mentality infecting the whole market.
And what about delivering more policy autonomy? As most experts on the proposal believe that the tax rate should not exceed 0.25 per cent and probably should be closer to 0.1 per cent, it is hard to see that a tax at that level will provide policy-makers with more than a minute margin of extra autonomy.
In short, I do not see a Tobin tax delivering on the objectives set by its proposer, even if it can be implemented. And can it be implemented? Again, I fear not—at least, not effectively. First, it can be implemented successfully only if it is universally accepted. It has been suggested that by taxing at the point of the deal and imposing extra heavy penalties on transactions which are destined for non-tax jurisdictions, the system can work with less than global adherence.
However, we have been through all that with the EU's proposed withholding tax on cross-border savings. Less than universal adherence means ineffectual implementation. It has been suggested that a commitment to levy the tax should be a condition of membership in the United Nations and its agencies, especially the World Bank and the IMF. However, to impose that retroactively seems to me to be a politically impossible task.
I am not suggesting that all further exploration of the practicality of a Tobin tax, or a variation thereof, is useless. Far from it. It could be that in time developments in electronic tracing will render it more feasible. Perhaps one day tax havens will be only a bad memory of the less socially responsible financial landscape. Who knows? But at present I do not believe that finding the way to make this kind of transaction tax-feasible and effective is an immediate prospect. Perhaps it never will be. However, some of the best minds in economics are focused on it and perhaps one day they will come up with the solution.
In the meantime, reducing the developing country debt burden and raising the necessary finance for global development needs remain huge challenges. If a Tobin tax cannot help us to meet them, as I believe to be the case at present, then higher levels of aid and debt relief, greater market access for developing country products, and steadier flows of productive investment funds must be secured and sustained. I wish sincerely that a Tobin tax were feasible but I fear that it is not, and I must be realistic about that. Nonetheless, I thank my noble friend sincerely for keeping us thinking about this serious issue.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for raising this important matter. In his eloquent speech, the noble Lord made a powerful case for an official inquiry into the practicability of an international currency tax and I support that case, declaring at the same time an interest as chair of Oxfam.
1314
Oxfam, whose objective is to eliminate poverty, is acutely aware of the adverse effect on the economies of developing countries of currency speculation and the damaging capital flows which result. The damage caused impacts in several ways, some of which have been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It contributes to the collapse of the economies of the countries, leading to large-scale unemployment.
The crash in Asia, which was partially caused and exacerbated by currency speculation, inevitably hits the poorest first. In Indonesia, for example, between 1996 and 1998 the number of people who lived in poverty doubled to 40 million. It adversely affects long-term investment, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already drawn attention to the 30 billion dollars which fled Brazil. Alongside that, the IMF programmes which follow the currency crises often focus on cuts in welfare programmes so that the poorest are hit again.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, one of the aims of the tax is to help to deter speculation, which causes sharp exchange rate fluctuations and serious damage to economies. I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, pointed out, that the tax itself will not solve the problem of stabilising financial markets. That would require a range of policy measures at national and international level. However, there can be no doubt that such a tax would be an important component of those measures and a move in the right direction.
I am not an economist and therefore I hesitate to contradict the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on his views of the efficacy of the tax. However, many eminent economists have a quite contrary view. The importance of the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is that the measures should form the subject of an official inquiry so that all views on the tax, its effectiveness and the possibility of its implementation will be explored carefully.
I believe that there is consensus that the Tobin tax, if implemented and equitably applied, could transform the level of overseas aid. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, that aid is, and in the past year has been, cut significantly by countries, with the honourable exception of the United Kingdom Government, which, to their great credit, increased their budget.
It seems particularly appropriate that the United Kingdom Government should take the lead in inquiring into the practicability of such a tax because, by a considerable margin, London is the world's biggest foreign exchange market. The idea of an international tax initially may sound wildly Utopian. However, other similar ideas which were thought to be Utopian, such as debt relief, the banning of landmines and the sale of gold stocks, seemed Utopian at the time that they were first raised. Yet they are now regarded as sensible and mainstream and are backed by politicians and international institutions alike. After 20 years, there is a growing interest in the Tobin tax by economists and others, and the proposed inquiry might well recommend that its time has come.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend has asked this Unstarred Question, and I am particularly pleased with the way in which he has phrased it. Sensibly, he asks for an inquiry, which may just be acceptable to the Government, rather than for the adoption of the Tobin tax, which certainly would not. He and other noble Lords have spoken on the subject most expertly, particularly my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who has the position of banker within his experience.
So far as I am aware, this is the first time that your Lordships have debated in any detail a proposal to harness the enormous sums of money which are transferred every day in the currency market and to use them for productive purposes.
As has been pointed out, Professor Tobin did not design his tax primarily to raise revenue but to act as a deterrent to currency speculation which, even in the mid-seventies, 20 to 25 years ago, was a serious destabilising factor. But, as has been pointed out by other noble Lords, the activity has grown massively since then, especially since the mid-1980s. Today's 1.8 trillion dollars which is exchanged every day, is nearly 10 times greater than the 188 billion dollars of 1986. The growth is due, among other things, to the ending of fixed parities, the liberalisation of financial markets and electronic trading.
The annual sums involved are some 55 times greater than the total value of world trade in goods and services and 18 times greater than the global turnover in equity markets, which is huge enough: 21 trillion dollars in 1995. It is no wonder that currency speculation has been a major factor in the economic crises of recent years which other noble Lords have mentioned; for instance, the tiger economies of South-East Asia, Brazil and Russia and, of course, ourselves in 1992 on Black Wednesday.
The inquiry for which my noble friend asks would explore the practicability of levying the tax. There would be many problems to overcome; not least that it would have to gain international acceptance, which is a long way off at present. But I suggest that Professor Tobin would not put forward an unworkable plan. His Nobel prize was awarded not for the currency exchange tax proposal which he made in 1978. It was made three years later in 1981 for,
"his analysis of financial markets and their relations to expenditure decisions, employment, production and prices".
the very building blocks of modern economics.
He looked at the possible difficulties of introducing the tax—many of which have been mentioned by noble Lords—such as evasion, piracy, tax havens and how to administer the tax. Those who now promote the tax know of those problems but can show that they are surmountable, given the international will to make it work.
My noble friend and all who have spoken tonight are concerned with the tax being an opportunity to realise a sizeable sum of money which could be used for world development and the elimination of poverty. Again, there will be snags, not only in collecting the tax
1316
but in allocating and distributing it. The countries where the largest amount of transactions take place—ourselves and the United States—might feel that they have a right to the revenue, or at least to decide on its allocation. But as international collaboration will be essential in imposing the tax, some form of international distribution of the product would be the fairest outcome. As the right reverend Prelate stated, funding the United Nations through the tax is one possibility. That is not particularly popular with the United States at present. There are other, rather more realistic, suggestions which recognise that the countries collecting the tax should be allowed to keep varying proportions of it according to their state of development, with the poorest keeping the most.
To my mind, the most important reason for putting this tax concept on to the official agenda is that it would start the process of considering how to capture a modest share of the wealth which swings rapidly round the world from one country to another, making rich people richer, for the benefit of world society as a whole. Globalisation has allowed capital to escape from national confines. Multinational corporations are now more powerful than all but the largest countries and, through their friends in high places, are setting the rules. I refer, for instance, to the World Trade Organisation and the multilateral agencies. At present, they are having a bonanza, growing ever wealthier while the gap between the rich and the poor widens.
I suggest that a small tax on the most obvious speculators, the short-term currency dealers, is a feasible first step. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree seriously to consider backing the Tobin tax, or one very similar, as a positive step towards a fairer world.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I deeply regret that such a vitally important issue is one for which we have so little time, so I shall make a few short points.
First, I find the idea of the Tobin tax an attractive way of increasing the amount of aid which goes to the developing world. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his excellent introductory speech, said that it is an absolute scandal that the amount of aid is declining. There has been a great deal of waste. However, that is a matter which can be remedied. I believe that every single person in this House could think or any number of forms of aid which would make an enormous difference to the rest of the world. It is an attractive idea to have such a potentially large source of revenue, especially if one arranged, as an incentive, for half the proceeds to go to the country collecting it.
Secondly, I do not take the view that we should not intervene in markets. Sometimes it is argued that markets are efficient and that, with floating exchange rates, one should not intervene. It seems to rue that markets are not efficient. Floating currencies tend to overshoot. One only has to look at the present situation to see that periods of great misalignment are frequent. Not only does one have the example of the

1317
pound and the euro at present; there is the way in which the dollar and the mark moved between 1980 and 1985. The value of the mark halved, although German policy was stable. American policy at that stage was rather lax. Again, if one looks at the period between 1990 to 1995, the dollar halved against the yen, although the Japanese at that stage were already increasing the asset bubble and the United States' policy at that time was rather stable. The market moved completely against economic fundamentals.
There is an idea that international liquidity is a case of Mr Soros carefully considering factors which he has to weigh, and intervening intelligently and rationally. International trade consists of a lot of young men in braces yelling gibberish. They would not know an economic theory if they saw one.
Thirdly, I am rather sceptical about the idea of a great exodus if the major centres were to adopt a Tobin tax. After all, we are not here dealing with a 20 per cent withholding tax but with a proposal for a 0.1 to 0.5 per cent tax. If that is a good idea, I see no reason that the United Kingdom should not join Canada in seeking to convince others to adopt this tax.
If the Tobin tax worked, that would be great. But, for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who knows much more about this than I do, there are a large number of practical problems. I have done a limited amount of reading about the tax, but I am not sure that some of the questions raised have ever really been answered by its advocates. First, would a tax of between 0.1 per cent and 0.5 per cent act as a stabiliser? At times of panic and turbulence, people expect to make far higher margins. It might be the case that there is to be a higher rate only at times of misalignment. However, there is, at present, a constant time of misalignment.
Fourthly, who do we tax? Do we tax the market makers and those who provide liquidity and may provide a service? We would probably have to do that because the tax could not be confined to speculators. What do we tax? Do we tax spot transactions? They would be likely to move into derivatives. I am advised that the ingenious people in the City would soon devise new instruments that could be used or invented to circumvent the tax.
If we are successful in throwing grit into the international wheels of monetary movements, is it wise to decrease liquidity? That is a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and one to which I do not know the answer.
I do not want to be negative about this. I am somewhat sceptical, in the light of those questions, whether the tax would achieve its objectives of stabilising currencies. But I am not sure that that is necessarily an answer to the question. Perhaps we are putting the wrong question. Perhaps the question should not be: will this tax stabilise international currency? But, putting it the other way round, is there evidence that the tax will cause positive harm? If it did not cause positive harm, it would be an attractive way—if we could convince others to do so—of raising
1318
the money for what we are all agreed are the most worthwhile of ends. It would have the great advantage of providing an independent mechanism for raising such funds with an incentive for countries to raise funds for themselves as well, and it would no longer make us dependent on the generosity of individual nations, which has not been greatly evidenced in the past.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on securing this debate.
The arguments in favour of a Tobin tax are tantalising. Who could disagree with the view that:
"Other reforms of the international economic architecture are needed but the Tobin Tax is a start … It would help calm the markets and reduce purely speculative transfers without interfering in legitimate trade and, as a bonus, it could generate cash to undo some of the harm done by the global gamblers".
If only it were that simple. As Richard Colbey put it:
"Attractive though such a tax may seem, the difficulties in implementing it would be enormous".
But it is not only its implementation that causes difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, pointed out, it is all but impossible that it would achieve its two primary and substantive objectives.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I pay tribute to Oxfam for its work in this area and for the contributions from some of its stalwarts in today's debate. It pointed out that,
"Economists are divided as to whether a currency transaction tax significantly reduces systemic instability in foreign exchange markets … the beneficial effect of the tax on its own should not be overstated".
And,
"The most politically viable tax proposal would allow revenue-collecting governments to keep most of the money, with perhaps a small contribution going to development … it is probably necessary to sacrifice to some degree the development financing aspect, keeping the proposals and expectations modest".
But what of the practicability of the tax? The noble Lord, Lord Judd, alluded to the work of Paul Bernd Spahn in this area. He observed that,
"As a pure transaction tax, the Tobin tax would not be effective … [it] would impair the operations of the international financial markets and create liquidity problems without deterring speculation".
He goes on to suggest four crucial areas where the effectiveness of the tax is constrained. The first is the tax base. In order to limit financial market distortions, a Tobin tax would have to be imposed on all foreign exchange trading. But such a base would not be able to distinguish between speculative trades—its real target—and normal trading. Perversely, the effect of that could be to create, rather than prevent, currency instability and reduce the capacity of international financial markets to engender economic growth in less developed nations.
The second area is taxable transactions. The presumption is that a Tobin tax would apply to all spot transactions involving foreign currencies. The first point here is substitutability. To avoid the tax, all the

