Sitting of 2 March 2000

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Trade Links (Bulgaria)
    Mr. Kevin Barron: What his assessment is of the prospects for improved trade links with Bulgaria. [111531]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): A number of developments suggest that there are likely to be good prospects for improving trade links with Bulgaria. The European Union formally opened accession negotiations with Bulgaria on 15 February. That move was strongly supported by Britain. British Trade International, in co-operation with other organisations, is involved in a number of initiatives, such as the London chamber of commerce business mission in May, which will promote commercial opportunities in the market to the UK business community.
    Mr. Barron: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. There are increasing opportunities in Bulgaria, particularly since the currency stabilisation. She will know that Bulgaria is currently off cover with the Export Credits Guarantee Department. If British businesses want to export to Bulgaria, will the Government consider cases individually until the advisory council says that Bulgaria should be on cover and we have a stronger trading relationship?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend has an extensive knowledge of Bulgaria and he is right to say that it has not had long-term ECGD cover since April 1990, when it declared a unilateral moratorium on debt repayment and
    536
    servicing. However, the provision of ECGD cover for Bulgaria is under review. A decision should be reached within the next month.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What undertakings did we give Bulgaria during the war against Serbia and are we implementing them?
    Mrs. Liddell: As my hon. Friend knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Sofia in May last year, he said that in view of the progress that Bulgaria had made towards democracy and attempts to secure a properly operating free market, the EU should consider it as part of the next wave for accession.

    East Midlands
    Liz Blackman: What measures his Department is taking to promote enterprise in the east midlands region. [111532]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are supporting the East Midlands development agency; we are creating a new regional venture capital fund; and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will today announce a planning charter for the east midlands that will make the region's planning system the most efficient in the country.
    Liz Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Erewash Partnership is a successful enterprise agency in my constituency that supports local businesses well and receives discretionary funding from the local training and enterprise council. Will my hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that such organisations continue to be resourced during the transition leading to the setting up of the Small Business Service?
    Ms Hewitt: I know that my hon. Friend is active on the board of the Erewash Partnership, which is doing excellent work. I understand her concern and I assure her that my officials are working with other Departments to see how we can sustain essential activities after April 2001. In the meantime, the Department for Education and Employment is making up to £41 million available nationally to support discretionary activity that might otherwise be in jeopardy.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What difference exactly has the East Midlands development agency made to employment, inward investment and other enterprise in the east midlands? Most of us find it just another of the bureaucratic measures that have been heaped on the country by the Government. The hon. Lady talks about her colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and planning-friendly guidance, which we all support up to a point. Will she ensure that no further enormous swathes of countryside in the east midlands are concreted over and that the planning-friendly guidance will lead to buildings on brownfield sites in cities, not in my constituency which does not need any more building?
    Ms Hewitt: The business people in the east midlands whom I talk to regularly are working closely with the

    537
    EMDA and welcome its support for greater activities to promote exports from and inward investment to the region. The success of the agency is illustrated by the fact that it has taken a lead in creating the new planning charter, which will allow councils to give advance information about planning applications with job-creating potential so that developers and proposed inward investors can create and implement plans much more quickly.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: The business people in my constituency support the establishment of the EMDA. There are already many examples of the impact that it has made in its first few months of operation, particularly a £3.5 million investment in one site. Although the EMDA strategy is of great benefit to the majority of sectors in Leicestershire, one sector worries me, as I am sure that it worries my hon. Friend the Minister—the textiles sector. What measures can she offer, including working with the EMDA, to ensure that the textile sector has a prosperous future?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the textiles industry. I recently met Paul Gates of KFAT—the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades—for discussions and I am working closely with the new textiles and clothing strategy group which our Government established. Its draft paper on a strategy to make the industry more competitive is out for consultation. I welcome the East Midlands textiles and clothing partnership, which has brought employers and others in our region together to promote and improve training, marketing and export promotion.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: We continue to receive letters from manufacturing and horticultural companies in the east midlands. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the climate change tax in that region? There is great concern, particularly in the clothing industry, among firms that have already invested capital to improve the efficiency of their factory systems. The Government were forced to modify the original formula for the tax. Has the Minister made an assessment of how east midlands sectors such as clothing will be affected by what is still seen to be punitive tax on their profits and viability?
    Ms Hewitt: We have been working closely with all sectors of industry throughout the country to develop a climate change levy that will be good for the environment and will not damage but will improve the competitiveness of industry. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making further announcements on the levy in due course.

    Information and Communication Technologies
    Mr. James Plaskitt: What action he is taking to ensure that the UK's manufacturing sector improves its performance relative to overseas competitors in the area of information and communication technologies. [111533]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government's policies on new ICT are based on ensuring business success in the new knowledge-based economy. That applies to manufacturing as to other sectors of industry.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Many of the thriving small and medium enterprises in my constituency are manufacturing companies and owe their success to operating at the leading edge to information technology. What steps can my right hon. Friend take to encourage the spread of that technology into traditional manufacturing sectors?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is clearly a deficit in some traditional manufacturing sectors in embracing new technologies. Just before Christmas, my Department published a document that showed by example how traditional manufacturing sectors could benefit from new technologies. By best practice, benchmarking and demonstrating how manufacturing can benefit from new technologies, we will make the case and ensure that more manufacturing sectors embrace them.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: What arrangements are the Government making to measure the loss of mobile IT skills through IR35—especially as their loss will immediately accrue to the advantage of the overseas competitors mentioned in the original question?
    Mr. Byers: There are no indications that skilled people are leaving the United Kingdom as a result of the introduction of IR35, which was introduced to clamp down on tax evasion. I am confident that it will be successful in achieving that and that it will not have the detrimental effects to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    Gillian Merron: How will my right hon. Friend encourage schools, universities and colleges to work with industry, so that companies such as ABB Alstom in Lincoln can meet their needs in terms of the people and skills they desperately need to improve their performance in the manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Byers: There is no doubt that we need to break down the divide that all too often exists between a child's experience in school and the world of work. Many companies have exciting and attractive programmes that demonstrate what the world of work is actually like. The more we encourage such links, that will benefit not only individual children but companies and the UK economy.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the Government's recent announcement of increased competition in the telecommunications sector. It will clearly benefit both manufacturing and residential users. I have two specific follow-up questions. The Government have announced their intention of accelerating the phasing out of the British Telecom monopoly on local loop. When will that happen? Secondly, since announcements were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could the Secretary of State set out the respective roles of the Chancellor and himself in determining policy in this area, as it is causing considerable confusion in the industry?
    Mr. Byers: The Government have a view, shared by the Chancellor and myself, about the importance of

    539
    opening up access to the internet. By July 2001, we will have established competition. The regulator at Oftel will be responsible for the discussions that take place. It is a policy that the Government agree with, and it is important that it is delivered because it will be one of the most positive ways of ensuring that the country and individuals benefit from the new technologies that are available.

    E-commerce
    Dr. George Turner: What action he is taking to ensure that changes in the price structures for high bandwidth telecommunications encourage the rapid development of e-commerce. [111534]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We want fast cheap internet access to be available to everyone. That is why I welcome the recent announcements from BT and Telewest. We are promoting greater competition in fixed and mobile telephones, which will give consumers more choice and lower prices.
    Dr. Turner: I thank the Minister for the progress that is being made. Does she recognise that in the past, rural areas, which in many cases could benefit most from good IT communications, compensating in part for poor physical communications on occasion, have often been the last to see improvements in IT structure? Does she acknowledge that there is a strong case for the Government to put pressure on the regulator and on the companies to ensure that rural as well as urban environments have ready access to fast internet speeds?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I believe that when we release spectrum for fixed wireless access, as we will later this year, that will be of considerable benefit to rural areas, as will the development of new satellite services. Of course I will consider whether there is further action that we can take to roll out broad band quickly in the most remote rural areas.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister confirm that the unbundling of the local BT loop before 1 July 2001 cannot take place without the agreement of both Oftel and BT? In the light of that, can the Minister tell us whether such agreement has been forthcoming?
    Ms Hewitt: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made quite clear, it is a matter for agreement between Oftel and BT. The date of July 2001 has been agreed for local loop unbundling, and the Director General of Oftel has made it clear that if the practical problems can be resolved more quickly, that date will be brought forward.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend referred to recent announcements by BT. In fact, BT has promised nothing. It insists on maintaining its high charges for local calls; it says that it may be prepared to reduce them at some stage in the future. What are we
    540
    doing to make BT reduce its charges for millions of people in this country for internet use? It is blocking development in this area and should be stopped.
    Ms Hewitt: BT has made two announcements recently, the most recent of which concerns an unmetered internet access subscription for £9.99 a month, giving unmetered access for evenings and weekends.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When?
    Ms Hewitt: It was available from yesterday. The other announcement is about the Surftime package. I am confident that BT and Oftel will be able to agree an early date for the introduction of Surftime on both a wholesale and a retail basis.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Events this morning are unfolding which show that the Secretary of State is presiding over a Department in a complete and utter shambles. It is no wonder that word has it that he wants to leave. The first draft of the Electronic Communications Bill was the unsatisfactory product of a turf war between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office. We are now seeing communications move rapidly from fixed wires to wireless technology. There is now a turf war between the DTI and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on who will regulate high bandwidth telecommunications.
    Telecommunications has been taken out of the Utilities Bill, which is collapsing in disarray. Who will oversee high bandwidth telecommunications, and why were telecommunications removed from the scope of the Government's Utilities Bill?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If he had read the joint statement made by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Culture, Media and Sport, he would know that the two Departments are working closely on a White Paper that will deal with future regulation of the converging industries.

    Business Start-ups
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What new measures he plans to introduce to assist entrepreneurs to set up new businesses. [111535]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The new small business service will offer information and advice to anyone who wants to set up a new business through an internet-based gateway. We are creating a volunteer business mentoring programme, and we will support community finance initiatives to help people start businesses in disadvantaged areas.
    Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend meet me and others to discuss proposals for a community-based investment fund in Toxteth, Liverpool? Does she agree that every possible effort should be made to support entrepreneurship in the inner city?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree, and I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and her colleagues who have

    541
    taken an important initiative. I cannot make a prior commitment, but we shall establish this year a £30 million phoenix fund designed to back business start-up and community finance initiatives in disadvantaged areas.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: One of the most important contributions to the start-up of new businesses is made by information technology consultants who may be employed on an occasional basis. Does the Minister share the view taken by the Secretary of State that consultants who order their affairs so that they accumulate capital in their business rather than paying out money as salary are tax dodgers and evaders, against whom, presumably, criminal sanctions should apply? Are those people not in fact exactly the sort of entrepreneurs we should encourage rather than driving them overseas?
    Ms Hewitt: IT contractors and others who are genuinely self-employed will continue to be treated as such. Those involved in tax avoidance will, however, be dealt with under anti-avoidance measures, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not support that.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Does my hon. Friend agree that young people are the future of businesses in Britain? What words can she offer those leaving colleges and schools in Stourbridge to encourage them to go into business and, in particular, to go into business for themselves or set up new businesses?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The new national enterprise campaign, which will be launched by the Confederation of British Industry and British Chambers of Commerce, will, I hope, attract many young people leaving college or university into self-employment and business start-up by showing them shining examples of entrepreneurs who have done just that?
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What extra costs does the Minister believe that highly regulatory and interventionist measures such as the Utilities Bill will impose on entrepreneurs, particularly in the IT and telecoms sector? The Government have today announced the embarrassing withdrawal of all the telecomms sections of the Utilities Bill; would they also consider withdrawing the plethora of regulations that are costing business £5 billion a year and stealth taxes on business costing £25 billion?
    Ms Hewitt: No. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), said recently. She said on regulation that:
    as a Minister under the previous Government … We would be the first to say that we did not do very well.—[Official Report, 19 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 250]
    The fact is that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concluded in its report last December that after two and a half years of Labour Government, the United Kingdom had less economic and administrative regulation than any other OECD country, including the United States of America. We are continuing to improve the regulatory environment and to simplify conditions for businesses.

    Airbus
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: When he will announce his decision on Government aid for the new Airbus project. [111536]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): Discussions with BAe Systems on launch investment to secure UK participation in the Airbus A3XX project are well advanced.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister will be aware that the project is of importance not only to British Aerospace, but to the aerospace industry in my Lancashire constituency and, indeed, throughout the whole country. It is important that the project should go ahead; the industry is waiting for a decision on that and on two major military projects, which are essential for its future success.
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. I have met representatives from BAe Systems and from the work force and am well aware of the ramifications, and of the fact that 20,000 jobs depend on the success of Airbus. Incidentally, last year the company secured more than 55 per cent. of the market for large, civil aircraft. We hope to make an announcement soon. We are well aware of the valid points made by my hon. Friend.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Airbus and its contribution to employment and to the aviation industry? Will he please make an early decision on support for the new Airbus project? Will he also condemn practices pursued in other countries—notably the US, where the fly American policy means that all American personnel have to fly on American carriers?
    Mr. Johnson: I agree with the points made about the value of BAE Systems and the success of Airbus. Last October, we announced DTI funding of £2.45 million for an important competitive initiative of which Airbus is an important part. There should be fair competition rules and we hope to make an announcement on the Airbus project soon. We realise that A3XX is crucial to the future of Airbus and to BAe Systems.
    Madam Speaker: Questions 8 and 11 are deferred until 12.30.

    Businesses (North-west)
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What assessment he has made of the impact of industries set up in the north-west with the help of his Department on similar enterprises in the same area. [111538]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): A key element in determining regional selective assistance is an assessment of the impact of the investment on national and regional economies and on relevant industrial and commercial sectors.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case of Europanel in Skelmersdale? It was a thriving

    543
    manufacturing concern until a foreign firm opened up in a neighbouring town with the help of the DTI and of DTI grants. Does she agree that we must be much more thorough in assessing the impact on neighbouring firms when we put public money into supporting much needed inward investment in the north-west? Does she further agree that it is unacceptable that the taxpayers of Skelmersdale should, ironically, contribute to the removal of jobs from the town?
    Mrs. Liddell: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to ensure that no displacement occurs as a consequence of regional selective assistance. I am aware of the case to which he refers. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade met the company in October last year. Should the company want to consult the Government office of the north-west about the possibility of further assistance, officials are ready to hold discussions and will do everything that they can to help the company.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Minister agree that the Government too can take important decisions? Does she agree that the Synchrotron project in Daresbury has given a massive boost both to business and to the academic community in the area? Does she understand the importance of allocating the Diamond project to Daresbury and that it should not go to Oxfordshire? People throughout the north-west—of all parties—want to see that. When shall we have a decision?
    Mrs. Liddell: When I visited Runcorn a few weeks ago, the point about Daresbury was powerfully made to me. I realise the strength of local opinion—not least on the part of my hon. Friends who have fought well for the Synchrotron project. A decision has not yet been made, but it should be made shortly.

    Grant Aid
    Mr. David Kidney: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy for giving grant aid to areas of England outside those with assisted area status. [111540]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): Under European Commission law, regional state aid can be paid only in assisted areas approved under article 87. It is also possible to grant aid under other provisions. For example, the new enterprise grant areas have been proposed under the small firms guidelines, and SMART—the small firms merit award for research and technology—operates under the research and development guidelines.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The Department closed the partnership investment programme at the end of the year. I was told that the reason was that the EC had decided that gap funding to private sector developers, outside assisted areas and above aid intensity limits, was in breach of state aid rules. That raises the alarming spectre that no state aid, however much it is justified, can be paid outside assisted areas.
    544
    Can my hon. Friend assure me that schemes such as those he described can be funded throughout the country when the circumstances are justified?
    Dr. Howells: I can certainly confirm that the Government have a comprehensive package of measures to tackle need in the regions effectively. The proposals for new assisted areas are part of that package. The single regeneration budget, in particular, supports a wide range of regeneration schemes run by local partnerships in England to target pockets of deprivation in urban and other areas. I note that Partnership in Staffordshire was awarded substantial funding to promote the regeneration of rural communities. In addition, third tier is a flexible measure to aid regional development and to respond to local economic crises. That will be reviewed after an initial period of 12 months in conjunction with regional partners.
    Mr. Richard Page: I understand that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently met the Commissioner in charge of assisted area status. Can the Minister possibly give us some idea of the representations that the Secretary of State made and what steps the Department of Trade and Industry will take to make sure that any distribution that comes from the European Union or the Government will be made fairly and equitably and—I look the Minister straight in the eye—on the basis solely of need?
    Dr. Howells: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post; it is always good to see him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will meet Commissioner Monti this afternoon and will, no doubt, discuss these very matters.
    Mr. Richard Burden: May I ask my hon. Friend to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to impress on Commissioner Monti the fact that the issue of state aid to Rover-BMW at Longbridge has been with the Commission for several months? That state aid is of vital importance to retaining strategic production inside the European Union and it is not unreasonable to expect the Commission to come up with a positive decision on that aid by the spring, as has been indicated before.
    Dr. Howells: I am absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State heard those words and that that will be a subject for discussion with Commissioner Monti this afternoon.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister recognise that, between the over-hyped and overheated regional shopping centres and the assisted areas, which are quite rightly receiving support, there are small market towns throughout the country that are dying on their feet? Will he target support at that sector? In particular, will he talk to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the iniquitous uniform business rate and its effect on small businesses in market towns?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will himself want to make those points to Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

    545
    Regions. We recognise very much the difficulties of isolated pockets of deprivation and need throughout the country and we are addressing them in all the proposals that we have for regional regeneration.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What assessment he has made of the impact of the strength of sterling on the United Kingdom steel industry. [111543]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government are well aware of the concerns of the steel industry in relation to the strength of sterling. However, the steel industry itself has worked hard to improve its competitiveness. Although exports fell in 1999, the prospects for increasing exports in 2000 are much improved, especially in the light of recovery of the south-east Asian market.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for that answer, but my right hon. Friend will know the very great fear in the steel communities of the United Kingdom about the loss of jobs as a result of the over-valued pound, which was inherited from the previous Government. Will she—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he is available—agree to meet a delegation from the steel communities to discuss this very great concern?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am very happy to agree to meet representatives of the steel industry. I represent a steel constituency, so I am well aware of the issues. The Government's priority remains to put economic management on a stable, long-term footing by reform of both monetary and fiscal policy. The worst thing that could happen for the steel industry would be to return to the short-term fixes of the previous Government, bringing the boom and bust that so unsettled the industry over the past 20 years.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister not accept that in steel plants, such as Llanwern and Ebbw Vale, there is great concern that the high value of the pound will undermine their on-going viability? Will she give a categoric assurance that her Department will take up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the context of the forthcoming Budget, the question of getting a fair parity for the pound that will give some chance for the plants that I mentioned? Their closure would be an absolute disaster for those areas.
    Mrs. Liddell: Hon. Friends who represent those constituencies have made representations about the steel industry in that area. Approaches to Corus have revealed that speculation about Llanwern is based on press speculation. It would be unfortunate—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to do it—to spread fear in those communities about the possibility of further unemployment.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is well aware of the need to ensure a stable economy in the United Kingdom. We now have one of the strongest economies in the world. What we must seek to do is to ensure that all our industries benefit from the competitive advantage that can be brought about by increases in productivity and increases in output across the board for those industries.
    546
    My right hon. Friend's main priority will be to ensure a stable economy and a stable exchange rate in the medium and long term.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: The pound is strong against the undervalued euro, but we do not see such discrepancies so much in terms of the pound's valuation against the American dollar. Given that the right hon. Lady and her friends are proponents of scrapping the pound and taking us into the euro, what in her view is the optimum exchange rate between the pound and the euro?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am sure the hon. Lady knows rather more about how exchange rates work than her question appears to suggest. The Government believe that the decision about the single currency and sterling should be based on the best economic performance of this country, not on some arbitrary date that seems to have been dreamt up by the hon. Lady and her friends to try to heal divisions within the Conservative party. The main priority on the Government Benches is to have a sound economy whereby competitive businesses can ensure further growth, not just in Europe, but in competing against other economies such as the United States and Japan.

    Internet
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What measures he is taking to encourage greater use of the internet. [111544]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are driving through competition, to get internet access prices down; we are helping small businesses get the advice and training they need; and we are connecting schools, libraries and community centres to the internet.
    Mr. Bruce: I am surprised that the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce does not know that the Government are not responsible for any of those things. What the Government do know is that they are responsible for the Electronic Communications Bill, and I have congratulated the Department of Trade and Industry on taking out the worst parts of that Bill. Is the hon. Lady aware that her colleagues in the Home Office are busily reinforcing in spades those very developments which will help close down our internet access? Is she also aware that her colleagues in the Committee considering the Utilities Bill said this morning that they are taking out all its telecommunications regulation, and that in this Parliament we shall not end up with any revision of such regulation, which is probably going over to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? No doubt water is going to the Department of the Environment, Transport—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put his question.
    Mr. Bruce: Is not the Minister going to resign, because she has nothing left to do?
    Ms Hewitt: No.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my hon. Friend aware that to date the United Kingdom has been a very positive environment for e-commerce, but will she look at consumer issues related to e-commerce and proper protection of consumers against concealed information being taken from their computers when they are using the net and buying things over it?
    Ms Hewitt: I recently launched Trust UK, a system of hallmarks for accredited codes of practice, which will enable consumers buying from accredited British websites to know that they are dealing with reputable organisations and that they can deal confidently. I am hopeful that we can get a similar set-up at the European level in order to give consumers the trust and confidence they need in electronic commerce.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What discussions he has had with other departments on the review of the remit of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [111545]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I asked Cabinet colleagues to advise me of issues that they wished to see covered by the review of ECGD's mission and status, and this was reflected in the terms of reference for the review.
    In addition, I shall discuss the recommendations of the review team with colleagues.
    Mr. Howarth: I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge the extremely important part played in British industry by defence exports. Britain is the second largest exporter of military goods in the world, and this enables us not only to help our friends, but to ensure that we have economies of scale in the production of defence equipment for our own forces.
    Can the Minister assure me that ECGD support will continue to be available to major British companies such as BAe Systems, and that there will be no plans for the Government to curtail exports as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to in respect of 63 countries, only one of which has been a beneficiary of ECGD support for defence exports in the past 12 years?
    Mr. Byers: The ECGD's role is very important to many major exporters in the United Kingdom, including the defence industry. I think the hon. Gentleman will find when we announce the outcomes of the review that the defence industry will, where appropriate, continue to receive export credits as it does now.
    It is always a question of striking the right balance. I believe that when we present our proposals in the light of the review, the right balance will be struck—a balance that recognises the importance of the export licensing regime, which is entirely different from the export credits
    548
    guarantee regime. The two should not be married. In my view, export credits have a distinct role to play, and they will continue to do so.
    We need to change the system to reflect the needs of particular sectors. I do not think that the small and medium-sized enterprise sector uses export credits as much as it might, but I do not believe that any issues arising from the review will cause concern to those of us who feel that export credits have an important role to play in supporting British exporters generally—and that includes the defence sector.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that most export credits are non-defence credits? On a wider issue, will he confirm that we are taking on a new role in relation to debt relief for emerging markets and third-world countries, while also lowering tariffs to facilitate market access? In that context, do not export credit guarantees hold the key to enabling countries that have suffered severe poverty to catch up with the western world in terms of economic growth?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the positive role that export credits can play in helping countries to develop their own economies. The Government certainly intend to do that, which is why we have concentrated on productive expenditure, especially in the case of the least-well-developed countries. Such countries need to commit their finance to projects that will make economic growth possible. That will form a crucial part of the ECGD's role in the future, and can, I think, be compatible not just with supporting British business, but with our development objectives.
    I hope that, when we announce the outcome of the review in a few months' time, the House will see that we have struck the right balance between our two aims. They are not in competition with each other: we want to unite the interests of British business with countries' development needs.

    World Trade Organisation
    Mr. Oliver Heald: What discussions he has held with his international counterparts on future progress with WTO negotiations. [111546]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Since Seattle, I have been in contact with a number of my international counterparts from both the European Union and the rest of the world to discuss reform of the World Trade Organisation and the launch of a new round. Most agree on the need to launch a new round as soon as possible, and the need for reform of the WTO.
    Mr. Heald: Does the Secretary of State agree that almost nothing is more important than for Britain to fight for global free trade, and to lower European Union tariff barriers? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for International Development has said that his Department will take a strong lead in trying to reform the WTO' s procedures following Seattle? Can he report any progress

    549
    at all? He has told us that he has had meetings, but has any progress been made? This is a very important issue for Britain and British trade.
    Mr. Byers: I agree that it is an important issue, and progress is being made.
    Mr. Heald: What progress?
    Mr. Byers: If the hon. Gentleman can wait, I will tell him.
    The reform programme will now have two parts. There will be some specific and rather technical changes, which are being discussed in Geneva; we hope to conclude those discussions by the end of this month. We also see a need for more fundamental WTO reform, which will take longer, because the WTO operates on the basis of consensus: an individual member can block progress. The more radical reforms will take time, but I think that engaging in a dialogue—which is what we are doing—will give real opportunities for substantial reform, hopefully within a year or 18 months.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Secretary of State aware that only a small percentage of the money that changes hands internationally from day to day is for trade in goods and services, and that the great bulk is concerned with capital speculation? Is that problem discussed with equivalent Ministers at meetings of the World Trade Organisation? We should begin to propound the idea of an international tax on capital speculation; then we would be able to tackle some of the problems faced by third-world nations.
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has always had interesting ideas. The WTO has been considering the question of investment in the context of its rules. Issues of international capital exchanges are more correctly the remit of the International Monetary Fund, and my hon. Friend will be aware that the IMF has adopted procedures to try to restrict sudden flows of capital in and out of particular countries. That has been successful over the past 12 or 18 months, and that is probably a more appropriate path than the one suggested by my hon. Friend, which I would not want to follow.

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. Andrew George: What progress has been made in completing funding negotiations for EU objective 1 regions; and if he will make a statement. [111547]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): The UK's objective 1 programmes were submitted to the Commission last year, and the Commission has now formally responded to some of them. Discussions are continuing and I hope that the programmes will be agreed to.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that even the enterprise grant fund referred to in an earlier reply will deliver only £75,000 per annum to the objective 1 region of Cornwall?
    550
    Does he accept that rather than encouraging unemployed people to apply for non-existent jobs in objective 1 areas, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to do, it would be far better to invest public money to ensure that we can draw down the available funds in objective 1 regions to generate jobs and regenerate those economies?
    Dr. Howells: The Government are concerned to ensure that productive employment is retained in areas such as the one that the hon. Gentleman represents. I understand that the Government are working with all objective 1 areas to help them to identify match funding. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said on 3 February:
    All departments and Government offices will work closely with the areas to benefit, to ensure that they get the match funding that they need.—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1191.]
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Although I accept that the Chancellor cannot make a final announcement about match funding until he has the results of the comprehensive spending review, will the Minister's Department put maximum pressure on the Treasury to make sure that match funding exists, and ask whether the Treasury can give any early indication on it? Most importantly, does the Minister agree that, in objective 1 areas, the emphasis must shift to devising schemes for infrastructure, skills training and improved opportunities for the work force, so that when the objective 1 funds are available, we can take maximum advantage of them?
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am very much in favour of the projects to which he has referred. I am confident that the funding will be found, and that we will proceed with that important aid. However, I am interested in the quality of the projects, and it is no use propping up projects or ideas that are not of sufficient quality to be sustainable or to make a difference to the areas that they seek to help.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Can the Minister assure the House that in meeting the match funding for Cornwall's objective 1 status, other counties in the south-west will not suffer?
    Dr. Howells: We cannot move the assisted areas map east to Dorset, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like. He will know that certain criteria have to be met; we will stick strictly with those criteria and ensure that, within them, assisted areas are helped properly.

    Recycling
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: What steps his Department is taking to encourage use of recycled materials. [111548]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): On 31 January, we made a call for proposals under the DTI's recycling programme. The programme can provide funds to support research,

    551
    development and demonstration projects that have the potential to create substantial new demand for recycled materials.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she consider that at just over £1 million, the DTI recycling programme will have great impact? Does she agree that a greater impact could be achieved by a programme of deposits at the point of sale of consumer goods, which could be redeemed on presentation of the goods for recycling or disposal?
    Ms Hewitt: I am indeed confident that £1 million worth of pump-priming money will have a helpful impact. I am aware of my hon. Friend's support for a deposit system for white goods. We will consider that when we see the draft European directive on electrical and electronic waste, which is likely to propose a collection and recycling target.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the Department considering whether it is technically possible to recycle orimulsion?
    Ms Hewitt: I am sure we are.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: On a different subject from orimulsion, will my hon. Friend consider encouraging drinks manufacturers also to operate a deposit and return schemes? Not only would that help to encourage recycling and reduce landfill, but it would help to clean up the streets.
    Ms Hewitt: I well remember as a child collecting bottles with the intention of getting the deposit back on them, and very popular that was, too, so of course I will look into that.

    Business Failures
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What assessment he has made of the trend in the number of business failures in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [111549]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): Business failures in October to December 1999, the third quarter of this financial year, were lower than in either of the two previous quarters. The figures are well below those seen as a result of the 1991 recession.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer, which is reassuring as far as it goes, to the end of the last calendar year. Can he assure the House that the disparity in the economy between the potentially overheating south-east and the rather more depressed midlands and north will not get worse? Will he, with the Treasury, ensure that the Government do not rely on interest rates set by the Bank of England alone to keep the economy in balance, and that the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises will be borne in mind, as they have a great burden of regulation and form-filling to cope with?
    Mr. Johnson: It is good of the hon. Gentleman to join us. I can give him an assurance that the trend is good. In the same period, 26,000 more small businesses started than were made insolvent, which is one of the best records that we have seen. Because of the economic cycle, the trend for insolvency does not feed through for a while, so the upturn in the last quarter will be reflected more fully in the economic position in the year to come.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Are not more businesses likely to fail if 30,000 skilled IT workers are driven abroad by IR35?
    Mr. Johnson: No.

    Manufacturing (East Midlands)
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What recent assessment he has made of the performance of manufacturing industry in the east midlands region. [111551]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): Some traditional sectors of manufacturing in the east midlands have continued to suffer, particularly in the clothing and textile sectors. Many other sectors of manufacturing, including those in higher technology and higher value added areas, are faring much better. Overall, the regional economy is improving, with business confidence and profitability growing.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend. Contrary to earlier remarks, may I say that the East Midlands development agency is doing a first-class job in trying to stimulate the economy in the region? There is a mixed picture, with some parts doing very well. I urge my hon. Friend to take particular note of the problems experienced by the clothing and textile sector. Will he meet representatives of that sector and do what he can to stimulate those industries?
    Mr. Johnson: We are aware of the problems in the textile sector. We are meeting representatives of the textile industry on a continuing basis. We are consulting about setting up manufacturing centres of excellence around the country. That will help all manufacturing industries, especially the textile industry.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Michael Connarty.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Mark Todd.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?

    Domestic Energy Policy
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What part his domestic energy policy plays in eliminating social exclusion. [111555]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Fuel poverty affects about 5 million households in the United Kingdom. It leads to thousands of extra winter deaths annually and is a significant cause of ill health among some of the most vulnerable people in society. It therefore represents an important facet of social exclusion. The Government's energy policy tackles the problem in several ways. Promoting competition in energy markets leads to reduced prices; the energy regulator's social action plan will help poorer consumers; and the problem of poor housing is being tackled through the improved home energy efficiency scheme and the home investment programme. I have also set up a ministerial group to ensure better co-ordination of issues that relate to fuel poverty across Government.
    Mrs. Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most difficult challenges in tackling fuel poverty relates to the private rented sector? Will she congratulate companies such as PowerGen, Transco, TXU and Eastern Energy on some of the imaginative projects that they have introduced recently? In her discussions with those companies, will she urge them to do as much as they can to tackle the problem?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating companies that have taken action on affordable warmth. They serve as leaders to the industry. I have asked the Electricity Association services task force to act to ensure that the highest possible standards are met, not only for those in the private rented sector, but for all those who are affected by fuel poverty, especially those who pay for their fuel through pre-payment meters.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mrs. Margaret Moran.
    Hon. Members: Where is she?
    Madam Speaker:I call Mrs. Helen Jackson.
    Hon. Members: Where is she?
    Madam Speaker: I call Mrs. Maria Fyfe.
    Hon. Members: Where is she?
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Gordon Prentice.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Anthony Steen.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?

    Infotech 2000
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the activities of Infotech 2000 Ltd. in relation to the promotion of Islamic fundamentalist causes overseas. [111563]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): It is not the Department's policy to comment on the affairs of particular companies. If my hon. Friend has any information that he believes should be brought to the Department's attention, he should do that as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend knows that the activities of Infotech 2000 have caused some concern. It probably exploits company law to raise funds for fundamentalist, extremist and terrorist causes overseas, and to recruit volunteers to fight in those causes. Will the Department examine company law to ascertain whether the abuses in which the company has been involved can be reviewed? I refer specifically to the laws on fundraising for political purposes, especially overseas.
    Dr. Howells: A comprehensive review of company law is currently under way. The Department has an efficient and active companies investigation section. I am sure that its staff will have listened to my hon. Friend's words.