1319
markets would have to do would be to switch to alternative trading mechanisms, notably derivatives. As E.V.K. Fitzgerald observed,
"Ironically, it is the sophisticated traders who will be best equipped to use alternate instruments to avoid the tax; the same traders who are the prime target of the tax".
Moreover, as Rodney Schmidt puts it,
"unless a world-wide uniform tax is imposed on all instruments for transacting in foreign currency, the tax will be largely ineffective".
And, as a corollary to global coverage, it would be necessary to obtain international consensus. Were a tax to be introduced piecemeal, those participating in foreign exchange markets could simply transfer their operations to jurisdictions where it was not levied. That would neutralise the desired objective of stability in the currency markets.
This issue cannot simply be reduced to a matter of political will. It is unrealistic to expect the world's major financial centres to view the prospect of a tax, which could see a loss of jobs, a fall in international trade and a mass relocation of their industry, with equanimity.
The third area is the tax rate. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others explained, what is proposed is a rate as little as 0.25 per cent on the value of currency trades. Although that would generate considerable revenue, there has to be doubt about the efficacy of such a small tax. The size and volume of foreign exchange markets are such that the potential returns from trading would outweigh a transaction cost set at such a low rate. Bluntly, at such a level it would be unlikely to deter speculative trading.
The fourth area is the distribution of tax revenues. If we accept that the tax is international in character, requiring international co-ordination to set and enforce the rules, by inference the revenue it raises must also be international in character. That logic justifies the concept that the proceeds of the tax should be hypothecated for "world development". Inevitably, that runs into the buffers of whether or not nation states should retain authority over their own tax revenues. It also raises the prospect of conferring considerable power on the international organisation to which the tax revenues were assigned, which would inevitably arouse national resentments. Nor is it possible to be entirely sanguine about the effectiveness of supra-national organisations in delivering aid to where it is needed. I have in mind particularly that both the UN and the EU have been exposed to criticism on that front in recent times.
By no means do we on these Benches belittle the worthy ambitions of those who advocate a Tobin tax. Nor do we gainsay the moral imperative that underpins it. In its own terms, there is no more deserving cause than the desire to do what we can to reduce levels of poverty and deprivation in the world. But the reality is that a Tobin tax struggles vainly to live up to its promise. While we could all wish it were not so, there really is no pot of gold at the end of this particular rainbow at the moment.
8.16 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, this has been a short but well-informed debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Judd on inspiring these excellent contributions.
In the time available I should like, first, to agree with everybody who talked about the dangers of currency market instability; then to talk about the benefits of globalisation but to worry as to whether or not the benefits have converted themselves into an effective policy for reducing poverty. Then I want to talk about what we, the British Government, and through us the international community, are doing about strengthening the international financial architecture, about debt relief and aid programmes. Then I should like to turn to the Tobin tax itself; its economic implications; whether it would achieve its goal of reducing instability; and how it could be implemented, if at all. I want to conclude by referring to the wording of the Question and the research for which it calls.
Let me start with the agreement. Of course it is an enormously valuable objective to reduce international market instability. All of the figures quoted in relation to currency transactions and the way in which they dwarf not just world trade in goods and services, but also equity transactions, show how enormously they have increased since James Tobin first proposed the tax in 1978. The size of the currency transaction markets increases the danger of the kind of recent turmoil we saw in the Asian markets and, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, reminded us, subsequently in Brazil. Those crises certainly highlight the weaknesses in the global financial system.
So we share the desire for more stable capital markets which are better placed to deliver the economic growth and development that poorer countries need. I was as amused as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, by my noble friend Lord Judd quoting Soros on the dangers of instability. I thought that that was the poacher turned preacher, rather than gamekeeper, in this case. It is certainly true that it would quite irresponsible for us not to look for every possible policy tool to deliver greater stability. It would be irresponsible not to consider the Tobin tax as one option for that purpose.
However, more fundamentally, it is important that we should avoid the fashionable temptation to knock globalisation. The increases in cross-border activities that we saw in the last half of what we must now call the last century—trade, capital flows and foreign direct investment—have produced rapid rises in global output and wealth. It is very difficult to argue that they have not at the very least permitted, if not caused, such rapid rises in global output and wealth. In the past 20 years alone, world trade rose from 2,000 billion dollars a year to 5,500 billion dollars a year. World foreign direct investment inflows rose from 55 billion dollars to 640 billion dollars. At the same time, world GDP rose from 10,000 billion dollars to almost 30,000 billion dollars. For every trade or investment transaction there is a corresponding capital flow.

1321
Trade or investment transactions take place in an atmosphere—a sea, if you like—of currency flows. So the GDP growth that we have experienced would not have been possible without the oxygen of open capital markets.
However, it is disappointing that the benefits of globalisation have not been translated into comparable falls in poverty. Yes, the number of people in developing and transitional economies in abject poverty has declined; but the falls have been terribly small in comparison with what ought to have happened. That is why I want to say something about what the Government are doing with our international partners on measures to spread the benefits of globalisation more fairly. However, I wish to do so in the context of saying that it would be quite wrong to retreat from globalisation and to deny the poorest countries the development opportunities from which we have benefited.
National governments depend for investment funds on the day-to-day confidence of international investors. So they must pursue consistent and credible policies that guarantee stability. In 1998, the G7 took international action rather rapidly and very decisively to deal with the financial crises of that year. We held the G7 presidency that year and took a leading role in developing long-term disciplines to promote greater stability—a new framework of rules that effectively and fairly met the demands of the global market place—which had to be agreed nationally and applied internationally.
Over the past 18 months we have made significant progress in four key reforms of the international financial architecture: first, a framework of internationally agreed codes and standards, to be implemented by all countries that participate in the international financial system; secondly, global financial regulation, to make the international and national bodies responsible for financial sector supervision work together more effectively—the Financial Stability Forum was established in April of last year and it could become the world's early warning system for regional and global financial market risk; thirdly, a new framework for crisis prevention and crisis resolution, based on a partnership between the public and private sectors; and, fourthly, a framework of new social principles. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Timms, set out the detail of those reforms in a debate on the Tobin tax in another place on 18th April.
I turn now to other government measures. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred to debt relief and the work of Jubilee 2000. I also pay tribute to those involved in that work, but the advance that has been made has come about more particularly because of action by the IMF and the World Bank, under very considerable pressure from our Chancellor of the Exchequer. The heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) agreement reached at Cologne last year set out to cancel 100 billion dollars of developing countries' debt. We are working for faster, wider and deeper debt relief. Our initiative is to give 100 per cent debt relief
1322
to every country that qualifies under the HIPC initiative. We are still at the forefront of efforts to persuade our international partners to meet these agreed targets. We know that this is necessary in order to break the vicious circle of debt, poverty and economic decline and, instead, create a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction and economic development.
On aid programmes, I was glad to have recognition from my noble friend Lord Judd of the outstanding way in which DfID has performed during the past three years. But I am sorry to have to agree with him that other countries have not performed in the same way. In addition to the increase in budget, we have focused our programmes on the poorest people in the poorest countries. Our bilateral programmes are structured to deliver our key goal of halving the proportion of people in absolute poverty by 2015. Between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 the aid budget will rise by 28 per cent in real terms.
We are also taking forward the reform agenda at the international institutions, including the comprehensive development framework being developed by the World Bank. If we add this to the implementation of the social principles to which I have already referred, we can see that this is the right approach towards reducing the proportion of people living in extreme poverty. So strengthening the international financial architecture, relieving debt and improving development aid are proper responses to the challenges that have been so movingly described. They will help to achieve our shared objective of more stable financial markets, consistent with economic growth.
But what about the Tobin tax? Problems arise with economic implications with regard to its ability to reduce instability and, of course, with its implementation. I am afraid that there is a danger that it could introduce serious economic distortions to the international financial system. The problem is that some currency transactions reflect pure speculation and contribute to financial crises, while others help economic adjustment and stabilise markets. But a Tobin tax could not distinguish which was which; the danger is that it would slow the adjustment of financial markets and slow recovery from a crisis. Artificially slowing market adjustments to genuine price shocks might actually have a higher economic cost than rapid adjustment.
As to reducing instability, I believe that many of the advocates of a Tobin tax have actually moved away from that argument, because it is not clear that a modest tax would actually have much effect. Indeed, enough has been said by other speakers tonight, so there is no need for me to expand on that point. However, it might actually increase market stability. The latter depends on efficiency and price transparency, which, in turn, depend on capital liquidity. A tax which successfully reduced the overall number of trades—which is what would be necessary if we were going to reduce instability—could diminish liquidity, reduce market efficiency and transparency and actually increase volatility.

1323
What about implementation? I am afraid that a number of noble Lords—starting with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, continuing with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and then the noble Earl, Lord Northesk—really put the boot into the tax rather more forcefully than I am prepared to do. But I am afraid it is not good enough to point out, like my noble friend Lord Judd, that 80 per cent of these transactions are in nine countries. Currencies can be traded anywhere in the world; capital markets can move quickly. If we had a tax, a serious one, traders would simply move their activities to regimes which might perhaps be located offshore. Driving the markets offshore to less well-regulated financial centres would add to the instability of the financial system. Therefore, we would need to have international agreement. Even if we did not, the situation would encourage traders to develop derivatives or other financial instruments that could be traded without tax liability. From that, we might move to derivatives of derivatives, and so on. I am sorry, I would like to think that it would work but I cannot believe that it can.
We are, of course, pleased to see that War on Want and Oxfam are engaged in this debate. We are pleased that the debate has encouraged so much academic research. However, we must live in the real world. There is not a multilateral mechanism for establishing a Tobin tax. We shall keep in touch with developments in the debate but we are not convinced that an official inquiry of the kind asked for would be a good use of public resources.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he say whether the Government are prepared to consider an inquiry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have just said that I am sorry to say that we are not convinced that an official inquiry would be a good use of public resources.

Postal Services Bill
8.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 44 [Review and information]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 28, line 35, after ("States") insert ("of the European Community").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 35 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 36. Clause 44 provides for the commission to gather information about postal services in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. When the clause was considered in Committee in another place, the words "other member States" were not included. Therefore Clause 44(1)(a) and (b) simply referred to,
"the United Kingdom and elsewhere".
1324
My honourable friend the Member for Rutland and Melton proposed amendments to add the words "the European Community" after "United Kingdom". I shall explain in a few moments why he chose to use the words "European Community" rather than "European Union". At first the Minister responsible for competition in the other place rejected the amendment. He did so on the ground that "elsewhere" covers the European Community as well as the rest of the world. However, later in the same debate he relented. He said that a speech by my honourable friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire had almost made him change his mind. He said,
"We shall reconsider the drafting of the clause so that we can deal with that valid point on Report".
The Committee will note the words "valid point". The Government were almost as good as their word and added three words. The two paragraphs now refer to,
"the United Kingdom, other member States and elsewhere".
The three words that were added were "other member States". But unless I have missed a definition somewhere during my repeated reading of the Bill, there is no definition of "member states". Member states are members of what—the EC or the EU, the Commonwealth, the United Nations, NATO, or what?
At a meeting I had with the Minister, which he kindly granted on Monday, it was suggested that the definition was to be found in the Interpretation Act 1978. After that meeting I scoured that Act line by line, not once but three times, the final time running down every page with a ruler. I simply could not find the definition. Perhaps it had been added to the text of that Bill by some later Bill; or perhaps, not being a lawyer, I have stupidly overlooked it anyway.
The point is that if I, actively looking where I was told to look, cannot readily find it, how can arty other ordinary citizen be expected to do so? What is even more to the point, why should anyone wanting to consult the Act have to trawl through the statute book to discover what this provision means?
The words "European Community" and "European Union" are not ineffable phrases to be uttered only by the High Priest. I accept that there are Members on both sides of this Chamber and of the other place who can say them only through clenched teeth, but there is no reason why the Government should be so coy and leave an ambiguity in the Bill. They were not frightened to say exactly what they meant in the Explanatory Notes provided by the Department of Trade and Industry where it states:
"Clause 44 requires the Commission to keep under review and collect information about the provision of postal services in the United Kingdom, other member States of the European Community and elsewhere".
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 simply plug the hole and say exactly what they are talking about, a:nd more fully cover what the Minister in the other place admitted was a valid point.
The reason I have used the phrase "European Community" rather than "European Union" is that that is the wording that my honourable friend used in

1325
his amendment in the other place. He did so because, as he explained, the European Community is one of the components of the European Union.
Pursuant to EU legislation, it is Community institutions which undertake measures which relate to the single market, including the continuing review of postal services. My honourable friend insisted that he was not just engaging in what he called "techno-babble". He just wanted to ensure that the focus of the review and the collection of information entrusted to the commission was well directed. Indeed he could have gone further and pointed out that "European Community" was the phrase used in the Government's own notes to this clause that I have just referred to. All that I ask for is the addition of four little words. They will not bring down the whole edifice of this Bill. Superfluous or not, they will make it clearer to the man in the street and to this Peer at the Dispatch Box.
Earlier I mentioned to the Minister that I was surprised that he did not feel able to humour me on a simple, non-controversial amendment. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will feel able to humour me and accept these two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is clearly not only men who believe in belt and braces; my noble friend clearly also believes in them.
As a Member of the House—I am sure that there are many others in the Chamber at present—who is a member of one of the sub-committees of the European Union Committee (I sit on Sub-Committee B which considers energy, industry and transport), I am well aware that there is another draft directive from Brussels winging its way towards the committee office. Doubtless I shall consider it in due course.
My noble friend is quite right to say that, thanks to the activities of my honourable friend in another place, this Bill now belatedly refers to member states of the European Community. She rightly says that the technical term ought to be "European Union" but, none the less, some analogous words most certainly ought to be included in the Bill.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The term "member States" means member states of the European Communities. This is the legal interpretation of this phrase according to the Interpretation Act 1978. I may have inadvertently wasted some of the noble Baroness's time on this matter. That Act applies the definitions in the European Communities Act 1972. The definition of the term is to be found in Schedule 1. I hope that I can rather belatedly direct the Committee in the right direction.
I do not believe that many people on the Clapham Omnibus seek the definitions we are discussing. However, legislation should be interpreted by reference to the Interpretation Act. We have not defined this term because, where terms or expressions are defined in the Interpretation Act, they are not defined in the Bill. Under the Interpretation Act, the only definition of "member States" refers to member
1326
states of the European Communities. All Acts of Parliament must be construed in accordance with the Interpretation Act. This ensures consistent construction of particular words and phrases.
I am sympathetic to the spirit of Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. However, I believe that we should adhere to the proper way of drafting this legislation. I therefore ask that Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 be withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: It is very good of the Minister to be sympathetic towards me. However, I do not think that that is quite the same as humouring me. Having said that, I understand how interpretations and words have to be correct.
It is a great pity that I was referred to the Interpretation Act 1978. The noble Lord was right gently to apologise for wasting my time. Research facilities are available to the Opposition as they are to the Government. I am dealing with a large number of amendments and I think my time is extraordinarily precious; I regret having to go up and down three times—and with a ruler no less. In the end I could not believe that it was so impossible to find.
I accept from the Minister that the man on the Clapham omnibus will certainly not trawl through this Bill, the Interpretation Acts and so on; I understand that totally. Having received that information from the Minister, I gladly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troonmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 28, line 37, at end insert ("including comparative information on the efficiency and economy of the provision of such services").
The noble Lord said: I notice that my Amendment No. 37 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 38 and 39; I had not noticed that before.
As the Minister knows, I was asked to table this amendment by the Periodical Publishers Association, of which I happen to be vice-president because of my previous activities as a publisher of engineering magazines, among other things.
It is a very mild amendment. It follows from conversations between the PPA and a variety of organisations, including the Ministry, the commission and other relevant bodies. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak at Second Reading—it would have saved some time today—but I wrote to the Minister stating more or less what I would have said had I spoken in the debate. I gave him to understand that I would very likely bring forward an amendment of this kind. My letter used the same words as I have put down tonight.
I am happy to say that I received an extremely courteous letter from the Minister, which did not surprise me. It dealt with my arguments and threw them into the long grass with considerable vigour. It pointed out that my amendment was not wanted. The

1327
letter ended with a well-known Whitehall phrase, with which many members of the Committee will be familiar. It stated:
"I hope that this reply is helpful".
I do not know whether I should like to receive a letter from the Minister when he is trying to be unhelpful. But there we are; I know what he meant. The fundamental argument was that my very modest amendment—it is so modest to be almost feeble; I am slightly ashamed to table such a feeble amendment; I have never done so before—was thought to be too prescriptive. I understand that line of argument, but quite a few parts of the Bill already are prescriptive. For example under Clauses 4 and 5 the commission is obliged to do a number of the things listed. One cannot get more prescriptive than obliging someone to do something. Look also at Clauses 11 to 14, which deal with licensing. To my mind, those clauses are fairly prescriptive.
In any case, what is so terrible about being prescriptive? Is not that what governments are sometimes for? Are they not supposed to be prescriptive? Are they not quite often prescriptive? I understand the Minister's position on this occasion. It is one I have come across before when dealing with Ministers from whatever side of the House I happen to be sitting on at the time. The philosophy is quite simple. The Government—I should blame the Government rather than the Minister—are quite willing to be prescriptive when they want to be, but they are unwilling to be prescriptive when I want them to be. I know that argument; I have come across it many times.
Perhaps I may say something about the background which gives rise to this amendment. It derives from the activities of magazine publishers. Magazine publishing is very big business nowadays—much bigger than it was 20 or 30 years ago—and magazine publishers are important customers of the Post Office. In the region of 700 million magazines are posted every year—and mostly read, I suppose—which costs the industry approximately £250 million in postage. It is the Post Office's third largest revenue stream. That surprised me, but it seems to be the case. So the magazine industry is a very important customer.
Over the past 10 years the cost of deliveries by Royal Mail has risen from about a third of the non-editorial costs to about half. It is a substantial burden on the industry. The PPA believes that economies could be made which could possibly lead to a reduction in these rather heavy postage charges. It would like to see safeguards in the Bill such as would arise from my amendment.
The PPA has had discussions with officials of the commission, which appears to accept that comparisons between the charges of the Post Office and the charges of other deliverers should be made. The commission stated:
"Because collecting comparative efficiency data will be part of our work we do not in practice see any difficulties with the amendment you now propose".
1328
So the commission is happy with the amendment; I am happy with the amendment; the PPA is happy with the amendment; and I am quite sure that the Minister, having had time to think it over, will also be happy with the amendment.
It is a modest amendment which would strengthen the Bill and allay the fears of the magazine industry which is, as I say, one of the Post Office's biggest revenue providers. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I rather suspect, from the utterances we have had from the Government Front Bench this afternoon, that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will find it better to travel in hope than to arrive. However, we shall see.
The noble Lord is absolutely right: £250 million in postage revenue is a very important source of money to the Post Office. The PPA already has the option of sending its publications in bulk to Germany, Holland, Italy or wherever, and having them sent back to individual addresses in this country. Or, indeed, it could be even braver if it wanted to be and have its magazines printed abroad in, for instance, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong or where have you—perhaps not Hong Kong, where wages are rather higher than in the other two countries I mentioned—and sent to individual British addresses from there.
But there is another reason that this amendment should be considered with a modicum of favour. The Minister referred earlier—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—to a level playing field. The commission wants to be assured that the British Post Office is operating on a level playing field with its competitors. If anything can be done in terms of efficiency and economy and a spur can be given by the commission as a result of its investigations of post offices in other member states or indeed elsewhere in the universal postal union, that should certainly happen. I am rather worried that the Minister will say that collecting information about the provision of these services could include provision about efficiency and economy, but the provision does not say the commission has to. It can ignore that totally. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that that would be a great mistake.
Viscount Goschen: I rise to support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. As ever, I was entirely swayed by his arguments. He is right that this is a modest but important amendment. It is difficult to understand how it could actually be argued against. There can be only two arguments. One is that it is bad to collect comparative information, so it should not be done, or it is a waste of time and therefore the provision is over-prescriptive. I do not believe that it is either. I think that it would be very difficult for the commission to do its job without performing this specific function. We should make sure that the commission is fully aware by a statutory provision of how important it is to ensure a level playing field and to look at comparative measures of how other operators are performing. It needs to do that in order to perform its job. Placing that

1329
requirement on the face of the Bill will just make it clearer. I hope that the Minister does not have "resist" underlined in heavy type on his brief, because I really think that the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is modest and sensible.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister will not be surprised to know that I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie. It is grouped with my two amendments, Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, which have practically the same purpose. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, described his amendment as modest. I did not withdraw my amendments and instead left them on the Marshalled List because I thought that they were slightly wider than modest. Perhaps the different characteristics of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and myself mean that I do not want to have amendments which are quite so modest. However, I want him to know that I support his amendment, although believing that it needs to go a little further.
While on my feet, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 which are in the same group. In subsection (4) the commission is told to make the information available to the council and in subsection (5) it is told to make the information available to the Secretary of State. However, the information that it is instructed to gather under subsection (1)(a) and (b) is somewhat limited in scope and in my view somewhat limited in use. The additional requirement is that the commission shall in effect collate and analyse the information so that a useful, indeed a vital, comparison of postal service providers can be made; otherwise, I do not know the purpose of going to all this trouble. It would be a comparison regarded as impartial and distinct from any claims made in advertising or in any application for a new licence by any provider. I really do not believe that any further explanation of Amendment No. 38 is necessary. I simply hope that the Government will regard it as a constructive improvement to the Bill.
Amendment No. 39 is equally short and simple. It is intended to remedy an omission from Clause 45. The clause requires the commission to make an annual report to the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) lists the matters which specifically the annual report must contain. By implication the report can of course also contain anything else that the commission decides at its discretion to include. In addition to the specific items listed in the subsection, there is a sweep-up paragraph (e) authorising the Secretary of State to specify other matters to be included in the report.
What is missing from this wide range of subjects, which I assume the Government in their wisdom intended to be comprehensive, is a report on the information that is gathered under Clause 44(1)(a), which requires the commission to collate information about the operation of postal services. As I pointed out in relation to the amendment I proposed to that clause, the commission reports on the information it has gathered to the Secretary of State. There is nowhere a
1330
requirement that these data are necessarily put into the public domain. All the amendment does is to ensure that the commission's annual report contains that information. There is not much point in going to all the trouble of gathering all this information only to find that it stays in one place and benefits no one. I am briefed by the same people who briefed the noble Lord, Lord Howie, but funnily enough I put down my amendment before I received the briefing. I was able to telephone them and say that my amendment was down and that they would see it tomorrow.
Lord Sharman: We seem to have a competition going on this evening in terms of who can be the most diffident and who can be the most modest, which is an encouraging development in this Chamber. I want to make a comment on this matter because I think that these amendments seek to raise the issue of value for money. Value for money is more than just economy and efficiency. It includes effectiveness as well. In that respect we need to look at the amendments in a broader sense. Value for money is what should be concerning us rather than just economy and efficiency. I think that it is a broader issue but it is relevant. I should also say that I am not sure that putting all that information into the public domain is the best thing. That is what the management of the corporation ought to be about. The management should not be concerned with it and the commission should be concerned about it, but I am not sure that the public at large would be able to interpret it.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The underlying purpose of these amendments is to require the commission to compare the efficiency and economy of licence holders with other postal operators, most probably by using "benchmarking" which, as discussed in the other place, is a way of carrying out comparative analysis. In principle I see nothing wrong with that. Benchmarking is a valuable business and regulatory tool. I would imagine that the Post Office and the commission will both use if for their own purposes. I am sure that it would be useful for the commission in carrying out its functions under Clause 5(3) on promoting the efficiency and economy of postal operators and in deciding upon any price control mechanism.
However, the effect of these amendments would be to create a very specific duty. They would fetter the discretion of the commission. There is a distinction to be made here between being prescriptive about the duties of the commission and being prescriptive about the way they are carried out. For that reason the wording has been kept more general.
Amendment No. 38 specifies that the commission should carry out such a comparison on an annual basis. I do not think it very helpful to set an arbitrary timescale. We have avoided doing so elsewhere with respect to the commission's and the council's functions as, again, we do not want to fetter their discretion.
We have said many times that our intention in the Bill is to set up an independent regulator. That is what we have sought to do. Of course if the Periodical Publishers Association would like to see