    Milk Marque
    Mr. Owen Paterson: What recent representations he has received on the future structure of Milk Marque. [111564]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Unlike your lot."] It is a close-run thing.
    Since 4 November 1999, when the members of Milk Marque voted in favour of the board's proposals for the voluntary break-up of Milk Marque, the Department has received nine letters from hon. Members and members of the public on anxieties about the dairy industry. Two parliamentary questions have also been asked.
    I welcome Milk Marque's decision, which gives the industry the opportunity to form new, closer and beneficial relationships between milk producers and other industries.
    Mr. Paterson: How can breaking up Milk Marque help to establish efficient producers of dairy products when continental competitors such as MD and Arla are already twice as efficient as our own dairy producers?
    Mr. Byers: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I shared the concern about the compulsory break-up of Milk Marque, which was the recommendation from the Competition Commission. For that reason, I did not agree with that recommendation, but the members of Milk Marque themselves decided that, on a voluntary basis, they would agree to breaking Milk Marque up into three successor organisations. That was a decision for the members of Milk Marque and that is wholly appropriate in the circumstances.
    Madam Speaker: We now return to Questions 8 and 11.

    Regulation
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What plans he has to reduce the burden of regulation on business. [111537]
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What steps he is taking to reduce the regulatory burden on business. [111541]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We keep under review all measures that may increase the burden of regulation on business. As a result, we have been considering the views expressed by the telecoms operators in relation to the provisions in the Utilities Bill. We intend to publish a communications White Paper later this year. I believe that there is a powerful argument for dealing with the reforms needed in one measure. I have therefore decided to remove the telecoms provisions from the Bill. In addition, we shall remove the provisions relating to water, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will instead introduce measures covering those matters in a draft water Bill, which it intends to publish later this year. That will enable Parliament to consider proposed changes to the water regime alongside other proposals resulting from the review of competition in that sector.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am staggered that the Secretary of State sees fit to hang his important statement to the House on my equally important but somewhat unrelated question. Is not the truth that he has just butchered a flagship Bill because it is ill thought out? Returning to my question, what has his announcement done to reduce the 2,700 regulations introduced under his Administration, 17 of which alone, it is estimated, will cost British industry £10 billion in the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Byers: The Conservative party's problem is that it is unable to distinguish between red tape and the need to provide decent standards for people in the workplace. Conservative Members regard the working time directive, paid holidays and the national minimum wage as red tape, but Labour Members know that they represent decent conditions for working people. Conservative Members oppose those measures, although we heard recently that their party now supports the national minimum wage. It would be interesting to hear the views of Opposition Front Benchers on that matter. We have in Committee a Bill that will cut the cost of electricity by 10 per cent. That is an important measure and we shall introduce the other proposals elsewhere in a more appropriate way.
    Mr. Fabricant: I can see why the statement has been linked to my question: the Secretary of State recognises that the Utilities Bill is indeed a burden on business. He has now decided to scrap about half of it, despite the fact that BT made the recommendations over a year ago. The Bill was 170 pages long. Precisely how much has it cost the taxpayer to prepare it? How much has it cost the
    556
    taxpayer to have civil servants sitting in during consideration of it? Why does not he accept that it is a burden on business and dump the whole lot?
    Mr. Byers: I must warn the hon. Gentleman that a London telephone directory is about to be brought into the Chamber and we shall be interested to see whether he can tear that in half as well.
    There is an important issue here. The Government received strong representations from the telecoms operators after announcing on 3 February that there would be a communications White Paper. That announcement came after the debate on Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore, we listened to industry and its genuine concerns. We make no apology for saying, following its representations, that we believe—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Byers: The proposals that were in the Bill received representations from the telecoms operators. We have listened to those. We feel that it is more appropriate to deal with the matter in the communications White Paper, which we have announced since Second Reading of the Utilities Bill. We will introduce it in the autumn. In the light of that, we feel that it is wholly appropriate to deal with the matter in that way. By doing so, we will reduce the regulation on the telecoms industry because it will not have two sets of regulations.
    Mr. David Chaytor: On the general question of regulation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a question of quality as well as quantity? No one is arguing for increased bureaucracy, but does he agree that, in certain circumstances, quality is at the heart of the issue? For example, in view of the recent report by the nuclear installations inspectorate on the safety record of British Nuclear Fuels, does he not agree that there is an overwhelming argument for improving the quality of regulation in many industries?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Where regulation is necessary—there will be circumstances where it is—it must be clear and precise and, wherever possible, produce the least burdens on business. There are clear issues to do with regulation of sensitive industries. I agree with him. Often, a combination of appropriate regulation and good, effective management is needed. In some cases, the two have not come together very often.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the synthetic anger of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) illustrates in its entirety the attitude of the previous Government: if we listen, we are damned, if we do not, we are damned, so why listen—and the previous Government did not listen? In not only listening but acting, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we carry forward the parts of the Bill that will help to reduce prices for all consumers, to tackle fuel poverty and to achieve regulatory certainty? In particular,

    557
    will he listen to the opinions of PowerGen, which, in a briefing to members of the Utilities Bill Standing Committee, said:
    PowerGen supports many aspects of the Bill, including the objectives of improving the consistency, predictability and transparency of regulation, and bringing the regulatory framework up to date with the competitive markets that have developed since privatisation?
    Mr. Byers: It is interesting that the Conservative Opposition have gone on record as being against the electricity and gas provisions in the Utilities Bill, measures that will reduce the wholesale price of electricity by at least 10 per cent. and address the whole question of fuel poverty—a point that was raised on the Opposition Benches. Those measures will remain in place.
    I make no apology for listening to the concerns of business and industry. The Bill will be a better Bill because we have listened to the views of telecommunications operators. We will introduce measures in the communications White Paper. We are a listening Government, putting the interest of business first.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: If I hear the Secretary of State say once more that he makes no apology, I think I shall puke. It is an outrage to the important global businesses involved in the four important sectors that are covered by the Bill, and an affront to the democratic process of the House that he did not have the guts to stand at the Dispatch Box and give a proper statement, with proper scrutiny by the House.
    The Secretary of State talks about consultation. I refer him to his own words, 31 days ago at that Dispatch Box on Second Reading:
    Our first action was not to rush into legislating, but to consult widely on the structures that would fulfil the needs of consumers, be good for business and provide a stable framework for utility companies.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 788.]
    He may have consulted, but listen he did not.
    We warned the Secretary of State on Second Reading and we have warned him consistently in Committee that the Bill was flawed from the start. We warned him when the so-called flagship Bill from the Queen's Speech was put before the House, and I warn him again today, that he will come back to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on the issues because we will no longer put up with lectures from him about the utilities industries that have benefited from the way in which the Conservative Government privatised them.
    It is incredible that the Secretary of State and his colleagues did not make the connection between telecommunications and broadcasting before they brought the Bill to the House. It is incredible that, apparently, he had no discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister about the future of the water industry. Goodness knows what will happen in the mélée that will now ensue.
    This morning, I listened to proceedings on the Bill in Committee. Clearly, there is no timetable yet for the part of the Bill that deals with the water industry. We are now told that we have a White Paper, but that will not help the telecommunications industry. The Government must have
    558
    known about the White Paper before they drafted the Bill. What will happen to part IV, which deals with the Competition Commission and all four utilities sectors?
    Why can the Secretary of State not do the decent thing and come to the House to answer detailed questions that are important to businesses not only in this country, but globally, which have now been thrown into disarray because of the shambles of the way in which he runs the Department and the pseudo way in which the Department and the Labour party are supposed to consult? It is about time that he started listening to people who know about these issues. He would not have done badly to listen to my hon. Friends in Committee—it was good advice, freely given—but he did not. Instead, he gave us arrogance and no apology. I warn him that his reputation and that of his Department is that they are unbusinesslike and do not know what they are doing. The Bill is a shambles. He should withdraw it and bring it back a second time.
    Mr. Byers: It was interesting that the hon. Lady referred to advice from Conservative Members that was "freely given". I have to say that that is a rare occurrence. I make no apology for the way in which the Bill has been amended to reflect the interests of business. Let me take Opposition Members through the sequence of events since it was considered on Second Reading. On 3 February—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have questions put from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Byers: On 3 February, we announced that there would be a White Paper on communications policy. As a result of our announcement, of which the telecommunications operators were unaware until it was made, there were further representations to the Government from the industry in the light of the fact that there was to be a White Paper. There had been consultation before, but at that stage the telecommunications operators were unaware that there was to be a White Paper on communications. Further representations were made by the sector and, in the light of those representations, we decided to remove telecommunications from the Bill. As for the water industry, there is to be a water Bill to deal with provisions affecting that industry.
    We still have a measure that will radically change electricity and gas trading. It will benefit millions of people and businesses. Therefore we make no apology for introducing a Utilities Bill that will benefit business and individuals. We make no apology for listening to the interests of business. We will put practical policies before political dogma, unlike the Conservative party.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is paying so much attention to business, but he will be aware that both those major industries are not ones that enjoy the unequivocal support of all consumers. Could he, therefore, tell us why it would not have been easier to have left them both in the existing Utilities Bill, and, subsequently, to table amendments on them in the interests of consumers—who, after all, may not have the same view of privatisation as Opposition Front Benchers?
    Mr. Byers: In relation to the four areas that were considered in the Utilities Bill, and certainly in cases that are being considered, we shall have to ensure that the interests of consumers are effectively represented. I am confident that, when the measures on water and telecommunications are introduced, a strong voice will have to be given to consumers' interests. There will be such a voice on gas and electricity in the Utilities Bill.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Is not this a case of joined-up chaos, rather than joined-up Government? The Secretary of State talks about the communications White Paper, but has he only just found out about it? The Government have been talking about it for months. Liberal Democrat Members warned him that it was sensible to deal with telecommunications in a telecommunications Bill, but he included provisions on telecommunications in the Utilities Bill. He has now discovered that they will have to be withdrawn.
    Is there not a pitched battle between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how to regulate water—with the DTI favouring a light touch and the DETR favouring a heavy one? Is not the truth that the
    560
    Deputy Prime Minister has taken his ball home because he has not been able to get his way on water regulation in the Bill?
    The Utilities Bill is a shambles, and the Secretary of State will have to answer the question whether its remaining threads hang together at all.
    Mr. Byers: We have a Bill dealing with gas and electricity that will make a very real difference to many thousands of people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He needs to be aware of that. If he is saying that the Bill should be withdrawn, he is saying that those benefits should be denied to his constituents. It is interesting—it is on the record—that that is his approach. I think that he will be condemned on that particular issue.
    There is no disagreement between the Deputy Prime Minister and me on the need to deal with water within a water Bill: it is a sensible place to deal with it. As I said, on 3 February we announced that there will be a telecommunications White Paper. In the light of that, the operators themselves have made further representations. Our view is that we should take account of those representations, reflect on the issues and include them in a White Paper later this year.

Business Questions
12.47 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us 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 6 MARCH—Second Reading of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
TUESDAY 7 MARCH—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)(No.2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 8 MARCH—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Financial Provision and Clinical Distortion in the National Health Service" followed by a debate entitled "Regulatory Burdens on Small Business". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Supplemental Allocation of Time Motion relating to the Representation of the People Bill followed by consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received.
THURSDAY 9 MARCH—Second Reading of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 10 MARCH—Private Members' Bill.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill.
TUESDAY 14 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining Stages of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 15 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Terrorism Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the Spring Supplementary Estimates, Supplementary Vote on Account, Excess Votes and Defence Votes A.
THURSDAY 16 MARCH—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 17 MARCH—Debate on safeguards for children on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for details of next week's business and an indication of the likely business for the week after. I know that the whole House will welcome the fact that the debate on the Waterhouse report on child abuse will take place on the Floor of the House in Government time.
The right hon. Lady has announced a day and a half for the remaining stages of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Is she aware that that is a challenging timetable? It is a long constitutional Bill. During its passage, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office has been characteristically generous in
562
volunteering to revisit large sections of it and possibly amend it. Does she believe that the House can give adequate consideration to that Bill in the allotted time?
Given that fact and the exchanges that we have just heard, is it not clear that the Government are trying to push too much ill-considered legislation through the House? The House is littered with the debris of Bills that seem to have been abandoned, such as the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, those that are seriously damaged, such as the Utilities Bill, and others, such as the Freedom of Information Bill, which came out of Committee on 10 February and has not been seen since. Is the programme outlined in the Queen's Speech on track?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that we shall have a debate in Government time on the intergovernmental conference White Paper? We still await a debate on the Wakeham report on reform of the House of Lords. Might we expect a statement next week from the Deputy Prime Minister on the Crow report, which has caused serious alarm in Hampshire and the rest of the south-east? As I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows, next Wednesday is international women's day. We normally have a debate on women's issues, which is of interest to the whole House. Will that take place?
Finally, does the right hon. Lady recall that, at the last business questions, I asked for a statement on the BBC licence fee? She replied:
I cannot tell him when an announcement on the licence fee will be made, although it will not be next week.—[Official Report, 17 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1105.]
On the next sitting day, the Government made a statement on the licence fee. Does she feel a pang of remorse at her reply?
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that there is adequate time for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. It has some constitutional implications, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been very generous with the time allocated for discussions so far. We expect that to be taken into account.
It is plainly not the case that there is too much legislation or that the programme in the Queen's Speech is not on track. We already have a substantial number of Bills in Committee, on Report, being prepared and on their way through the House. There is no question of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill disappearing. The Government intend to pursue it, as we are pursuing the Utilities Bill. The Opposition are showing every sign of not learning from some of the mistakes that they made during the 1980s and 1990s. When I was first a Member of Parliament, it was an expected and normal part of the process of legislative scrutiny—indeed, it was the purpose of legislative scrutiny—that Governments listened to representations from other bodies outside the House and from the Opposition on the effect of legislation and might even change Bills as a result. It was only during Lady Thatcher's period that that became seen as a sign of weakness and incompetence. We see the consequences of that attitude in the diminished number of Conservative Members. Far from our legislation being ill-considered, the processes of the House are acting as they should.
The right hon. Gentleman asks for time for debate on issues such as Lords reform and international women's day and for a statement on the Crow report. It is clear from his remarks that he agrees that the Government have

563
to give priority to their legislative programme. He will be well aware of the way in which Opposition Members have sought to exploit the time and the means available to them. It is perfectly legitimate that they should do so and I make no complaint about it. However, the Government's priority is our legislative timetable. If he wants time to debate other issues—I have a great deal of sympathy with that—I suggest that he does something to prevent his hon. Friends from making undue and unnecessary use of time.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my comments about the statement on the BBC licence fee. I made those comments in good faith. He must have forgotten that he and a large number of other hon. Members made strong representations on that occasion, as they had on previous occasions, about the importance of an early statement on the subject. I am sorry that he apparently does not appreciate the power of his advocacy.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will be shocked to hear that, within the past hour, TRW has announced 450 redundancies at the former Lucas factory in my constituency. Does she see any prospect of debating the motor and motor components industry at an early date?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to hear of that announcement and I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents. The Government have done a great deal to improve the way that we respond when such announcements are made. I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special debate on the motor industry but, as my hon. Friend was one of the strongest advocates of the extra time found for discussion and debate in Westminster Hall, he will be keenly aware of the possibilities that presents.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: When does the Leader of the House intend that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill will return to the parliamentary programme? Following the withdrawal last night of the Nuclear (Safeguards) Bill, will the right hon. Lady confirm that that measure does not appear in the business programme for the next two weeks? Can the right hon. Lady give the House an assurance that technical but important Bill will reappear?
As to the Utilities Bill, does the Leader of the House agree—as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee—that the Government have a lesson to learn? A formal process of pre-legislative scrutiny might have been more appropriate, and it might have meant that one arm of government would have known that another arm was going to produce a White Paper. Then the telecommunications industry might have known the Government's intentions prior to publication. The tension and adrenalin that has flowed today could have been avoided by following the sensible procedures established in this parliamentary Session.
Mrs. Beckett: We have not withdrawn the Nuclear (Safeguards) Bill—it was not moved last night. It is an important technical measure.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important and worthwhile point about pre-legislative scrutiny and the Modernisation Select Committee. Perhaps understandably, the hon. Gentleman has not wholly taken on board the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who was of
564
course aware of, and involved in, discussions about a White Paper. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), there are two slightly different processes.
The Utilities Bill as originally conceived was intended to bring a degree of consistency to the approach taken to regulation across those sectors, which is why the telecoms and water sectors were in the original Bill. When an announcement was made of further work on the telecoms sector not related to those patterns of regulatory approval, there were fresh and different representations from that industry suggesting that the effect would be one round of probably perfectly worthwhile regulatory change, succeeded in different circumstances by another round relating to a business that is fast moving. In those circumstances, the representations made by the industry were considered and changes were made.
It is intended that the water sections of the Bill, where different issues arise, will go through a pre-legislative scrutiny process with the water Bill. Such a process has already been announced. So the hon. Gentleman will get exactly that for which he asks.
Mr. Andrew Reed: Will my right hon. Friend find time as soon as possible for a debate on the welcome measures announced yesterday to improve road safety? Although I would like those measures to go further, such a debate would allow the House to contrast them with the answer that I received from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 29 June 1999—that the Opposition would like to see the removal of bumps, chicanes and speed cameras as an impediment to cars. Would that not increase danger for the majority of pedestrians? As 103 child deaths a year are too many, may we have a debate on how to reduce that number as much as possible?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I well remember the exchange to which he refers and the statement he elicited from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). It is again a matter of creative tension between sensible regulation and red tape—and of the inability of the Conservative party to distinguish between the two.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Representing the interests of the House rather than the Government, does the Leader of the House think that it was appropriate for a Minister—in this case the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—to use a parliamentary question to announce a major change in a piece of legislation?
Secondly, thousands of redundancies are being announced in the textile and clothing industry, in which I have taken an interest in all the 29 years that I have been in the House. Those redundancies are the result of companies locating their manufacturing capacity overseas, encouraged, very often, by our major retailers, and of the costs in this country, which are caused by Government regulation and action. Will the right hon. Lady therefore allow a debate about the crisis facing the textile and clothing industry, particularly the strategy document that has recently been published and put out for consultation by the textile and clothing industry trade organisations, including the trade unions?
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the industry and, indeed, in all

565
aspects of manufacturing. He knows that I share that interest. I recognise the concerns of the clothing and textile industry. I am aware of how successive Governments have sought to work with it to solve those problems. Knowing the hon. Gentleman, I am quite prepared to believe that he does not solely lay at the door of this Government the problems that the industry faces.
Mr. Winterton indicated assent.
Mrs. Beckett: I am pleased to see that he agrees. However, I cannot undertake to find time for a further special debate on the industry, although I recognise the concerns that he identifies. I know that he and other hon. Members with similar interests will keep the matter under close scrutiny.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was appropriate for the Secretary of State to announce the changes that have been made in the way that he did. We are in a somewhat difficult position. As he will appreciate, the Bill is being considered by a Standing Committee Upstairs. I do not think it unreasonable for me to share with the House the information that it was the very strong advice of the Clerks that, when a Bill is in that stage of its process through the House, it is the property of the Committee which the hon. Gentleman, given his long-standing contribution to Standing Committees, will understand. It was therefore felt that an announcement had to be made first to the Committee, and it was then a matter of getting the timing right so that the House was not deprived while the Committee was informed. Since it coincided with Trade and Industry questions, this was thought the best possible way of dealing with the slightly difficult technicality of the Committee being in existence and the Government wishing, as always, to show full courtesy to both the House and the Committee.
Dr. Tony Wright: When the Wakeham commission was established, it was asked to work to a very tight timetable so that we could make rapid progress on reform of the other House. It worked to that timetable and delivered its report against all the odds by the end of last year. Since then, nothing seems to have happened. We have not yet fulfilled our pledge to remove the hereditaries because nearly 100 remain. It is now urgent for the House to debate this issue and for a Joint Committee of the two Houses to be established, as promised, so that it can begin to work and we can move from an incomplete stage 1 to a proper stage 2.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is remembering only half of what was said about Wakeham. We wished the royal commission to meet, discuss and come to a speedy conclusion so that the Government could then judge whether it was possible to see an emerging consensus which could be followed by further speedy action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members groan but, if they look at the record, they will find that that has always and consistently been the view expressed from the Dispatch Box. It is well within my hon. Friend's memory, I am sure, that the Conservative party claimed that no such consensus would emerge, and has indeed done its best to ensure that it does not. The question of who wants to see progress on this is a different one.
566
I do not agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the remaining hereditary principle. No one sits in the House of Lords on the basis of heredity any more. The procedures have been changed so that people are there through some mechanism related to their record and not to the record of their forebears.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I seek to follow the Government's logic by asking whether, if the water provisions had been first withdrawn, the Leader of the House would have withdrawn the telecommunications provisions, even if there had been no elusive White Paper on telecommunications?
Mrs. Beckett: The point that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to make was, uncharacteristically, not entirely clear. The issues are separate and slightly different, but as proposals for change were to be made on each matter, it was sensible to make them together.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House read the exchanges at column 1381 of Hansard on 22 February regarding rail safety? Is she familiar with the expression that something is "like painting the Forth rail bridge", which means that some process is going on and on and will never stop? Well, the painting of the bridge has now stopped because of an acrimonious dispute between Rigblast and Railtrack. Both as Leader of the House and as an engineer, has my right hon. Friend read Magnus Linklater's damning comment in The Times today that the whole business is a disgrace to our country? Much of the responsibility for that lies on The Mound, where today is being spent on a discussion of Gaelic, a language that only two Members there speak—and one of them badly. They are paying for simultaneous translation rather than attending to urgent engineering problems.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand, as the whole House does, my hon. Friend's proper concern for the Forth bridge, which is an important international monument. I am familiar with the expression—now a cliché I suppose—to which he drew attention, and I have read both the exchanges between my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the comments in The Times. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern, and shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who I believe is looking into the matter, and will write to my hon. Friend on it. Other than that, I am conscious of the courtesies required between fellow legislative bodies.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the negative prayer in my name against statutory instrument 239, which introduces changes to jobseeker's allowance regulations? The purpose of the change is to increase the benefit penalty sanction to 26 weeks if an 18 to 24-year-old refuses a new deal option over 12 months. The Advisory Committee on Social Security has made helpful suggestions that would mitigate some of the adverse effects of that change. Will the Leader of the House use her good offices through the usual channels to seek Committee consideration of the regulations before their implementation, which, I understand, is intended to happen early in March?
Mrs. Beckett: I have seen the hon. Gentleman's prayer, and I understand his point. I shall draw his remarks to the

567
attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The hon. Gentleman asks me to see that the issue is raised through the usual channels; having been a usual channel himself, he will be well aware of how that process operates.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 2?
[That this House applauds the Government's intention to ensure that all pensioners entitled to income support receive it, making it a genuine minimum income guarantee; notes that, although the minimum income guarantee was introduced in April 1999, the promised national programme of measures to maximise take-up is still awaited; and urges the Secretary of State for Social Security to announce that claims made by pensioners after the date of that announcement will be treated as having been made on that date and that arrears of benefit will be paid accordingly.]
According to the Government's figures, 700,000 of the poorest pensioners will lose out on the so-called minimum income guarantee to an average of £18 a week. When will we begin the campaign promised in our manifesto? It was promised for April 1999 but, on 6 February 2000, the Minister of State, Department of Social Security promised that it would happen by the end of that month. He repeated that promise in Westminster Hall on 9 February, but we are into March and nothing has happened. Can we have a debate in which the Government can reassure the poorest pensioners, who were promised, but have been denied, a minimum income? It is worth recalling that the minimum income guarantee is the Government's main excuse for not restoring the link between pensions and earnings. We need a debate to make sure that the Government guarantee that the great losses suffered by the poorest pensioners because of delays in the take-up campaign will be backdated.
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the long campaign that my hon. Friend—with other Members—has run on that issue. I do not entirely share the view that there has been no action and that no measures have been taken by the Government to promote the minimum income guarantee—although I am not even sure whether that is his proposition. However, I understand his point; despite the efforts made by the Government, we acknowledge that there are still too many people who do not take up their entitlement. I regret the fact that action might not have been taken as speedily as my hon. Friend had hoped and as Ministers had indicated. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I understand that a campaign will be mounted soon. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, after my recent experience in the matter of television licences, I am reluctant to offer a date.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if hon. Members would put direct questions to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Tomorrow, I shall present my Food Labelling Bill for Second Reading. In the light of the sympathy of the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Minister of
568
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for better food labelling, may I expect Government support for the Bill—and if not, why not?
Mrs. Beckett: Offhand, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether we will support his Bill. However, I can tell him that the Government have consistently promoted and pursued the cause of food labelling—in contrast to the party that he represents, which fought it all the way.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I realise that further statements can be made as developments take place in Mozambique. However, should not the House hold a debate on the crisis there? Our constituents expect a debate in the House so that we can all apply our minds to the massive problems in that country.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's wish to keep the matter before the House. As he is well aware, we have already discussed the matter on several occasions. However, as he appreciates, action is being taken to assist people in Mozambique—that is the most important thing—even though it is logistically difficult. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will keep the matter under review, but I cannot promise time for a further debate in the near future.
Rev. Martin Smyth: As I am a non-smoker, the Leader of the House will appreciate that I do not advocate smoking. However, on a day when those who represent the tobacco industry are lobbying the House, would she remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be helpful for manufacturing industry if he did not continue to increase the taxation on tobacco? That hits not only an industry but many shopkeepers throughout the Province.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the difficulties that arise over the taxation of tobacco, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the matter also relates to health and that, too, is a burden on the economy. The Government have to try to balance both those important issues.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I know that the Leader of the House will be well aware of the extreme disquiet among the Indian community in this country over the proposal for a visa bond pilot scheme. Although that anxiety was engendered by a mendacious piece of journalism that linked asylum seekers with a £10,000 bond, it is important that there should be discussion of the matter in the House at the earliest opportunity, so that it can be clarified for members of the Indian community who are extremely concerned.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. I am aware of the concerns on those issues. I am also aware—as is he through his involvement in the Labour Friends of India organisation—of the need to air those concerns. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that Home Office questions will be held on 13 March, when he may find an opportunity to raise the issue. Hopefully, he will hear a statement then that will ease the concerns of his constituents.
Mr. John Townend: The right hon. Lady will recall that, on 13 January, I asked whether she

569
would consider providing time for a further fishing debate. We had only half a day for the annual fishing debate. A long statement from the Prime Minister before the debate, and long speeches from those on the Front Bench meant that only one Opposition Back Bencher was called. She was not able to accede to my request, but I was encouraged when, in a reply to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) about the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill, she said that it would offer an opportunity to discuss fishing issues.
The Bill was debated yesterday and I prepared a speech dealing with the problems of the British fishing industry, which is in a serious and desperate state. However, I was horrified when, at the beginning of the Second Reading debate, the occupant of the Chair indicated that it was a purely technical Bill and that he would not allow a general debate on fishing issues. Clearly, I agree that it might have been unwitting, but the right hon. Lady misled the House. I ask her to apologise for that and to make amends by offering a full day's debate on fishing, so that the vast majority of Members representing fishing communities have the chance to debate an industry that is in crisis and to speak for their fishermen.
Mrs. Beckett: I say this with respect, but I do not take lightly the use of the words "misled" or "apologise". I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, at least in my view, those remarks were disproportionate. Of course, I accept the concern that he has expressed and I regret the circumstances in which he found himself. He will know that I do not speak for, and cannot bind, the Chair, so I regret that he did not have the opportunity that he expected.
Equally, I regret that it has not been possible to find time for a debate on fishing. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that we might have had more time on the Bill yesterday had not time been taken up on other matters. That was perfectly proper. However, I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) at the outset. I understand the concerns, and that is why the Government, through Westminster Hall, have provided opportunities for 200 extra debates. I understand the great desire in the House to discuss all manner of issues, but that means that we have to use our time wisely. The Government must give priority to legislation, and Conservative Members might like to bear that point in mind.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the important role that home helps play for vulnerable people? Is she aware that a dispute in Derbyshire means that many home helps have had their low wages reduced by 15 per cent? Will she use her efforts in the House and
570
as a Member representing a Derbyshire constituency—although I accept that she is not on the county council—to see that this unfortunate dispute is brought to an end?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not exercise powers over social services authorities. I always regret it when disputes arise and hope that they can be speedily resolved. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the House on this matter.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady always treats the House with great courtesy, but this afternoon she has repeatedly been unable to give clear answers to questions because she has given the House legislative indigestion. In response to the initial questions of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), will she tell us whether it is her intention, as she has suggested in the past, to give us a debate on the Wakeham report, for which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has also asked? Is it her intention to give us a debate on the intergovernmental conference White Paper and will we have a statement on the Crow report, which touches on the consistencies of many Members on both sides of the House? Can we please have a clear affirmation on those three points?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I think that I have given the House a very clear steer indeed. I said nothing to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that suggested that the Government were not perfectly prepared to have a debate on the Wakeham report. I am very mindful of the pressure from Conservative Members for a debate on the IGC report, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the number of occasions in recent weeks in which the Government have allowed one or two days for business and, because of the perfectly proper activities of Conservative Members, that business has not been concluded within the expected time. That has been a repeated pattern.
The Government have every intention of seeking to find time for some of the issues that he has raised, and for others that Members have perfectly properly mentioned, but there is a creative tension between these things, and the Government's priority is their legislative programme. Hon. Members who wish to debate other matters might like to have that in mind.
Madam Speaker: We shall now take the first statement.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order—
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order always come after statements.