1331
benchmarking, and indeed the commission would also, I can see nothing wrong in them getting together and benchmarking. However, there does not seem to be any disagreement about what we would want the commission to do. So on the basis of being helpful in its true sense, rather than the Civil Service sense, I shall take the amendment away and consider it.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am a little disappointed with the Minister's reply because I expected him to turn me down completely. He has now unhinged me. I do not know quite what to say next, but I shall try to think of something while the Committee waits patiently!
I was extremely pleased by the support I received from those on the other side of the Committee. I know all three of them, sensible people as they are. They have gone up in my estimation yet again. On the Liberal Democrat intervention, I was under the impression that value for money was embraced by efficiency and economy, hut perhaps I am wrong. I am not an economist. I am grateful for the Minister's reply, although it has shaken me a little. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Annual and other reports: the Commission]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 40 to 43:
Page 29, line 31, leave out ("arrange for") and insert ("publish").
Page 29, line 31, leave out ("to be published").
Page 29, line 34, leave out ("arrange for") and insert ("publish").
Page 29, line 34, leave out ("to be published").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Publication of information and advice: the Commission]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 30, line 3, leave out (", or arrange the publication of,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Power of the Commission to require information]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 30, line 20, leave out ("any person") and insert ("the Council, a universal service provider or any licence holder under Part II who is not a universal service provider").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 45 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 46. I believe that these are two of the most important amendments to the Bill. They deal with collective
1332
provisions seeking to give the commission excessive and unnecessary powers, with draconian penalties in case of any default.
As drawn, the clause flies in the face of the Government's stated policy as outlined in the White Paper. Paragraph 18 on page 24 states:
"The UK postal market outside the statutory monopoly is a vibrant, competitive market … It is therefore the Government's intention that regulation should focus on those who are operating within the monopoly area, leaving the rest of the market to operate as they do now in a largely unregulated environment"
The clause as drafted involves anybody, including those persons who are not even in the postal business. Again, I quote from the White Paper at paragraph 32 on page 28:
"The Regulator will have the power to require information relevant to the exercise of its functions from the Post Office and other operators licensed to operate within the monopoly".
Note the phrase,
"other operators licensed to operate within the monopoly".
It does not say "any business", as stated in subsection (2) of Clause 47.
Even since the publication of the White Paper the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has consistently maintained that the extension of the regulator's powers outside the licensed area is unnecessary. In a letter dated 31st July 1999 to the chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State said:
"I do not believe that it is either right or necessary for the Postal Services Commission to have power to require information from the commercial sector, where it is operating outside the monopoly".
If it is unnecessary for the commission to require information from the 4,000 businesses that the Secretary of State says operate in what may loosely be described as the mail delivery industry, why does it require power to acquire documents and powers from anybody operating any business?
The amendments are designed to eliminate that massive over-kill which imports wide powers to intrude into areas where the commission has no business. Clause 47(1) relates to the production of documents by "any person". "Any person" means what it says, even perhaps any one of your Lordships, no matter whether the person served with the notice has any connection, however remote, with either the supply or receipt of postal services. I cannot imagine why the Government have sought such wide-sweeping, all-embracing powers to produce documents of any kind, with the exception of those privileged under subsection (4)(a) of Clause 47.
Briefly, I turn to Clause 47(2) which is the corresponding provision that requires not the production of documents but the supply of information, again by,
"any person who carries on any business".
That is not confined to those businesses involved in the supply or receipt of postal services. It widely covers any business, even the local pizza parlour which runs a delivery service.

1333
My two amendments bring those persons who are required to supply documents and information to the commission exactly into line with Clause 58, where the counterpart provisions require information to be supplied to the Consumer Council by the commission, a universal service provider and any licence holder under Part II who is not a universal service provider, and not any person carrying on any business. There can be absolutely no justification for a distinction between the two categories of persons liable to supply information and documents, especially when under Clause 48 such a person is liable to a criminal conviction and substantial financial penalties and costs.
In the other place it was suggested by my honourable friend the Member for Rutland and Melton that the Bill, as drafted, and the draconian penalties for which it provides, infringed human rights legislation, despite the Secretary of State's certificate to the contrary. In reply the Minister said that,
"the level of fines have been approved by the Home Office".
I suppose that makes it all right then!
I shall now refer to the arguments against the identical amendments when they were tabled in Committee in another place. The Minister for competition conceded that the phrase "any person" had a wide definition. By implication, therefore, we may take it that he conceded that any business had a similar wide connotation. He said that the commission could require people to provide information,
"if it is investigating the offence of operating in the reserved area without a licence under Clause 6".
He went on to list three other purposes for which information might be required. He stated:
"It can require information only for those specific purposes".
That is what he said, but the Bill does not contain such a limitation. It simply refers to any person and to any business with absolutely no limitation.
On being pressed by my honourable friend, the Member for Rutland and Melton, the Minister assured him that the relevant purpose qualified the words "any person" and, I assume by implication, that means that it also qualifies the words "any business" and that the provisions refer only to licence holders and universal service operators or persons suspected of being in breach of the conditions. Why does not the Bill expressly say that, bearing in mind the powers of entry and seizure under a magistrate's warrant that are provided by Clause 49?
The Government may say that the effect of the clause is limited, but so long as "relevant purpose" is not defined, it will be open to an official of the commission to launch a fishing expedition on the basis of Humpty Dumpty's dictum that words can mean precisely what one chooses them to mean.
We do not wish to see the humble owner of a pizza delivery service or even the mighty Tesco being harassed for details of their operations, or being faced with threats of criminal sanctions, or of having to go to court to protect themselves from what I should like
1334
to describe as illegal snooping. If, as the Minister in the other place conceded, the effect of these two subsections is limited, then let the Government agree to spell out what are those limitations here and now, in clear language. I do not, of course, expect the Minister to do that tonight, but I certainly would like him to undertake to do it at the next stage of the proceedings. Alternatively, if the Minister does not feel that that is necessary and if he feels more conciliatory, he could accept the amendments tonight and so put the matter beyond any doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I agree that it may appear at first sight that this provision gives a large remit to the commission to require information from people who are outside the scope of the reserved area. However, there is a good reason for that. When the provision is examined in detail, one can see that it applies only on a very limited basis.
One of the commission's duties is to license people to operate within the reserved area. It also has the power, contained in Clause 6, to prosecute anyone operating in the reserved area without a licence and not falling within the exceptions set out in Clause 7. Given that the commission has that duty and power, it also needs powers to police the reserved area.
The effect of these amendments would be, first, that anyone operating illegally in the reserved area without a licence would not have to give any information to the commission. Clearly that could be a dangerous loophole. Effectively, that would allow exactly the kind of people from whom we want to get information to get away.
Secondly, Clause 47 allows information to be gathered only "for any relevant purpose". It is worth explaining the relevant purposes for which the commission can require information under Clause 47. It is important to emphasise that the clause applies to "any person", but only for specific and limited purposes, as set out in the clause; namely, investigating the offence of operating without a licence in the reserved area or any proceedings for such an offence, as set out in Clause 6; for the purpose of exercising its functions in relation to breach of licence conditions under the new licensing regime, contained in Clauses 22,23,24 and 30; providing advice and information on public post offices, as set out in Clause 42; collecting information on standards of performance achieved by licence holders and USO providers, as set out in Clause 44(3); or collecting information on behalf of the council for the latter to carry out its function, as set out in Clause 44(4).
I believe that the Committee will see that these purposes are limited and, more important, are vital to the role and duties of the commission. I do not believe that the amendments would be to the benefit of postal users. As I have said, they would allow people operating in the reserved area illegally not to need to give information to the commission. Having set out those points, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Viscount Goschen: I have listened carefully to the reasoned arguments of the noble Lord about why the

1335
commission needs to be able to apply this provision to a wide range of people. However, the Minister focused on the issue of operators whom the commission might suspect of operating illegally and thus contravening a number of the provisions he mentioned.
But the drafting of the clause is extremely wide:
"The Commission may, for any relevant purpose, serve notice on any person".
Is there not a strong argument that says that the provision should be more focused, that the type of circumstances should be explained and put on the face of the Bill within the clause to make it clearer in what type of circumstances the commission may exercise the wide powers that are proposed for it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I hope that I have made two points clear. One is that, if accepted, the amendments would leave a substantial loophole which could be exploited by unlicensed operators. Secondly, as I hope I made clear, the power be used only in very specific circumstances. Given those circumstances, the provision is narrowly drawn. I believe it provides the right balance between giving operators enough information and not leaving it open to them to obtain any information that is not relevant.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reasonable explanation. I want to read it carefully, because I was concerned with the width of the amendment. If the noble Lord is saying that only unlicensed operators doing something criminal would not be caught if my amendment were accepted, clearly, I shall not press it. However, I shall examine the Minister's response to make sure that the difficulties that I have tried to highlight are covered; or I shall return with a different kind of amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Powers of entry and seizure]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 32, line 13, leave out (" 95(2)") and insert ("(Inviolability of mails)(2)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and those grouped with it are brought forward, as promised in another place, to clarify the provisions in the Bill relating to interference with the mail and the connected provisions concerning inviolability and conditions of transit of postal packets. These amendments have required careful consideration but we hope that they now make all the provisions clear.
Amendment No. 47 is a technical amendment to Clause 49 consequent on the deletion of Clause 95(2) and its replacement by subsection (2) of the new provisions on inviolability in Amendment No. 102.
1336
Amendment No. 74 restricts the offence in Clause 83 in respect of mail bags to intentionally opening. There is no need to cover intentionally delaying a mail bag since, if it contains postal packets, an offence will be committed in any event. Delaying an empty mail bag should be an offence.
Amendment No. 75 amends Clause 83 to include a number of cases where delaying or opening a postal packet or opening a mail bag is not to be an offence: first, if this Bill or another enactment provides appropriate authority; secondly, where there is authority from a directly applicable Community provision; and, thirdly., where the terms and conditions applicable to the packet's transmission by post allow such actions. There is also an exception for delay caused by industrial action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute (as defined in subsection 1D). This was a matter that caused some concern when the clause was debated in another place and we are happy to offer this clarification.
Amendment No. 76 amends Clause 84, which applies to persons other than those engaged in the business of a postal operator, in the same way as Amendment No. 74 amended Clause 83 so that delaying a mail bag is not in itself an offence. Delaying a postal packet in a mail bag will be an offence.
Amendment No. 77 provides for the new exceptions to the offence in Clause 83 set out in subsections (1A) to (1D) in Amendment No. 75 to apply also to the offence in Clause 84.
Amendment No. 78 amends Clause 84 to add a new subsection to make it clear that the offences in Clause 84(2) of opening a postal packet without reasonable excuse and intending to act to a person's detriment, by a person who knows or reasonably suspects the packet has been wrongly delivered to him, will not apply where opening is under the authority of this Act or another enactment; where there is authority from a directly applicable Community provision; or where the terms and conditions applicable to the transmission by post of the packet allow such actions.
Amendment No. 88 deletes subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 95. These provisions are replaced by the new provisions on inviolability of the mail set out in Amendment No. 102.
Amendment No. 102 inserts the provisions concerning inviolability of the mail. It extends the protection previously afforded to postal packets carried by the Post Office to those carried by all postal operators. It provides postal packets in the course of transmission by post with the same immunity from examination, seizure or detention under a relevant power conferred by this Bill or any other enactment; from seizure under distress or in execution (or in Scotland any diligence); and from retention by virtue of a lien that they would have if they were the property of the Crown.
Postal packets carried by the Post Office have always had such protection and the amendment recognises that in today's market, where there are many postal operators, that protection should be extended to all postal packets. There are, however,