Senator Pinochet
1.20 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the case of Senator Pinochet, former Head of State of Chile.
This morning, I informed the House by written answer that I had discharged Senator Pinochet from the Spanish extradition request, on the grounds that he was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvement in his condition could be expected. I also reported my decision not to issue an authority to proceed in the competing extradition requests from Belgium, France and Switzerland, because none of those disclosed an extradition crime. A detailed explanation of my reasons is included in my answer.
The House will also now be aware, from the written answer given earlier today by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided, on the material available to him, that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction in this jurisdiction, and that in any event, in the light of the medical condition of Senator Pinochet, no court here would allow a trial to take place. My hon. and learned Friend will be making a statement to the House immediately after mine.
Senator Pinochet departed from his bail address at Wentworth, Surrey this morning. He was driven under police escort to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire. A plane provided by the Chilean Government and carrying Senator Pinochet took off at about 1.10 this afternoon. The senator has now left the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
Let me now give the House a full account of what has happened in this case, as I said I would once the proceedings were concluded. I begin by making some general observations. My role under the Extradition Act 1989 is a quasi-judicial one. Although not generally incorporated into our domestic law, both the European extradition convention and the United Nations torture convention place important obligations on the United Kingdom, but I have to discharge those obligations within the powers and responsibilities placed upon me by United Kingdom law.
All the decisions which I have taken have been mine alone, and have not been decisions of Her Majesty's Government. Throughout, I have been keenly aware of the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed by Senator Pinochet and of the desire for justice by those who suffered at the hands of the former Chilean regime.
This has been an unprecedented case. Both I and the courts have had to navigate in uncharted territory. Two judicial Committees of the House of Lords took different views about what offences constituted extradition crimes. More recently, Mr. Justice Maurice Kay ruled that my refusal of Belgium's request for disclosure of the medical report which I had commissioned was correct. Shortly afterwards, a full divisional court, while acknowledging strong arguments on both sides, came to the opposite view.
The following is the chronology of the significant events. Senator Pinochet landed at Heathrow airport on 22 September 1998, for a private visit to the United Kingdom. On 16 October, the Metropolitan police
572
received an extradition request from a Madrid court for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet for serious offences, including the murder of Spanish citizens. The police were advised by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that Senator Pinochet did not enjoy diplomatic immunity from arrest. Bow Street magistrates court then issued a provisional arrest warrant, and Senator Pinochet was arrested that evening.
Senator Pinochet's solicitors made representations to me on 21 October 1998, asking me to cancel the provisional arrest warrant. I declined to do so, on the basis that the issues raised at that stage were a matter for the court. Senator Pinochet's solicitors challenged my decision. A divisional court, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, rejected that challenge and awarded me my costs. The court nevertheless quashed the warrant on the grounds that Senator Pinochet did have sovereign immunity as a former Head of State and that the warrant did not disclose an extradition crime.
The Crown Prosecution Service, acting on behalf of Spain, then entered an appeal to the House of Lords. In a unique feature of the case, the issue was considered twice by the House of Lords, first in November 1998 and then, after the first judgment was vacated, in March 1999. The key majority finding of the second court was that torture was an international crime over which the parties to the torture convention had universal jurisdiction, and that a former Head of State did not have immunity from such crimes. That ruling was a landmark judgment in human rights law, whose impact has been felt far beyond our shores. It will be a permanent legacy of the Pinochet case.
The second House of Lords judgment restricted the scope and number of the alleged crimes in respect of which Senator Pinochet could be extradited for torture and conspiracy to torture committed in Chile after the UK'S ratification of the torture convention in December 1988. The charges were, of course, still extremely serious.
I issued a second authority to proceed on 14 April 1999, giving my reasons. A second judicial challenge to my decision was made by Senator Pinochet's representatives, but was again rejected by the divisional court. On 8 October 1999, Senator Pinochet was committed by the Bow Street magistrate to await my decision on whether to extradite him to Spain. Senator Pinochet's solicitors applied for habeas corpus, and a hearing date was set for 20 March this year.
On 14 October 1999, I received representations from the Chilean embassy, supported by medical reports which suggested that there had been a recent and significant deterioration in Senator Pinochet's health. I commissioned a medical examination of Senator Pinochet by a team of independent practitioners of outstanding national and international reputation in their fields. The team consisted of Professor Sir John Grimley Evans, Professor Andrew Lees and Dr. Michael Denham. On the team's advice, Dr. Maria Wyke, a consultant neuropsychologist, was also brought in.
I want to put on record my gratitude to Sir John Grimley Evans and his team for their assistance. They have performed a very significant public service. They have not been able to speak freely in explaining and, where necessary, defending their findings, despite widespread public scrutiny.
The clinicians were instructed to undertake an examination and to provide me with a fully comprehensive report on the state of Senator Pinochet's

573
health. In particular, they were asked to advise whether any aspects of Senator Pinochet's health suggested that he was not then fit, or was likely to become fit, to stand trial in Spain. They were told that I was particularly interested in Senator Pinochet's ability to follow a line of questioning, to recall events—some of which took place as long ago as the 1970s—and to give coherent evidence. They were also asked to advise me on whether Senator Pinochet could be feigning any of his symptoms.
As I disclosed in my statement on 12 January, the conclusions of the medical report, applying the tests that I had outlined, indicated that Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvements in that position could be expected. The Government's chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, confirmed the quality and thoroughness of the report. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.
I informed the interested parties on 11 January that, in the light of the medical evidence and subject to any representations received by 18 January, I was minded to conclude that no purpose would be served by continuing the Spanish extradition request.
On 25 January, a judicial review application was made by Belgium and Amnesty International for disclosure of the medical report. In inviting Senator Pinochet to undertake the medical examination, officials had, on my behalf, given an undertaking of confidentiality. I indicated to the divisional court that although I would have preferred to disclose the medical report to the requesting states, I considered myself bound by the undertakings that I had given, subject to any overriding public interest.
Mr. Justice Maurice Kay held that the report should not be disclosed, but a full divisional court, in a judgment of 15 February, said that while the issue had been a very difficult one, the need for transparency to the requesting states in this exceptional case outweighed any duty of confidentiality. It said, however, that I should disclose the report to Spain, Belgium, France and Switzerland only in terms of strict confidence. I complied with the judgment. I regret to say that the content of that report was almost immediately leaked to the press.
Requesting states were invited to make any representation on the medical report by Tuesday 22 February. The representations included opinions from medical practitioners questioning the conclusions of the report. I asked Professor Sir John Grimley Evans and his team to review those medical opinions, and received their advice on 27 February. The team's advice was also reviewed on 28 February by the Government's chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson. He commented:
I was very impressed with the care with which Sir John (and his team) has responded to each of the points of criticism of their report. This is not a crude rebuttal—it is a sound and logical reply supported by clinical evidence. I believe it is a further reflection of the skill, integrity and independence with which this task has been carried out by the clinicians.
I considered the matter afresh in the light of all the material. Having done so, I was satisfied that the conclusion of the original report was correct. I intend to place the medical representations and the team's response in the Library once I have secured the agreement of the requesting states.
574
The principle that an accused person should be mentally capable of following the proceedings, instructing lawyers and giving coherent evidence is fundamental to the idea of a fair trial. The trial of an accused in the condition diagnosed in Senator Pinochet, on the charges that have been made against him in this case, could not be fair in any country, and would violate article 6 of the European convention on human rights in those countries that are party to it.
A number of the representations that I received argued that even if there were questions about Senator Pinochet's fitness for trial, those should be determined in Spain and not here. I looked at that matter with great care. However, I was advised, and I concluded, that on the basis of English law I was bound to form a view of my own on Senator Pinochet's fitness to stand trial and that I could not refrain from reaching such a view on the basis that the question could be determined in Spain.
In any event, I established, with the assistance of the Spanish authorities, that Spain's principles for determining the fitness of an accused to stand trial are similar to ours. I therefore concluded that given the advice that no improvement in Senator Pinochet's condition could be expected, no judicial purpose would be served by the continuation of extradition proceedings for the objective of a trial in Spain which could not result in any verdict on the charges against him.
Of the 70,000 letters and e-mails from the public which I have received from all over the world, and many letters from Members of Parliament and organisations, almost all have urged me to allow the extradition proceedings to take their course, so that the allegations made against Senator Pinochet could be tried. I attach great importance to the principle that universal jurisdiction against persons charged with international crimes should be effective.
I am all too well aware that the practical consequence of refusing to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain is that he will probably not be tried anywhere. I am very conscious of the sense of injury that is bound to be felt by those who suffered from breaches of human rights in Chile in the past, as well as their relatives.
All of these are matters of great concern, and I had them very much in mind when considering the evidence about Senator Pinochet's state of health. They have been among the reasons why I required the evidence of Senator Pinochet's medical condition to satisfy a high standard of expertise, thoroughness, objectivity and cogency before I was prepared to act on it. Ultimately, however, I was driven to the conclusion that a trial of the charges against Senator Pinochet, however desirable, was simply no longer possible.
The case has taken 17 months, much of that in court proceedings. While the House of Lords hearings on state immunity were indeed an exceptional feature, that period is not an unusual one in a complex, contested extradition matter. The Extradition Act 1989 is now more than a decade old and I believe that the time has come to review it. Work on that was in fact already under way before the Pinochet case began, and I intend to publish a consultation paper in due course on the options for streamlining our extradition procedures.
As I have already made clear, this case is unprecedented. Throughout the process, I have sought to exercise my responsibilities in a fair and rational way in accordance with the law. The case has understandably

575
aroused great debate and feeling. Its impact has been felt worldwide. It has established, beyond question, the principle that those who commit human rights abuses in one country cannot assume that they are safe elsewhere. That will be the lasting legacy of this case.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his customary courtesy in giving me early sight of it.
I am sure that I speak for many when I welcome the fact that we have a final decision in the case, which has mainly been characterised by muddle, contradiction and delay. I also welcome the fact that there will be a review of the law of extradition, as it is clear that the case has pointed up several unsatisfactory aspects. I look forward to the consultation paper being issued in due course.
Will the right hon. Gentleman please publish an estimate of the full costs from the beginning to the end of the case? Will he also please publish an estimate of the police manpower involved in the case?
Will the Home Secretary explain the delays, particularly the two delays that occurred between October and March? The right hon. Gentleman was informed in October that there was a medical question mark over Senator Pinochet's fitness to stand trial, yet the procedures were dragged out until March before we finally had a decision. I ask the same question in respect of the application for habeas corpus, which was made in October and had not been determined by the time that everything else was resolved.
Does the Secretary of State accept that there are serious lessons to be learned from the case? It remains the fact that Senator Pinochet came to this country for medical treatment and, at the behest of our ethical Foreign Office, was greeted and feted at Heathrow—yet hardly any time later, he was arrested while still recovering from the operation for which he had come to this country.
The senator and those arguing on the other side of the case were subjected to a highly protracted legal process in which the Secretary of State appears to have been unable swiftly to determine the various matters that were his responsibility, rather than the responsibility of the court. He had the power to refuse the extradition application, but above all he had the power to act much more quickly when he knew that there was a question mark over the senator's health. It is that delay, rather than the original delay, which concerns me most.
The Secretary of State glossed over the leak of the medical report; he mentioned it, but he glossed over what was behind it. It remains a feature of the case that the Home Secretary gave an undertaking of medical confidentiality on the basis of which, presumably, permission to make the medical examination was granted. That confidentiality was then breached. What investigation has he made of that? What representations has he made to Spain, if that is where the breach occurred? How seriously does he take the matter? He is shaking his head, but I am not asking him to provide an explanation by magic; I am asking him what attempts he has made to find one. That is a reasonable question.
Senator Pinochet has been returned to Chile, and many of us will welcome that because we believe that Chile should have determined whether the case came to trial, and held that trial if it so determined. The outcome is satisfactory, but the case was deeply unsatisfactory. At the
576
end of the procedures, I cannot believe that Spain, Chile, the senator or the relatives and victims of his alleged crimes are happy. I cannot believe that anyone has gained satisfaction from the handling of the case. When reviewing the workings of our extradition law, will the Home Secretary also review the points on which he had absolute discretion, but took a long time to exercise it?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady asked me specific questions, which I shall try to answer, and made some general observations with which I shall also deal. Our current provisional estimate of the Government's legal costs is just under £1.4 million, although they are likely to be greater. I cannot provide an estimate of the cost of the police protection. I may be able to do so with one important proviso: that I am satisfied that that will not compromise such security operations in future. That has been the policy of successive Governments. Subject to that, I will provide the information to the House and the right hon. Lady.
The right hon. Lady asked about the delay. No unreasonable delay occurred from the point in early October when I was informed by the Chilean Government—not Senator Pinochet's representatives—of anxieties about his medical condition. It is very unusual in an extradition case for medical representations to be submitted by a third party, in this case the Chilean Government. We had to ensure that my actions were in accordance with the law. At that stage, the matter was before the courts, not before me. In normal circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the habeas corpus proceedings to be completed before further representations were considered by the Home Secretary.
In the light of the serious condition which was disclosed prima facie by the medical report from the Chilean embassy, I was satisfied that it was right and proper of me to seek further independent medical opinions about Senator Pinochet's condition. However, first, I had to assemble a team whose expertise and independence was beyond question. That was put in hand with the greatest possible speed, but it took the chief medical officer, the Home Office and me some time to assemble such a team. We had to check that its members had the relevant expertise, no connections with Spain or Chile, and no political affiliations that would later bring their integrity into question.
The right hon. Lady asked an eccentric question about the delay in the habeas corpus application. She should know that as we have separation of powers in this country, the timing of cases is a matter for the courts, not the Home Secretary. I reject her suggestion that I have acted without speed at any stage in the process. Whenever a decision has been ready for me to make, I have acted with speed.
The right hon. Lady asked about the leak of the medical reports. I greatly regret that leak. I offered medical confidentiality partly because I was concerned that if it was not provided—the information was given only to the senator's representatives, the Crown Prosecution Service and to me—there would be a danger that it would not simply be confined to those who had an interest in it, but broadcast worldwide.
I fully accepted that, in terms of seeking publicly to justify the conclusions I reached, it was easier for me to have that medical report on the record. I made it clear to the divisional court that I felt myself bound by the

577
undertakings of medical confidentiality, which I had given in good faith, but of course if the court ordered otherwise I would have to follow the decision of the court. That is what I did—[Interruption.] That is precisely what I did. We do not know exactly where it was leaked, but there is every suggestion that it was leaked outside this jurisdiction. Inquiries are being made. I understand from the Spanish ambassador that Spain regrets the leak, but has been unable to conclude that it was the fault of the Spanish authorities.
I want to make two final points. I have dealt with the allegation that the right hon. Lady made about delay. She then suggested that there has been muddle and contradiction in this case. Looking at the Opposition's response, only they have shown the most extraordinary muddle and contradiction in the pursuit of this matter. This morning on the radio she said, commendably, that she had never suggested for one moment that anything I had done was improper. She also suggested that once the matter had been before me it was appropriate for me to make decisions. That is a rather different comment from past ones that I have had to accept without the possibility of responding.
The right hon. Lady told the Conservative party conference—I suspect more for its entertainment than as a recitation of the truth—that I had welcomed General Pinochet to the United Kingdom, when I had done absolutely nothing of the kind, and that I had arrested him, which I had also not done. There is also the comment of the Leader of the Opposition on 10 December 1998, who described my decision to issue the first authority to proceed as "cowardly". I do not happen to believe that accepting and acknowledging our international obligations and the rule of law is a matter of cowardice. Given the position that she is now taking, I hope that she will invite her right hon. Friend to withdraw such an unsubstantiated remark.
My final point is that I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not see fit to acknowledge the very serious nature of the crimes alleged against Senator Pinochet. He was accused of torture and of conspiracy to torture of a very extreme kind. Those were and remain crimes that should have been the subject of international judicial process, but for the fact that this man was unfit to stand trial.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary accept that many people in this country and around the world feel a sense of shame at the news that Pinochet has now left British airspace and is therefore free from any likelihood of prosecution in any court anywhere in the world? Does he also accept that in addition to the 31 cases of torture on which Pinochet stands indicted in British courts, he stands accused of the death or disappearance of more than 7,000 people in Chile? This man has not faced justice; he has avoided it. He has lived in luxury and gone through the courts here. None of his victims ever had the chance to go through courts or be represented anywhere. They were merely shot and murdered during his disgraceful regime.
Can the Home Secretary explain why, on 5 November 1999, he wrote to Pinochet's lawyers offering medical confidentiality in return for Pinochet undertaking a medical examination? Subsequent to the divisional court's decision to overturn the January decision of a court,
578
Belgium, France and Spain all requested further medical examinations of Pinochet. Pinochet refused to be examined again and subsequently the Home Secretary has allowed him to leave this country.
Many people and many eminent doctors believe that Pinochet is capable of comprehending a case against him and is therefore capable of standing trial. Can the Home Secretary therefore explain why this situation has been allowed to develop? Would he be prepared to meet the families of the victims of torture and of people who have disappeared to explain to them personally why he thinks that that is the correct decision to take, when none of their relatives had any opportunity for any justice whatever during the reign of terror in Chile?
Mr. Straw: On my hon. Friend's last point, of course I would be happy to arrange a meeting with the families whom he speaks about to explain the decision that I came to, but I have to say that I reject a great deal of the rest of what he said. In the light of the medical evidence that I had before me, there was no case whatever for a further medical examination.
The situation was this. First, the Chilean embassy had arranged a medical examination of Senator Pinochet by people who were eminently qualified in their own field. Notwithstanding that, because the examination was by someone effectively appointed on the side of Senator Pinochet, I was not remotely willing to accept that advice as conclusive, even though it indicated that there had been a very significant deterioration in his health in the autumn of last year—so the panel was then appointed. Clear tests were set for the panel, but the decision about Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial was mine, not its.
I asked the panel to offer advice on the basis of tests that I had set, but I then sought the further advice of the Government's most senior medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, on those reports. On 7 January, he wrote to me to say:
This authoritative medical report leaves me no reason to doubt the specialists' judgement that the Senator is not fit to stand trial and that his present condition is not one which would be expected to improve. The report also makes clear that the Senator's condition could not be feigned.
He repeated that conclusion when he commented on the further reports that I received very recently.
I have already explained why I offered medical confidentiality in this case. I believe that I was right to do so, notwithstanding the fact that I was always aware that it would be more difficult publicly to justify my conclusions on the basis of my simply reporting them, than if the report were made public in a worldwide sense.
My hon. Friend asked, would not the decision be greeted with shame? I do not believe that it will be greeted—or should be greeted—with shame. I hope that it is greeted with a recognition that, throughout the case, I have sought to follow the rule of law. That rule of law requires that those accused of very serious crimes, wherever those crimes are alleged to have happened, should be brought to justice. It also requires that there are some basic conditions relating to the medical and physical fitness of any accused before they can stand trial.
I have sought not only to be consistent within the case, but to be consistent between the case and other extradition cases with which I have dealt. I remind my hon. Friend that in the case of Roisin McAliskey—which was not the

579
same, but where similar issues of her medical condition arose—I decided, again on the basis of independent medical evidence, not to order her extradition. I do not recall that he accused me of shameful conduct in that case; rather, what I remember is that he thanked me for the decision. We have to judge these issues on matters of principle, not according to the person concerned.
Mr. Simon Hughes: While I share the disappointment of millions, probably, that Senator Pinochet has gone back to Chile, where he will probably never be prosecuted, I also share the Home's Secretary view that it is quite wrong to say that he or others have acted wrongly to delay the proceedings in this country. Anyone who knows anything about extradition law knows that there are legal proceedings and political proceedings and that they are bound to take a length of time if they are to be properly handled. I have been critical of some of the decisions along the way, but delay and confusion is not an allegation that comes properly from the Conservative Benches or elsewhere when discussing how the Home Secretary has dealt with the matter.
I want to ask the Home Secretary about two things, as well as welcoming his response to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), in which he said that he would meet victims and relatives of victims. Many of us have constituents who would appreciate the ability to discuss the implications of the decision today.
First, given that the two controversial matters were the medical evidence and the fitness to plead, and given that the Home Secretary is to review extradition law, will he take the assessment of who is a medical expert, how a judgment is reached on medical evidence and how a conclusion is drawn about unfitness to plead away from politicians and establish a process that is agreed between parties in advance and covers a variety of cases and, ideally, is agreed internationally?
Secondly, given that I share the Home Secretary's hope that the case is remembered for the fact that it established that dictators and political leaders cannot hide from the consequences of actions taken against their citizens, can he reassure me that it will be not just a theory, but a practice, that the international convention will not allow many countries to escape and that everyone will sign up to it? The sooner we get the International Criminal Court in place and in action so that such matters can be decided by international judges, the sooner we will be seen to have a fair international judicial system for dealing with terrible tyrants, as Senator Pinochet apparently was.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the disappointment felt by relatives of the victims of what happened in Chile and also by the victims that are still alive. Had it not been for the senator's patent unfitness to stand trial, subject to any conclusions of habeas corpus and court proceedings, he would have stood to be extradited to Spain. That was the clear implication of decisions that I took earlier in the case to issue authorities to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman asked two questions about our review of extradition law. First, he asked whether it was possible to establish a protocol for the assessment of the medical conditions of those who are accused. We shall certainly think about that. Ultimately, decisions on such
580
matters will have to be made by a court or by the Secretary of State. There is a nice issue as to where the balance lies. I do not believe that such decisions can be entirely handed over to the courts, but judgments as to how the issue should be streamlined need to be considered carefully.
Secondly, we are strongly committed to ensuring that we, as a country, uphold international law. We have sought to prove that in practice even more recently than the issue of the arrest warrant for Senator Pinochet. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall introduce legislation as soon as possible to bring the International Court of Justice into our law.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I accept my right hon. Friend's decision—I do not think that "welcome" is the appropriate verb—but does he agree that Pinochet has already been judged at the bar of world opinion and that his crimes of torture and murder will ring through history? Are there not three conclusions to be drawn from this issue? First, dictators and tyrants do not escape justice, arrest and detention. Secondly, we have seen exposed, more by the antics of those in another place—an organisation that is loosely called "Tories for Torture"—the extraordinary behaviour of Conservative Members who have sought to justify crimes committed by one of their ideological bedmates and their double standards.
Thirdly and most importantly, is it not the case that Pinochet returns-to Chile a broken and humiliated man? His spell over Chile has been broken and the people of Chile have elected a socialist president—the best way of commemorating Salvador Allende's term of office. Although Pinochet may have escaped trial, his crimes will for ever be remembered as some of the most heinous and he was in this country when the world remembered the great evil that he did.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the extravagant and wholly ill-judged opinions that have been expressed about the consequences of the case. Although it was not a factor that I ever took into account, it was suggested—it was in the public print—that, if the proceedings against the senator continued for any period at all, and still more if he were extradited, it could lead to a return of dictatorial government in Chile. There is no evidence to suggest that consequence, but there is overwhelming evidence that not only in Chile, but across Latin America, the extradition process within the context of the British rule of law has assisted people in Chile and elsewhere in Latin America in coming to terms with a non-democratic past. That may be one of the legacies of this case.
Mr. Peter Brooke: In the aftermath of the Home Secretary's decision, and of Senator Pinochet leaving our jurisdiction, would the Home Secretary be prepared to revisit another ancillary issue of public order about which I have remained silent for 17 months, until the main case was determined? I am referring to the continuous and noisy demonstration outside the London Clinic, for nearly a fortnight, in October 1998.
I raise the issue on two counts. The first is that there were people dying in the hospital and that their nearest and dearest were visiting them. Secondly, there is no question but that the people staffing the hospital were

581
genuinely in fear, especially after an international television cameraman was apprehended on the very floor on which General Pinochet was situated. Does the Home Secretary think that demonstrations outside hospitals are an issue that we should revisit for the future?
Mr. Straw: I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern in the matter. As he will know, similar concerns were expressed to me by Lord Biffen on behalf of the hospital. I also know that very great inconvenience was caused to patients in the London Clinic. I shall certainly take it up with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I just mention to my right hon. Friend that, as a Minister of State in the Foreign Office for four and a half years between 1975 and 1979, I heard testimonies repeated by family after family about the torture and disappearance of many of those who were lost? Tens of thousands of people were affected by the Pinochet regime. May I also remind my right hon. Friend and the shadow Home Secretary that that included the torture of a British citizen, Sheila Cassidy? Although I am willing to accept the decision that my right hon. Friend has had to make, I think that we should at least remind everyone that Pinochet received our judicial process in a fair way and had a fair hearing—which he denied tens of thousands of his own citizens.
Mr. Straw: I think that my hon. Friend's point is very well taken. He knows from his earlier experience of the very serious problems that affected the people of Chile in the period following the assassination of President Allende.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not worth reminding the House that in December 1997, when the Labour Government were in power, the senator came to the United Kingdom as a VIP guest, when he was commander-in-chief of the Chilean army? The VIP reception that he received when he came in December 1998, at the behest of the Foreign Office, was essentially no different. Now, the important thing is to forget this sorry episode as soon as possible—the least said, the soonest mended.
May I also say how pleased I am that, in 10 days, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), will go to Santiago for the inauguration of the new democratic Government under President Lagos? The Minister will find that Chile is a wholly democratic country which is under the rule of law that it has had ever since Pinochet voluntarily relinquished power.
Mr. Straw: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will attend the presidential inauguration, which I believe takes place on Thursday. It is right to say that the elections in Chile were democratic and fully representative.
Let me just deal with the myth about Senator Pinochet being welcomed as a VIP guest. My understanding is that when he came to this country he was provided with VIP
582
facilities at Heathrow, as is routine, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was aware of his visit. At that stage we had no knowledge that any extradition warrant was going to be issued in the Madrid court. It was not until I was on an aeroplane travelling to Avignon in France—to make a speech about the need to modernise extradition procedures, as it happens—that I was passed a copy of The Guardian, where I read a small item saying that Senator Pinochet was in the country and might be the subject of extradition proceedings, whereupon I suggested to my private secretary that we needed to find out something more about the matter.
Ann Clwyd: I feel that a great injustice has been done today to the thousands of people who disappeared or were tortured or murdered, as well as to their families, many of whom have spent night after night and month after month outside the House of Commons protesting about General Pinochet. It is a tragedy that this country, which has signed up to all the human rights conventions and the convention on torture—the list of conventions is as long as one's arm—allowed General Pinochet to come here without prosecuting him ourselves. Why did we wait for Spain to ask for his extradition? Why did we not do it ourselves? We are obliged under the torture convention to prosecute those who come here and are accused of heinous tortures in their own country.
When further medical evidence was requested, a further examination should have been possible. There appeared to be doubt. Those who appeared on behalf of Amnesty International thought that it was essential that a further examination should be carried out. Why was that not done?
My right hon. Friend has not explained satisfactorily why General Pinochet was given an assurance that his medical details would remain secret. As my right hon. Friend knows, it is possible to make such details available in the public interest. It should not have required other countries to make that request to the courts.
There are clearly weaknesses in English law that need to be rectified. What proposals does my right hon. Friend have to investigate those weaknesses and ensure that if someone similar, such as Saddam Hussein or any of the Iraqi war criminals, visited this—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady has said enough for the Home Secretary to respond to.
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the strong feelings involved, particularly those of victims and relatives affected in Chile. However, we cannot deal with such issues simply on the basis of emotion. If we did, there would be a great danger of falling into the trap of double standards—applying different principles to those of whom we approve from those that we apply to those of whom we disapprove. Many Conservative Members have fallen into that trap.
My hon. Friend talks about our being signed up to all the human rights conventions. It is precisely because we are signed up to human rights conventions, and we cannot pick and choose which articles of those conventions we apply, that I have had to come to my decision. The plain, unalterable and unanswerable fact is that Senator Pinochet's medical condition is such that to have

583
extradited him to Spain would have been a palpable breach of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
The test of fitness to stand trial in Spain is in all material respects the same as the test to stand trial in the United Kingdom. Moreover, for reasons that I have explained, there is no question but that I could not have passed the responsibility for determining fitness to Spain. It was a decision that I had to make. If my hon. Friend had been in my position, faced with the same evidence and the duties imposed by all the international human rights conventions to which she refers, she would have had to come to the same conclusion as I did.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to put a question, I ask for much shorter questions and, if possible, shorter answers. There is another major statement to be made and we must protect the debate on Welsh affairs.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I welcome the fact that Senator Pinochet, a true friend of the United Kingdom, has returned to his home country—which is the proper forum to hear the allegations made against him.
Does the Home Secretary accept that had he acted more decisively in October 1998, this thoroughly unsatisfactory and disgraceful fiasco might have been avoided? I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in his difficulties over judicial review. The House should hold him to account, not the judges of our country. Is it not unacceptable that the Home Secretary was obliged to extend the incarceration of Britain's only political prisoner at the behest of foreign Governments?
The Home Secretary was saying that, were it not for the fact that the senator was unfit to plead, he would have bowed to the request of a foreign Government. What implications will that have in future for visitors from China, Zimbabwe and other countries of whose practices we disapprove?
Mr. Straw: We may geographically be an island but judicially we are not. We have international obligations to other countries that go back centuries. Extradition is one of them. The procedures are over-complicated, as this case illustrated—but they are such that other states are able to request extradition of a fugitive from this country, and we are able to do likewise. International order, and order within each country, is enhanced by the availability of extradition.
Mr. David Winnick: The decision will undoubtedly be a bitter blow for all the people who suffered at the hands of the Pinochet regime, but I accept—as someone who campaigned for Pinochet to face justice—that it would be wrong for the senator to be placed in the dock if his health is as claimed by doctors. We shall soon see whether there is any recovery once he is in Chile.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a country such as ours, governed by the rule of law and justice, it is absolutely nauseating that a former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, should act as the chief apologist of Pinochet
584
and minimise the tortures and mass murders that occurred under his regime? She has brought only disgrace upon her name and reputation.
Mr. Straw: I never thought that Lady Thatcher's comments were consistent with support for the international rule of law, but that is for her to explain.
One of the key questions put on my behalf to the medical team was whether there was any possibility that Senator Pinochet could have feigned his symptoms. We have to rely on the best medical evidence available and the conclusion of the doctors and of the chief medical officer was:
The senator's condition could not be feigned.
It is hugely important in such a case that there is no fabrication of symptoms. I am as satisfied as I conceivably could be that there was none in this instance.
Mr. Eric Forth: When the Home Secretary reviews the extradition processes, will he do his best to introduce a filter against mischievous, maverick and politically motivated interventions by other countries in our judicial process? The right hon. Gentleman indicated that that was a large part of the problem, and such a filter would be a benefit of his quite proper review. If the Home Secretary fails to do that, it is possible that this country may be visited by fewer and fewer Heads of State—past and current—because they are afraid of the same happening to them. That might not be a bad thing from some people's point of view, but if we want an increasing number of heads of state from Africa and the far east to visit, they might seek some reassurance that they will not go through the same thing as Senator Pinochet.
Mr. Straw: Sometimes I find the right hon. Gentleman's arguments difficult to follow. If he is arguing that former Heads of State against whom there are allegations about the commissioning of serious crimes should enjoy immunity wherever they travel, I do not take that view.
The right hon. Gentleman implies that Spain's extradition request was mischievous and maverick. I do not for a second take that view either. That request was proper and was found by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in its first decision to be proper in all material respects as to the charges. The second decision by the House of Lords in March 1999 reduced the number of extradition crimes, but the two sets remaining, of torture and conspiracy to torture, were among the most serious of which anybody could be accused—and were backed by clear evidence. It would have remained to be seen, had extradition and a trial taken place, what decision would be arrived at by an independent Spanish court. But in no sense do I criticise Spain for seeking extradition.
Ms Jenny Jones: My constituents include victims of Pinochet's brutal regime, and today they and I are required to swallow a very bitter pill. Can my right hon. Friend say where my constituents can turn now for the justice they ought to receive for the violations of their human rights?
Mr. Straw: I understand of course that for anybody who was in Chile and suffered at the hands of the Chilean

585
regime when Senator Pinochet was in power, or for their relatives, my decision is a bitter pill to swallow. Throughout this case, I have sought to make decisions in accordance with the law and our international obligations.
We in Europe accord to people suspected of crimes greater rights than those accorded by many dictators to their victims—some of whom are never given the chance of a fair trial before they are convicted and punished for their alleged crimes. An essential part of our rule of law—and something to which Chile is aspiring—is that while international obligations require us to pursue persons against whom serious criminal allegations have been made, they are provided with minimal safeguards. One of those safeguards is that such persons should be fit to stand trial.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I wonder whether the Home Secretary is sensing the temperature of the House? Both sides in this issue feel embittered and frustrated by the way matters have been handled. There is not just our view that this is an abuse of the ancient rule of hospitality against a guest of this country who showed us nothing but friendship in our hour of need. There is also the view of Government Back Benchers that the Home Secretary has used doctors to get him off a hook of his own making. As this episode unfolds, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that he should have acted more decisively in October 1998—instead of clouding the whole issue in pseudo-legalisms and achieving nothing for this country or for Anglo-Chilean relations?
Mr. Straw: In my study of British extradition law over 17 months, I have never spotted even in a footnote that one of the considerations that I have to take into account is "the ancient rule of hospitality". That was not one of our considerations. I did act decisively in October 1998—I refused to quash the extradition warrant. The hon. Gentleman should have said that I made a decision with which he disagreed—that would have been the honest position to have adopted. Throughout this case, I have acted decisively. I have made decisions, whether yes or no, on the basis of the proposition before me. I have always been aware that whatever decision I would make would please some people and displease others.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: May I thank my right hon. Friend for explaining precisely how he arrived at what was obviously a finely balanced judgment? Does he agree that although many people will find it difficult to understand why it was not possible to see justice done in this case, we should not lose sight of the fact that this country facilitated the process whereby important principles of international law were established—first, that there should be universal jurisdiction for human rights abuses, and secondly, that Heads of State cannot automatically rely upon immunity? Does my right hon. Friend agree that important principles have been established none the less?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the principle of universal jurisdiction in respect of very serious crimes such as torture is now established as, too, is the principle that former heads of state are not immune from a process for such alleged crimes. If the
586
approach of the then shadow Home Secretary had been followed, and I had simply quashed the original arrest warrant in October 1998, none of that experience would have followed.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: There is something uniquely shabby, even by the standards of this Government, in laying on a reception for Senator Pinochet when he arrived in the country and then conniving at his arrest under a defective warrant. Does the Home Secretary realise that the rest of us understand that the reason he sought medical evidence, or acceded to that request, was not his concern about Senator Pinochet's human rights, but the dawning realisation of the nightmare that would descend upon him if Senator Pinochet died in our jurisdiction? Is not one of the conclusions that he can draw from today's exchanges in the House that any lingering reputation that he had for ministerial competence has quite gone?
Mr. Straw: I leave aside the hon. Gentleman's gratuitous insult. What he says is wrong from top to bottom. There was no conniving at the arrest. He fails to understand that there is a separation of powers here. The hospitality department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not also a police department that executes warrants. [Interruption.] There should not be liaison between the hospitality department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the police and prosecuting authorities in this country. If there were liaison, there would be most serious allegations of connivance—it could be alleged that we were conniving to ensure that a fugitive from justice should escape from justice again. The Conservative party claims to be the party of law, yet for 17 months Conservative Members have been inviting me to ignore the law in order in pursuit of their own political convenience.
As to the suggestion that this was a defective warrant, the warrant was not defective—it was found to be fully effective by the courts. On two occasions, not one, my decision in respect of those warrants was challenged by Senator Pinochet's lawyers, and on both occasions the court found in my favour.
Ms Glenda Jackson: It is not only shabby but entirely predictable that the Conservative party should continue to act as apologists for murderers and torturers. Did my right hon. Friend, upon the Spanish authorities receiving the medical evidence, receive notification from them of the withdrawal of their extradition order? Has the medical evidence been furnished to the Chilean authorities, whose ambassador to this country has upon more than one occasion stated that it is the aim of that Government to bring General Pinochet to justice? Should the general, as many of my constituents who suffered at his hands believe, undergo a miraculous improvement once returned to Chile, will the Government assist the Chilean Government in making every effort to ensure that at some point he stands before a court of law?
Mr. Straw: So far as I am aware, and I have taken this only from the television, the Spanish Government have indicated that they accept the decision that I have made in this case. There was some suggestion on the television

587
news that the judge in the case may have taken a different view, but that is my understanding. I also understand that a similar approach has been taken by Belgium.
The medical evidence has not formally been made available to Chile, because Chile has not been party to the proceedings in this case, nor is it another requesting state. As the reports will now be made available in the Library of the House of Commons and formally made public, there is no reason why they should not also be available to the Government of Chile.
It is not for me to speculate about the prognosis of Senator Pinochet's condition, except to say that the very clear and thorough medical evidence from an independent medical team supported by the chief medical offer was that Senator Pinochet's symptoms were not feigned and that they were not likely to improve.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary accept that, like him, I believe in the relentless pursuit of people accused of crimes against humanity? Will he also accept that, unlike him and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not believe in the application of double standards to that pursuit? Does he know that many of my family were killed by the Nazis in the 1940s? Can he explain why the Government, who were so keen to pursue General Pinochet, have consistently stonewalled my attempts to get them to make representations to the Government of Syria over the case of Aloïs Brunner, Eichmann's right-hand man, whom they are still sheltering?
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when Konrad Kalejs, one of the very people who may have murdered the members of my family, was found to be in this country, he was not arrested, but bundled straight out of the country? I know that the researcher who was most qualified to advise the Home Secretary of the nature of Kalejs's crimes was not even contacted before the right hon. Gentleman kicked out this murderer, against whose crimes the crimes of Pinochet against leftists pale, if not into insignificance then into something far less horrible than what millions of victims suffered at the hands of the Nazis, whom the chattering classes evidently care so much less about.
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's very strong feelings when it comes to the holocaust. He knows that I, too, have personal reasons for understanding them. However, I wholly reject the argument about double standards. Indeed, my point to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was that it was precisely to avoid double standards that I sought to act as consistently as I could with regard to this
588
case and the case of Roisin McAliskey. Double standards would have arisen if I had acted in a completely contradictory way, which I suggest that in no sense have I done.
The hon. Gentleman referred to someone who was suspected of being a fugitive in Syria. It is the first time that the case has been made known to me. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations to me, I am happy to see him and follow them up.
The hon. Gentleman's point about Mr. Kalejs makes my point about Secretaries of States and courts having to act according to the rule of law, both national and international. The simple fact, as everybody knows, was that no extradition warrant had been received in respect of Kalejs.
Dr. Lewis: Arrest him?
Mr. Straw: Although I am endowed with some powers, I do not have powers of arrest, except in very marginal circumstances relating to immigration offences when we wish people to leave the country and they refuse to do so. As Kalejs left voluntarily, there was no power whatever to detain the man. That is the truth of it. I had the matter examined with very great care. I do not know which researcher the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but we were in contact with a number of researchers, and I was in contact with representatives of the Jewish community.
Of course I understand the demand that if people are alleged to have committed serious crimes, however long ago that may have been and whatever the country, they should be brought to justice. I see it as part of my responsibility to ensure that that happens, but it has to happen within a framework of the rule of law.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Home Secretary is a candid and reflective person. With the huge benefit of hindsight, is there anything at any stage that he would have done differently?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I have certain wishes, and have already expressed the thought that it would be in everyone's interest if the procedure for extradition were simplified both in high profile cases such as this one and in more routine cases. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say of the key decisions that I have taken—the original decision not to quash the extradition warrant, two successive authorities to proceed, the decision to ask for independent medical examination and the decision I have announced today—that I would not have taken any of them differently.