1337
exceptions to the general presumption that the mail is inviolable and these are set out in subsection (3). Subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State power to modify by order subsection (3) to enable the protections to be extended or narrowed to ensure that they are appropriate now and in the future.
Amendments Nos. 106 to 109 amend Clause 105, which deals with the conditions of transit of postal packets. The amendments clarify what action a postal operator may take in relation to a postal packet which he knows, or reasonably suspects, is being sent by post in contravention of Clause 85 of the Bill. Clause 85 prohibits the sending of certain articles through the post, including indecent or obscene material, and any article, creature or thing of any kind likely to injure a postal operator's employees or other postal packets.
Amendment No. 106 removes the words "if necessary" from Clause 105. On reflection, the Government consider that these words are superfluous as it is likely that a postal operator will always consider it necessary to detain a postal packet if he knows or suspects that it is being sent in contravention of Clause 85.
Amendment No. 107 removes the words "in the post office" from Clause 105. The Government consider that to restrict the opening of postal packets to post offices will not always be appropriate. For example, it would not be appropriate to require that a postal operator should open a postal packet that contains filth or a noxious substance in a post office.
Amendment No. 108 expressly provides that a postal operator can destroy or otherwise dispose of postal packets that it knows or suspects are being sent in contravention of Clause 85. Such a power is considered appropriate to allow the postal operator to destroy or dispose of postal packets that may be a danger to its employees or other postal packets. It also makes it clear that, having detained a postal packet, the postal operator will not be required to keep it indefinitely.
Amendment No. 109 makes it clear that the provisions in Clause 105 should not be regarded as restricting any other powers which the postal operator may have in relation to the packet, for example under the terms and conditions applicable to its transmission by post.
Amendments Nos. 119, 120 and 123 amend the order and regulation-making powers of the Bill to add the new order-making power in subsection (4) of the new clause on inviolability of the mail. Modifications of the new clause can be made by modifying enactments or by a statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure.
This package of amendments clarifies and, we hope, improves the provisions in the Bill which protect postal packets in the course of transmission by post. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Provision of advice and information to public authorities and licence holders]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 33, line 24, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 48. Clause 52 of the Bill requires the consumer council for postal services to provide advice and information, to represent the views of users and to make proposals to four categories of persons mentioned in subsection (2). One of those four categories is referred to in subsection (2)(d), which this amendment seeks to delete. Before I explain the reasons for the amendment, perhaps I should remind the Committee that the consumer council is, as stated in the White Paper, to act as the public advocate on behalf of all users of Post Office services; to handle and investigate consumer complaints not satisfactorily resolved by the Post Office; to work with licensees, including the Post Office, to reduce complaints and to make sure that they have a proper complaints procedure.
The White Paper continues:
"The Government wants to see a strong consumer body at the heart of the regulatory system".
The White Paper said that the Post Office Users' National Council would be that consumer body that it saw as,
"championing [consumers'] interests and ensuring that their voice is heard by the Post Office, the Regulator and the Government".
The Council will be funded by the Post Office and any licensees.
I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships with such lengthy quotations but I wanted to demonstrate that it is clear that the White Paper envisaged that the function of the Council would only relate to the operation of the Post Office and the licensed area. But subsection (2)(d) goes much further than that. It enables the council to provide advice and information, represent the views of postal users and, most sinister of all, make proposals to "any other person" whose activities may affect the interests of users of relevant postal services. Any other person? Not just the Post Office or licensees? That could involve a wide range of persons—advertising agencies, printers, stationery manufacturers and retailers, just to give a few examples. I believe that is an invitation to empire building and poking of noses. It is not necessary to become involved in that.
My honourable friend the Member for Rutland and Melton pointed out that persons in the unlicensed area who are the recipients of gratuitous advice and proposals from the council will all have to be told the views of users of postal services. They are not obliged to take the slightest bit of notice of anything that is said to them. I can imagine the council knocking on the door of a motor cycle messenger service to offer some advice to a leather-clad helmeted occupant only to be told, in the words of my honourable friend, "push off".

1339
In his reply the Minister for Competition told the Committee in the other place that,
"it seems reasonable to provide advice and information to everyone involved in providing a postal service, not only licence holders".
It seems reasonable to whom? Only to a government who have acquired a reputation for nannying and proffering unwanted advice on all manner of subjects, whether they know anything about it or not. The Minister in the other place conceded that,
"it is significant that the clause does not place any duties or onus on the people who receive the representations".
He admitted that the "push off' provision mentioned by my honourable friend was a part of the clause.
The Minister suggested that there may be an increasing number of unlicensed operators who might be grateful for the council's representations and advice as free market research. I hope that the Minister will be able to find a less fatuous justification for rejecting this amendment, if that is what he is minded to do.
The Government have already admitted that the provision has no effect in law whatsoever. What are the Government doing in asking Parliament to pass legislation that has no effect whatsoever? The Bill has considerably extended the role of the council from that set out in the White Paper so that its remit includes both the regulated and unregulated parts of the industry.
This amendment will restore the role of the council that was put forward in the White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to explain the purpose of this provision.
The clause sets out some important duties for the council which will help it to fulfil its role of representing the views of users, providing advice and information and making proposals. The council should, therefore, be required to make all these representations to all relevant people who may find this information useful. In particular, it seems reasonable to require the council to provide advice and information and to make representations and proposals to all people who may be involved in providing a postal service and not just licence holders. As the noble Baroness noted, the clause does not put any duty or onus on the people receiving the representation.
I deal now with the question of the "push-off" factor. A good example of someone falling within the category which the amendment seeks to remove would be the providers of essential transport for the conveyance of mail. The noble Baroness may agree that if the council found that relevant information should be given to those people, that should be done.
Those providers would fall within the definition of Clause 52(2)(d), and in the interests of users of postal services it makes sense for them to be given advice and information by the council and to receive representations and proposals about relevant postal issues.
Also unlicensed postal operators may be responsible for art increasing part of the postal market in future if the reserved area were to decrease. For instance, there
1340
are already many operators providing a postal service for parcels who are not, and will not be, licensed. In view of those two obvious examples where it would be useful, and where we believe that the council should provide information, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Having suggested matters that should be on the face of the Bill, I am amazed at the number of occasions on which the noble Lord has said that such a provision is totally unnecessary. However, the noble Lord now suggests that there should be included in the Bill a provision which has no effect on an individual if he does not wish to take any notice of it. We wanted to put many interesting provisions on the face of the Bill but the Government considered them unnecessary. It seems extraordinary that the Government legislate now to put a provision in the Bill which has no effect. As did the Minister in another place, the noble Lord admitted that the provision has no effect; no notice need be taken of it. Yet we legislate to put it into the Bill.
In view of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed.
Clause 53 [Publication of information to users]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 49:
Page 33, line 40, leave out (", or arranging the publication of,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Exercise of functions: general]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 34, line 28, at end insert—
"() a committee for England,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 to 53.
Clause 54 gives certain directions to the consumer council for postal services as to how it shall exercise its functions. In subsection (4) it is directed in paragraph (a) to establish separate committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is no corresponding direction—I stress the word "direction"—to set up a committee for that insignificant part of the United Kingdom called England. This is another example of the Government's efforts not only to break up the United Kingdom n but to balkanise them into a series of disparate so-called regions.
For the benefit of the large number of members of the Government of Scottish and Welsh extraction—they are not present in the Chamber today but that will look good in Hansard—England is the large bit of the country that sticks out to the south of Scotland and to the east of Wales. It is the bit of the United Kingdom which constantly pumps money into the other three parts to keep them going.

1341
Subsection (4)(a) states that the council shall establish committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Paragraph (b) permits additional area committees within those three regions. However, the subsection merely permits the council to create a committee or area committee for England; and that would be at its discretion.
Paragraph (c) states that the council,
"may establish one or more committees for, or for any areas within, England".
It "may" establish. Suppose it does not? England would then simply not have the platform from which to provide the input to the council provided for under subsection (5). That is the whole purpose of establishing these committees.
The first three amendments rectify this defect. Amendment No. 50 adds England to the regions of the United Kingdom described in subsection (4)(a) where the council "shall" establish a committee. Amendment No. 51 adds England to the places where area committees may be established under paragraph (b).
Amendment No. 52 deletes paragraph (c) altogether because the other two amendments make that paragraph redundant. The final amendment to this clause is Amendment No. 53. It supplements Clause 54(6) which requires the council to establish at least one office in each of the regions and,
"at which users of relevant postal services may apply for information".
It should be noted that Clause 54(6) requires the council to establish these offices, by post one assumes. However, even the new council will have to concede that these days there are other quicker and cheaper means of communication.
The postal services commission has very commendably already established its own website, which is, I am informed, going to be updated daily. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who are interested I will put it into the record so that it can easily be looked up. It is www.psc.gov.uk. All my uncontroversial amendment does is to require the council to do the same. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I must ask the Minister whether it is right that Scotland should ever be referred to as a region? I really do not think that the reference to a regional committee and then to refer to Scotland is at all constitutional. Scotland is, of course, a kingdom in its own right.
Lord Skelmersdale: Be that as it may. I think that it is very strange to establish committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—whether they be called regions, areas, kingdoms, provinces, or whatever—and not to establish a committee for England. I am sure the Minister will explain why.
Even if a central London-based English council were established, it cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of or sensitive to the needs of the regions of England. Geography and economic prosperity or decline affect an area's outlook and dictate many of the
1342
problems affecting local consumers. That applies to the Post Office in the same way as it does to electricity companies and so forth. For example, a part of Britain may experience another hurricane with postal services being interrupted; there will be a volume of complaints in that area. The council will need to know what is going on and respond according. All kinds of things can happen in various parts of the UK. May I dare to call them sub-regional? Not only is my noble friend absolutely right about that, but we often have arguments in this Chamber about the meaning of the words "may" and "shall". Here, quite clearly, as they are all in the same subsection, they must mean different things. My noble friend, quoting the Bill, said that the council,
"shall establish … a committee for Scotland … Wales, and … Northern Ireland",
but that it only "may establish" one for England. The Minister owes us an explanation of that.
Viscount Goschen: I support the words uttered by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. There certainly will be such divisions—and I see the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, looking at me and waiting for me to use the wrong term. I shall not give him that satisfaction. If we are going to divide the procedure and set up even more committees of the council, England should be given the same basis of "shall" rather than "may".
However, I question whether the additional committees need to be set up at all. We are talking about a postal service and a universal service provider. We are talking about using the same value stamp to send letters from one end of the country to another. Does the Minister have a strong explanation and rationale as to why even more money should be spent on even more committees providing even more reports which will no doubt be filed in something circular by most of the people who receive them?
The Minister has gone to great length to say that we should not be too specific in the Bill. However, the council is given pages and pages of information about what it shall and shall not do. For such a body, we seem to have an overprescriptive set of clauses and I hope that the Minister can give a strong explanation of why that is so. If he cannot, I suspect that more amendments will be moved at the Report stage proposing the deletion of a clause or the given words between the brackets.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I can understand the sentiments behind these amendments to require the council to set up a committee for England on the same basis as the committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, I am not convinced that that is the right approach.
Essentially this is about discretion. The issue is about being prescriptive about duties, but not necessarily about how they are carried out. Our approach in the Bill has been to give the council a clear set of statutory functions, but then to ensure that it has the flexibility and powers to organise itself in the way best suited to deliver the performance of those functions for which it will, after all, be accountable.