Senator Pinochet (CPS Role)
2.30 pm
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of Senator Pinochet.
Earlier today, the CPS, as prosecuting authority for England and Wales, advised the Metropolitan police service that the material provided by the Kingdom of Spain for the purposes of extradition proceedings would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution in England and Wales and could not be put into admissible form without a full police investigation. On the material available to the CPS, therefore, there is no realistic prospect in this jurisdiction of convicting Senator Pinochet of any criminal offence.
The CPS also advised the Metropolitan police service that, in view of the independent medical report on Senator Pinochet, commissioned by the Home Secretary, and in view of representations made to the Home Secretary concerning the report, no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place, whatever the evidence. Following that advice, the MPS decided that no purpose would be served in seeking to effect an arrest of Senator Pinochet.
Those decisions were necessary because of article 7 of the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The convention provides that if a state does not extradite, it must consider whether to prosecute the person itself. Accordingly, following the Home Secretary's decision not to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain, the Spanish extradition papers were submitted formally to the CPS as the independent prosecuting authority for England and Wales. The CPS in turn formally referred the papers to the MPS, which is responsible for investigating offences and deciding whether to arrest or charge people.
In fact, the papers had previously been supplied to the CPS and the police and had been carefully studied by them, so both the CPS and the police were in a position to announce their decisions today. However, before I say more about that, I should set out the involvement of the CPS in the case. The CPS had a role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain, which arose after Senator Pinochet's arrest on 16 October 1998, pursuant to a warrant issued by the fifth central magistrates court in Madrid. On 18 October 1998, the CPS commenced acting as agent on behalf of the Kingdom of Spain in the extradition proceedings, and it has continued to act for the Kingdom of Spain throughout the extradition process.
In its role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain, the CPS acted in accordance with the instructions of the requesting state, which is in accordance with long-standing reciprocal arrangements between this jurisdiction and other countries. In doing so, it has been quite independent of the Government. In performing its role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain, the CPS has given confidential legal advice on the extradition proceedings and received instructions.
Let me turn to the separate and distinct function of the CPS in this matter, which is the main focus of this statement. That function is its role as the independent prosecuting authority for England and Wales, and its
590
involvement in that regard arose in two ways. First, in October 1998 two firms of solicitors, acting for a number of individuals, applied to the then Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris), for consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet in this jurisdiction for offences of torture, contrary to section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and for offences of hostage taking, contrary to the Taking of Hostages Act 1982.
The papers in one of these applications were also copied by the solicitors to the MPS, which in turn sought the advice of the CPS as prosecuting authority. In those circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend deemed it appropriate to liaise with the CPS before reaching a final conclusion on the applications for Law Officer consent to prosecute. The Attorney-General also received advice from senior Treasury counsel. Subsequently, he advised the solicitors that decisions on whether or not to grant Law Officer consent to prosecute are made by applying the tests set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, and that the legislation criminalising torture and hostage taking is not retrospective—a point later confirmed by a decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. He also advised that the material submitted in support of the applications contained insufficient admissible evidence against Senator Pinochet to justify the granting of Law Officer consent to prosecute for either offence. Consent to prosecute was, accordingly, refused.
I should add that a third firm of solicitors, acting for a number of Chileans, applied last week for my consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet for offences of torture. That application has been carefully considered and the advice of counsel was obtained. Again, the code of Crown prosecutors was applied to the decision-making process. The first requirement of the code is that there should be sufficient admissible evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction before a prosecution may follow. The application contained no evidence of a kind admissible in this jurisdiction, and I accordingly declined to grant my consent.
The second function of the CPS as prosecuting authority has been to consider the case for prosecution of Senator Pinochet in this jurisdiction under article 7 of the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The CPS and police recognised that article 7 might come into operation in respect of the Spanish extradition papers. To prepare for that contingency, the CPS obtained copies of all the relevant Spanish extradition papers in March and April 1999 in its capacity as the prosecuting authority for England and Wales. The MPS, as investigating authority, was also supplied with a copy of those papers. All that was done with the agreement of the Kingdom of Spain and the Home Office.
The Spanish extradition papers were allocated to lawyers in the CPS separate from those acting for the Kingdom of Spain. The provisional conclusion of the CPS was that the material provided by the Kingdom of Spain for the purposes of the extradition proceedings would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution in England and Wales, and that the material could not be made admissible without a full police investigation. The CPS advised the police along those lines. Whether or not the MPS institutes a full investigation in this or any other case is a matter for it to decide.

591
It may help the House to understand the provisional CPS conclusion if I explain that in European extradition proceedings it is not necessary to bring evidence before a court to show that a person has committed the offences of which he or she is accused. All that is necessary is that the court here must be satisfied that the allegations amount to an extradition crime and that the formal request complies with the requirements of the Extradition Act 1989 and the European convention on extradition of 1959. That explains why the CPS reached its provisional conclusion that, in the absence of a full investigation by the police, there was no admissible evidence for the purpose of a prosecution here.
In addition to those evidential considerations, the CPS—again in its role as independent prosecuting authority—received, in January, and with the consent of Senator Pinochet, a copy of the medical report prepared by the independent experts commissioned by the Home Secretary. The CPS has also seen representations made to the Home Secretary concerning that report.
The report and subsequent advice make it clear that Senator Pinochet's ill health is such that he would not be able to defend himself properly in any criminal prosecution brought in this country. The provisional CPS conclusion in the light of the material was that no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place because of his ill health, whatever the evidence. Again, the CPS advised the police of that.
In reaching its provisional conclusions, the CPS consulted me and I agreed with them, after taking the best independent legal advice available. My right hon., noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General has not involved himself as a Law Officer in this case. He and I agreed that his previous patronage of Redress, from which he resigned on taking ministerial office in May 1997, meant that it would be more appropriate if I handled the case. The solicitors acting for Senator Pinochet were advised of that in September last year.
Following today's formal submission of the Spanish extradition papers to the CPS under article 7, the CPS has confirmed its provisional conclusions. First, the material in the possession of the CPS would not be admissible in any criminal prosecution in England and Wales, and could not provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Secondly, an investigation for which the police are responsible would be required to gather evidence admissible in this jurisdiction. Thirdly, whatever the evidence that might be available, no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place in view of his ill health. I agree with those conclusions.
Accordingly, the CPS did not apply for my consent, in respect of the Spanish extradition material, to prosecute Senator Pinochet for torture. The Metropolitan police service and Senator Pinochet's lawyers were advised of the CPS's conclusions. The MPS, which has taken its own legal advice, decided not to arrest Senator Pinochet earlier today.
The House will also be aware that on 11 and 13 November and on 15 December 1998 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary received requests for the extradition of Senator Pinochet from Switzerland, France and Belgium. Further requests were received from France on 4 February last year and from the Kingdom of Belgium on 12 October last year.
592
On 9 December 1998, my right hon. Friend decided not to issue an authority to proceed with regard to the requests from France and Switzerland. On 27 January 1999, he decided not to issue an authority to proceed with regard to the request from Belgium. On 22 February 1999 and 19 November 1999 respectively, he decided not to issue an authority to proceed in respect of the second French and second Belgian requests.
Following my right hon. Friend's decisions, the extradition papers were submitted to the CPS as the prosecuting authority under article 7. The CPS, in turn, referred the papers to the MPS to enable the investigating authorities to consider them. The CPS also advised the police that the allegations contained in the Swiss, both French and both Belgian requests did not disclose offences that could be tried here, as the conduct alleged in each of the requests occurred before the relevant legislation came into force. Accordingly, the CPS did not apply for Law Officer consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet for torture in respect of the Swiss, French and Belgian extradition material.
In performing its role under article 7 of the convention in respect of the Swiss, French and Belgian material, the CPS also took into account the medical report commissioned by my right hon. Friend and the representations made to the him about Senator Pinochet's medical condition. As I said, the CPS concluded that no court in England and Wales would permit a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place in those circumstances, whatever the evidence.
The CPS consulted me about those matters and I agree with its conclusions.
Mr. Edward Garner: I begin by thanking the Solicitor-General for early sight of his statement and also for the assistance of his officials this morning.
The Solicitor-General told us that the evidence provided by Spain would not be admissible in criminal proceedings in this country. When did that become apparent to the CPS? Was it made clear in any of the several hearings in the courts during the past 15 months? When were the Spanish authorities told?
If there is no prospect of conviction in this country, does it follow that there has been, and remains, no prospect of conviction in Spain, France, Belgium or Switzerland?
Does it follow from what the Solicitor-General has said about Senator Pinochet's state of health that those four European democracies would also not allow a trial to take place in their jurisdictions—and if not, why not? Certainly, that is what the Home Secretary appeared to suggest a few moments ago. I presume that the Solicitor-General has made inquiries about that matter.
When did the Solicitor-General decide to refuse leave to prosecute General Pinochet under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Taking of Hostages Act 1982? When did he tell the four European states that I mentioned of that decision?
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to an application, last week, by a third firm of solicitors for consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet in this country. Has he reached a conclusion as to whether their evidence is admissible in any of the other four European states?

593
The hon. and learned Gentleman explained the law and procedure relating to European extradition proceedings. Irrespective of that, does the Home Secretary retain a discretion not to order extradition in any given case?
There remain in existence—if only formally—habeas corpus proceedings begun on 22 October 1999. What will happen to that case?
Finally, how will the hon. and learned Gentleman persuade the House and the public that this whole affair has been worth while and not just a lawyers' bonanza?
The Solicitor-General: The material rolled in during the past year; it was continually assessed. At no point was it possible to say that the evidence was sufficient for a prosecution in this jurisdiction. As I explained to the House, under the extradition provisions the requesting state simply provides evidence of allegations; it does not have to provide detailed evidence.
I had no need to tell Spain, because the responsibility of the CPS was twofold. On extradition, it was acting as agent of Spain, but as an independent prosecuting authority, it was simply acting in accordance with the law of this jurisdiction.
There was no refusal on my part to prosecute. As I said in my statement, I was never asked to give consent. The CPS decided that there was no case to prosecute in relation to the code. Consequently, I did not have to make a decision.
The material received from the solicitors last week was such that it could not be used to prosecute in this jurisdiction. It contained a series of allegations—obviously serious ones—but there was no admissible evidence that could be used in court.
On habeas corpus, the point is entirely moot because the particular person has now left the jurisdiction.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my hon. and learned Friend take it from me that I know nothing at all about the law and practice of extradition? Is it not true that, in criminal cases, the court usually decides whether the accused is fit to plead? Would an alternative course have been to allow General Pinochet to go to Spain and for a Spanish criminal court to decide whether he was fit to plead?
The Solicitor-General: That was not my decision. Inasmuch as I had responsibility for the CPS, my decision was to ensure that it acted in accordance with the current code for Crown prosecutors. In other words: was there evidence for a prosecution in this jurisdiction?
My right hon. Friend asked whether it might have been possible to decide in court on Senator Pinochet's fitness to plead. When it is quite clear—and it became quite clear after the medical reports—that no prosecution can occur, there is no way that a judge in this jurisdiction would allow a trial to begin.
Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for providing me with advance notice of his statement.
594
The case has been a long one. We welcome the review of the law of extradition announced by the Home Secretary. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether there will be widespread consultations in respect of the review, and what the role of his Department will be?
We endorse the principle that those who commit abuses of human rights in one country should never assume safety elsewhere. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman elaborated on the following words from his statement:
Whether or not the MPS institutes a full investigation in this or any other case is a matter for it to decide.
Did the CPS instruct, or endeavour to instruct, the Metropolitan police to instigate such an investigation?
The length and complexity of the case emphasise the need for an International Criminal Court to try human rights cases at a supranational level. The United Kingdom Government signed a statute of the International Court in Rome in July 1998, but they have failed to ratify the ICC treaty. Will the Solicitor-General provide us with a timetable for the publication of the draft legislation to ratify the ICC treaty? When will the Government ratify that treaty?
The Solicitor-General: The Law Officers' Department has only a limited role in extradition, and that applies in respect of Irish extradition. We may be consulted on some of the detailed legal aspects. However, there are always lessons to be learned from such cases. One issue that I flagged up to the House last month was the role of the CPS as agent of a foreign state. In our jurisdiction, there is a clear division between the police's duty to investigate and our duty to prosecute. The CPS does not tell the police what to do.
We are committed to the International Criminal Court. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is very keen for legislation to get on the statute book in that regard. However, I can give no timetable for it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As Chairman of the all-party Latin America group, may I ask whether Law Officers—doubtless together with Foreign and Commonwealth Office lawyers and Home Office lawyers—are considering the delicate balance of whether the operation of the law does not sometimes conflict with reconciliation? The truth is that this case has opened a Pandora's box in Chile, which was increasingly becoming a stable society. Questions should be asked as to whether legal actions on one continent will create grief in other continents. The answer is another matter, but is the question at least being reflected on?
The Solicitor-General: Inasmuch as I can reply to my hon. Friend's questions, I simply say as a lawyer that law does not always lead to justice, nor does it always lead to reconciliation.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point just made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? Is not a general principle involved? When a democratic state decides, as part of a political accommodation, to put its past behind it, it is not for other countries to intervene with criminal proceedings. Is that not what was done in Spain with regard to the

595
Franco regime? Is that not what we ourselves are doing in Northern Ireland, where hundreds of convicted terrorists have been let out of prison and Ministers negotiate with people who are apologists for murder? At the end, we say that that is part of a process of reconciliation. We would be very angry if, for example, the Government of Holland tried to extradite Mr. Gerry Adams or Mr. McGuinness. Surely there has to be discretion and we have to recognise the right of democratic states to put their pasts behind them without other Governments intervening.
The Solicitor-General: In this case, we acted purely in accordance with our international obligations and with our obligations under the law on the statute book in this country. That may have had certain repercussions, but I cannot comment on that. We simply acted in accordance with the law. I certainly take the point that reconciliation can often be very valuable.
Ann Clwyd: Why have successive Attorneys-General in Britain refused to allow private or public prosecution on behalf of Pinochet's murdered British victims, William Beausire and Father Michael Woodward?
The Solicitor-General: As I explained earlier, the fact is that the evidence was not there. There must be evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction under the code of the Crown prosecutors. However, I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that human rights abuses occurred in Chile and that those who suffered and their relatives feel a sense of injury.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Solicitor-General confirm that, as a matter of law, if the President of China, the President of Zimbabwe or any other left-wing dictator with blood on his hands should come to this country and a warrant for extradition were received from another state, Her Majesty's Government would deal with that warrant in precisely the same way as the one for Senator Pinochet was dealt with?
The Solicitor-General: As I said earlier, we will act in accordance with our legal obligations. As a result of the review that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has initiated, those obligations may change. However, we will act in accordance with the rule of law.

Points of Order
2.55 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You, Madam Speaker and the other occupants of the Chair are the guardians of the rights of Back-Bench and, where appropriate, Opposition Members. You will know that business questions is one of the most valuable occasions available to Back-Bench Members during the parliamentary week. Today, Madam Speaker saw fit—I in no way challenge her decision—to truncate business questions when, in my perception, Government Members had all had an opportunity to ask their questions, but a number of Opposition Members were still waiting to be called.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker consider whether an informal rule exists? When you have called all the Government Members does that automatically eliminate the remaining Opposition Members from being called? If that were the case—I hope that it is not—it would have serious implications. Like me, you will recall that business questions used to run until all Members had been accommodated. I hope that the matter will be considered seriously—I am sure that it will be—because I worry about the implications if Opposition Members were to be denied the opportunity to ask a business question because too few Government Members had bothered to be here.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a regular attender at business questions. It is one of the rare opportunities in the week when a humble Back Bencher such as myself can bring important matters to the Government's attention.
I would have brought up the case of the dairy industry because I went to an emergency meeting of farmers in North Shropshire last week. Following the lamentable ignorance shown by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he answered my question, I should have liked to have brought the issue to the attention of the Leader of the House and asked for a debate on it. Would it be possible to ask Madam Speaker always to allow all Back Benchers to be called in business questions?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Madam Speaker always deals as fairly as possible with such matters. I shall see that the points that have been raised are brought to her attention.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I become totally paranoid, may I ask for your support and protection? For the second time today, the press in what I hope is a demonstration of frustration and not malice have taken to bombarding me from above with notebooks and pens. Will you encourage them to desist?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the press will have noted the hon. Lady's comments. I am sure that she does not need my protection to deal with such matters. I will see that her point is brought to the attention of those responsible.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.58 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): At ten past 12 on 17 October 1944, when war was still raging, the first Welsh day debate, as we have come to call it, was held. It was opened by Lady Megan Lloyd George—then the Liberal Member for Anglesey but who later became the Labour Member for Carmarthen—and contributions were also made by the Member for Ebbw Vale, Aneurin Bevan, and my first predecessor as Secretary of State, Jim Griffiths. They argued that the debate was inadequate in the sense that devolution was necessary to address Welsh problems.
Indeed, that was just like 100 years ago—the Labour party is celebrating its centenary—when Keir Hardie told the people of Merthyr and Aberdare that we should have some form of home rule. Now we have it, and yesterday was the first St. David's day—and this is the first Welsh day debate—since devolution.
Nine months have passed since my predecessor's functions were handed to the National Assembly for Wales. There have been some painful moments, but it is a new, young, democratic institution, which the people of Wales voted for in their referendum.
There is undoubtedly a need, over the three or so years before the next elections are held for the National Assembly, for some stability to be recognisable in the Assembly. None of us would want to see a repeat performance of what occurred some weeks ago.
Mr. Llew Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the report from the National Audit Office and the Select Committee highlighting how Gwent tertiary college was just about destroyed by the previous principal and senior management. He will also be aware that a dispute is going on in the college because staff seeking a wage rise, not having received one for three years, went on strike yesterday afternoon. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on a letter sent by the present chief executive, of which I have a copy passed to me today by the Gwent Gazette, the local newspaper, in which the chief executive encourages young kids to cross the picket line to break the strike? That has serious cost implications, and we now have a situation in which the chief executive—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue his intervention, which is already very long. We have only just started the debate, in which many hon. Members want to catch my eye. It will set a very bad precedent for the debate if there are interventions of this length. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come very briefly to his point.
Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend dissociate himself from the sentiments in the letter, in which the chief executive is pitting students against staff to try to break a strike?
Mr. Murphy: I am intrigued as to how that intervention came on the issue of the need for stability in
598
the National Assembly. I can understand that there is also a need for stability in Gwent tertiary college. As a Gwent Member, I am very aware of what my hon. Friend is referring to. I hope that the principal and the trade unions will get together as speedily as possible. I certainly do not think that the letter to which my hon. Friend referred has helped matters at all.
I return to the National Assembly. I believe that, in the few months since it has been up and running, it has achieved many things for Wales. At this stage it is right for me to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who unquestionably set the Assembly going on the right lines. He established it in its first months, and we should all wish him well, as indeed we should wish the new First Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), well, too.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I do not wish to dissent from wishing the hon. Gentleman well, but does not the Secretary of State agree that it has not set a good precedent that after the last two incumbents as Secretary of State for Wales went to the Assembly they proceeded never to vote, in one case, or on only one occasion, in the fulfilment of their parliamentary responsibilities in this House? Does he also agree that this sort of dual mandate is proving deeply unsatisfactory?
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that when there is a general election for this House there will no longer be such mandates, so far as my party is concerned. It is clear that the holder of the responsible job of First Secretary has an extremely difficult and onerous position in establishing the National Assembly.
In the months of its existence the Assembly has done many good things. It has, for example, established special relations with business in Wales, with the voluntary sector and with local government, in a way that has never been tried or tested elsewhere in this country. It has set in train a radical reform of post-16 education and training in Wales; it has launched "A Better Wales", which sets out a radical transformation of the quality of life of Welsh people over the next decade; it has brought a new approach to dealing with social exclusion; and for the first time ever the £8,000 million Welsh budget is being decided in Wales by those elected in Wales to deal with the priorities. In such a short time it has achieved much.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the disbursal of moneys in Wales before the establishment of the Welsh Assembly was not done by elected Members?
Mr. Murphy: Of course not. It was done by my predecessors and the two Under-Secretaries who accompanied them. As I can be today, previous Secretaries of State could be questioned by Members of this House, by the Select Committee, the Grand Committee and so on. What I am saying is that there is now a much stronger, more transparent way of looking at the budget, because there are now 60 elected Assembly Members in Wales, and they are in a position to examine that budget. We are, too, of course, in the sense of looking at the overall budget. Not long ago I appeared before my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Welsh

599
Affairs for five and a half hours. That appearance was all about money, too, so the opportunities for examination by elected representatives of the people of Wales are now doubled. It can happen here in this House and it happens in the National Assembly.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State has referred to the way in which money is distributed. A central question is the total money available. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report from Brussels—the response to the single programming document on objective 1 status for Wales—which said:
The Commission needs to be satisfied that future financial resources will be available to provide public spending for the whole programme and cannot be satisfied that this will simply be reviewed in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. A commitment to this effect needs to be included in the final SPD.
That is something we need to do this month. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position, in conjunction with his Treasury colleagues, to give an assurance now so that we can give that commitment from the National Assembly in response to the SPD?
Mr. Murphy: The document was incorrect in its references to the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. We are in the middle of it; it started at the beginning of the year and concludes in July.
As a Member of the National Assembly as well as of this House, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the document—the plan—is an agreement between the European Union and the National Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West indicated to the Assembly this week that in no way did that comment mean that the Commission would block the plan when it came up for further consideration at the end of March. I cannot give an assurance of the type that the right hon. Gentleman seeks, because we are still in the process of that spending review. We have gone over these matters many times. Obviously, it is a hugely significant issue for Wales. I am given to understand that the progress of the plan will not be hindered by the comments to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I should like to quote to my right hon. Friend the following words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan):
The Commission has confirmed that it does not intend to block the single programming document until the spending review is completed later in the summer.
Therefore, the Commission is quite willing to wait until July.
Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that I have just made.
I return to our roles as Members of Parliament and Ministers here. I am the thirteenth Secretary of State for Wales. The job has changed. It is to protect the settlement; to symbolise the place of Wales in the United Kingdom; and to represent Wales in the Cabinet and the Cabinet in Wales. It is also, with Members of this House and the other place, to steer through primary legislation for Wales. There are at least half a dozen Bills going through the House—the Local Government Bill, the Learning and
600
Skills Bill and others—in which there are very large Welsh sections. Some 35 per cent. of the Learning and Skills Bill relates to matters specifically affecting Wales.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: As my right hon. Friend knows, I represent a London seat, but it contains some 2,500 people of Welsh descent, a delightful Welsh chapel and the very active Harrow Welsh society. It is also close to the Welsh school in Willesden, which, as my right hon. Friend will also know, is experiencing financial problems.
As my right hon. Friend stalks the corridors of Whitehall and Westminster, will he be able to ensure that the educational needs of Welsh people living outside Wales will be given some consideration?
Mr. Murphy: It is difficult enough to represent Wales in the House of Commons; representing the Welsh diaspora as well is even more difficult. I accept, however, that the Welsh school plays a significant part in the lives of Welsh men and women—and, obviously, children—in London, and I will make appropriate representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Our roles as Members of Parliament have changed. I mentioned the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which must now find a new role and, in my view, is dealing with that very well. The Welsh Grand Committee still meets, and provides a forum for those who represent Welsh constituencies. Welsh Question Time has changed as well. I should, however, mention something else, because it has been mentioned to me by Members on both sides of the House. Those of us who represent Welsh constituencies are not London Members; we are Welsh Members who happen to be in the United Kingdom Parliament, which happens to be in London. That should be put on record because, as we enter a new constitutional age, nomenclature is important.
As for our constituency work, I have no evidence—I am sure that the same applies to my colleagues—that our postbags have diminished. Moreover, our role here as representatives of the people of Wales has not diminished either. Nevertheless, I feel that we should, along with our colleagues in the Assembly, develop a new role enabling us to work together for the benefit of our communities.
The settlement—the contract with the Welsh people that devolution constitutes—is concerned with, above all, the place of the Assembly in the United Kingdom as well as its place in Wales. The relationship between the Assembly and the House of Commons is hugely significant. We are all in this game—this business of governance—to improve the quality of life of Welsh men, women and children, and we can do that together.
I think that the ultimate test of any politician, wherever that politician is a Member, is whether at the end of the term of office—here, or in the Assembly—the people he or she represents enjoy a better quality of life than when that term of office began. I also think that Members of Parliament and Members of the Assembly can bring that about together.
During that first Welsh day debate in 1944, Aneurin Bevan spoke of the problems confronting the people of Wales. We would do well to heed his advice today as we

601
take stock of the progress that we have made in the past nine months towards democratic devolution—towards what I call "partnership with a difference". Bevan said:
What is the problem that I, and my colleagues, were up against between the two wars? We had in Wales, in the Welsh valleys in particular, a problem arising out of unemployment in the basic industries. I spent most of my adult life in the shadow of unemployment, because the basic industries happened to be situated largely in South Wales. Our problem was to try to get enough political leverage to secure attention for our difficulties.—[Official Report, 17 October 1944; Vol. 403, c. 2313.]
The words
enough political leverage to secure attention
are another way of saying that Wales's problems, then and now, need that "partnership with a difference" between our Assembly and our Parliament and Government.
As ever, Bevan started from where his people were—from their lives, concerns and aspirations. He put it all in a universal context, recognising that the task of the politician is to be the tribune and the advocate of the people in terms of their hopes and aspirations for a better life. That, in my view, is what politics is all about. If we fail the people, the democratic institutions that we cherish, and have only just established, will fail as well.
There are a number of contexts in which we can tackle together the problems that afflict the people of Wales. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up three task forces representing the United Kingdom Government and the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to deal with the knowledge economy that is so vital to the future of Wales, with child poverty and with pensioner poverty. The other important reason that the Assembly is joining this Parliament in considering stability in the years ahead is the importance of delivering the services that it is charged to provide, just as we are in the United Kingdom Government.
Mr. Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend mentioned pensioner poverty. As he knows, one of the Government's main promises and priorities was to help the poorest pensioners. Is he aware that no action has been taken to discover the identity of the 700,000 poorest pensioners in the United Kingdom—many of them in Wales—whose income is below the minimum income guarantee level? Action was promised in April 1999 and again last month, but, as I say, none has been taken. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that a scheme to alert the poorest pensioners to the availability of benefits will be initiated in the near future?
Mr. Murphy: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is obviously important to identify as many people as possible who can qualify for the benefits that the Government have given.
The Government have been tackling social exclusion, poverty and worklessness, step by step. Since the last St. David's day debate, more than 100,000 low-paid workers in Wales have benefited from the first ever national minimum wage. More than 80,000 Welsh families have benefited from the working families tax credit. Families have received the biggest ever increase in child benefit. Unemployment in Wales has fallen by 9,000, to a 20-year low. Youth unemployment has been cut by 75 per cent. since 1997. Pensioners' winter fuel
602
allowance has been guaranteed, and more than half a million pensioners in Wales benefit from that. Moreover, the new deal, which has already helped more than 10,000 young people in Wales to find jobs, will be extended to all unemployed people. Pensioners over 75, of whom a quarter of a million live in Wales, will be given free television licences.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Notwithstanding the list of the Government's contributions that the right hon. Gentleman has given, does he agree that there seems to be a different cycle of economic development in different parts of Wales? Some parts, especially rural areas, are in recession. Is not one of our roles to do what we can to deal with the poverty trap in desperately poor rural areas?
Mr. Murphy: Of course I agree that poverty is not limited to urban and industrial areas. Over the past few months, we have engaged in many a debate on such issues. However, all the measures that I have outlined apply as much to rural as to urban areas, and I think they are all hugely significant in reducing the poverty of our people in Wales.
The whole business of reducing poverty and improving lives can happen only when there is a stable economy that can help to produce schools and hospitals, and there is no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has produced just that. We have a good, strong, stable economy, and that is the basis on which we can work in Wales to secure a better life for our people. We are making work pay, and giving everyone who wants to work an opportunity to do so. We are fighting for the families of Wales by keeping inflation under control, and keeping interest rates down. The most effective support for social inclusion is work, and the Government have made getting Wales off benefit and into work their priority. We have been able to make progress because we have got the economic fundamentals right. We did not go for the soft options proposed by the Conservative party, and as a result, unemployment has continued to fall.
I shall be interested to find out, when the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) rises, what he will tell the House about the new deal and the working families tax credit, and whether he agrees with the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who told the House that no future Conservative Government would want to make use of European structural funds.
I deal briefly with economic developments in Wales. The Government's key themes of modernisation, enterprise, fairness and partnership are having a major impact on the Welsh economy. In the past few months, I have been privileged to go around Wales, visiting universities and colleges in Bangor, Swansea and elsewhere and launching information and communication technology centres in Ogmore vale and Merthyr. People are recognising that we transform our economies by constantly raising the skills levels of all our people.
The projects that have been launched in Wales in the past two years are legion. I shall not list them, but I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to point to examples of first-class economic development in their constituencies, where highly skilled jobs have resulted from the Government's economic policy.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend kindly mentioned his visit to

603
Merthyr, which was deeply appreciated, to see how we are trying to deal with IT skills. Is he conscious of the fact that training providers all over Wales are worried that with all the reorganisation that is going on, their work in financing and developing skills programmes might be disrupted? Will he therefore ensure that whatever else happens as a result of the Learning and Skills Bill, work will not be interrupted by the reorganisation proposals?
Mr. Murphy: The post-16 Bill's purpose is certainly to ensure that there is co-ordination between all training providers in Wales, and that Wales has a national policy for training. I am sure that the last thing that anybody wants is disruption of training opportunities. The Bill will give people greater opportunities. The details of the measure have yet to be discussed in the National Assembly because we are still passing the primary legislation. I know that my hon. Friend will be taking an active interest in those matters as the Bill progresses through the House.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred to the rural economy, and we could not have this debate without referring to the problems that have occurred in the countryside in Wales, as well as in England, over the past months. As I have said at Question Time, there is hardly a Welsh Member of Parliament who does not represent a farming community. Our constituencies are mixed. We are all deeply aware of the difficulties.
I am also aware that the rural development plan, which is being developed by the Assembly, our countryside Bill, which will soon be introduced, and our serious look at red tape will all have a good effect on the countryside. Farming is still a major employer, and Members of the House and of the Assembly need to work out the long-term future of farming in Wales.
In all the years that I have been in the House I have never had to perform so grave a duty as when I presented Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report on child abuse in north Wales. The report was a catalogue of the most appalling and unforgivable acts of random abuse and violence directed against some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
I made it clear then that the Government would not waste time in considering the report and taking any and all appropriate action. I am therefore able to tell the House today that the Government will bring forward an amendment to the Care Standards Bill to establish in Wales an independent children's commissioner on a statutory basis.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am delighted by the right hon. Gentleman's announcement. He will remember that I spoke to an amendment of that nature in proceedings on the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and, as I recall, he supported that amendment.
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because I know that the establishment of a children's commissioner has support from all parties in the House and the National Assembly.
The House will know that the appointment of such a commissioner is the first recommendation of Sir Ronald's report. Within the scope of the Care Standards Bill the role of such a commissioner would be confined to
604
covering children in care. At the moment the Assembly is considering its proposals on a children's commissioner, and I am conscious of the fact that it is likely to seek to establish a commissioner with wider powers than could be accommodated in the Care Standards Bill. The Government will want to consider any Assembly proposals urgently and sympathetically when they are eventually published. Undoubtedly, we will want to discuss such proposals with the Assembly and seek speedy agreement on how they can be taken forward.
We have, in the Care Standards Bill, an opportunity to act now to protect children in care and we intend to take it. The commissioner will have statutory powers of monitoring and oversight of complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy arrangements for children in care. In addition to publishing reports, the commissioner will be able to examine the handling of individual cases of children in care.
All of us in public service have a duty to protect those in the care of the state. Sir Ronald's report showed that trust has been betrayed. By acting to establish a children's commissioner the House will be making its contribution to making such abuses and betrayals as few and far between as is humanly possible. None of us can guarantee that such abuse will never recur, any more than we can legislate to abolish evil, but we can use what powers we have to offer the maximum degree of protection from evil, and that is what the proposed amendment will do.
I repeat that I am conscious of the fact that the Assembly is still considering other roles for a children's commissioner, which was my party's manifesto commitment, and I know that other parties in the Assembly will agree to that measure. We will be in a position to meet the Assembly as soon as its Committee has considered the matter, and then we will have to consider the appropriate legislative vehicle.
Mr. Richard Livsey: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee has already given detailed consideration to the proposals for a children's commissioner. Will he ensure that he takes on board some of the forthright views expressed in the Committee and that the matter will be dealt with expeditiously?
Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course. I understand that the Committee has not yet concluded its deliberations, but when it has done so, we will discuss these matters with the appropriate Members of the Assembly. We will then have to consider how best to proceed. We do not know when the Committee will complete its deliberations, and we are well into the Session, so we will have to see how we can accommodate the proposals later. In the meantime, it is important that Wales has a children's commissioner who, by statute, will be able to deal with children in care. That will be a tremendous step forward.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I, too, strongly welcome the idea of a children's commissioner for Wales. It will be a great step forward and is, as my right hon. Friend said, one of the many good recommendations of the Waterhouse report. However, there are question marks

605
over the report, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that there is to be a debate on it in the House, so that we can discuss it at length.
Mr. Murphy: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters, and I assure him that there will be an opportunity in the not-too-distant future for a full debate on them, and I am sure that he will take part.
Our vision is of a Wales at the heart of British, European and international life, where all, regardless of creed, colour, ethnicity or language, can feel themselves part of a great world community and yet also be distinctively Welsh and British. The Wales that we seek is not one where people have to choose between their Welshness and their Britishness, any more than they have to decide between social injustice and economic efficiency. We can be proud to be both British and Welsh. We want a society where business can prosper, but where everyone who wants a job can get one that pays a decent wage and where families can realistically hope for public services to be of the highest quality. That is our vision for our new Wales as we enter the 21st century.
3.29 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am being schooled in the odd phrase in Welsh, so I shall say, "Gwyl Ddewi hapus i chi." Lord Roberts of Conwy taught me that, and one could not have a better tutor in Welsh. I hope that the next lesson will allow me to say, "Happy St. David's day for yesterday," which would be more appropriate than what I have just said.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that foreign languages are allowed in the Chamber, but an immediate translation must be added.
Mr. Evans: I said "A happy St. David's day to you", but it would have been more appropriate for yesterday than today. I hope that lesson 2 by Lord Roberts will take me that stage further.
Mr. Flynn: May I have a ruling from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Welsh language is a foreign language in this Chamber? This is the only real Parliament that Wales has. Are you saying that, in this Parliament, the status of the language is the same as that of Slovenian or Ethiopian or any other language?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not my intention to give such a formal ruling. I was simply saying that, if words are used in the Chamber that some hon. Members do not understand, it is helpful if, immediately afterwards, the English equivalent is given, for the benefit of those such as me, who enjoy the Welsh language very much but do not understand it.
Mr. Evans: I give you an assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the rest of my speech will be in English, as the only other Welsh phrase that I know is the one meaning "Merry Christmas and a happy new year", which is not appropriate.
The Secretary of State began by speaking about the centenary of the Labour party. I overheard a Minister say the other day that he did not understand all the talk about
606
a 100-year celebration, as the party has been going for only six years. However, we congratulate Labour on its centenary. It is a great shame that more was not done by previous Labour Governments for the people of Wales.
It is also a shame that we debate Welsh affairs only once a year, and we did not have a debate at all two years ago. Two and a half hours has been spent on other matters today, and as I know that others wish to contribute, I shall be as brief as I can.
It is important that we have the St. David's day debate. The people of Wales and Members representing Welsh constituencies should not be sidelined. It is bad enough that we are constrained by the sort of questions that we can ask the Secretary of State and the Minister during Welsh questions when that rare opportunity arises, so it is important that the Select Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee continue to investigate Welsh affairs on behalf of the people of Wales.
The people of Wales can rightly be proud. I was proud of the way in which they conducted the rugby world cup last year in a world-class stadium in Cardiff. I will be at Twickenham on Saturday. I fail the Norman Tebbit cricket test time and again. Although I represent an English constituency, I shall be supporting Wales on Saturday, and I wish the team well.
The Prime Minister fails to recognise that there is a north-south divide. In Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—that will ruin his career—suggested a moment ago, there is a north-south-east-west divide. Certain parts of Wales are booming, and investment continues in places such as Cardiff. We cannot fail to see the cranes operating there, constructing new buildings, and the new investment that is being attracted. Further west, in parts such as Swansea, where I was born and lived for 33 years, it is much more difficult to attract investment.
The gateway to south Wales is the relatively new second Severn crossing, which has been open for four years. It is a great pity that it still does not have a proper name. Perhaps the Secretary of State and other Ministers with responsibility for the bridge would consider holding an open competition so that people in Wales and possibly other areas could suggest a name for the bridge, perhaps reflecting the links between England and Wales and the importance of the second Severn crossing.
I have not failed to notice the campaign organised by the Western Mail to make St. David's day a national holiday for Walezs. There is great merit in that. There is no reason why the people of Wales should not celebrate St. David's day. I was with some London Welsh people last night at their club, Daniels, where they were celebrating St. David's day.
There are still too many people in Wales who cannot find jobs and who therefore have 365 days of the year off. We must ensure that Wales remains competitive in the United Kingdom and Europe and globally. We have a global economy in Wales, so an additional bank holiday must be at the expense of an existing bank holiday. To make Wales less competitive would be a retrograde step for employment.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that other European countries are fully competitive and have more bank holidays than Wales or England?
Mr. Evans: I am not sure whether other European countries are more competitive. The changes that were

607
made and the legislation that was introduced during the 18 years of Conservative rule have helped to make Britain far more competitive than some other European countries. To impose more burdens on business in Wales at this time would not be useful.
The Secretary of State presented a review of devolution and said that the Welsh Assembly had already achieved a great deal. According to the findings of the latest ICM poll, he is one of the 4 per cent. of the British public who believe that devolution has achieved a lot; 88 per cent. believe that it has achieved a little or nothing.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Let us be fair. Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that has been achieved is that there is much less work for officials of the Welsh Office to do in London, which probably explains why the Box is packed with them today? Evidently, their duties weigh lightly on their hands.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman will not make reference to anyone outside the Chamber.
Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that there is great interest in the debate, and particularly in my speech. I expect that that is why there are so many people listening.
Part of the problem with confidence in the Welsh Assembly was the overselling of the institution in the first place, and the way in which it started, with the rigged leadership election which finally backfired. No one now trusts the Labour Government on the holding of referendums or internal elections.
That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is in Wales today. He is not afraid to go to the people. He is in Monmouth with his truck, selling in Wales the message of saving the pound, which is extremely popular with people in Wales and throughout the rest of the country.
We know that the jury is still out on devolution. As we were reminded earlier, three quarters of the Welsh people did not vote for it, but it is still in its first year. The nine Conservative Members of the Welsh Assembly are working hard to ensure that it works well for all the people of Wales.
Mr. Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No, I will not give way, as I know the point that the hon. Gentleman will make.
One of the priorities of the Welsh Assembly has been a new home for itself. We recall the farce about the siting of the Assembly—whether it should be in Cardiff or in other parts of Wales. The Secretary of State suddenly discovered that Cardiff was the capital of Wales and decided that the Assembly should be there. Then there was the farce about whether it should sit in the city hall or some other building, and now there is a farce about a new building. The Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly tried unsuccessfully to block the erection of a new building.
Page 30 of the White Paper on which the Welsh people voted, because there was no Act at that stage, stated that the Government estimate for acquiring and equipping a
608
building for the Assembly would be between £12 million and £17 million. When we questioned that, we were told that £17 million was at the top end of the estimate. Less than 12 months later, the cost of that building has been estimated at £23 million, with a contingency of a further £3 million. Few people believe that it will cost less than £30 million.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the difference between £230 million for Portcullis House and the odd £20 million for a new democratic Chamber for Wales?
Mr. Evans: I shall refer Portcullis House to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee because I am unhappy about any waste of taxpayers' money. The cost of the Scottish Parliament building ran out of control. It was said that it would cost £40 million, but it will cost more than £200 million. The people of Wales had faith in the White Paper on which they voted at the referendum, when the margin of victory was narrow. The White Paper stated that the cost was between £12 million and £17 million. It is now estimated at £23 million and £26 million. Something is wrong and someone should be brought to book because of it.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Portcullis house was initiated by the Conservative Government. Why has no Conservative spokesperson criticised the expenditure on that building? Is it because the money is being spent in London and therefore cannot be criticised, while the expenditure that the hon. Gentleman criticises is happening in Wales?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully. I said that I had criticised the runaway expenditure on Portcullis House. I criticise such runaway expenditure on any public buildings on which taxpayers' money is spent.
Mr. Ruane: Did the hon. Gentleman vote for or against the expenditure on Portcullis House?
Mr. Evans: That happened several years ago. If a vote was held, it probably took place late at night. However, we are discussing the problems of buildings that are costed, but for which the cost then spins out of control. The hon. Gentleman must bear some responsibility. The Labour Government have been in power for the past three years. What have they done to ensure that they have a tight grip on expenditure on public buildings?
The people of Wales do not want expenditure on a new Assembly building. Those who have visited the building know that it is perfectly adequate; many people would describe it as luxurious when compared to some of the rooms at Westminster. The priorities for expenditure should be the health service, education and the police rather than plush accommodation for Assembly Members.
I referred to the farce of the leadership. The Prime Minister did not understand his devolution settlement. In a rigged voting system, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) defeated the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) by getting fewer popular votes. The contest was a shambles; control freakery at its worst. I was interviewed by John Humphrys on Radio 4 on the day after the contest. He said that the

609
result marked the worst day for devolution. The antics that preceded it were a disgrace, and the Prime Minister's dismissal of democracy in Cardiff as "fun and games" was arrogant. The removal of the Prime Minister's placeman and the choice of a new leader was a good day for devolution in Wales because at least the people of Wales had chosen him through their representatives.
Another problem surrounded the removal of the ban on beef on the bone. When the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament changed their minds and decided to consider the issue more deeply, it led to a paralysis of the Government. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food changed his mind. He said that it was safe to remove the ban but that he would not do that without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. That paralysis damaged the farming industry greatly.
Dual mandates have already been mentioned. As the Secretary of State said, when a Member of Parliament is also First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, it is impossible for him to be here, and doing a proper job is extremely difficult. The voting figures illustrate the problem. All dual mandate hon. Members should consider which job they want to do. I suspect that they would resign their Westminster seats, as happened in Ceredigion.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Did my hon. Friend notice that, when I raised the matter in an intervention, the Secretary of State did not answer my point about the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who does not lead his party in the Assembly and by January had not participated in a single Division in the House? Is that not an appalling abnegation of the duties of a Member of Parliament?
Mr. Evans: I agree. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is not alone. The record is 0 per cent. for several other dual mandate Members of Parliament. Their constituents would like a representative who worked full-time at Westminster to promote their interests.
Council tax bills will soon drop through the letter boxes of people in Wales. It will be an eye opener for many people to discover the following predictions. In Anglesey, the increase will be 16.5 per cent.; in Conwy, it will be 11.3 per cent.; in Powys, it will be 13.8 per cent.; in Swansea, it will be 14.1 per cent. and it will be a staggering 18.2 per cent. in Monmouthshire. Yet inflation is running at a little more than 2 per cent. There are four overspending local authorities in Wales. The other 18 unitary authorities have had to dip into their purses to subsidise them. However, the council tax increases, which average more than 10 per cent. in Wales, will seem pretty rich to people who were told during the general election campaign that there would be no tax increases. What is the council tax if it is not a tax? Pensioners have received a 75p a week increase, farmers' incomes have plummeted—they will find such increases unacceptable.
Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that council tax increases, especially in the poorest local authorities, have nothing to do with overspending or inefficiency, but everything to do with poverty? If he bothered to read research that was published this week,
610
he would get a better understanding of how that poverty affects communities such as mine, which desperately need a lot of money to build up public services and rectify the injustices that they experience. The hon. Gentleman should never forget that the increases are due to poverty, not overspending or inefficiency.
Mr. Evans: I do not discount poverty, but it is the responsibility of Labour-run local authorities, the Labour-dominated Welsh Assembly and the Labour Government. People in poor authorities, perhaps those who have incomes that are just above benefit levels and face such increases, will be the new poor in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. They will have to scratch around for the extra money. Poverty will not affect Russell Goodway, the leader of Cardiff, whose salary has increased to £58,000. The bill will be picked up by poor people in Wales. That is a scandal.
Let us consider business rates. Today's Western Mail includes an article headed "Tourism staggers under body blow of huge rates rises". The new rate rise for businesses may be 40 per cent. Many small businesses in Wales are involved in tourism and operate at the margins. That is another problem.
The countryside has been mentioned. Rural poverty is great in Wales. The debates that we have held on post offices and the threat to rural post offices has been mentioned by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which believes that half the rural post offices in Wales could face closure if the changes to automated credit transfer goes through. Some of those post offices do 40 per cent. of their business through ATC and the assurance that automated teller or hole-in-the-wall machines will be installed in rural post offices is not much comfort when consumers will face a £2.50 charge every time they use them. That is a scandal.
There are problems in the national health service in Wales. We were told time and again that it was safe in the Government's hands, but the number of patients waiting for an operation has soared by 13.9 per cent. since they came to power. The number waiting more than 12 months has gone up 60 per cent., the number waiting more than 18 months has rocketed by 167 per cent. and the number waiting to get on the waiting list has soared by more than 50 per cent., but the statistics hide the fact that we are discussing human beings who are waiting for treatment on the NHS. Last year, I raised the issue of the Newport man who was given a waiting time that was longer than he would live if he did not have his life-saving operation. We cannot have those problems in the NHS in Wales. A report says that another 42 intensive care beds are needed in the Swansea and Bridgend region and I ask the Secretary of State to consider the problems that the people of Wales face there and to talk with the First Secretary about how better to alleviate them.
Farming is in a deep crisis—the worst for 60 years. In the Ceredigion by-election campaign, I visited a farm with my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the chairman of the Conservative party, at which a calf was destroyed because the farmer simply could not afford to take it any further. He would have been lucky to get 50p for it at market. It is appalling that farmers have seen their incomes drop by 75 per cent. in three years. The farmgate milk price has completely collapsed and some farmers have to have two or three jobs to make ends meet. That is the crisis that farmers face in Wales.

611
The Government still fail to understand that, in the most rural parts of Wales, the car is not a luxury, but a necessity. Extra taxes have been heaped on the motorist and it costs £165 a year more to fill up a car in Wales directly because of Government tax policy. I hope that the Secretary of State is having talks with the Chancellor to ensure that motorists in Wales are not clobbered again in the next Budget.
Mr. Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend understates his case. According to the Automobile Association, if all the increases in fuel duty, value added tax and road tax are added up the average motorist pays almost £900 a year more to run a car. As he rightly says, a car is the last asset that a poor family in rural Wales can afford to lose, because with it will go the job.
Mr. Evans: The Government fail to understand that public transport is non-existent in parts of Wales and depending on it would be ridiculous. My hon. Friend is right to remind us of all the other extra taxes—stealth taxes—that have been put on the motorist in Wales.
On education, the Government said that class sizes would fall, but after an initial fall they have started to increase. That is a particular problem. The National Union of Teachers is concerned that in six local education authorities—Conwy, Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Wrexham, Ceredigion and the Vale of Glamorgan—the number of junior school classes with more than 30 pupils on the register has already increased. The people were promised that things would get better, but we are starting to see them get worse.
There is also a fear over rural schools and parents at Bwlchygroes primary school in Llanfyrnach are appealing to the National Assembly against Pembrokeshire county council's closure plans. The school is one of five that the council plans to close to save money and we have to have assurances from the Government about their commitment to rural schools. The Learning and Skills Bill, which is going through Parliament, is seen as a threat to sixth forms because of the way in which funding is being changed. Education is our investment in our future and it should not be spun out of all recognition.
Objective 1 status has been mentioned and we can see from the 21 January report from the Confederation of British Industry in Wales headlined "Major manufacturing gloom in Wales" that there is a real problem. Certain parts of Wales look to objective 1 status to ensure that they can attract extra investment, but on 17 February I received a press release from CyberCall, a west Wales company that is looking to expand with more than 400 extra jobs. It is dependent on objective 1 funding and match funding coming through and it looks to the Government to stop playing politics with the issue.
Mr. Martin Caton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: Time is catching up on us, other Members want to speak and I am coming to the end of my contribution.
The Government should take cognisance of the Select Committee report, which was scathing about their treatment of that issue:
The current CSR negotiations are a test of the Government's commitment to Wales, and indeed of the Devolution settlement.
612
The Committee want the Government to get on with it, but the objective 1 report that they submitted to the European Union came back because the EU did not think it adequate. On page x, the Select Committee report says:
The Prime Minister has said that the Government will not let Wales down. Welcome though these assurances are, the Government's "trust us" approach is not enough.
That report was made by a Labour-dominated Select Committee.
Mr. Wigley: It is important to draw the House's attention to that valuable report, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State responded by saying,
it is my view that the report is incorrect in its conclusion,
despite the fact that the First Secretary in Cardiff has said that it is a useful contribution to the debate on objective 1?
Mr. Evans: As far as the judgment on the report is concerned, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman whom I would believe. It is extremely important and influential and I hope that people will not close their eyes to what it says. Many in Wales are depending on objective 1 funding and they cannot wait until the end of the review.
The Government were elected under the banner "Things can only get better" and the Secretary of State said that he would be judged by what they did over their period in office, but can he say that things have got better for students in Wales, pensioners, motorists, farmers, those who are waiting for treatment on the NHS, taxpayers in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom who will see stealth taxes go up by more than £40 billion in a Parliament, those in schools in Wales who look to a better service and those who are waiting for objective 1 match funding? There is only one conclusion: "It's worse than under the Tories" in Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what you say."] I am sorry—the words are not mine, but those of John Hopkins, Labour's Blaenau Gwent leader. In the Gwent Gazette on 10 February he said, "It's worse than under the Tories."
Mr. Llew Smith: That piece of literature was written in the English language. If the hon. Gentleman reads it again he will find that those are the words not of Councillor John Hopkins, but of the local newspaper. Councillor Hopkins did not make that statement.
Mr. Evans: I am sorry—the Gwent Gazette says that there was an "astonishing attack" on the Prime Minister and that the
people of our area were better off under the Tories than they are with Labour, he says.
That is a quote from Mr. Hopkins. I am sure that the spin doctors from Millbank have been on the phone—it will have been red hot because we all know how Millbank operates against discordant voices in Wales. A number of Labour MPs sitting here must feel that they were right and the Government wrong and we all know that the phones of one or two of them were red hot. I believe what John Hopkins says—it is worse than under the Tories and Wales is fed up with the Government's spin doctors. Wales is fed up with the political shenanigans and internal squabbles. Wales deserves a brighter, better future, and that is what the Conservatives will provide after the next general election.
3.59 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—at least I will look good. I congratulate him on his profundity: he referred to the naming of bridges, public holidays, London parties and trucker Hague going through Wales. However, I must confess that towards the end of his speech he did apply himself to some real issues.
If the hon. Gentleman wants a campaign, will he join me on mine? I would much rather see the Welsh flag on the Cenotaph than have a public holiday on 1 March. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will join me in the campaign to pay tribute to all those Welsh people who died in wars in this century fighting to preserve our democracies and freedoms. Let us all join in the campaign to have the Welsh dragon on the Cenotaph. I will gladly trade it for a public holiday on 1 March.
I take the hon. Gentleman to task for castigating local authorities that have overspent. With his Government's reorganisation of local government in Wales, communities in the valleys could not afford to provide public services, except by stretching funds and sometimes overspending. The merger, for example, of Rhondda, Taff Ely and Cynon Valley councils—two of the poorest areas in Great Britain, by any socio-economic indicator—was bound to fail. It was done by his colleagues in government.
Some of my Labour colleagues are a little reluctant to give money to the poorest areas. Inclusive politics, which is the buzz phrase in Wales, goes out of the window when some of the richer parts of Wales are asked to give something to poorer parts—then we see the inclusiveness and brothers in arms. As always, the Welsh are happy to stab each other in the back on occasions and not to support themselves by running under the same flag, except perhaps on days when we play rugby against the English.
The Secretary of State is right to draw attention to Labour's achievements in Wales, but I was much amused to read the document that came around a little earlier that listed securing a yes vote in the devolution referendum as one of Labour's achievements. Many of us, and certainly the vast majority of the people of Wales, would not regard that as an achievement by any standard.
A peculiar view has developed: more government means good government. The more tiers of government there are, the better people are represented and the more democracy there is. In one sense, democracy is a finite thing; it is not extended by creating all sorts of organisations. Democracy can be destroyed, and democratic deficits or gaps can arise as a result of creating too many institutions. It will certainly eat up many already poor resources, which should be spent on education, schools, hospitals and other health facilities.
During the debate on the Welsh Assembly, all sorts of statements were made. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said that investors and industries abroad were queueing up, waiting for the Assembly to be set up; they saw that Wales was going to become a democratic country and they were prepared to invest. That was one of the arguments of the vote yes campaign: everyone was waiting for Wales to become democratic, as though it were not before.
614
I am extremely proud to be Welsh, but I am also proud to live in a British community which, from my experience—I have worked as a geologist in many countries—is probably one of the best to live in and enjoys a measure of democracy that most people in the world do not achieve. I do not think that setting up the Assembly extended democracy—it extended bureaucracy. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the leader of the Welsh nationalist party, scoffs at that. Is he daring to suggest that bureaucracy in Wales has not increased as a result of the setting-up of the Assembly?
Let us consider a point that the Secretary of State made: 60 Members are now making decisions that were previously made by three Ministers. Secretaries are coming out of our ears in Cardiff, all being paid very handsome salaries; it is all very expensive. Is that an extension of democracy and not simply an extension of bureaucracy? I cannot see how my constituents in the Rhondda, one of the poorest areas in Wales, have benefited from any democratic increment that was supposed to come with the National Assembly.
Like some Labour Members, Welsh nationalists talked about inclusiveness. Wales was going to enter into a great period of inclusive politics—brothers in arms, Welshmen marching forward into the new millennium. Wow. Look at what has happened over the past few months. What sheer hypocrisy was spouted during that referendum campaign.
What has happened since the Assembly was set up? Frankly, one great achievement is that we have created a class of political eunuchs in Wales—not just in Cardiff, but in Westminster, too. In Cardiff, 60 people are being paid to do a job that was previously done by three people. There is a hugely expensive superstructure, a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in relation to the new building. There are now more civil servants in Wales, so there has been a huge extension of bureaucracy. We were not exactly writhing under the yolk of British rule before last summer.
I understand that the eunuchs of the Ottoman empire spent time extolling the Sultan's characteristics—I am not sure who in Wales could be classified as the Sultan in the harem. The eunuchs invented increasingly elaborate titles for themselves in the harem. I am not suggesting that that is paralleled in the Welsh Assembly, but there seems to be a preoccupation with status and titles—and it is not confined to the Members. The statue of Oliver Cromwell stands outside, and visions of that age are evoked in me when I recall that the principal officer serving the Welsh Assembly is called the Counsel-General, one of the most wonderful titles that I have come across. I am not sure who picked that term out of the mire. I wonder what he is all about.
I also wonder what some of the Cabinet Secretaries actually do for their salary of nearly £70,000 a year, with expenses on top. There is bound to be a limit to the number of cattle markets, newly opened roads or potholes that can be visited. Not many schools or hospitals seem to be in the pipeline. With all due respect—all of them are my colleagues and in the same party—it is not as though they make profound decisions.
The Secretaries do not really have to make decisions. The Assembly is rather like a glorified county council. Many right hon. and hon. Members have served on local

615
authorities. I had the privilege of serving on the old Glamorgan county council, which covered almost half of Wales. It took bigger decisions than many of those being taken by the Welsh Assembly.
I do not envy the role of the First Secretary, as I think that he has a very difficult job. However, one thing that he could do is reduce the number of Cabinet Secretaries. The great virtue is that it would free money to be spent where it should be spent, not on Welsh schools in London—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has left the Chamber—but on schools such as the Rhondda special school for handicapped children. Water is coming through the roof and the yard is unsuitable as a playground for these very badly handicapped children. It is a shame to have spent £25 million on a new building for the Welsh Assembly when other buildings were available and there is not enough money to put three 1918 schools into a decent condition for our valley communities.
There is another virtue in getting rid of some of the Cabinet Secretaries. I understand why the former First Secretary appointed so many of them—he wanted a praetorian guard; people who would be loyal and back him through thick and thin. He wanted to ensure that, as a result of his patronage, whenever he was in trouble he could rely on their loyalty and backing all the way. Well, the events of the past few months demonstrate that one certainly cannot buy loyalty in Wales. I was disgusted by the great haste with which they all fled the field and left my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on his own. He was further emasculated by the Welsh nationalists who preside over the Welsh Assembly. If ever a dirty deed was done in Welsh politics, it was when Plaid Cymru combined with the Tories and the Liberals to stab him in the back.
Of course, we are no better off. I criticise my colleagues in Cardiff as being eunuchs, but we are also castrated as Members of Parliament. As the Secretary of State said, we still have a role to play. We still have our postbags because people look to us when they desperately need help. In one sense we are the last resort for many of our constituents who have problems. However, we face difficulties in tabling questions to the Executive and we no longer have the ability to question directly in respect of certain areas of government.
That brings me back to my initial point, which relates to a profound democratic issue. Some 200 years ago, America sought independence on the basis of no taxation without representation. The argument was that if taxes were raised and paid, the people's representatives should have the right to know how the money was spent. Now, Members of Parliament are in the ridiculous position of raising taxes, deciding the level of taxation and saying how much should be allocated to Wales, but not having the right to monitor how it is spent in certain areas. We cannot chase the penny, and that is fundamentally wrong.
I am not proposing that decisions should be taken away from the Welsh Assembly—which exists, warts and all. However, there should be a mechanism to enable us to participate and to put direct questions to the First Secretary. Instead of more democracy, we have a democratic deficit.
The Welsh Assembly is an experiment and I know that I am being overly critical of it, but my criticisms are justified because the people of Wales were misled last
616
year. One has only to look at some of the statements that were made at the time to see quite how grossly they were misled on inclusiveness, for example. We have to give it a chance to win, but it is not for the Assembly to create a situation in which it can operate on its own. As I said year after year during the campaign, at the next election every Member of the Welsh Assembly will say of every proposal, "We would love to have done it, but we were prevented from doing so by Westminster. We do not have the chance to raise money or make laws."
There are already voices among the Welsh nationalists—quite rightly; at least they are not hypocritical about it—and elsewhere requesting more powers for the Welsh Assembly. The next election will be fought by every political party in the Welsh Assembly on the basis of more powers being transferred from Westminster. However, the Welsh people were not asked that question. Although, fractionally, there was a yes vote, had there been honesty, forthrightness and less hypocrisy surrounding the yes campaign in Wales, the Welsh people would have thrown it out.
4.16 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: This St. David's day is at the dawn of a new century. I believe that it is a good time for Wales and a good time to be Welsh. Wales has a higher and more respected profile in spite of the down side in the press and the media. However, that does not apply to London taxi drivers. Yesterday, when I was discussing St. David's day with a taxi driver, I told him that I had seen daffodils in Gwent yesterday morning. He did not believe me and said, "No. You have to put your daffodil in a pot and keep it in a warm place to get it to flower on 1 March." I replied, "I am very sorry, but I saw them two hours ago." He still did not believe me. There is obviously a big gap in perception between London and Wales.
There are great problems in urban and rural Wales. The question is what we can do about them here in Westminster and whether we have the right legislature in the Assembly to conquer urban and rural deprivation in Wales. Although I did not agree with much of what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, he pinpointed many current difficulties.
The rural-urban divide is a big problem in Wales. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will have read in today's Western Mail an article by Rhodri Clark about rural Wales being left in the cold. I believe that it should be compulsory reading for Ministers.
The rural areas need to be reconnected with the rest of Wales. As they have fewer parliamentary seats because of their sparse population, urban representatives dominate in the Welsh Assembly and here in Westminster.
Since the 1960s, under Governments of both colours, the county of Powys has lost most of its transport infrastructure, including a huge amount of its railway infrastructure, its health authority, its ambulance service, three county councils, its police service base, its fire service and the Development Board for Rural Wales; and it is about to lose its probation service. That has resulted in a huge loss of decision making within our communities and a huge watering down of services. I would not advise anyone to travel at night in Powys, as, should they be unfortunate enough to have an accident on the road, an ambulance could not be guaranteed to arrive within the

617
statutory response times in the hours between 12 midnight and 8 am. Five years ago, it was guaranteed that one would be picked up by emergency services within that time. There has been a serious decline in those services.
As hon. Members have said, there is a catastrophic crisis in farming. In the previous financial year, many farmers in my constituency earned 39p an hour. Currently, some of them are making no money whatsoever. Although I realise that that is a consequence of global markets and the pound's strength, something has to be done about it.
We have, thankfully, been successful in saving our community hospitals, owing largely to a massive campaign and a sympathetic decision—for which we are very grateful—by the previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
In my constituency alone, in the past 30 years, 30 rural schools have been closed. We have also had to run campaigns to prevent bank branches and post offices from closing. From all that, hon. Members will perhaps appreciate why we have had to fight a type of guerrilla warfare—against the big battalions of Government, bureaucracy and multinational companies. We now face the threat of at least half our rural post offices being closed because pensions and benefits will be paid directly into bank accounts. However, many poor rural people do not have bank accounts.
Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a crying need for greater resources for the health service and rural schools? Does not that need—with a Budget in two weeks—underline the need to ensure that we maintain current taxation levels, so that resources are available rather than given away in tax bribes?
Mr. Livsey: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Liberal Democrats' policy is certainly not to cut tax by 1p, as will happen in the next Budget, but to spend that money on the national health service.
An announcement was made only yesterday on additional charges for using bank cash dispensers. However, in many parts of my constituency, there is only one bank's cash dispenser within a 20-mile radius. The decision to increase the charge might seem rational to someone at the bank's headquarters, in Cardiff or Birmingham, but it will spell disaster for local rural communities.
Our farming community, and what little manufacturing industry we have remaining, is threatened by global economics. Massive job losses are occurring in both sectors. We pay up to 5p a litre more for petrol and diesel. Although we have received a little money from central Government for rural bus services, those services range from few and far between to non-existent. New technology could provide some of the solutions, but some of the new technology infrastructure is inadequate and not up to modern standards.
A consequence of the massive decline in farming is that many of our young people have had to emigrate to find decent jobs. Those young people are replaced by others who come to our area to retire. Although it is not the retirees' fault that a consequence of the prices that they pay for houses is to put the local housing market out of
618
reach of our younger people, or that they put additional strains on social services and the NHS—I do not criticise them personally; I welcome them—that is still the consequence.
There is much that we can and will do to reverse the downward trend, but it cannot be tackled properly unless the whole of Wales is properly unified, with a far greater sense of purpose and leadership than has to date been displayed. The main vehicle for regeneration will undoubtedly come from the National Assembly for Wales and from more enlightened legislation from Westminster, combined with the vital input initiated by the European Union.
The decline of the south Wales valleys has been devastating. I am privileged to represent communities in a part of the upper Swansea valley—an old industrial area containing some of the finest people whom one could ever wish to meet. They have an immense community spirit. Recently, however, global economics has overtaken them.
Lucas SEI, for example, closed because of the uncompetitive pound and rock-bottom wage rates in Poland. The whole operation was spirited away by the multinational company to eastern Europe. We have been left to pick up the pieces, and we are fighting back. The Amman and Tawe Valley Partnership, the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies, with the local elected hon. Members, are doing their best, and we have managed to get a new employer into the Lucas factory. Currently, however, it is employing only one tenth of the previous number of employees.
Every valley, especially in the coalfield areas, has declined. One has only to visit those areas to see the devastation that has been created largely by 18 years of Tory rule, but which is not being helped by the Labour Government's adherence to a far too strong pound and their current refusal to enter the euro zone. Now, the problem for Wales is that the type of decline that the valleys has experienced is rapidly being mirrored in rural Wales, especially in the decline in farming.
The plight of farmers is really terrible. Previously, Wales's Labour party leaders spent much time addressing the issue of the unity of urban and rural Wales. It is time that we again addressed that issue. The interests of Wales, whether urban or rural, should be considered as one entity. However, if we are to address many of those issues, we shall have to make the National Assembly more effective.
It was not surprising to learn that, yesterday—even on St. David's day—the National Assembly was impotent to take decisions on even relatively small adjustments to secondary legislation. The matter began initially with—I think correct—statements that Wales should be a GM-free area. However, because of legal advice, the Assembly could not proceed as directly in achieving that objective as it should have liked to do.
We also learned yesterday that amendments to proposals for performance-related pay and conditions for teachers may not be within the Assembly's province, and that the Assembly's decision on the matter may be pre-empted, at Westminster, by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I do not know whether that is true, but it is what is alleged.
I well remember speaking on Third Reading of the Government of Wales Act 1998, and saying that although establishment of the Assembly was an excellent achievement, the nature of the Act would greatly test the