1343
We propose that the council will be given as much discretion in the matter of regional representation as we feel is possible. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the council having a single committee for England if that is what it wishes to do and it can convince those that it is required to consult that that is the right approach. In that connection, one should note that in the recent consultation not one of the responses suggested that there should be a committee for England. Preferences have been for a number of committees reporting to the council.
There are good reasons why there should be an exception to this discretion in the matter of setting up at least one committee for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and why the appointment of chairman will be made by the Secretary of State. The recent history of having three separate national councils for those countries should not be completely set aside. Notwithstanding the reserved status of postal matters, there are clear present political reasons why there should be a committee for each of these countries. As was pointed out, it is not necessarily true that the service is the same. The case of a hurricane having a different effect in different parts of the country is an extreme example of different performances.
Lord Skelmersdale: It was meant to be.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: But it illustrates very well the point that there may be great differences in regional matters and that in this respect people may think in terms of regional performance.
From a practical point of view, England is a larger country than the others and representation by a number of committees for different areas within England may be more appropriate than a single regional committee.
Clause 54 gives the council an explicit regional function. The council must have regard to the needs of users of relevant postal services, including in particular the interests of users in different areas. Clause 54 also requires the council to maintain at least one office in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at which users of relevant postal services may apply for information. The office of the council will be in England, in London. We believe that the clause as it stands gives appropriate discretion to the council to decide what the arrangements should be for England but still ensures that there is sufficient protection for users in different areas.
The amendment which provides for an Internet site shows a proper regard for modern communications methods. However, I do not feel that it is necessary. As I made clear previously, I believe that the methods of communication should be left to the council so that it uses what is appropriate at the time.
I am not certain that there is a reference in the Bill to Scotland as a region. I believe that the reference in subsection (5) is to a regional committee rather than to Scotland as a region. If that is not the case, I am sure that the matter will be corrected. On that basis, I do not believe that the amendments would improve the clause and I suggest that they are withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I wish to ask a quick question before we proceed further. Because the committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland come under the heading of "shall" and those that come within England, be it one or more committees, come under "may", can the Minister provide a strong explanation as to why there definitely "shall" be such committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but I here only "may" be one for England? I understand that there may be one or more, but should not the clause state "shall" be one or more committees or a sub-division of those committees?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe that in the case of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there was essentially agreement that there should be a council for each of those regions. However, in the case of England, it was by no means clear whether there should be a committee for England or a series of regional committees. On the whole, there was some feeling that there should be regional committees rather than a national committee.
Viscount Goschen: I hate to take up the time of the Committee and to be boring on this matter, but should it not be "shall"; that is, we should have one or the other? The Minister said that it should not be "shall" because we have not yet made up our minds whether there should be one committee or a sub-division of a number of committees for England. However, by his argument, there should be at least one committee.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is obviously a matter about which there is some feeling. On that basis, I shall take it away for consideration. I believe that the intention was that it would be one way or the other. However, as there is a feeling that we should make it more clear, I shall certainly consider the matter further.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The reference to the Scottish committee must make clear that it is a national committee.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will look at the matter again. Under those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Annual and other reports: the Council]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 54 to 57:
Page 35,1ine 7, leave out ("arrange for") and insert ("publish").
Page 35, line 7, leave out ("to be published").
Page 35, line 10, leave out ("arrange for") and insert ("publish").
Page 35,1ine 10, leave out ("to be published").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Power of the Council to investigate other matters]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 36, leave out line 2.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 59. The first amendment is technical and removes an unnecessary definition of public post offices from Clause 57(1)(b). As Clause 42 defines public post offices for the whole of the Bill, that definition also bites on this clause, making the reference to Clause 42 in this clause redundant.
The second amendment removes the requirement on the council to give notice of its intention to carry out an investigation under Clause 57 to the commission and the Secretary of State. That was considered to be unduly onerous and impractical as it would require notification, whatever the scale of the investigation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 59:
Page 36, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Forward work programmes]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 38, line 42, after ("or") insert ("(as the case may be)").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to make clear that each notice about the forward look programmes required by Clause 61 cannot be published by either the council or the commission but that each must publish a notice relating to its own draft programme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Transfer of property etc. to nominated company.]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 39, line 8, at end insert—
("() Prior to the nomination of any company by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall publish an order to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament setting out the contents of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of such company and the other details required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies on the incorporation of a new company.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 61, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. These two amendments relate to the incorporation of
1346
the proposed new public limited company, which will take over the Post Office corporation and its assets. Amendment No. 61 simply requires Parliament to see in advance the proposed memorandum and articles of association of the new company, as well as the details that have to be filed at the Companies Registry on the incorporation of a new company— such matters as the proposed registered office; annual accounting date; nominal capital, and the amount to be issued; directors, secretary and so forth. None of that is confidential because it will be a matter of public record open to anyone prepared to pay the search fee once the company is on the register.
The Government will be the sole shareholder of the company. They hold the share or shares in trust for the nation. It is only right that as the de facto owners of the company, its representatives in Parliament should have advance knowledge and possibly some input into the corporate structure of their company. That especially applies to the memorandum and articles of association which are traditionally regarded as the contract between the company and its shareholders.
Amendment No. 62 arises because of the curious wording which the Government have inserted at Clause 62(3):
"The Secretary of State shall consult the Post Office before nominating a company for the purposes of this section".
What does the Post Office have to say about the company to which it is about to be sold? I use the word "sold" loosely, but in effect it is a sale. The new company gets the Post Office as a going concern and the owner, the state, gets shares in the new company. That is a common commercial transaction. There is even a special form for filing at the Companies Registry when shares are issued for a consideration other than cash. I refer, for example, to the going concern: the assets and goodwill of a business just about to be incorporated as a limited company, as in this case.
At a meeting with the Minister and his officials, I inquired what the consultation would be about and no one could tell me. I accept that "consultation" is a nebulous operation. However, having carefully listened to what the consultee has had to say, the Government can go off and do whatever they intended to do in any case, subject to the constraints of a potential judicial review if they are behaving too unreasonably. But if there is a consultation between the Post Office and the Government, surely it should not be in secret. Surely, Parliament is entitled to know the nature of the negotiations or discussions between the two sides?

1347
I have expressly excluded in my amendment matters involving commercial confidentiality. Ministers are frequently coming to Parliament to report on the outcome of various negotiations into which they have entered on behalf of the Government. There is no reason why Parliament should not be kept informed about those mysterious consultations. If precedent is followed, they will be leaked to the media anyway. This matter is important. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I have no great difficulty with the notion that the memorandum and articles of association of the Post Office company should be published. But I am opposed to a requirement for such documents to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I shall explain why in a moment.
Equally, I have no great problem with the notion that the Government should make public anything relevant arising from the consultation with the Post Office that is required prior to nominating the company in accordance with subsection (3). But, again as I shall explain later, I have doubts about the usefulness of such an exercise.
With regard to the memorandum and articles of association of the future Post Office company, we will be looking for the company to have provisions akin to any other comparable modern company. The conversion of the Post Office to a plc is a fundamental element of our reforms of the Post Office, aimed at underlining its increased commercial freedom. We do not want the memorandum and articles of association to constrain its commercial freedom.
The memorandum and articles of association will become publicly available in due course as they will have to be filed with the Registrar of Companies. But I can say that the Government are minded to publish them in advance and lay them before Parliament once we have had a chance to discuss them with the likely directors of the new company and have settled the terms. Our willingness to publish the documents is part of our desire for there to be a clear, arm's length relationship between the Government and the Post Office company, as emphasised in our Post Office Reform White Paper. The relationship between the Government (as shareholder) and the directors of the Post Office company will be transparent from the memorandum and articles of association. But the suggestion in Amendment No. 61 that the memorandum and articles of association should be approved by resolution of each House is quite excessive and would run totally against the grain of giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom.
The memorandum and articles of association need to be capable of being amended by the shareholders, after discussion with the directors, as and when the situation may demand. We could not contemplate having to come to Parliament for every change that might be needed. If (as the amendment seems to suggest) only the initial documents need be approved, I can see no great value for the House. A less benign
1348
government could secure that approval and then amend the documents the next day without consulting Parliament, and the effect of this amendment would be totally circumvented.
As regards publication of a report on the nature and content of consultations between the Government and the Post Office, I could well imagine the Government making a statement that they had consulted the Post Office about the proposed nomination of a company and the transfer, and confirming that everything was now ready for a named company to be nominated and for the transfer to take place. But anything further than that might well stray into areas of commercial sensitivity, which the noble Baroness quite properly seeks to exclude from prying eyes, or be of such detail as to bore noble Lords to death.
So with the promise that the Government would seek to be open about these matters, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not know whether it is the lateness of the hour which prompted the Minister to go a little way towards what I wanted, and it may be the lateness of the hour that makes me not wish to push him to go any further. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 39, line 22, leave out ("the Treasury or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 63, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 to 68, 68A and 68B. These amendments relate to one line in Clause 62, two lines in Clause 63, two lines in Clause 65 and two lines in Clause 66. Despite relating to four different clauses, ail the amendments refer to one matter and all would have the same effect.
The Bill provides for the sole shareholder to be the Government, and Clause 66 actually precludes disposal of any of the shares without the sanction of Parliament. But throughout the four clauses to which I refer, the legislation provides for the shareholder to be the Treasury, the Secretary of State, or both. This may be wrong in law; but it is absolutely wrong in principle. I cannot be sure about the law because I am not a lawyer. However, as I understand it, the Treasury is neither a person nor a corporation; in other words, the Treasury is not a legal entity and,

1349
therefore, is unable to be a shareholder. I shall not spend any further time on that technicality because it is late. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate it if I just stick to the point. I shall leave it to the Government's lawyers to sort out that problem. They should look into it.
More important is the matter of principle. The Government are asking us to allow two different departments to have fingers in the same pie. What a recipe for dispute and back-biting that will be, to say nothing of the confusion if two different departments are pulling in different directions and trying to follow two different policies. That leads me to my next point.
There is an enormous potential conflict of interest if the Treasury is to be allowed to interfere in the affairs of the Post Office, even in the limited way that a shareholder is able to do. The White Paper provides for the Post Office company plc. to invest the equivalent of a commercial dividend in gilts or the National Loans Fund; in other words, it will have to make compulsory loans to the Government. Moreover, in the words of the White Paper:
"Once the Post Office has been established as a publicly-owned plc, it will pay an annual dividend to the Government rather than invest in deposits"—
that is, of course, after the normal tax on its profits that a trading company pays to the Inland Revenue.
There is no doubt that any Chancellor of the Exchequer will regard the Post Office plc, and its cash flow, as a milch cow and try to exert pressure as to the amount of dividend to be paid, rather than spent on developing the business.
Then there is the matter of the subsidy that the Government hastily inserted into the Bill during its final stages in the other place. It is now to be found in Clause 102, which we shall be discussing later. However, I am sure that Members of the Committee will be glad to know that we will do so next Thursday, not tonight.
The Government are seeking to give the Treasury a veto over the provisions of this subsidy. So here we would find the company owned by the Treasury asking its shareholder for a subsidy out of public funds. Alternatively, if a case is made out for the subsidy, the Treasury, in derogation from its duty to do its best for the company it owns, might veto it. Indeed, we might reach the farcical situation of the Treasury as a shareholder, tacitly agreeing, if consulted by the directors, that it should apply for a subsidy and then, wearing its other hat as the holder of the nation's money, refusing to part with any money.
Under Clauses 68 and 69 any borrowing by the Post Office is to be made exclusively by the Secretary of State with the Treasury's consent. The funds are to come from the National Loans Fund and the terms are to be approved by the Treasury; in other words, the Treasury is the lender with the Secretary of State merely being the funnel—or the broker—for the loan; and here, I believe, is another major conflict of interest. The bank is lending money to the company that he controls and
1350
deciding on the rate of interest, as well as the duration of the loan. Can noble Lords imagine what the banking regulator would say if one of the high street banks indulged in such a practice?
While all of that is going on, the Secretary of State at the DTI is supposed to stand quietly by and watch the Post Office returned to the grip of the Treasury, and its fiscal policy, totally negativing the whole objective of freeing the Post Office from government control and letting it act as a normal commercial company.
There are clear indications of disputes between the DTI and the Treasury over some aspects of this Bill. I shall comment on that matter in much more detail when we reach Clause 102. There is, however, a clear and positive clue in the wording of one of the clauses that we are considering at the moment. Cutting out all the extraneous material, Clause 66(1) states:
"Neither the Treasury nor the Secretary of State … shall … dispose of any of the issued shares … in the Post Office company … which are held by him".
There is only one "him". That "him" was referred to much earlier as the Secretary of State. It is clear that after the clause was drafted the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, decided that he would not allow a government-owned, money-making organisation to exist without his having a grip on it. The draftsmen clearly made a little slip in not correcting that bit of syntax after the Chancellor was slipped in, like a cuckoo into the nest.
I can imagine the annoyance of the Chancellor at seeing the constant cash flow he currently enjoys from the Post Office slowing down to an annual dividend and the compulsory loans to the Government. However, that is no excuse for putting him in the dominant, influential position of a principal shareholder.
I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 62(7)—which I seek to amend with Amendment No. 63—which allows for the Government's share to be held either by the Treasury or by the Secretary of State. Therefore there is no guarantee that the Post Office, which is normally answerable to the DTI, can be under the legal control of the Treasury. Will the Minister tell us, in his response on behalf of the Secretary of State, that Mr Byers welcomes the possibility of his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, annexing a major responsibility of his department in the course of Mr Brown's empire building? No department seems to be safe from him, as witnessed by his recent intrusion into the affairs of the Department for Education.
It is the responsibility of this Chamber to ensure that there is one, and only one, government department answerable to Parliament for the Post Office once it is turned into a public company and removed from direct ministerial responsibility. I hope that I have set out clearly what I feel to be the problem. Some of my points were prompted by the meeting I had with the Minister last Monday and the confusion that arose in my mind. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that what I think will happen will not happen. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: I have listened to the comments of my noble friend with considerable care. The Minister

1351
probably has considerably more expertise in this matter than myself. I declare my interest as a mere accountant. I believe that I last made detailed studies of the Companies Act in 1963–64. However, I believe that the arguments put forward by my noble friend have some merit. I hope that the Minister, and perhaps other Members of the Committee, can assist me in this matter.
Clause 62(7) refers to,
"the Treasury or the Secretary of State",
as does Clause 63(2). Clause 64 states,
"or, with the consent of the Treasury".
I hope that my intervention is not unhelpful.
My noble friend Lady Miller questioned the relationship between the Treasury and the Secretary of State of the relevant department. I hope that the Minister can clarify a point for me. Is there a precedent for the measure we are discussing? If he can tell me that there is a precedent for this measure in what is often called a "golden share", I can research the matter and not delay the House at a later stage of the Bill. But certainly I should like clarification. Although my noble friend attempted to clarify the situation she was beginning to faze me. I am looking for help. I think that the Minister may be able to give me some assistance and I sha11 wait to hear what he has to say.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend perhaps will be delayed a few minutes before he hears what the Minister has to say.
My question on Clause 62 is very simple: why both? I can understand why the Treasury should want to hold the shares; I think it is absolutely right that it should. To that extent, I disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. None the less, I think it is extremely dangerous from all kinds of points of view for the shares to be held essentially by both or by a nominee of both. I hope that that is not what is intended by the Bill.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 68A and 68B and continue my career of being as helpful as I have been in the past.
The noble Baroness may feel that the issue here is the "dead hand of the Treasury" in matters concerning the Post Office. This view has been aired before in this House and in the other place. I am of course aware that the Treasury is often cast as the villain of the piece in respect of many areas of government policy—indeed, I think my own party has occasionally implied that that may be the case.
But there is a serious point to be made in explaining why we do not believe that it should be left only to the Secretary of State to hold the Government's shares in the Post Office company and its wholly owned or relevant subsidiaries, nor for the Secretary of State to be the only party who can give directions regarding the issue of further shares to the Government after the appointed day.
1352
It may be simply because I have been a finance director for many years of my life that I think the Treasury has the responsibility of being the guardian of public sector finances. It is simply a matter of practicality with large sums of money such as this that the Treasury is inevitably involved. In the same way that if substantial investments were made in a private company, it would not be done by a divisional shareholder without consulting the finance director, who no doubt would have a very strong say in what took place.
The Government's shareholding in the Post Office company and its subsidiaries represents a substantial public sector investment. The Treasury therefore has a legitimate interest in the Government's shareholding in this public sector asset and it should not be excluded from the holding of that asset and should be involved in the giving of directions to increase the size of the asset.
There is a simple practical issue that makes it sensible for the Secretary of State and the Treasury to be able to be shareholders in the Post Office company— that is, that a public limited company must have at least two shareholders. It is quite right that the Treasury is not a sole corporation, but in this case it would be represented by the Treasury Solicitor. So there is a sensible, practical reason for giving the Government flexibility in the management of its shareholding in this way.
Our approach is certainly not unique; a number of previous statutes followed the same route—for example, the Gas Act 1986, the Water Act 1989 and the Electricity Act 1989.
I am sure that the noble Baroness fears the undue interference and influence of the Treasury in the future of the Post Office company and wishes to safeguard against this fear. But whether the Treasury holds any shares or whether its consent is required before directing the issue of further shares to Government is, to some extent, an irrelevance. The Treasury's greatest influence in the future development of the company will be as a provider of finance for growth investment. On this point I hope that our policy is quite clear.
The borrowing regime for the Post Office, both now and when it becomes the Post Office company, was clearly set out in the White Paper. The Post Office company will be expected to finance investments in the core business from retained earnings. But these funds are unlikely to be sufficient to enable the Post Office company to develop its business and to meet the challenges and opportunities of the changing postal market. Therefore, the Post Office company will be allowed to borrow for growth investments.
We have already given effect to our policy to give commercial freedom to the Post Office by giving it greater borrowing powers. As a result the Post Office has already commenced its strategy to expand its international business for the benefit of its customers.
I hope that I have been able to give the noble Baroness comfort that the supposed dead hand of the Treasury is now a myth as far as concerns the Post

1353
Office and that the organisational arrangements make sense. On that basis I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I certainly do intend to withdraw the amendment. I am not too sure that the Minister was able to give me comfort because at this time of night I could not match what he was saying to what I think the problem is. However, I shall read carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Transfer to the Post Office company: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 79, line 31, at end insert—
("Welfare funds

.—(1) This paragraph applies to—

(a) a fund (whether described as a welfare fund, benevolent fund, mutual aid fund or otherwise) whose objects consist in, or include, the provision of benefits in case of need, sickness or distress for Post Office beneficiaries, and

(b) a society or organisation (however described) whose objects are similar.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "Post Office beneficiaries" means any or all of the following persons—

(a) persons who are, or have been, engaged in the business of the Post Office,

(b) the relatives or dependants of such persons.

(3) The provisions of the trust deed, rules, regulations or other instrument constituting or regulating a fund, society or organisation to which this paragraph applies may, by resolution of the managers of the fund, society or organisation, be altered as mentioned in sub-paragraph (4).

(4) The provisions may be altered so as—

(a) to permit persons who are, or have been, engaged in the business of the Post Office company, or such persons of a particular description, to become members of, or subscribers to, the fund, society or organisation.

(b) to entitle such persons, or such persons of a particular description, and persons claiming in right of them, to receive benefits from the fund, society or organisation (subject to any terms and conditions specified in the resolution) if, and to the extent that, they would be entitled to receive benefits from it if being engaged in the business of the Post Office company were being engaged in the business of the Post Office.

(5) No alteration may be made that alters the character of the fund, society or organisation.

(6) If a resolution of the managers of a fund, society or organisation to which this paragraph applies so provides—

(a) any references in the trust deed, rules, regulations or other instrument constituting or regulating the fund, society or organisation to the Post Office shall be construed as references (or, if the context so requires, as including references) to the Post Office company, and

(b) any references in that instrument to persons engaged in the business of the Post Office or persons of a particular description so engaged shall be construed as references (or, if the context so requires, as including references) to
1354
persons engaged in the business of the Post Office company or (as the case may be) persons of a corresponding description so engaged.

(7) In this paragraph "managers" in relation to a fund, society or organisation, means the trustees, committee or other persons entrusted with its management.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 64 inserts a new clause into the Bill which is intended to ensure that the managers of welfare and other funds for persons and their relatives and dependants who are or have been engaged in the business of the Post Office have the power to alter these funds to take account of the transfer of the Post Office to the Post Office company. The amendment will maintain the rights of persons eligible for assistance under the existing funds and allow persons and their relatives or dependants who become engaged in the business of the Post Office company to become eligible.
The Government believe that it is appropriate for the trustees to have this power to enable them to continue the good work of these funds in providing assistance for beneficiaries in case of need, sickness or distress. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Government holding in the Post Office company and certain subsidiaries]:
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Restriction on issue of shares to third parties]:
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Restriction on disposals of shares to third parties]:
[Amendments Nos. 68A and 68B not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Approved disposals]:
On Question, Whether Clause 67 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: I have waited patiently to register my firm opposition to Clause 67. The Committee may recall my speech at Second Reading in which I prophesied that this was the end of the British Post Office as we have known it and as the Post Office has known itself for 350 years.
On Monday of this week I heard the Secretary of State address a conference where he said that there was nothing to worry about and that the Post Office would remain 100 per cent in public ownership. He even went further and said that the next Labour Party manifesto would guarantee that the Post Office would remain 100 per cent in public ownership, which is a slightly different kind of democracy from the one for which I had responsibility as chairman of the Labour Party where we used to have to wait for conferences to make decisions. He was able to say that the policy forum would be able to guarantee that 100 per cent.

1355
My problem with Clause 67 is that it still allows the disposal of shares to other organisations. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions how the Government can part with certain assets of the Post Office and be able to say that it is 100 per cent publicly owned. Clearly, that cannot be so if shares are passed over to another organisation.
I know that there is no chance in this world of any body listening to me at this time of night, but I did not want Clause 67 to go through without saying how disappointed I am that a Labour Government has brought our wonderful Post Office to this sorry state. In a few years' time I can see it becoming part of a super-Euro post office. It is a travesty that the Government that I support have brought the Post Office that we have known and loved, and where some of us have earned our living—in my case for 51 years—to such a position.
Lord Skelmersdale: Clause 67 is the key clause in the entire Bill regarding the liberalisation and competitiveness of the Post Office. In the White Paper and on many other occasions we have been told that the object is to enable share swaps, joint ventures and so on. With out Clause 67 that simply could not be done.
I sympathise with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. The Post Office will not be the same. His key question is how can the Government, knowing that they will have share swaps and so forth, continue to say that the Post Office will be a 100 per cent publicly owned company.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This clause sets out the procedure to be followed in order to obtain the approval of Parliament to make share issues or disposals, which would otherwise be prohibited by Clause 66. The parliamentary approval procedure is aimed at ensuring that shares are exchanged or sold only in order to cement commercial strategic alliances.
Subsection (1) requires that a motion, to be moved by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, should receive affirmative resolution of both Houses before any shares can be issued or disposed of. It will be a straightforward motion and there will be no need for anything more elaborate.
Subsection (2) specifies the minimum information to be contained in a motion to be presented for the approval of both Houses. Subsection (3) sets out the pre-conditions to be met before a motion relating to the issue or disposal of shares in the Post Office company may be moved. The conditions are based on our commitment that shares would be exchanged or sold only to cement a joint venture or a strategic alliance. Therefore, five pre-conditions are specified: first, that the company has agreed with the other party to take part in a joint venture or other partnership which it considers to be in its commercial interests; secondly, that it involves the issue or disposal of shares in the Post Office company; thirdly, that the Post Office company has recommended to the Secretary of State that the disposal takes place; fourthly, that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the issue or disposal is for the purpose of securing the proposed arrangement and that
1356
it is in the commercial interests of the company; and, fifthly, that the Treasury has given consent to the proposed issue or disposal.
Subsection (4) mirrors subsection (3) in setting the pre-conditions to be met before moving a motion relating to the issue or disposal of shares in a relevant subsidiary in order to enable the Post Office company or a relevant subsidiary to take part in a joint venture or other partnership. The pre-conditions in this case are generally similar to those applicable to the issue or disposal of shares in the Post Office company, although in this case it may be the subsidiary that has agreed to be party to the alliance. However, it must still be the Post Office company that recommends the disposal and whose commercial interests must be considered by the Secretary of State.
It has been suggested by some that the Government intend privatisation by the back door. Of course, that is not the case, but we want to give the Post Office company greater commercial freedom. Looking at the scene in Europe today, everyone can see that it is a necessary requirement. This clause gives the Post Office that freedom. Members will note that this process is not triggered by the shareholder or even the Treasury. It is triggered by the Post Office and by the Post Office alone. It is a matter for the Secretary of State, if he believes that the deal is in the best interest of the Post Office, to put the matter before Parliament for debate. Therefore, every case will be considered on its merits.
Clearly, if there is a swap of shares, it could no longer be said that the Government have a 100 per cent shareholding. However, the Government will, to a great extent, still control the company.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICATION OF PARTICULARS OF ACQUISITIONS AND DISPOSALS
(" .—(1) Where the Post Office company or any relevant subsidiary proposes to acquire or dispose of an undertaking or any interest in an undertaking and—