619
new Assembly Members. I said then that the Assembly would be known for what it could not do rather than for what it could do for Wales, and that that would be a very frustrating experience for all those who were involved. It gives me no pleasure now to acknowledge that my prediction has been proved true sooner than I had expected.
The fundamental flaw that has to be addressed, whether we like it or not, is that the Assembly is unable to exercise primary legislative functions—[Interruption.] Ministers may say "Well!", and the hon. Member for Rhondda may say that that was not in the referendum, but throughout the 20th century, the Liberal Democrats' policy was that a Welsh parliament should be created and have primary legislative powers. As that model has not been adopted, the various chickens that I have been describing have been coming home to roost.
I am sure that that legislative need will be recognised, and that, in the not to distant future, the Assembly will be given the powers necessary to match actions with expectations in Wales.
Mr. Evans: Is the Liberal Democrats' policy to push to give primary legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly without a referendum, and to give it tax-raising powers without a referendum?
Mr. Livsey: I was talking about legislation, not taxation. Nor will I abandon my party's adherence to a very important 100-year-old policy of granting primary legislative powers to a Welsh Parliament.
Mr. Rogers: That was a good Liberal Democrat answer.
Mr. Livsey: Yes, it was. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
This week's announcement that the Presiding Officer will, for example, have his own independent legal officer demonstrates another weakness in the 1998 Act. We failed to include in the Act amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats Members that would have enabled the Assembly to have three classes of civil servant. I remind the House that we advocated providing for Executive departmental civil servants; independent civil servants, who would have been designated to work with Members and political parties; and officers of the Assembly, similar to those at the House of Commons, who could independently proffer advice to Assembly Members.
I believe that three classes of civil servant would solve many of the Assembly's problems. I am also quite certain that such reform, in the medium to long term, will make the National Assembly a far more effective democratically accountable body.
The vexed question of match funding for objective 1 and objective 2 initiatives, which was the cause of such a hiatus in the Assembly a few weeks ago, would have been eased to some extent had the Assembly had tax-varying powers. That is probably the most contentious of the proposals that we put forward during the passage of the Government of Wales Bill, but it would have epitomised democratic power with responsibility, which the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned just now.
Mr. Robert Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he has just said about tax-varying
620
powers? Is it his party's policy that the Welsh Assembly should be given tax-raising powers without reference to a referendum of the Welsh people?
Mr. Livsey: I did not necessarily say that, because that is an important matter. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Conservative peer, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who has advocated giving the Assembly tax-varying powers and said that it could lower taxes and Wales could become a tax haven.
Mr. Evans: We need clarification on this simple point. Is it Liberal Democrat policy to give the Welsh Assembly tax-varying powers without a referendum? Yes or no?
Mr. Livsey: Yes, of course it is. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can read our manifesto, which has said that in the past. I do not know why he is trying to persuade me to abandon a policy that, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said, is entirely logical.
Mr. Ruane: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a proposal to give the National Assembly for Wales tax-raising or tax-varying powers would receive the backing of the people of Wales, with or without a referendum?
Mr. Livsey: We would seek to persuade the people of Wales. The Scottish Parliament has tax-varying powers with a 3p limit. There are various ways of achieving tax-varying powers without going the whole hog, as some have suggested that we would like to do.
I regret that such a hard-working and honest Member of Parliament and of the Assembly as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth should have had such a rough ride in the Assembly, but—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Look behind you."] I am sure that you agree that people should not interrupt half way through a sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an element of truth in the description that he was Whitehall's representative in Wales rather than Wales' representative in Whitehall. That perception, together with the vexed question of objective 1 match funding and the Treasury's inability to come up with the necessary transparent evidence of such funding, unfortunately left the Liberal Democrats with no alternative but to vote in the way that they did on the confidence motion in Cardiff.
To paraphrase George Orwell, all votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others. I welcome the arrival of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) as the new First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. In the end, democracy has won in Wales. Like the Liberal Democrats, the new leader adheres to the concept of one member, one vote—or OMOV, as he fondly describes it. There is something satisfying in the fact that in Wales—a country of fair-minded people with strong democratic principles—people of all political perspectives were able to see justice finally done. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West has clearly said that other systems of election not based on one member, one vote will not be exercised again in Wales. I welcome that. It is real progress and the Liberal Democrats wish the new First Secretary well in his endeavours to obtain for Wales a fair settlement of United Kingdom resources with which to tackle the many problems that I have described in my speech.

621
I believe that the Secretary of State is of a similar mind to the First Secretary in wanting to achieve success for Wales. Now is the time for real leadership and unity for the whole of Wales. That is very much in the interests of its people. I am optimistic for Wales in the 21st century. It is up to us and the Members of the Assembly to give a lead. Wales and its people together are far bigger than all of us and they deserve greater success in the future.
4.34 pm
Sir Raymond Powell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). However, I challenge him on what sort of democracy has won in Wales in the past few weeks. What happened was not democratic. He referred to a resolution that was tabled in the National Assembly for Wales. There is no doubt that the resolution was provoked by the Welsh nationalists for the purpose of disquieting most of the Members of the Assembly.
If we analyse the vote, we find that the result was determined by the unelected Members of the Assembly. Nineteen of those 20 unelected Assembly Members belong to the Opposition parties. They all participated in the debate and voted. I found the attitude of the Opposition parties in the debate disgusting.
Mr. Livsey rose—
Sir Raymond Powell: Let me finish this point first. Unless the facts go on the record, I doubt that the House will ever know what really happened. The Secretary of State handed in his resignation—
Mr. Paul Murphy: No, I did not.
Sir Raymond Powell: I am sorry; it was the First Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has only recently taken up the post—no wonder I forgot. We shall have a long time to remember him afterwards.
The First Secretary gave what I am given to understand was a brilliant speech and handed his resignation to the Presiding Officer. I am sure that Madam Speaker or her Deputy Speakers would not allow a vote to take place on a person who had already handed in their resignation. It was disgusting and humiliating for the person involved and those who participated. The vote should never have been called. The fact that it was called was clear evidence of the political persuasion of the Presiding Officer. Anyone who watches a re-run of the proceedings will know that what I am saying is true. Such procedures would not be tolerated in the House, but we would never have allowed the situation to arise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should negotiate with Madam Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly so that they can at least ensure that it never happens again. They should also look at the procedure for appointing and dismissing a Presiding Officer.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) took about 15 minutes of my time. If we have a debate on Welsh affairs in future, we may as well have it in Westminster Hall because sufficient time is not available
622
in this Chamber. Perhaps arrangements could be made for a full day's debate on Welsh affairs before the end of this millennium.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the suggestion—not necessarily made by the Western Mail, because it always gets things wrong—for a public holiday on St. David's day. I do not want the Welsh nationalists to be able to say, "That was our campaign—we initiated it" because I made that suggestion on the Floor of the House in 1983 and I do not know whether some of them were here at that time.
Listening to my right hon. Friend's speech, I reflected on the two years and nine months that the Government have been in office and realised that he could have said a lot more. He might have done if he had taken twice the time used by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. He could have recited chapter and verse in respect of all that the Government have delivered since 1 May 1997, especially for Wales. I am not looking for a position on the Front Bench but just stating facts.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will prepare a detailed statement for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. Such a statement was published by the Department of Social Security, dated December 1999. It contains key messages on welfare reform running to 15 paragraphs; fairness through reform of the Child Support Agency, 15 paragraphs; fairness through reform of pensions, 20 paragraphs; and fairness through reform of rights and responsibilities. We could publish another three or four pamphlets on the new deal. I have great praise for the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to introduce the new deal system for us.
Another major reform was devolution for Scotland and Wales. In the 1970s, Labour party members and MPs wanted devolution and spent hours, days, weeks, months and years bringing that proposal before our annual conference at Llandudno in 1987. I was proud to be the chairman of the Labour party in Wales at that time and to witness devolution being adopted as party policy. It took many more years before Labour was elected and had the opportunity to introduce devolution.
Many constituents, party members and some Labour Members are critical of devolved power and the Welsh Assembly in general. Of course there is a lot wrong with it. There would not have been much wrong but for the system of proportional representation that was introduced, which created 20 unelected Members and 40 elected Members.
Mr. Livsey: Surely it is incorrect to claim that Members were unelected, given that the election was held as a consequence of primary legislation passed in this House. Those 20 individuals were legally elected under the PR system devised for the Welsh Assembly.
Sir Raymond Powell: One should examine in detail who was elected, how they were elected and to whom they are individually answerable. What rights do they have to hold surgeries? I found one in the surgery that I use at my town hall some months ago, sitting where I usually sit in an office that I normally use. He was a Welsh Assembly Member but not even from the Ogmore constituency. I do not know whether he was taking complaints on my behalf or on behalf of my daughter, who is a Member of the Assembly.

623
When the votes were counted, there were 27 elected Labour Members out of 40. Without the candidates on the list, the position today would be very different. We are having a meeting in Blaenau Gwent at the weekend on the subject of PR. Eight Tories got elected. Only one of them was elected by the people of Wales. Nine Welsh nationalists were elected but eight went on the list. The leader of the Welsh national party boasted in the Chamber about his membership but he has nine elected Members and nine appointees.
What have the Liberal Democrats to boast about? Have they got as many Members as the Welsh nationalists? No way—but still they had three unelected Members appointed to the Assembly. We were saved only by having the First Secretary elected under the system, and I was very glad about that.
My only consolation from all the voting was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) was elected. I want to say a few words about how much work my right hon. Friend put in to the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh nationalists may not appreciate that—half their Members were not elected anyway—but what my right hon. Friend accomplished was appreciated by many people in the Assembly. It is all right for anyone coming after him to take up the cudgels, but it is a different matter to start it from raw and create the situation that we have today.
I warn the Welsh nationalists, who keep warning the Labour party, against trying again the trick that they tried only a couple of weeks ago—the farcical idea of tabling a motion on a problem that they knew the First Secretary could not solve. They knew that the Treasury had no licence to give money to Wales and that the First Secretary could not obtain match funding for objective 1. We have learned a lot about objective 1; we can study it again. Next time, the Liberal Democrats might not get cold feet—they might come into the Chamber and turn the nationalists down. I warn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we must have a solution to ensure that the people whom we elect in Wales are protected from someone who uses his office as Presiding Officer in the interests of his nationalist party.
Not only do I send my congratulations and condolences to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, but I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on taking on this position. I am confident from the work that he has already accomplished for us in the Government, particularly in Northern Ireland, that he will fulfil his duties, as we expect of him, in a most dignified way. I wish him the best of luck and great support for the future.
The Opposition talked earlier today about the difficulties and problems of the Labour party. We are not hiding behind desks—we know that we have had problems. We had problems regarding our election for the leadership, and we have had problems since then that were no fault of ours. One of our Members happened to walk over Clapham common one Sunday night, causing uproar and disgust to a number of his colleagues in the House. That lost us votes, seats, support, Assembly Members and control of councils. It was undoubtedly one of the worst accidents that could have happened not only to the person concerned but to the party. The problems that we had were similar in size and upset to the problems of sleaze that the Tories had before the last election.
624
We have got over that problem, and I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will take up the reins as the First Secretary of the Assembly. He will have my support and that of all his colleagues in the House. I hope that we will also see the friendliness, objectivity and comradeship that people talk about wanting for the Assembly, but which the Welsh nationalists, in particular, have not shown so far.
4.53 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that my contribution will sound moderate and, dare I say, contemporary compared to that of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell). During the last Welsh Grand Committee debate, I was accused of whingeing and scaremongering. Some—not all—Labour Members said that there was no problem in rural Wales. One of them is in the Chamber now. Unfortunately, we have seen a deepening crisis in rural Wales, and I am afraid that I am not scaremongering.
I said in response to the Secretary of State's reference to the commissioner that I wholeheartedly accepted the Waterhouse report. It is a wonderful piece of work, and I respect him for doing it. I am glad that it will be implemented as soon as possible. The Government are doing many things that I can fully accept. I am not one of those professional whingers who finds against everybody on every count. That does nothing for anyone's credibility.
Our Assembly colleagues tried to sort out the agricultural crisis by introducing a calf-processing scheme and attempting to assist farmers but, every time that they have tried to help, they have been hampered by people in this place. The problems of tir gofal, organic aid, beef on the bone and others have all been made worse by the reluctance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to support the Assembly's proposals.
Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that 80 per cent. of farm subsidy goes to the 20 per cent. of farmers who are the richest, very few of whom are in Wales? Does he further agree that the NFU in Wales should campaign for modulation to ensure that the poorest farmers—those in real need—receive the subsidies being overpaid to the richest farmers, who are mainly in England?
Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely and have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right. I hope that the NFU will conduct that campaign. However, the hon. Gentleman's party campaigned before the election for modulation, but it has changed its mind. That is one of life's funny quirks, but I hope that the NFU will pick up the ball and run with it after reading today's debate.
Mr. Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that modulation has been discussed by the Select Committee on Agriculture, and there is strong support for it among some members of the Committee, as well as further afield?
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support; there is clearly—in the words that the hon. Member for Ogmore could not find—a consensual approach. There is a feeling that MAFF has been less than

625
helpful to the Assembly. If the Assembly decides—excuse the pun—to plough a particular furrow, I hope that MAFF will allow it to do so rather behaving as it has in the past.
There is a general rural crisis. The single programming document submitted on the Assembly's behalf does not include enough about the problems of rural Wales, although its amended form says more. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) rightly said that 80 per cent. of support goes to the richest farmers. In my area, most farmers are hill farmers whose incomes have dropped by 62 per cent. over the past two years—and they were hardly raking it in before that. Heaven knows how they exist at all.
The crisis is hitting not just one industry, but the whole rural economy. Shops and businesses are going down too. Every sector of agriculture has fallen. The width of the crisis distinguishes it from previous crises such as that of the 1930s. The situation in rural Wales is absolutely disastrous, but the historical relationship between sterling and farm incomes suggests that 2000 will see yet further falls as sterling continues to appreciate.
To be fair, I must say that the recession in agriculture is not affecting other industries, many of which appear to be doing well. However, incomes in the dairy sector fell by 21 per cent. between 1998–99 and this year. In less favoured areas, cattle and sheep incomes have fallen by 28 per cent. There are few farmers now in the pigmeat industry, in which the crisis has come to a head. We all know of the deepening crisis in the dairy industry.
This is the fifth year of recession for the agricultural industry. How long can it go on? The UK economy grew in 1998 by 2.2 per cent. In 1999, it grew by 3 per cent., and it will grow by probably a little more than 3 per cent. this year. However, there are no signs whatever of a recovery in the agriculture industry.
I am not whingeing without making suggestions as to what can be done, although the suggestions are not mine, but those of the NFU. Several matters can be tackled. Sterling remains over-valued; that makes exports less competitive and renders domestic markets vulnerable to cheap imports. As sterling has appreciated, prices have collapsed. It is obvious what the answer is on that matter.
The BSE crisis left the industry with greatly increased costs throughout the supply chain and with little or no export market for British beef. The collapse in world commodity markets brought on by the Asian and Russian financial crises had impacts on wool prices and so on.
European legislation allows for about £450 million compensation for UK agriculture during 2000—£47 million of that is immediately available to Wales. So far, the Government have promised to pay only 20 per cent. of that to the UK—less than 12 per cent. has been committed to Wales. The agrimonetary compensation package is vital. When the Secretary of State speaks with his colleagues, I urge him to request clarification of that matter.
We understand that there will be a contribution through the Fontainebleau agreement, but the industry is in crisis. Surely if his colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, can stump up tens of millions of pounds for Longbridge—good luck to the people of Longbridge—we can have some support for Welsh farmers.
626
NFU Cymru—Wales—points out that net farm incomes in Wales average only £4,500. One of the Government's catch phrases is social exclusion—rightly. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs—members of which are in the Chamber—is examining that subject. Considerable work has already been done and evidence has been taken. I hope that useful reports will be prepared in due course, and that the Government will respond accordingly.
However, the Government are not doing anything for social exclusion in rural Wales. I shall not do my credibility any good by agreeing with the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), but his comments on transport and fuel prices in rural areas were right—cars are a necessity, not a luxury.
Will the Minister lend his considerable support to a campaign to persuade Barclays to reconsider the mass closure of its banks in Wales? Two such closures are proposed in my constituency. One is in Blaenau Ffestiniog—an area that was hard hit economically. Now it is recovering and much work is being done, but Barclays has announced that the branch will be closed.
The other proposed closure is in Harlech. I have written to the chief executive and the chairman of the bank to ask for a meeting. I hope that some good will come of that. However, if the Government are serious about tackling social exclusion, I urge the Secretary of State to play his part in that matter—I know that he is a serious gentleman. Other hon. Members in the Chamber face similar threats to rural and urban branches and the matter needs to be addressed. Government intervention would bring about a change. I urge him to consider the matter.
I shall deal briefly with the subject of post offices, because they have been discussed on several occasions. However, the subject is important in rural Wales. The post office is a crucial element in the provision of support to people on low incomes in rural areas. Together with the church, the chapel and possibly the pub, it gives a village a heart. The post office and the small shop are vital.
I live in a village near Bala, where there is one shop. The proprietor told me, "If I lose the post, I'm closing. That's it." Fortunately, I have a car. Many people—some of them retired and on benefits—will not be able travel to the next town just to do some basic shopping without paying £5 or £6 for a return trip. That is how important post offices are to me. I am acutely aware of the problems—as, I am sure, are many Members. We need to consider the fact that the Government seem hell bent on introducing automated credit transfer. It will create havoc in rural areas—I cannot put it any higher than that. It has realistically been estimated that up to 60 per cent. of existing post offices will be under threat if the ACT system is introduced.
For I all know, the Minister for Competitiveness may be sincere in what he says; he has worked in the postal industry. However, I am worried about the way in which the Department of Social Security will approach the matter. Only a few years ago, it tried to get the elderly to receive their money directly in a bank account. In fact, it made it difficult for them to do otherwise. Such an approach would harm post offices in rural Wales. We know that 63 per cent. of the existing post offices in Wales receive 40 per cent. of their turnover from carrying out such transactions. The issue is extremely important.

627
I am not scaremongering. I am deeply worried about the issue. I live in a community in which people are desperately concerned, and I am rightly raising that concern at this stage. I hope that the Minister will take the issue on board, because there is no doubt that it will impact on rural Wales far more than on the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have said that those members of the public who want to can continue to receive their payments in cash both before and after 2003?
Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I accept what the Minister says on the face of it. However, I do not know what the Department of Social Security is planning to do. Only a short time ago, under the previous Government, DSS mandarins decided that they would close a third of the benefit offices in Wales and they did not even bother to tell the relevant Minister about that. He was alarmed, and I do not know what the hidden agenda is any more than—
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is scaremongering.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman also said that in the Welsh Grand Committee. The only word that he seems able to use is "scaremongering". Perhaps his constituency is different and is immune from the problems that affect the rest of Wales. I hope for his sake that it is; he might even save his seat.
Mr. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way having drawn me into intervening. Will he engage in some joined-up thinking? Earlier he referred to bank closures in Blaenau Ffestiniog and Harlech, and, of course, we regret that when it happens. However, does he not realise that the Post Office will have a great opportunity to develop banking services? The Government are working hard, through the computerisation of all rural post offices, to diversify the services that post offices will be able to provide. In particular, they will be able to offer banking services.
Mr. Llwyd: That argument has a flaw. It is said that automatic cash dispensers will be placed in post offices, and that is fine. However, I tell the hon. Gentleman that they are extremely costly to install and, in many areas, banks were not able to afford them. Even if they are installed, the best reckoning is that it will cost £2.50 a transaction. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he is no expert on the subject. The accepted truth is that it will cost £2.50 a transaction.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that many sub-postmasters in my constituency complain that they do not have the turnover to get a national lottery terminal in their sub-post offices, let alone one that would allow a bank to put in an automated teller machine?
Mr. Llwyd: My hon. Friend is right, because we are talking about rural areas. What exactly will a village shop diversify into? For heaven's sake, what can it diversify into? There is nothing much that it can do. It might be
628
able to add a few lines to what it sells, but it is pie in the sky to suggest that every post office will be able to trade itself out of a deeply worrying position.
Mr. Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where he gets the figure of £2.50 for each transaction from?
Mr. Llwyd: The figure of £2.50 a transaction has been extensively referred to in the press recently. If it proves to be wrong, I shall gladly apologise.
Mr. Livsey: I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Under legislation, the regulator has no power to impose a 30p rate, and the banks have said that they are going ahead with a £2.50 charge.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Not true.
Mr. Llwyd: I think that I have made the point sufficiently. There is real concern about this issue. I shall not dwell on it now, because it will be for another day. I have received numerous petitions on the subject, and I have sent them on to the Government. I hope that we shall be able to get them to reconsider this very damaging proposal. It might work in some urban areas, but it is certainly no good for any rural area. It will be extremely damaging for rural Wales.
Mrs. Betty Williams: What would be the hon. Gentleman's party's answer for a small village in my constituency, where the postmaster is giving up? The Post Office has written to say that it has advertised extensively to try to find somebody in the village to take over the business. That has nothing to do with the changes in 2003. If an answer is not found by the end of this month, that post office will close. There is another example in my constituency.
Mr. Llwyd: There are several answers. The first is that such businesses are now blighted, because the change is hanging over their heads. I have examples of post offices that have closed. Corners of village halls are being adapted for a few hours a week. It is possible to do that. There is no point in the hon. Lady's shaking her head. She asked for a response and I have given her a reasonable response. We all have the same problems.
Let us see what happens in the coming months. Some people from the hon. Lady's own party are campaigning on the matter. Her neighbour, the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), is campaigning on it now, a bit late in the day. He is getting on the bandwagon. [Interruption.] Not a Hague wagon, but a bandwagon.
I shall leave the subject there. I have flogged it enough, and I do not want to bore the House. However, it is part of the question of social exclusion. In rural areas, public transport is, alas, very poor, and this will mean people having to travel distances for basic provisions. That is the problem facing some of our rural communities.
I ask the Secretary of State whether it is possible to shift the Government's emphasis to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to take on labour. The truth is that 90 per cent. of the businesses of Wales are small and medium-sized, and many are in rural areas. That is something that surely could be done. There is the question of objective 1 money being used for it, in conjunction

629
with Government policy. I hope that we could look at this in order to assist the growth and revitalisation of rural areas.
Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend has emphasised the crisis hitting the rural areas, where the post offices are under threat. If they are under threat now, they will be that much more under threat if the changes are made. That does not apply only to rural areas. Sub-post offices in suburbs and some of the mining villages in the valleys will equally be under threat. People in those communities will also be deprived of the services on which they depend.
Mr. Llwyd: Certainly.
I have made my point about the rural areas. There is a genuine crisis. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) was right to speak as he did about our problems.
On the positive side, I welcome the new deal, despite the cost of implementing it. It is a step in the right direction, and I am pleased that it is happening. It is having some effect. As the Secretary of State said, it is having an effect in rural Wales as well. It is disproportionately less, because of the sparsity of population. Nevertheless, it is a step forward.
In conclusion, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the problems of rural Wales and do what he can, in conjunction with the First Secretary. We owe it to our constituents to ensure that we have a revitalised rural economy. If we do not, we shall fail our young people, who have to leave to look for jobs, and we shall imperil our culture, language and everything that we all hold dear. Large swathes of inhabited Wales will disappear from the map.
The right hon. Gentleman is a serious politician, and I hope that he will take this message on board.
5.14 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: Given that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, this is the first Welsh day debate since the Assembly has been up and running, I am tempted to engage in a brief discussion of the relationship between Westminster and Cardiff bay, but, because of the few minutes available to me, I shall not do that. Instead, I shall speak of what is understandably the hottest subject in Wales: objective 1 status. When my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer secured objective 1 status, they also secured about £1.2 billion from the European Commission.
Mr. Caton: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, and I have heard the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, indeed, the Secretary of State make the same claim. Moreover, I have heard members of Plaid Cymru claim that their party secured objective 1 status. But should we not give credit where it is due? The Tories secured objective 1 status for us by running down the economy during their 18-year tenure.
Mr. Davies: I shall resist the temptation offered by my hon. Friend, and concentrate on the good work done by my right hon. Friends in Brussels. I do not know the
630
extent to which they realised that, although that £1.2 billion is very welcome, something approaching another £1.2 billion from the Treasury was needed to match it. If the Chancellor did not know that at the time, it must have come as a bit of a shock to him on his return. Perhaps the moral is that it is dangerous to be at the heart of Europe, because we do not know what we will get from Europe at the end of the day.
It may not be necessary to draw on all those guaranteed funds if and when they arrive, because funding for projects may come from other sources. Some may come from local government; some may come from other public bodies; some may come from voluntary organisations. Hopefully, much of it will come from the private sector. Indeed, if projects are not financed by the private sector, they are probably not very good in any event, and are certainly not the wealth-producing projects that we want. However, there must be a lender, or provider, of last resort. The Treasury must be the provider of last resort if the £1.2 billion is not matched elsewhere, and the Exchequer must give a guarantee to that effect.
We in Wales may think that this is our peculiar problem, but I understand that it is also a problem for areas in England that have secured objective 1 status. The problems in Yorkshire are probably as great as those in the valleys of south Wales—and I believe that Yorkshire has obtained close to £1.2 billion. We all know of the problems in Liverpool, and those in Cornwall. This is not just a problem for Wales; it is a problem for the British Exchequer, for the British taxpayer and, ultimately, for the House, because the Exchequer is accountable to the House.
Mr. Wigley: I accept that it is vital for Cornwall, South Yorkshire and Merseyside to gain the full advantage of their potential from the funds, but is there not a difference between those areas and Wales? Public expenditure in Wales is defined according to the Barnett block, which was drawn up for the coming financial year—2000–01—before we knew that we would receive money from the European Union. As a result, any money that we must advance as match funding from the Barnett block will inevitably be granted at the expense of health, education or other services that it would otherwise have financed.
Mr. Davies: I understand the point, and I will deal with it, but what I am saying has nothing to do with the Barnett block. I was making the simple point that the problem is not peculiarly Welsh, but relates to Yorkshire and Liverpool as well. The funds that go to those areas must also be matched. We can discuss where the matching funds come from, and I shall do so in relation to Wales, but this is a British problem. British Exchequer money will have to be found as a last resort, and as the British Exchequer is responsible to the House, the House must be involved.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is right in respect of Wales. In theory, the money could be provided as a first charge on the Welsh block grant. As he rightly said, if the money was drawn upon under objective 1 match funding, it would to some extent be denied to health, education and local government. I do not see how it is possible to operate the Welsh block budget against the background of a first charge of £1.2 billion. Quite apart from the consequences, I do not see how,

631
technically, we could spend money on hospitals knowing all along that there was a charge on that money for the payment of objective 1 match funding.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that although in theory that is possible, it is not realistic to expect the match funding to come out of the budget for education, health or local government. We all know of the pressures in our constituencies on the health budget and of the debts of health authorities and hospital trusts. There is pressure on local government, which in my constituency is having to close old people's homes.
The match funding can come only from Her Majesty's Treasury, as an ultimate guarantee which may not have to be drawn upon. I would understand if Treasury Ministers and civil servants were concerned about giving a blanket guarantee over six years for projects that had not been dreamt up. No one knows what those projects will be, and they may not produce wealth for Wales. How do we get out of that dilemma? It would be reasonable and sensible for that Treasury guarantee to be given with the condition that when projects concerned with match funding were conceived, they had to be approved by the Treasury and the Welsh Office. That would not be an open-ended commitment.
There is no such open-ended commitment now with the £1.2 billion from Brussels. The European Commission has to give its imprimatur to schemes. Brussels does not, therefore, simply write a cheque for £1.2 billion. If we are, through the House, calling on the Exchequer and the British taxpayer also to provide up to £1.2 billion—it is realistic to ask for that amount—it is right and proper in constitutional terms that the Treasury and the Welsh Office should approve each particular project, as the Commission does and as the Assembly has for the Cardiff bay project.
That would be fair because the match funding is not devolution money. By definition, it is additional to that. The devolution settlement is the block grant, and it comes to about £8 billion a year. That is to be spent by the Welsh Assembly. The match funding will come from the Treasury, which is accountable to the House, and the Welsh Office must also be involved.
There is another reason why there should be approval from central Government Departments such as the Wales Office and Treasury. In Wales, sadly, the amount of money raised in taxation does not come anywhere near the total amount of public expenditure that comes into Wales. About £7.5 billion to £8 billion of public expenditure goes through the National Assembly. Almost an equivalent amount comes to Wales outside the devolution settlement. Total Government public expenditure in Wales is £15 billion to £16 billion. However, the amount raised in Wales in taxation is about £10 billion, so there is about £5 billion leeway. The extra £1.2 billion, if it must all come from the Treasury, does not come from Wales. It does not come from Scotland. It comes from the more prosperous areas of England, whose taxpayers are asked to make that contribution.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon made a speech some years ago—I hate to remind him of it, as he knows what I am about to say—in which he castigated the gin-swilling colonels in Surrey and Sussex. What he did not appreciate was the fact that the more gin they drink, the more money there is to pay the salaries of those who sit in Cardiff bay. That is the reality. We may like it or
632
dislike it; we may condemn the situation and blame people for it; but if there is, as I believe there should be, a guarantee of £1.2 billion, and if the money does not come from other sources, that money will have to come from the taxpayers—I will not call them gin-swilling colonels—in those areas of England that are far more prosperous than Wales, the north of England or parts of Scotland.
Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I will not go after the gin for the moment, although the argument advanced by the First Secretary in Cardiff is persuasive. He suggested that the Treasury has an interest in getting the economy in Wales buoyed up, because it will then have more take from taxation in Wales.
Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his speech, will he address himself not just to the £1.2 billion of match funding, but to the £1.2 billion coming from Europe? That comes through to the Treasury, and in the coming financial year we will not get a single penny extra out of that money. It comes through to the Treasury, it is then passed to Wales, and it is netted off from our Barnett block. Those are the mechanics. That is why we are constrained in the difficult way that we are. The right hon. Gentleman needs to address himself to the £2.4 billion, not just to the £1.2 billion.
Mr. Davies: I am very fond of the right hon. Gentleman, but he is not at his best today. Sometimes he does all right, but today he has not been listening, or perhaps he does not want to hear. I stated clearly that £1.2 billion comes from Europe. That cheque will eventually end up in the Welsh Assembly. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman denies that £1.2 billion will come under objective 1, I do not know where we are.
Let us assume that I am correct. I know that it upsets the nationalists, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer manage to get funds for Wales, and also for South Yorkshire, Liverpool and Cornwall. We know that that is because the economies of those areas are in a bad way, and we are not happy about that. We know that that £1.2 billion will come. I conceded the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, on which we all agree, that under the crazy European system—I do not know who devised it—the £1.2 billion must be match-funded by almost a further £1.2 billion.
Mr. Wigley: I have the Select Committee report, and there are five members of that Committee in the Chamber. The report recognises that we need additional public expenditure survey cover in order to be able to use that money. Unless we get that additional cover, we are constrained to spending within the Barnett block. Unless the money comes in, in the form of additional PES cover, we will lose out on the European component, not to mention the match funding. The Select Committee recognised that, as I hope the right hon. Gentleman will.
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is losing the plot. Let us start again. He should put his book down and think. The European Union will write a cheque for £1.2 billion for Wales. We need another £1.2 billion from the British Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should guarantee from the Dispatch Box the £1.2 billion for Wales to match the