(a) the gross assets of that undertaking or attributable to that interest are equal to more than 10 per cent. of the gross assets of the Post Office company or the relevant subsidiary; or

(b) the turnover of that undertaking or attributable to that interest is equal to more than 10 per cent. of the turnover of the Post Office company or the relevant subsidiary; or

(c) the net profits of that undertaking or attributable to that interest are equal to more than 10 per cent. of the net profits of the Post Office company or the relevant subsidiary.

the Post Office company or the relevant subsidiary must as soon as practicable publish a notice in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) A notice under this subsection must be published in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the Belfast Gazette in

1357
such form as the Secretary of State may prescribe and must include —

(a) the name of the undertaking;

(b) a description of the business carried on by the undertaking and, where the transaction is an acquisition or disposal of an interest in the undertaking, a description of the business attributable to that interest;

(c) the effect of the transaction and, in particular, the benefits which the directors expect to accrue to the Post Office company or any relevant subsidiary;

(d) the price (or the monetary value of any other consideration) to be paid or received by the Post Office company or any relevant subsidiary and, in the case of a disposal how the proceeds of the disposal are to be applied; and

(e) if any securities are to be issued as a result of the transaction, the nature and amount of those securities.

(3) In this section "gross assets" means total fixed assets and total current assets.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is very long because it introduces a new clause, but it is one that is capable of a short explanation. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who, in his speech in the debate on Second Reading at col. 944 of Hansard, alerted noble Lords to the problem which the amendment seeks to redress. I am sorry not to see the noble Lord in his place, given that in this amendment I am attempting to bring forward his suggestion.
The Bill will create a new Post Office. In place of a statutory corporation such as the present Post Office, the BBC or other government-owned corporations before they were privatised, the Post Office will become a public limited company, operating in the same way as many other major public companies, but with one important difference. This company will have only one shareholder: the Government. However, it will have the same financial powers as any other public company and, in many cases, greater powers. However, because it has only one shareholder and because it is not intended that the company should have private or institutional shareholders, its shares will not be listed on any recognised stock exchange.
In turn, this means that the new company will not be subject to the listing and other stock exchange rules governing acquisitions and disposals which apply to quoted companies of a similar size. Many of the listing rules are aimed at investor protection; that is, the protection of existing shareholders as well as potential new investors, whether on the issue of new shares or on the acquisition of existing shares via the Stock Exchange. However, the rules regarding the transparency of acquisitions and disposals, and for relevant information to be brought into the public domain as soon as possible, are also intended to protect the integrity of the market. Furthermore, that makes for good corporate governance.
It should be borne in mind that acquisitions by the new Post Office are most likely to be of an existing publicly quoted company which will itself be obliged to make an announcement at an early stage. As large a corporation as the Post Office will be, with its significant financial power, it should be subject to an obligation to make public disclosure of any substantial transactions into which it enters. This new clause would
1358
require the Post Office or any relevant subsidiary through which it conducts its transactions to publish certain details of acquisitions where the assets, turnover or profits of the target company exceed 10 per cent of that of the Post Office or its subsidiary. The same percentage would apply in the case of a disposal by the Post Office. Obviously, details of minor transactions would be excluded from the effect of this clause.
Even the most insignificant of private companies, say a company owned by a husband and wife as the only shareholders and directors, is compelled to go through the procedure of publishing annual reports in which the directors tell themselves, in their capacity as shareholders, what they have been doing. Provision has already been made in the Bill relating to the accounts of the Post Office. Those are contained in Clauses 73 to 78. The letter entitles the Treasury to demand information from the new company. The provisions of this clause are designed to supplement those provisions. They will ensure that the real owners of the company on whose behalf the Government, as the single shareholder, holds the shares—the public—will receive the fullest information at the earliest commercially possible time in the same way as if the Post Office was a normal, publicly quoted company.
The key word here is "transparency". Any normal company has to go through this procedure and I see no reason why this new kind of plc should not do so as well. I await with great interest the response of the noble Lord. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Whatever its intention, this amendment would risk putting the Post Office company at a considerable disadvantage compared with its commercial competitors. Far from creating a level playing field, it would create an extremely "unlevel" playing field. No other commercial company would be required to publish its intentions to acquire or dispose of an undertaking in the same way. It would immediately place a major hurdle in the way of the Post Office entering into transactions with another party. Not only would the Post Office be forced to divulge potentially commercially sensitive information about itself, but it would inevitably have to reveal information which could well be prejudicial to the interests of that potential partner. Who would wish to enter into negotiations with the Post Office faced with such a disclosure requirement?
Publicly listed companies are merely required, in certain circumstances, to announce acquisitions, once the terms of such a transaction have been agreed. And the test of the size of the transaction in relation to the gross assets, turnover and net profit, apply to the listed company itself. The noble Baroness's extension to relevant subsidiaries does not follow the listing rules.
In seeking to give the Post Office (and the future Post Office company) the greater commercial freedom that everyone agrees is necessary, we are endeavouring to transform the Post Office company into a commercial company, governed by normal companies' legislation. Although the Government will be the sole shareholder

1359
(at least at the outset) and, of course, the Stock Exchange listing rules do not apply, the rules provide a useful benchmark for the relationship between the Government (as shareholder) and the company. Certainly, for completed transactions, it is our intention that the Post Office should provide transparent information on completed acquisitions along the lines of the London Stock Exchange disclosure requirements. Indeed, the Post Office is now doing so. I hope that this gives the kind of assurance that the noble Baroness seeks.
I recognise that the Committee may well be interested (on behalf of the nation for whom the Government hold the shares) in the way in which the Post Office company performs, and especially in the way in which it uses money for major transactions. But the amendment serves no useful purpose in any oversight of the way in which the Government manage their shareholding—it does not give this House (or the other place) any power to comment on a proposed transaction. All it does, in the way that it is drafted, is give commercial competitors the opportunity to spoil a major deal, which the Post Office management had considered in the commercial interest of the company. The actual position, as set out in the White Paper, is that the approval process by government of Post Office proposals for acquisitions and similar transactions cuts in at a far lower level than for similar-sized listed organisations; government approval is required when the Post Office company wants to borrow large sums (over £75 million) for new investments.
If the amendment is aimed at enabling the regulator to check whether a major transaction would disturb the balance between the Post Office company and its less dominant competitors, these provisions are equally unnecessary. The regulator will have adequate powers to ensure that the Post Office company does not abuse its market position without having to rely on such public notices of the Post Office company's intentions.
In addition, the amendment would do nothing to enhance the Government's controls on the disposal of shares in the Post Office company or any relevant subsidiary—such disposals (of whatever size) would fall within the provisions of Clause 67 for which prior parliamentary approval is needed.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said and the assurance I have given on the prompt disclosure of information on acquisitions, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. We both agree that we should try to create a level playing field. I do not believe that these amendments would do that.
Viscount Goschen: Before the noble Baroness puts her intentions regarding her amendments to the Committee, perhaps the Minister can help me on an entirely related point. My noble friend has correctly highlighted the issue of transparency in terms of providing information on any deals that may be done by the Post Office.
Essentially, we are talking about a privatisation, possibly of a piece of the Post Office, a share swap, or whatever. It will involve the transfer of public equity to the private sector. That is generally considered to be
1360
privatisation. In other circumstances, generally if the Government seek to privatise a state asset a competitive process must be undertaken, for example by advertisement in the Official Journal and so on. I understand that the process involves giving a fair opportunity to other bodies that may wish to purchase assets from the Government. Given that we are talking about the transfer of a statutory corporation to a plc, albeit one that is wholly-owned by the Government, can the Minister explain why apparently that privatisation process does not require the same statutory process that applies to any other privatisation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In this case we are not talking about a privatisation which would involve a completely different process. Here we are considering a very limited situation in which there may be a share swap to further the interests of the Post Office in commercial situations. I believe that that is more comparable with an acquisition or merger between two private sector companies. For that reason, both the noble Baroness and I referred to the commercial market and the listing regulations which would apply in those situations. It is not a privatisation in any commercial sense.
Viscount Goschen: Am I mistaken, therefore, in understanding that the Bill permits the disposal of specific assets of the Post Office, not necessarily those involved in a share swap; in other words, that the payment may be in cash rather than equity?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As I explained, there is a very clear set of circumstances in which there is simply an ability to undertake what is effectively a merger or acquisition. That arises in the case of a share swap, not in a situation where shares are sold in the market for cash.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am disappointed by the reply of the Minister. My understanding is that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to bring more competition into the marketplace, which requires other companies to come in as licensees in due course in particular areas. My understanding—perhaps I am just dim—is that other public limited companies must follow the normal rules of the Stock Exchange and disclose what is necessary and appropriate. The Minister says that that puts the Post Office at a disadvantage. I suggest that if the Post Office is exempt from doing what other companies have to do, it is not a level playing field. It is rather late in the evening and I do not want to go on ad nauseam. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
10.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 69') shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 5; Not-Contents, 24.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Goschen, V.

Northbrook, L. [Teller]

Henley, L. [Teller]

Wilcox, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amos, B.

Harrison, L.

Bach, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Berkeley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mallalieu, B.

Dearing, L.

Mishcon, L.

Desai, L.

Puttnam, L.

Elder, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

RendellofBabergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B. [Teller]

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Sharman, L.

Gilbert, L.

Simon, V.

GrenfeU, L.

Whitty, L.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 57 I declare the Question not decided and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.

Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Britain Russia Centre: Funding
  Britain Russia Centre: Funding
  North-west Russia: Assistance Nuclear Clean-up
  North-west Russia: Assistance Nuclear Clean-up
  NATO/Russia Permanent Joint Council
  NATO/Russia Permanent Joint Council
  EU: Reform for Enlargement Proposals
  EU: Reform for Enlargement Proposals
  Iran: Arms Embargo and Export Licences
  Iran: Arms Embargo and Export Licences
  EU Business Calendar
  EU Business Calendar
  Sri Lanka: Assistance
  Sri Lanka: Assistance
  Pakistan: Bilateral Assistance
  Pakistan: Bilateral Assistance
  Corruption: Civil Law Convention
  Corruption: Civil Law Convention
  Butler Report
  Butler Report
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Northern Ireland: Learning Disorder Assessments
  Northern Ireland: Learning Disorder Assessments
  Northern Ireland Railway Task Force
  Northern Ireland Railway Task Force
  County Down to Belfast Expressway Proposal
  County Down to Belfast Expressway Proposal
  Northern Ireland: Rail Safety
  Northern Ireland: Rail Safety
  Northern Ireland: Public Transport
  Northern Ireland: Public Transport
  Belfast to Londonderry Railway Line
  Belfast to Londonderry Railway Line
  NMEC: Resignation of Mr Ayling
  NMEC: Resignation of Mr Ayling
  NMEC: Ministerial Responsibilities
  NMEC: Ministerial Responsibilities
  NMEC: Funding
  NMEC: Funding
  School-age Children: Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  School-age Children: Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  London Underground: Out of Service Escalators
  London Underground: Out of Service Escalators
  GM Contaminated Seed
  GM Contaminated Seed
  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis and Brucellosis Testing
  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis and Brucellosis Testing
  Seed Purity
  Seed Purity