633
£1.2 billion from the European Union. However, the Welsh Office and the Treasury should vet the schemes. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon is nodding. I gather, therefore, that he accepts my generous condition of scrutiny by the Welsh Office and the Treasury.
Mr. Wigley: That can be argued in terms of financial control; I accept that each project has to be justified. However, I implore the right hon. Gentleman to accept that we need not only match funding cover, but PES cover.
Mr. Davies: How much more money does the right hon. Gentleman want? Wales receives £15 billion. We raise £10 billion through taxation, which leaves £5 billion. Wales is to receive £1.2 billion from the European Union, and I have said that the Chancellor should give us £1.2 billion—yet the right hon. Gentleman wants more money. After the debate, perhaps he can explain how much more money he wants on top of the £15 billion, the European £1.2 billion and the other £1.2 billion. I make the simple point that there should be match funding. However, that money cannot come from Wales.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on his victory. I watched the television when he made his victory speech. He said that he wanted to work himself out of a job and that although he was going to Westminster, he did not want to be there. I can understand that. Even the post-modern Welsh nationalist party believes in some form of separation and Welsh membership of the European Union. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) nods. I am not sure, but I believe that he also wants to work himself out of a job eventually. To paraphrase a famous saying, "Make me chaste my lord, but not yet."
Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I am trying to work myself out of a job. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I could fall back on another.
Mr. Davies: Perhaps. I am trying to make a serious point. If the Welsh nationalist party wants to leave this place, so that there are no seats here for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Ceredigion or Caernarfon, where will the £1.2 billion for Wales come from? It will not come from the crazy policy of variation of taxes that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) proposed. If Wales is one of the poorest areas in Britain, how will we get more money by taxing Wales? That policy is foolhardy. Not even the Welsh nationalist party in its current state would argue that.
Mr. Paterson: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that for every pound we receive from the European Union, the British taxpayer contributes £2.12, according to the Government pink book? Would not it be preferable if all the schemes were repatriated and determined by national Governments so that twice the money could go towards the projects and decisions could be made swiftly?
Mr. Davies: If I pursued that, I would be called a Euro-sceptic or a little Englander. I shall not go down that road. The Treasury should provide match funding and I am glad that even the Welsh nationalists agree that a
634
condition should be attached to that, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the House should play a part in vetting projects that use Treasury money.
Mr. Öpik: If the right hon. Gentleman was given the choice between a penny off income tax or £2 billion towards health, what would he vote for?
Mr. Davies: I shall not be drawn down that path.
Mr. Öpik: Tell us.
Mr. Davies: I am trying to give a short answer.
I agree that generally one should not cut taxes any further—we need the public expenditure. One can argue for or against these propositions, but as I understand it, when the married couple's tax allowance is taken away, as it will be from 5 April, and as mortgage interest relief is taken away, many people will pay more tax unless there is some reduction in what used to be called the standard or basic rate of income tax. We shall hear about that in the Budget, but I suspect that there will be a cut in the basic rate to compensate for one or the other, although I do not know whether that will work out perfectly.
I return to the 26 March Budget. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announces that the Treasury will be the provider of last resort or guarantor for the £1.2 billion that may be required. It is perfectly possible to do so and I do not think that we need more, although the nationalists apparently do. I know that my right hon. Friend is a very tidy Scotsman and he wants to make sure that everything works perfectly. He wants to act—if he is to do so—in the comprehensive spending review, as it is now called. However, there was a time when public expenditure and the Budget were one and the same.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will know the public expenditure totals when he stands up to announce them. If he does not, I do not know how he will be able to introduce his Budget. I hope that he makes the announcement on 26 March, he puts us all out of our misery and stops all the argument in Wales so that we can get on with rebuilding the Welsh economy.
5.36 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: As a new, inclusive politician from Wales, I begin by congratulating the Minister on the centenary of the Labour party. I do so as a son of Aberdare—I see the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) in her place—who is proud to have been brought up there. The first Labour Member of Parliament was Keir Hardie, who represented Merthyr Tydfil. I am proud to call myself a Welsh socialist.
Mr. Hanson: Come over to us.
Mr. Thomas: A Welsh socialist, I said. I hope that the Minister will join Plaid Cymru in celebrating our 75th anniversary later this year.
As a new Member, I have been fortunate: shortly after making my maiden speech I have been given this opportunity to round out some of my general descriptions of the constituency by discussing in more detail its economy and rural economy and the effect of Government policy in the rural economy. As the representative of a constituency that is part of the objective 1 area, I make a

635
small plea for essential changes to be made to the Government's approach to the economy in general. That status is a sign that our gross domestic product has fallen below 75 per cent. of the European average.
I acknowledge the Government's hard work in gaining objective 1 status for the area that I represent, but as many Members have said, we need it because the current state of our economy is nothing to be proud of. It is a sad testament to many years of under-investment in rural and urban Wales, although I acknowledge that the present Government are not responsible for a lot of that. Nevertheless, let us be clear that their hard work on objective 1 will come to nothing, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made clear, if the questions on match funding and additionality are not answered urgently. They are addressed in the Select Committee report and have been discussed across the Chamber today.
I want to concentrate on the wider economic trends that the Government are following. I hope that the Minister will think seriously about how the Welsh economy is performing and not paper over the problems with general comments about the United Kingdom economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made clear, parts of the UK economy are doing extremely well, but we have a problem in the rural economy and a general problem in the Welsh economy.
Let us remind ourselves that the area ranks as one of the most underdeveloped, underpaid and underskilled in Europe. Nothing is more crucial to my constituents and, I know, to many constituents of Labour Members, than for the Government to address the problems of regeneration—urban and rural—and to invest in a rural infrastructure that can deliver sustainable development. That is the true test: not whether we have objective 1 status, but what we do with the opportunity.
Let us look at the economic context. Unemployment is falling in my constituency and in many Members' constituencies, but the bald statistics mask a real crisis. The unemployment statistics are skewed by the amount of young people who are leaving my area and rural areas in general, and by the inward migration of older, retired people. The economy is low wage, with many tourism and agricultural jobs, which are seasonal and depend highly on general economic circumstances. People might have a job this week, but not the next. It is like that in many rural areas that I represent.
In particular, the strong pound is hitting both tourism and agriculture. The milk industry in Ceredigion—we need to put it on the record—is on its knees under the strength of the pound. The difference between sterling's current rate and that which would apply under convergence is worth 2p on a litre of milk. On an average Welsh quota for an average Welsh dairy farmer, that is about £15,000 a year. It is the difference between profit and loss, happiness and misery.
An additional factor in the make-up of Ceredigion is the high rate of self-employment. That again reflects the tourism and agriculture sectors, where small businesses dominate. It bodes well for a local "menter", or entrepreneurial approach to objective 1, but it does not bode well for attracting private sector match funding to rural areas as they do not have the large firms. There are no headquarters or large corporations there. On the split and share of objective 1 funding, it should not cluster
636
around the Sony corporations and M4 corridor, where it would be easy to get match funding. It has to be spread throughout the area, particularly rural Wales.
All that may suggest that Wales is the poor man of the UK and goes cap in hand to the Treasury for resources. I do not accept that. There are many hidden subsidies within the tax system. It is not a simple case of saying that the tax take from Wales is X, the amount of Government spending in total on Wales is Y, so Wales is poor and gets money from other areas of the UK. We have to have a much more sophisticated analysis, including in particular things such as the defence industry in south-east England and the hidden subsidies for investment and infrastructure building in the UK.
Mr. Denzil Davies: We are back on the defence industry. Dr. Phil Williams has been writing article after article about the lack of a defence industry in Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that that has nothing to do with it? The amount of public expenditure that comes in is £15 billion. The amount of taxation raised is £10 billion. On the Maastricht criteria, there is a gap of 15 per cent. of GDP—higher than in any other country in Europe, except Slovakia.
Mr. Thomas: I make three comments on that. First, where are the multinational headquarters of those companies? Where do they pay tax?
Mr. Denzil Davies: In Wales.
Mr. Thomas: I do not think so. Secondly, investment in infrastructure follows that sort of industry, which we do not have in Wales and rural Wales. Thirdly—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is another Welsh socialist—there is nothing wrong with redistribution of income anyway, if that is the point that he wants.
We will have another debate at another time, but I argue that Wales is getting quite a raw deal from the Government. That is worsening under the Barnett formula. Consequential as it is, it makes things worse for Wales year after year. It started 20 years ago. We need a new, renegotiated formula. [Interruption.] There are nods and disagreements, but many Welsh electors are seeing it for themselves.
The evidence is there. Plaid Cymru won over 30 per cent. of the vote in the Assembly and European elections. We have heard a cogent argument from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) against any form of proportional representation and for entrenching the Labour party, even when it fails to win a majority in Wales.
Mr. Llew Smith: How does the Barnett formula make things worse for people in Wales? What statistics does the hon. Gentleman have to prove that point?
Mr. Thomas: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of our detailed proposals.
Mr. Smith: I should like an answer now.
Mr. Thomas: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an answer. The Barnett formula is consequential on spending in English Departments and does not take into account the additionality of European money under objective 5b and

637
objective 2. We have not received the money that we should have had, as Barnett has blocked it. That is why the Barnett formula has failed Wales.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli referred to Merseyside having been allocated £1.2 million under objective 1. Wales deserves 38 per cent. of the objective 1 package for the United Kingdom, but if we apply Barnett we get only 6 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman should put those arguments to the Chancellor, as we are putting them to the people of Wales and receiving their support.
Mr. Llwyd: My hon. Friend should know that the Secretary of State recognises that and has agreed to take it up with his Cabinet colleagues.
Mr. Thomas: I shall press on and turn to the picture in Wales now. Notwithstanding the comments that I made about the Labour party's honourable history and tradition in Wales, that hegemony has now been broken and we have to work within a different pattern of Welsh politics. It has been shattered, and no party now has a majority in Wales. Hon. Members have criticised the work of the Welsh Assembly, but they must recognise that the new century has ushered in a new type of politics.
The first two years under this Government have proved something of a revelation for many people in Wales. The Welsh electorate did not expect new Labour to follow Conservative spending plans for the first two years. After attacking such spending plans when in opposition, the Government now have a lot of explaining to do to the people of Wales.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of following the Conservatives' budget plans for the first two years, does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he has just said is completely wrong, because when Labour fought the last election, we promised to do precisely that in order to overcome the huge debt that we inherited from the Tories? We told the electorate what we planned to do. Whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with it is another matter, but we told the electorate and they elected us.
Mr. Thomas: I said that the electorate did not expect new Labour to do that. It may have been promised, but the election was fought on the basis of change, and change did not come.
It is time to reveal the real reason for those policies and the comprehensive adoption by new Labour of the right-wing orthodoxy that says internal markets bring efficiency savings and deliver services better than the public sector. A lack of faith in the public sector and the idea that the free market can be a tool for combating social exclusion and delivering economic development in deprived areas is Thatcherism by another name.
We need a reality check here. It cannot be denied that what is being delivered in Wales now is a widening gap between the rich and the poor. It is there in the statistics and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) knows it well. There is continuing under-investment in our schools and our health services and a total disregard for the current farming crisis.
638
New Labour's attitude to public expenditure betrays a shift to the right. For Labour pioneers, spending on public services was seen as an essential tool for achieving social justice. It could pay for comprehensive education, council housing and the national health service. Now, however, new Labour regards public expenditure with great suspicion. We do not share that view. New expenditure has been ruled out and existing expenditure has to yield greater value. Nurses spend less time with patients in the name of efficiency, and teachers spend more time on administration. They do not have the opportunity to provide care. Council tax rises burden the local electorate because of the squeeze on national public expenditure. There is a new orthodoxy—I should like the Minister to deny it—that public expenditure should not rise above 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. The Government have stuck absolutely to that orthodoxy. There is no rhyme or reason for it: it is an article of faith. Public expenditure as a percentage of GDP—[Interruption.] Other European countries have a higher ratio of public expenditure to GDP.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I tell the House that continued sedentary comment is extending speeches to the point that many, many hon. Members will be disappointed?
Mr. Thomas: Public expenditure as a percentage of GDP has fallen since new Labour took office, and the new Labour plan is to continue the trend until the next general election.
Let us consider some of the figures from the Conservative Government's last year in office. Although it pains me to say it, in that year, general Government expenditure was 40.4 per cent. of GDP. In the first year of the current Government, the figure fell below 40 per cent., to 39.4 per cent., and it is predicted to remain below 40 per cent. for the next two years. In 14 of the Tories' 18 years in office, public expenditure was about 40 per cent. of GDP. New Labour has promised and delivered a consistently lower level of public spending.
A particularly apposite question is where those figures leave the Prime Minister's promise to raise health spending as a proportion of GDP. Unless the overall threshold of public expenditure is raised above 40 per cent., his promise can be met only by taking away from other items in GDP. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will work hard in government to break that closed circle, which does nothing to help the socially excluded or the poor and particularly disadvantages vulnerable children and pensioners.
In that context, and in the context of the problems that I see in my constituency, we have to remember that about half public expenditure is spent on individuals—on pensions, and on social security payments. Is it therefore any wonder that, as a new Member of Parliament, I am already deluged by complaints about disability living allowance being taken from people because of cash limits, not because of changes in their disability? Is it any wonder that the 75p pension increase is thought to be risible when, because of rural bank closures and cuts in rural services, people have to spend that much just to take a bus to a bank or a post office?
The amount of public expenditure devoted to those services demonstrates the extent to which a Government are prepared to redistribute wealth. Redistribution of

639
wealth is what it is about. It is perverse for any Government who talk about social equity to set themselves the target of reducing that part of public expenditure as a matter of principle, rather than as a consequence of economic development and the growth of opportunity.
Over the years, the overall 1 per cent. cut in public expenditure has amounted to about £9 billion per year—which is equal to the Welsh block grant. Any voter would be able to tell the Government how to spend that money: on the health service, education and the rural economy. In Wales, the consequence of the cut is that health, education, public transport and the rural economic infrastructure are still starved of the resources that they need. Is that really what people thought they were voting for in 1997?
Interest rate cuts are increasing the effect of the public expenditure cut. The Government, rather than increasing investment in public services, are allowing interest rates to rise. New Labour has bought all the Tory economic arguments. Consequently, the Welsh economy is being run on the guiding principles of low public expenditure, low income tax and low inflation. Interest rates are the only weapon being used to keep the economy on track and to combat economic overheating. The way the economy is being run is disadvantageous to many areas in Wales.
Wales is getting a raw deal from the Government. When the south-east of England sneezes, Wales catches the cold. Wales has a very bad cold at the moment.
5.53 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I should like to take the opportunity—it is the first that I have had—to congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on his impressive victory in Ceredigion. I was fascinated by his observations. We saw in him a Jekyll and Hyde conflict—the socialist trying to reconcile himself with the nationalist. I tell him that they are not reconcilable, and his speech reflected that fact. When the socialist came out, he showed some conviction, but, when the nationalist came out, we saw that the two do not go together. He is also probably the only socialist on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Öpik: I am.
Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is a socialist.
I hope that during this Parliament the hon. Member for Ceredigion reconciles the Jekyll and Hyde in him. I hope that we shall be able to convince him that the socialist path is the best, not the nationalist one.
The hon. Gentleman gave his first speech in a debate on Welsh affairs. This could be my last. I shall offer some advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his post-devolution role. I understand and appreciate the role that he has had to play in recent months, acting as a go-between, trying to reconcile some of the problems that have broken out in Cardiff. I hope that that will not become the most significant part of his role. It is important to have a first-class, co-operative working relationship between Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales, but I hope that he will not see that as his central role.
640
One of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's favourite phrases is that we must not forget the big picture. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look at the big picture in Wales and play his role in Whitehall and Westminster to ensure that the needs and wishes of the people whom we represent are met.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion was right to point to the importance of public expenditure as an instrument of redistribution. It is one of the few left in the hands of the Government. However, I am astonished that his party intends to try to reconcile a policy of spending a greater proportion of GDP on public expenditure with a commitment to join economic and monetary union, accepting all the criteria and the straitjacket and imprisonment on public expenditure that go with that. I shall be interested to see how his party does that. I am baffled by the view that it would be a blow for freedom for the Welsh people to escape from some imperial British control only to become a prisoner of imperial European control. I believe that we should be governed as a part of Britain, but retain our distinctive policies and attitudes.
The first aspect of the big picture is public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) pointed out that the £8 billion block grant represents only just over half of the total public expenditure in Wales. The other £7 billion that comes into Wales is outside the competence of the Assembly. More than £5 billion of that is accounted for by the social security budget. Marginal changes in overall totals of social security expenditure can have a disproportionate effect on our communities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should spend some time ensuring that social security expenditure is shaped to meet the needs of our communities as well as those of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The other major area of public expenditure outside the control of the Assembly is £780 million of law and order and public protection spending. Those huge sums paid into Wales are spent on matters of considerable concern. I am glad that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has decided to deal with social exclusion. It will take evidence from Social Security Ministers because we recognise that they play an important role.
In last year's public expenditure budget, £116 million was spent on industry, employment and energy. Again, that was outside the budget of the National Assembly for Wales. Is that money achieving its purpose in Wales? Is there a role that my right hon. Friend can play in ensuring that that expenditure is geared to the needs of our nation?
The most important part of the big picture is employment and jobs. If one examines the instruments and expenditure available to Ministers to promote training and jobs in our communities, a large proportion of budgets and programmes are outside the competence of the Assembly. The work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which my right hon. Friend has passionately supported, on family tax credit, employment zones, and the new deal and its extension to the over-25s—all underpinned by the national minimum wage—is playing a major part in breaking through the fatalism and resignation to a life not on the dole but on benefit that has grown up in our communities over the past 18 to 20 years. That was not a society that we wanted to create but it is one that we have to tackle. The speech of the hon.

641
Member for Ceredigion was hopelessly over the top. The Government have done an enormous amount to address fatalism and resignation.
While I agree with the emphasis placed on developing entrepreneurial spirit and indigenous employment, in my area the majority of new job opportunities come from inward investment. Anyone who turns their back on inward investment is foolish. Fortunately, there are two projects in the pipeline in my constituency. One involves the St. Mary Meat Company from Cornwall; the other is One2One. Both will create an important number of jobs. Inward investment alongside the Chancellor's welfare-to-work programmes is vital to our needs and our future—United Kingdom policies working in and for Wales in every sense.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say a cautionary word to the Chancellor about the curious, superficial Treasury view that has emerged in the last few days of the mismatch between 1 million or more job vacancies and unemployment. We must not become bedazzled, as though just tapping those vacancies will solve unemployment. Because there has been so much interest in that claimed level of job vacancies, I checked on job vacancies in Merthyr yesterday and the day before. I hasten to add that I am not looking for a job myself but wanted to check what was available.
Sadly, I found that most of the 115 vacancies available in the past 24 hours were for cooks, cleaners, bar staff, bouncers and security officers. There were also vacancies for a butcher and bailiff, a few mechanics, a hairdresser and sales staff. All those jobs are useful and will supplement incomes in some cases, but many are part-time and some are temporary. Together, they do not add up to the stuff of a major new initiative in the communities I represent.
More interesting was what my analysis of the job vacancies available at the Merthyr jobcentre revealed about the nature of our economy and the valley economy catch-22 situation. The range of jobs available at our jobcentre, apart from those with the major inward investors, do not create or offer the skills and training opportunities that conventional wisdom says is a basis for the modern economy. Those job vacancies will not create the skilled training opportunities that we think are crucial to a 21st century economy. The catch-22 is that as we do not have the job vacancies to create the NVQ 3s and 4s that we are so short of, we do not have the training opportunities. Training means work-based training, so the employment must create the NVQ 3s and 4s that I am told are essential to a 21st century economy.
How are we to address this crucial requirement in communities such as mine? If I accept the conventional wisdom that we have to train and reskill people to higher levels to meet the needs of a 21st century economy and attract new inward investors looking for higher levels of skills and training, how will we do so in this catch-22 situation? That is where objective 1 should come in; it is what objective 1 should be focusing on. As has been said, we spend so much time arguing about match funding that we have not talked much about what we will do with the money. What can we do with it to turn our economy around? If skills and training are vital, let us have a national training programme. I am not talking about a partnership here or a group there, but a programme that
642
goes right across the board—a nationwide Welsh training programme. It should not be buried in competing projects within a partnership in this or that area of Wales; it should be a national programme with a national view.
I have not read in great detail how the Irish transformed their economy with objective 1 money, but what I have read shows that it was not a bottom-up process. It was very much a top-down process—the Irish Government decided that their population's fundamental failing was that it was not well educated, well trained or efficient enough to meet the country's needs.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that the outline of the jobs available in the jobcentre in his area also applies to rural areas of Wales? Will he also accept that Ireland spent more than 38 per cent. of objective 1 money not on infrastructure but on skills training?
Mr. Rowlands: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed my impression. In that case, how do we ensure that we do the same in Wales?
Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rowlands: No, I want to deal with this point, and many other hon. Members want to speak.
We cannot afford to let the objective 1 money be dissipated and chopped up into little pieces to filter into the economy. We have to have a national programme. The Employment Service provides a national instrument for delivering that service. The Employment Service in Wales has been transformed since 1997 by the Government's new deal proposals. It has been transformed in spirit, character and personnel. It is extremely proactive—it may not be in Ceredigion, but it is in my area. It has changed from the old dole and benefit mentality to a proactive, exciting service. We should build on that experience and use objective 1 money for the Employment Service.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is not here, because I can even tell him where we can get the match funding from. It does not involve the comprehensive spending review, help from the Treasury or raising taxes. The money already exists in the windfall tax fund, a curious and separate fund which we occasionally ignore. The fund, which falls outside the comprehensive spending review, contains more than £1 billion, £570 million of which is unallocated. If the Employment Service and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, backed by the National Assembly, produced a first-class national training and skills programme, match funding could be found from the windfall tax fund. We need not raise the money, merely allocate it.
I have watched with fascination as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has raided the fund for interesting uses. I would like to raid it for Wales, and I want the Secretary of State to propose that we do so. The European Union could not possibly deny that that would be matched funding, and neither could it deny our objective because training lies at the heart of most EU programmes.
Why are we arguing when the money is available? We share an objective, and we should go out and achieve it instead of spending our time in debate. I hope that

643
during his stewardship my right hon. Friend will raise his sights and his horizons to help to ensure that under objective 1 we can over the next five years transform the Welsh economy into a modern, efficient 21st century economy capable of and willing to meet the needs of all our people.
6.11 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: Having had the honour over the past year to serve on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and on the Welsh Grand Committee, it is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. I pay tribute to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee fairly, although he may find my views on devolution poisonous. I pay tribute, too, to the Secretary of State, who kindly allowed me to visit him with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) to discuss the anomalous problem of the A483, a Welsh trunk road that passes through my constituency. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would pay that problem some attention during the coming months, because it has not gone away, and careful liaison is required with his other British colleagues in the Cabinet when he discusses it with them as the representative of Wales.
It is a great shame that we did not hear from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and Westminster.
Mr. Öpik: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his speech so early. Does he agree that, unless the serious trunk road problem is addressed, Wales will remain without a proper north-south road connection?
Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman—my neighbour—is absolutely right.
I should like to make one point about the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I went last year to Ireland with the Welsh Affairs Committee. It is most important that hon. Members—particularly those from Plaid Cymru—should understand that the head of the Irish Development Agency said emphatically that the key to reviving Ireland's economy was not grants. Grants were welcome, he said, and they represented 5 per cent. of Irish gross domestic product.
Mr. Llwyd: Corporation tax made the difference. The hon. Gentleman need not tell me that; I know it already.
Mr. Paterson: Exactly so. Corporation tax was at 10 per cent., and it has been fixed at 12 per cent. until 2026. The idea that Ireland was turned round by grants is a fundamental misunderstanding. The improvement came from highly favourable corporation tax.
As a devo-sceptic—one who did not want devolution—I know that the part of Wales that I know best, the north-east, did not support devolution during the campaign. It is worth remembering that devolution went through on a majority of 168 votes per constituency. Real scepticism remains about it. It is not good enough to say that we have had the result and should forget about it. Whenever I speak to people who come from Wales to Oswestry market or wherever, I hear real doubt about the merits of the exercise.
644
The ICM poll has confirmed that. Some 40 per cent. said that the Assembly had achieved only a little, and 48 per cent. that it had achieved nothing at all. The Government tempt hubris in both Cardiff and London by discussing the spending of large sums of public money on new buildings. The project is not proven yet. We were told, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, that the new building would cost £17 million. As recently as 19 January, the then First Secretary—the right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—told us that it would cost £22.8 million. We are now told that the cost could creep up to between £26 million and £30 million. It is tempting hubris to spend such an amount, when money is needed for public services.
The Welsh Office has spent £5.2 million since May 1997 on publicity alone. The Government must be careful about spending such large amounts when in health—a public service that is much in the public eye—9,422 more people are on waiting lists than in 1997; the number of patients waiting more than 12 months for treatment has increased by 3,776; and 3,743 people have been waiting more than 18 months. That is where the majority of the Welsh population would like that money to be spent.
Several Members have mentioned post offices. I shall not go into detail, but post offices are critical in rural areas. There are 1,500 post offices in Wales but the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters predicts that, if the ACT reforms go through, the number could drop to 750. That would have a dramatic impact in rural areas.
Another element of Government activity has caused real damage. We hear much talk of competitiveness, but in the teeth of that there is an extraordinary increase in transport costs. We have the most expensive diesel and petrol in western Europe; 85 per cent. of the cost of fuel goes to the Government in tax. We are heading well north of a £3.50 gallon to a £4 gallon. That was never predicted when the Government came to power.
In rural areas of Wales, 98 to 99 per cent. of goods are carried by diesel-powered lorry. Between 70 and 80 per cent. of people in rural areas drive to work. As was pointed out, the car is the last thing that a working family can afford to lose. Those people are faced with substantial increases. The AA reckons that the cost of running an average car is £900 a year. That does not make rural Wales more competitive; it damages businesses.
Mr. Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House who introduced the fuel escalator?
Mr. Paterson: The Pavlovs would have been delighted if their dogs had reacted so predictably. That is what Labour Members always say. The fuel escalator began at 3 per cent. The previous Conservative Government increased it to 5 per cent., but this Labour Government have increased it to more than 6 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman reads table B9 on page 154 of the "Pre-Budget Report", he will see that the fuel duty take is to increase over the next three years.
The Secretary of State must tell his colleague, the Chancellor, that increases in fuel duties do real damage to the rural economy.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I apologise for intervening so early in my hon. Friend's speech. Is not the argument that was

645
made to him rather like saying that, just because someone invented income tax, that person is to blame when other people increase it by vast amounts?
Mr. Paterson: That is right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Paterson: Other Members want to speak, so I shall push on.
Recently, the Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary of the Welsh Assembly visited a farm not far from Oswestry, while I was visiting Oswestry market. The farm had 180 cows and 600 sheep, but the farmer was on income support. That is terrible.
The Secretary of State is a fair man, but I did not think that the cursory attention in his speech to the problems of agriculture was good enough. He touched on the matter, but he did not cover the depth of the crisis. An article in this week's Farmers Guardian referred to another visit by the Welsh Agriculture Secretary to a farm—a family farm that had been going for 400 years, but may close by the end of the year. It is a good mixed farm—dairy and sheep.
There is a dramatic crisis. Farm incomes have been slashed. The National Farmers Union in Wales reckons that some hill farmers are earning as little as £15 a week. Between 1997–98 and 1998–99, dairy farm incomes fell
By
37.5 per cent. Incomes from cattle and sheep fell by 75 per cent. Those figures are dreadful. Unemployment is rising. About 2,000 jobs were lost in Welsh farming between 1998 and 1999.
It is not usual to mention suicides without paying due care to the circumstances. However, in 1997 there were eight recorded suicides of Welsh farmers; there were nine in 1998. The problem is growing worse. A study carried out by PhD students at Swansea university showed that a combination of social and economic factors was driving many Welsh farmers to feel suicidal. The position is desperate, but the problems are resolvable. Farming should not be seen as a problem, because many of its difficulties come from government agencies. I admit that they did not all happen at once, but this Government have placed extra costs on farming.
I was involved in the consideration of the Food Standards Act 1999, so someone from an abattoir in north Wales wrote to me. Before 1999, its total Meat Hygiene Service costs were £596.73 a week, but from April this year they will be £2,602. Another abattoir in mid-Wales wrote to me: its costs have risen from £300 to £17,000 a year in inspection charges, and are £180 a tonne compared to £1 a tonne in a large commercial plant. Small abattoirs are vital if we are to maintain the quality of Welsh meat and use its production as the basis for future prosperity. We shall not be able to market meat without working with such small businesses.
The Government have been extraordinarily slow to react to many of the recommendations in the Pooley report, which they themselves commissioned. The Secretary of State should push his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to put reforms into action.
646
The Government could lift other costs that are imposed only in this country. Why are we the only country that insists on taking the spine out of sheep aged over 12 months? Why do we have a crisis in the calves scheme? It is traumatic for Welsh farmers to bring into the world male dairy calves only for them to have to shoot them on the spot and send the meat to hunt kennels. That is going on. The market in France sells calves for £150 each and it would make a large difference to dairy farming in Wales if that market could be opened up.
The dairy industry needs efficient production. Our dairy products cost twice as much as those on the continent. The break-up of Milk Marque has not helped, and I ask Ministers to consider what has happened to Eden Vale and Dairy Crest in the past week. It is not good enough to victimise Milk Marque and to put it in a difficult position where it cannot get production, and not to pay attention to what other producers do.
In summary, let me say there is a large contrast between what the Government spend on their agencies, publicity and services, which are not being delivered, and the devastating crisis in rural Wales.
6.22 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I would like to follow the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on agriculture, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do that. We have had an interesting debate, and it is regrettable that many of my hon. Friends will not be able to contribute.
During the past few years, Wales has seen a period of great political change, if not turmoil. It is understandable that there should now be a call for a period of consolidation around the new constitutional settlement. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today and on other occasions referred to a need for stability. Other Members have also done that in the debate. Stability would enable the Welsh Assembly to begin to use its powers and its budget for the better provision of essential services, such as health and education, for the people of Wales.
In the Assembly's work, there will be from time to time a call for new powers that will require primary legislation. In the debates on the Government of Wales Act 1998, it was always envisaged that that would be so. Indeed, an important part of Ministers' work is to enable the view of the Assembly and the people of Wales to be incorporated into legislation that comes before the House. How exactly that will work in practice, as well as in theory, we are about to discover over the next few years.
Ms Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the unique way that we shall first see that operating is through the appointment of the children's commissioner for Wales? People and voluntary bodies in Wales, as well as the Welsh Assembly, have a unique idea about how the commissioner should work and should be appointed. It is a test case, and the Secretary of State's announcement today shows that the wishes of the Assembly and the people of Wales are being followed.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend anticipates my comments. That was one of the examples that I had intended to use.
I shall discuss another example first, not because I think it is more important, but because it is very topical. In another place yesterday Lord Roberts called for a Welsh

647
bank holiday on St. David's day. That is a very popular request, with which many of us, though perhaps not all, would wish to be associated. In order for us to have that bank holiday, the Welsh Assembly would need to implement it, but this House would need to sanction it.
Another example, which my hon. Friend has just given, is the desire to have a children's commissioner appointed in Wales. There is a very strong call for a similar commissioner to be appointed in England. But those commissioners might not have exactly the same sort of roles. In any case, we in this place might not want a commissioner to be appointed in England. If Wales desired the appointment of a children's commissioner, but one was not to be appointed in England, what legislative vehicle would be required to set up that post?
Those are two very recent examples. I am not sure that they are the best examples, but they are the most recent, of a trend that will grow. The Welsh Assembly will consider how it can best deliver services, and from time to time it will call upon this place to enact legislation so that it can do its work.
Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jones: I will not, because my hon. Friend spoke at length and I do not have much time.
How will Parliament deal with those requests? Some issues may be conveniently tagged on to forthcoming Bills; others may not he dealt with so easily. If matters are uncontentious and have cross-party support, there should be little difficulty in bringing the legislation forward. But what if the issues are contentious? How often will calls for new legislation come before the House, and how can they be dealt with? As I see it, there are four options.
First, we fit the legislation in as best we can under the processes that we now use. However, the present procedures in the House mean that a Government are very reluctant to bring in further legislation or make significant amendments to existing legislation—and even where there are consensual issues, with cross-party support, we have seen only this week and in the week before the half-term recess how a few malcontents can keep the House up all night and endanger Government business.
Therefore, it is not surprising that, with the best will in the world and the utmost sympathy, a Government would be reluctant to bring forward legislation which it might regard as marginal and which might endanger the time required to proceed with their own legislation. Would a Government be prepared to risk losing valuable parliamentary time to pass a purely Welsh Bill or a purely Welsh amendment?
A second option is to reform the House so that Bills could be routinely timetabled. I am sure that there are several reasons why that would be desired by some hon. Members, including new hon. Members, for its own sake. It would be a way in which we could deal better with the demands that would be put upon the House by the Welsh Assembly.
A third option is to introduce some sort of fast-track procedure, following an agreed process with the Welsh Assembly, so that Welsh matters can be dealt with more expeditiously and not cause the difficulties that might otherwise arise. There is a fourth option: we could empower the Welsh Assembly to deal with these matters on its own.
648
Over the past two months, there has been considerable public disquiet about council allowances paid in Cardiff, which far exceed the levels recommended by the Assembly to local authorities. Indeed, they exceed the rate recommended by the Assembly to the Local Government Association in Wales by more than 300 per cent. They are also far higher than any allowances that have been paid to any councils in England. This appears to be a peculiarly Welsh problem; but, although the Welsh Assembly is responsible for overseeing local authorities in Wales, as far as I know it has no ability to band or otherwise set limits on council allowances. This place, which is responsible for English authorities, can always take on itself the power to deal with problems if they arise. Perhaps it is the Assembly's lack of power to match its responsibility that has led to the current unique situation in Wales.
The House of Lords recently debated the Local Government Bill. That Bill, which we could amend, might provide a convenient vehicle for the Assembly to exercise sensible limits on the allowances given to councillors in Wales. I urge my hon. Friends to ensure that a Government amendment is tabled, before the House of Commons debates the Bill, conferring such powers on the Assembly. If the present procedures prove inadequate to deal with practical issues—I have given a number of examples—we shall not see the stability that the Secretary of State rightly wishes to see.
6.33 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: We have had a good debate, although it has been squeezed by a number of statements which have prevented some hon. Members from speaking. Those who have spoken have, I think, led us to the conclusion that neither side of the House has been overwhelmed by satisfaction with Government policies in Wales, or by what has been achieved by the Labour Administration in the Assembly.
I believe, however, that Members in all parts of the House agree about matters concerning the Waterhouse report. We welcome the report, which has been discussed here on other occasions. It is a tragic tale of child abuse, and, as I have said before, I have considerable admiration for those who were involved in compiling it. I had a similar experience, although not as harrowing as the experience of the people who compiled this report, when as a member of the Select Committee on Health I dealt with people who had been victims of abuse as child migrants in the 1950s and 1960s. Conservative Members welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State today about the establishment of a children's commissioner.
Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the commissioner and his or her "civil service" must exercise such probity that children can trust the process? An awful lot of damage has been done to the very people who need to use this service, and it is the only way in which we can get to the heart of whatever paedophilia is going on in Wales and has not been discovered.
Mr. Walter: Trust is a very important part of the process, and we must have genuinely independent people who children can trust and to whom they can speak in confidence.

649
We have had a fascinating debate. We have seen that there is dissatisfaction with Labour as a Government at Westminster and as an Administration in Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) responded very well to the Secretary of State's opening speech, and Conservative Members will continue to express our dissatisfaction with Labour's treatment of Wales at Westminster and in Cardiff.
It is no understatement to say that Labour is all mouth and no delivery in Wales. Many promises have been made by the Government in Westminster and the Labour Administration in Cardiff, but they have failed to deliver. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the First Secretary are failing to deliver for the people of Wales. This year, council tax payers in Wales will experience massive increases in their bills. In many areas, a large percentage of the increase will go on bailing out wasteful Labour and Plaid Cymru-run councils. The Labour Executive in the Assembly are failing to deliver on the priorities of the Welsh people. All they have done is waste taxpayers' money on a completely unnecessary new Assembly building.
Mr. Flynn: Before the hon. Gentleman gets into his political rant, will he answer a serious question? Is he happy that the Labour Government have delivered on proportional representation by ensuring that in the National Assembly elections, the proportion of Conservative candidates elected was roughly equal to the number of votes that the Conservatives had in Wales, or was he happy with the 1997 general election result, when 20 per cent. of the population of Wales voted Conservative, but the party did not have a single one of the 40 Welsh Members of Parliament?
Mr. Walter: I do not want to get drawn into a debate about the merits of proportional representation. All I will say is that if one is looking for a declaration of popular support, the Conservative candidate in Ceredigion did somewhat better than the Labour candidate.
Labour has also failed to ensure that Wales receives its funding from the European Union. The Prime Minister said:
We do not intend to let the people of Wales down.—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 439.]
Yet now Labour is refusing to give a commitment to secure the extra funding that Wales needs.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman ought to be fair. I spent five years in the European Parliament, and the problem of additionality in member states supporting European funding existed some years ago, right through the period of the Tory Government. When local authorities in Wales submitted schemes, they always ran up against the problem that the Government would not support European funding to the extent that they desired.
Mr. Walter: Under previous Governments, the funding was provided. I shall come to the specifics of this case in a moment, but the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have made no commitment to provide that extra £1.2 billion.
650
Labour is failing to deliver on agriculture in Wales, and is totally insensitive to the needs of the industry. It has already been mentioned that the net income of dairy and livestock farms in Wales is forecast to fall by 25 per cent. in the current financial year to an average of £4,500 per farm.
I shall deal briefly with local government spending. Under Labour, council tax bills in Wales are set for a massive rise. They will increase by more than 18 per cent. in Monmouthshire and by 14 per cent. in Swansea. Many of the increases are due to the fact that the Labour Administration in Cardiff is using the council tax reduction scheme to subsidise profligate councils.
The previous Government introduced the scheme as a temporary measure to deal with the problems of changing from a two-tier to a unitary system of local government. The scheme is now being used to cover the wasteful spending of four Labour and Plaid Cymru councils. Council tax payers in areas such as Monmouthshire will be forced to pay for the overspending of councils in Neath Port Talbot, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned some of the figures. In Anglesey, council tax bills will rise by 16.5 per cent., in Powys by 13.8 per cent. and in Monmouthshire by 18.2 per cent.—an average rise across Wales of 10.5 per cent.
The Assembly is failing to deliver. According to a recent ICM poll, 88 per cent. of Welsh people feel that devolution has achieved little or nothing. Instead of delivering on the real issues for the people of Wales, the Assembly has concentrated on seeking higher allowances for Assembly Members and securing the new building for the Assembly.
The First Secretary recently announced that the total cost of the new building would be £22.8 million, but in reality it is likely to be at least £26 million and possibly nearer £30 million. The people in Wales do not want to see so much money being spent on a new Assembly building. They would prefer their money to be spent on real priorities, such as education. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) was delightfully off-message. He referred to education spending and the expenditure necessary to repair leaking school roofs and to provide new school lavatories, and he compared that with the spending on the Assembly building.
There is utter confusion about ensuring that Wales receives the funding promised by the Prime Minister and the European Union. On objective 1 funding, the Prime Minister said:
We do not intend to let the people of Wales down.—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 439.]
However, as was mentioned in the debate, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has criticised the Government's approach to objective 1, stating that
the Government's "trust us" approach is not enough. There is a real risk that the continued uncertainty is deterring people, particularly in the private sector, from investing in developing projects.
It is another case of Labour being all mouth and no delivery. The Prime Minister has promised the earth, but he will not make the commitment to give Wales the funding that it needs.
In appendix 8 to the Select Committee report, table 3.2 shows clearly that over the seven years of the programme, the total national contribution from public expenditure is

651
£885 million, of which £152.8 million is supposed to come in 2000 and £132 million in 2001, yet the Secretary of State has told us on numerous occasions that he has secured no extra funding to date from the Treasury in respect of that contribution.
Furthermore, in a parliamentary answer to me, the Secretary of State stated that there would be no increase in the departmental expenditure limit of the Wales Office in the current financial year or the next financial year. Even if the extra money was available, it would have to be spent within the existing departmental expenditure limit. I was intrigued by an intervention by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who had worked that out. He said that if there was no increase in the departmental expenditure limit, any money that the Treasury was willing to make available could be spent only at the expense of other programmes in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman did not receive the answer that he sought. I shall be interested to hear the answer in the Minister's winding-up speech.
The Labour party is also letting down the people of Wales on the health service. It is failing to deliver on its waiting list pledge in Wales, where out-patient figures continue to increase. In March 1997, 28,401 people were on a waiting list for more than three months for their first out-patient appointment. That figure almost trebled; it was 75,386 for the month ending on 31 January 2000—an increase of more than 165 per cent., which is well above the appalling 100 per cent. rise throughout the United Kingdom for the equivalent period.
In-patient waiting lists have increased in Wales from 66,609 in 1997 to 77,031 in January 2000, despite the Government's waiting list initiative. Overall, the number of people on all waiting lists has risen by more than 60,000 in Wales. The Labour party is failing the health service in Wales, as it is failing in every other area. Labour cannot be trusted in Wales. The Prime Minister's pledge not to let Wales down is empty and the House will realise that in the coming months.
6.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I welcome the first St. David's day debate since devolution and, indeed, the first of the millennium. I welcome the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) to his first St. David's day debate. He made a thoughtful contribution, and I look forward to seeing him return to his socialist roots and joining the Labour party.
The debate has emphasised the importance of set-piece Welsh debates, which examine the Government's role now and in the future. Today we had an opportunity to discuss the important issues that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered: delivery, partnership and stability. Hon. Members from all parties have talked about a range of issues that reflect those themes, sometimes from different perspectives. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) did not chime with party policy but we welcome different perspectives, and we shall reflect on them.
Mr. Rogers: I criticised not Labour party policies or achievements in Wales, but the structure in which the Labour party has to operate in government in Wales.
Mr. Hanson: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments because they add to the flavour of the debate and to today's
652
valuable discussions. The comments that have been made from all parts of the House are the meat and drink of day-to-day discussions in the Wales Office, which has changed since our last debate, but has retained its significant impact on Welsh issues and the role of the House.
Hon. Members have raised issues that we tackle daily in Cabinet Committees in discussions that affect Wales and through our contacts with organisations, businesses, the voluntary sector, trade unions and others, and in Government correspondence with colleagues and Assembly Members. The anxieties that have been expressed today have reflected those discussions.
Twelve contributions were made to the debate and they covered a range of important issues. I shall try to deal with them all, but if I cannot, I shall write to hon. Members who contributed to the debate to give a flavour of our view on those matters.
All the issues are important, but I particularly want to mention rural affairs. The hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned rural Wales. Delyn, my constituency, is rural, and Labour Members represent constituencies containing significant rural areas. We recognise that there has been a crisis over the past few years and that there are issues that need to be addressed. For example, the Government have given extra support through additional hill livestock compensatory allowance schemes in recent years and are considering a range of proposals such as rural rate relief to provide help. Measures such as the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and child benefit also have an impact on rural areas. I acknowledge that they are experiencing difficult times, but we are giving a great deal of support.
Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister use his best endeavours to get agrimonetary compensation for farmers in Wales, who are owed about £45 million as a result of prices not being achieved over the past 12 months?
Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have already given agrimonetary compensation to farmers in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Further compensation is an issue, but the Fontainebleau agreement is in place and that will involve additional taxpayers' money for farming communities. We are concerned about rural areas and acknowledge those issues.
Objective 1 funding is another major theme. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and other colleagues, including Opposition Front Benchers. All Members know, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said so on a number of occasions, that public expenditure survey cover and match funding are being examined by the Government in the spending review. I recognise why Members raise those important issues, but I refer to remarks made yesterday by Hugh Richards, the president of the National Farmers Union in Wales:
We have heard much about match funding for Objective 1 structural funds in the past few weeks but we must make progress.
It is important that
the right projects are proposed and backed to create sustainability for Welsh agriculture.

653
We should focus on that.
We have had our debate and people should recognise that the Government are not complacent—we secured objective 1 funding. Match funding and PES cover are important. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) complained about a lack of match funding commitments. However, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat—Amory), the shadow Chief Secretary, does not believe in objective 1 money or structural funds in the first place, so that complaint was slightly hypocritical.
The other key issue is the devolution settlement generally and the hon. Member for North Shropshire, my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) and for Rhondda. the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) all made important points about the way in which it is working in Wales. It is less than nine months since the advent of devolution on 1 July 1999. It represents a major structural change in the governance of Wales and the way in which Members of the House and others relate to it. I say to my hon. Friends and other Members, let us see how it operates and consider how it is developing from all angles. Most of all, let us make it work and make it stable. We have to consolidate and work with what we have at the moment.
Delivery of services, stability, partnership and the themes discussed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are extremely important and we want to emphasise them. However, I remind the House that we must not forget the big picture, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and what the Government can do and have done to help to transform Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore asked for a detailed statement of what the Government have done to help to support the people of Wales. I can tell him without fear of contradiction that we have had a busy and productive time since the general election. A lot has been achieved for Wales and there is a lot more to follow. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the hon. Members for North Dorset and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and every other Conservative Member who participated in the debate have opposed every single thing done by the Government since the election.
We have talked about the economy and employment. As has been mentioned, the new deal has transformed the lives of many individuals in my constituency and others throughout Wales. In Wales, 12,000 young people, 2,000 long-term unemployed and lone parents have secured jobs through the new deal. It has transformed people's lives in Wales, which the Conservative party has opposed. At the end of last year, I attended the new deal launch for the over-50s in north Wales, the launch of the new deal for musicians in Cardiff, and the ONE launch in Cwmbran in the constituency of the Secretary of State in November, all of which are transforming people's lives. An additional 46,000 people are in work in Wales since the general election.
Mr. Paterson: Is the Minister aware that one calculation has it that each job, unsubsidised in the real market, costs £23,544?
Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman has voted against the new deal and does not support it, but it is transforming lives. Colleagues who represent seats in Wales know that to be a fact.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned tackling poverty and social exclusion, as have others. The working families tax credit has meant that 87,000 Welsh families have had an increase of £24 a week. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) launched the initiative in his constituency in November.
A total of 585,000 pensioners have benefited from the winter fuel allowance. In November, the first pensioner in Wales received the cheque from me on behalf of the Wales Office in Bangor. About 109,000 people have benefited from the minimum wage in Wales.
I know that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), who is now gracing the debate, is a convert to the minimum wage, but the Conservative party voted against it. The predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Keir Hardie, would have been proud of our party and its achievements in Wales. When we look at free television licences for pensioners, the massive increase in child benefit and our targets to tackle child poverty in Wales, as in the rest of the UK, we realise that the Government are delivering for Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said that crime was an important issue. Police numbers are up in every police force in Wales since the general election because of the Government's assistance and help. Three police forces out of four have shown a fall in recorded crime from the highest ever levels, recorded under the Conservative Government.
The hon. Member for North Dorset criticised the Labour Government's achievements on health in Wales. He should be aware that, in partnership with the Assembly for Wales, this year the NHS in Wales will receive an additional £175 million worth of expenditure and has an additional £1 billion to spend over the next three years. In the first two years of the Labour Government, 11,000 more in-patients were treated than in the last two years of the Conservative Government.
The Labour Government has given an extra £844 million for the Assembly to spend on education over and above current plans. The money is transforming the lives of children throughout Wales, building new class rooms, putting new teachers in place and giving new skills. The Labour Government are achieving for Wales. All the points that hon. Members have made are important and valid.
We have made a difference to people in Wales. It is about delivery on those issues, making a change, transforming people's lives, and partnership with the Assembly to achieve that. The Queen's Speech included a range of legislative opportunities: the Local Government Bill, the Care Standards Bill and the Learning and Skills Bill, which all give opportunities to let the Assembly look at those things in a Welsh context. I am particularly pleased to welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the independent children's commissioner for Wales.

655
The Labour Government have delivered for Wales, are working in partnership and do make a difference to people's lives. We have a vision for Wales, which includes local decision making, helping to make the Assembly work and ensuring that the Wales Office fulfils that job in central Government.
We want to create fairness, enterprise, stability and opportunity for all, and to show the importance of the UK being central in Europe. We want to ensure that we have a Wales that is for all, celebrating Labour's history in our 100th year, what we have delivered for the Labour party in Wales and for the people of Wales, and modernising for the future, with the Conservative party remaining where it is now: it has little influence, no power and no support.
It being Seven o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
Mr. Livsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you use your good influence? We have lost one and a half hours of our Welsh debate today and although 18 right hon. and hon. Members wished to speak, only 12 managed to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) wished to celebrate his birthday by speaking in the debate and was unable to do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that from time to time Government statements have to be made on important issues. After that, it was for hon. Members to govern the length of their speeches. Had speeches been shorter, many more hon. Members would have been called and we could even have celebrated the birthday of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).

Protected Tenants
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
7.1 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to highlight the renewed threat facing tens of thousands of protected tenants so soon after it seemed that the Government had at last provided them with some security, following a decade of steep, sometimes stratospheric, rent rises.
Two years ago, I introduced an Adjournment debate drawing attention to the plight of protected tenants. Many of them are elderly or facing retirement; some are vulnerable, the majority are on fixed incomes and almost all of them, by definition, are tenants of long standing. Their secure tenancies predated the deregulation of the private rented sector brought about by the Housing Act 1988. At the time, they were given assurances that their position would not be affected by deregulation, but that proved not to be the case.
Before the 1988 Act, rent assessment committees had to consider factors such as the age, character, location and state of repair of a dwelling. Rent officers and rent assessment committees were also obliged to assume that there was no scarcity of comparable rented accommodation in the locality, as that would have had the effect of sending the price of accommodation up. This provision traditionally meant that fair rents were held below the market price.
The 1988 Act created more tenancies at market rents in the form of assured tenancies and assured shortholds. It also allowed rent assessment committees to take the market into account when setting rents for regulated tenants. The entire framework for the setting of protected tenants' rent was drastically altered. Rent officers and rent assessment committees were increasingly being persuaded that fair rents should be set in line with market rents.
Rent rises started to run well ahead of inflation. By the mid-1990s, rents were often many thousands of pounds a year higher than they had been at the start of the decade.
In my debate in 1998, I urged on a sympathetic Government the need for swift action to prevent people from losing their homes, to redress the fear and anxiety that was shadowing so many lives and to protect the character of our inner-city communities, which is dependent on a stable and mixed residential base, but is in danger of being swept away by the pressures of the international property market.
I was therefore delighted, as were many of my constituents, when, 14 months ago, the Government introduced regulations, based on section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, to impose a rent cap. While still allowing rent rises well in excess of the retail prices index—up to 7.5 per cent. above in the case of initial re-registrations—the cap none the less assured tenants that they did not face a doubling or trebling of their rents over the following years. It allowed them to plan their future—sometimes their last years—with confidence. The rent cap was greeted with relief and gratitude.
In January this year, however, the relief turned to anguish and dismay when the Government's use of section 31 was successfully challenged by the Spath

657
Holme landlords. Spath Holme argued that the section 31 powers had been introduced as counter-inflationary measures, that this was not the purpose of the order issued in February 1999, and that the Secretary of State had, therefore, acted ultra vires.
The ramifications of the judgment are extremely serious. Many protected tenants who were saved by the order find themselves yet again faced with the risk of losing their homes. Despite the spin that has been placed on the judgment by some landlords, they are not—certainly they are not exclusively—a group of affluent people who have been enjoying an unfair subsidy to shield them from the cold blast of market forces. As the Government's consultation document on the issue made clear, more than 60 per cent of private protected tenants are retired and only 20 per cent. are working, while 70 per cent. of regulated tenants in the private and registered social landlord sector have gross incomes of under £200 a week.
Mr. Michael Portillo: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for initiating this debate. I should simply like to confirm what she is saying. Even in a constituency such as Kensington and Chelsea, which has its fair share of affluent people, many people are deeply dismayed by the rises that are now in prospect and face the future with great anxiety. The hon. Lady will know that I have taken an interest in the issue, particularly after the Spath Holme judgment. I hope that we can continue to work together on the issue in the spirit of cross-party endeavour. We look forward very much to hearing whether the Minister will be able to give any reassurance today to those who are now in a state of great anxiety.
Ms Buck: I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and endorse his statement that we have been working together, on a cross-party basis, trying to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the matter.
In the few weeks since the Court of Appeal judgment, I—like other hon. Members—have been flooded with letters from desperately worried tenants. I should like to draw attention to some of the sentiments expressed in those letters, to confirm the anxiety and fear felt by many protected tenants. One letter stated:
My landlords did not wait a moment to put in their latest proposed rent increase…another 150 per cent. increase…they are now asking for £21,000 per annum…I greatly fear the prospect of having to go to the Council "cap-in-hand" for benefits which I have never had to ask for before.
A second letter—from a couple in their late 70s who have been at their current address for 28 years—stated:
We were faced immediately with a proposal for a 150 per cent. increase, on top of one of 150 per cent. two years ago.
Another of my constituents has advised me of an application for an 85 per cent. rent increase that has been lodged since the Court of Appeal judgment.
Another letter states:
As a widow of 70, what am Ito do if rents are raised beyond my means?…I have lived in this house for 48 years and, over those years, have spent some £150,000 on the upkeep of the property.
658
The same theme emerges time and again. A Kensington resident states:
We do not want to leave the flat we have lived in for 45 years…Where would we go, anyway?
A tenant from elsewhere in London wrote of living alone on a small private pension plus a state pension. She now faces a rent increase of more than 100 per cent. With her health suffering from the stress, she asks the Government to help quickly, so that
a lot of suffering, worry and fear might be avoided.
I have initiated this debate to urge the Government to act with due urgency to leave no option unexplored in restoring the rent cap. Tenants who entered into their agreement 20, 30 or 40 years ago, in good faith, do not deserve to be treated as badly as many of them are now being treated. If, in future, market forces are going to wipe out privately rented accommodation in central London for all but the super-rich and for those with company lets, let us at least safeguard the future of current residents.
Some landlords have stated that tenants who find their rent increases unmanageable can apply for housing benefit. Not only do I resent the implication that the public purse should subsidise excessive rent increases, but the washing of hands by landlords is misguided. Housing benefit restrictions are likely to apply to many, if not all, of those properties because of their location, leaving many tenants still in financial hardship.
I am aware, of course, that the Government are petitioning the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the court judgment. Although that is clearly an option that has to be pursued, time is of the essence. Many protected tenants fear that, in the time that that process is likely to take, and without certainty of success, help may come too late for them.
I therefore urge the Minister at least to consider other options, so that action can be taken swiftly. If primary legislation is possible—either freestanding or achieved through the vehicle of a leasehold reform Bill—we might be able to secure the position of protected tenants sooner and more conclusively. I am aware of the difficulties that attend on either of those options, but even in the next two years, while the issue is resolved thousands of tenants will either lose their homes or be in fear of losing them.
I should like to give the last word to a Westminster pensioner, who said:
I really do implore you to speak out on behalf of us tenants who are now fearful that we may lose our homes…I have worked all my life for my country and now I want to live my retirement in peace.
7.9 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) not only on obtaining this particular Adjournment debate, but on consistently raising in the House an issue that has a major effect on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The situation that she is describing is certainly replicated in my own constituency. It is no exaggeration to say that many of my pensioners live in daily fear of losing their homes and such small amounts of money as are left to them.
The Government's action on the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order was welcome, but the recent judgment, to which my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for

659
Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) referred, has struck fear into the hearts of the most vulnerable people in society, whom it should be one of our first duties to attempt to protect.
I shall not repeat any of the points so tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I shall simply touch on some of the experiences of my pensioner constituents. One pensioner couple have lived for 30 years in a property that they are entirely and exclusively responsible for. They have maintained, modernised and repaired it and have seen their rent rise over that period from £500 a year to £12,500. After the Spath Holme judgment, that will rise overnight by an additional £3,000.
Another pensioner couple have been tenants for 36 years. Again, they are responsible for the maintenance and improvement of the property. As their letter says, they have turned
a dirty, vermin-infested flat into the desirable one it is today.
The landlord has done nothing, yet in 1998 they faced rent increases of 68 per cent. After the recent judgment, there will be additional increases of £20 a week.
My final example of the realities of life for some of my most vulnerable constituents is a household in which the head of the household receives incapacity benefit. Their rent has risen from £77 a week in 1999 to £220 a week in 2000. That is clearly unacceptable and untenable.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Camden Federation of Private Tenants, which has been assiduous in trying to help my constituents who are so grievously concerned by the recent judgment. In a letter to the Evening Standard, the chairman of that federation made the point that my hon. Friend has made—that all regulated tenants have suffered massive rises in so-called fair rents in the past 10 years. He gave an example of a two-bedroom flat in my constituency for which the rent went up from £1,000 a year in 1988 to £5,400 in 1998. He agrees that the fair rent order controlled rents, but the lifting of the controls as a result of the new judgment will mean massive increases almost overnight.
Like my hon. Friend, I have concentrated on the experiences of my pensioners, but if we do not tackle the issue of fair rents, London is in grave danger of losing some of its most necessary skills and workers, particularly those who are dedicated to public service, such as nurses, teachers, firemen and policemen. They find it increasingly difficult to pay the rents asked when rises across London are spiralling out of control.
I welcome the Government's appeal to the House of Lords against this decision, but I strongly underline my hon. Friend's wish for the Government to act speedily on the issue. Given the vagaries of the courts, I trust that the Government will examine the possibility of introducing legislation so that some of the most vulnerable people in society can live out their remaining years without fear.
7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) for raising this important issue. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)
660
for indicating the extent to which it affects many of their constituents. It is good that this is a cross-party issue, because that lends weight to the serious arguments.
I share the concerns expressed about the problems now facing protected tenants, particularly those who are retired and on low incomes, whose plight has been graphically outlined tonight. I am fully aware of the profound anxiety and uncertainty caused by the Court of Appeal's decision.
I start by placing the figures quoted by my hon. Friend in context. We believe that about 56,000 tenants had their rents capped under the order and are immediately affected by the judgment. All 121,000 regulated tenants with registered rents, as well as 241,000 secure housing association tenants, are potentially affected as their rents next come up for review. Regulated tenants are found throughout the country, but the main impact of the judgment falls in London and the north-west—where for historical reasons the gap between existing registered rents and market rents is greatest. For a few tenants—almost all in central London—the difference may be large. Elsewhere, it may be much smaller. Since the introduction of the order, the capped rent has on average been £5.70 per week less than the uncapped rent—though it is obvious from the speeches that that figure is misleading, so I do not seek to make too much of it.
Ultimately, it will be for the courts to determine the effect of the judgment, but I assure the House that we have acted to minimise the inevitable uncertainty. On 4 February, we issued guidance to the Rent Service Agency and rent assessment panels, which states that for new cases registered on or after the date of the judgment, the limit on increases cannot be applied. For cases that had already been capped, the fair rent determined by the rent officer before the cap was applied should be treated as the registered rent, effective from the date of the original registration. The guidance recommended that amended registrations should be issued with a covering letter to all affected tenants and landlords. Those letters are now being sent out.
On 18 February, we issued further guidance on the position on recovery of arrears. It stated our view that if the landlord issues a new notice of increase as required by the Rent Act, tenants will be liable for 28 days' arrears from the date of the notice. Some landlords may decide not to pursue the matter further where the difference is small, but in other cases the difference is big and is likely to be pursued.
The guidance states that it will be open to landlords to seek a county court order amending the original notice of increase, but the courts will have to decide whether the circumstances fall within the relevant provision of the Rent Act. If the court decides to amend the notice, it may apply terms and conditions with respect to arrears of rent as it thinks fit. In any case, recovery of arrears is limited to six months from the date of the county court order. Tenants will not be liable for arrears beyond one month, unless and until an order is made.
On 25 February, we issued guidance on the position of tenants of registered social landlords. We believe that, where the landlord is a housing association, tenants will not be liable to pay any arrears as there is no provision in the Rent Act that would allow a housing association to backdate an increase or to have a notice of increase amended by the courts.

661
The position of tenants claiming housing benefit is of particular concern. About half of all regulated tenants with registered rents and about two thirds of housing association tenants receive housing benefit. Local authorities have discretion on backdated payments, but claimants on full benefit are likely to have the full additional rent and the full cost of any arrears met by housing benefit. It is likely that tenants who make a new claim for housing benefit because of an increased rent or arrears of rent will also be covered. A circular was issued by the Department of Social Security on 21 February to all local authority housing benefit departments explaining the position.
I appreciate that that explanation may not give my hon. Friends' constituents much immediate comfort, but I assure the House that the Government remain fully committed to protecting tenants from excessive increases in fair rents. We were surprised by the Court of Appeal decision and even more surprised that it refused leave to appeal, but that is not the end of the story. A petition for leave to appeal was submitted to another place on 17 February and we expect to hear the outcome of our application within the next two weeks. If leave is granted, we will vigorously pursue the appeal. We intend also to seek an expedited hearing to resolve the issue as soon as possible.
I am aware that this process is likely to take several months, and that in the meantime some tenants will experience increases in rent and face the possibility of falling into arrears. I also acknowledge that, even for those who are not immediately affected in this way, uncertainty about existing arrears and possible large increases of rent at a future rent review will cause considerable anxiety and worry.
Mr. Portillo: I had a feeling that the Minister was coming to the end of his remarks. I am grateful for all the things that he has said. However, the combination of accumulating arrears and the length of time that the House of Lords judgment is likely to take is not very encouraging to the many people who are affected by great anxiety. Also, the very fact that he was refused leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal does not give the best indicator of the likelihood of success in the House of Lords. Therefore, does he accept that a much more expeditious route would be to initiate new legislation?
Mr. Mullin: I was going to touch on that in my closing remarks. I said as well that we expect to hear the outcome of our application for leave to appeal within the next two weeks, when the position will become much clearer. If there is to be an appeal, we have a period of several months in which to work out how to address it. If there is to be no appeal, we must take action fairly quickly.
I hope that what I have already said about existing arrears will go some way to allaying people's fears. However, in these circumstances, it is entirely understandable that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea should raise the possibility of introducing new primary legislation.
As I have said, we share my hon. Friend's concern to provide these tenants, many of them vulnerable, with protection from excessive increases in rent, which we continue to believe is reasonable. I am sure that the House will appreciate that we cannot pre-empt the decision to be made in another place. We must await the result of our petition and if leave is refused, I assure the House that we will consider the position urgently.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Town and Country Parks
[Relevant documents: Twentieth report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1998–1999 HC 477 and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4550.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am glad that Parliament has the opportunity to debate the Select Committee report "Town and Country Parks". However, I express a fear shared by many hon. Members that debating Select Committee reports in Westminster Hall can be rather like the Committee talking to the Committee. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see present the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the Opposition spokesman, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes).
I begin by expressing my thanks to all who helped prepare the report, particularly our specialist advisers, Alan Barber and David Lambert, the members of the Committee and the Committee staff, who all worked so hard. I also thank all those who sent in written evidence or who gave oral evidence and those who made our visit to Greater Manchester so informative.
The report starts with a quotation:
The measure of any great civilisation is its cities and a measure of a city's greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces, its parks and squares.
Those words of John Ruskin sum up the emphasis that the Committee wanted to put on the place of parks in our great cities. No stronger criticism can be made of the last 20 years of the 20th century than the neglect, public vandalism and destruction that happened in so many of our parks. Nothing shows more the difference between private affluence and municipal decay than that during those 20 years so many people spent their time cultivating their own garden plots while, just around the corner, so many of our parks died.
The cover of the report highlights that tragedy. In some ways, it may not have worked as well as we expected. We hoped that it would be distributed with half the covers put on inside out. We hoped that half the copies would show the pictures of neglect and that the other half would show the pictures of success. I can see you puzzling over this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you take the cover off—it is like a dust jacket—you will see the two sets of pictures. I am not sure about the parliamentary conventions on visual aids. The pictures on the inside of the cover show the tragic pictures of what has happened in so many of our parks—neglected monuments, leaking water features, unkempt grounds that have suffered vandalism, crime and graffiti, unused or unusable playgrounds and ruined bowling greens.
88WH
Some local authorities decided to go for wilderness areas rather than continuing to tend the gardens, the idea being that a little wildness in a park is attractive. It could be, but maintaining that wilderness to make a happy place to visit is often more difficult than keeping flowerbeds neat and tended.
We listed all the ways in which so many of our parks suffered during those 20 years. Although so many parks suffered so much, the cover contrasts that depressing picture with pictures of people going to parks and thoroughly enjoying themselves. The activity is free and almost everyone can participate in it—permission is not necessary and people need not worry whether they are wearing the right clothes. Anyone can enjoy healthy recreation, or just look at the attractive flowers. There are play areas for children, and opportunities for people to walk their dogs, to develop community activities and the community spirit and for education. Paragraphs 32 to 56 of the report set out the vast number of opportunities that people have to enjoy themselves in our parks.
There is a contrast between parks that are suffering neglect and decay and those that are still wonderfully attractive. The Committee was sad to find that some of the most attractive parks were in the more affluent places and some of the least attractive and most rundown were in the poorest and most deprived parts of towns. Those with the biggest houses, most access to motor cars and the best spaces for private gardens had some of the best public parks. People living in high-rise flats or terraced houses, with no opportunity to have a garden, had some of the most deprived parks. The opposite should apply.
The decline of the municipal park can be attributed to many factors, but about 10 years ago a dedicated band of people decided that they had to stop the decline and to regenerate parks. They had to find the money and the enthusiasm to protect the parks that gave so much pleasure in the past and could give so much pleasure now. I pay tribute to all those who campaigned, and to the green flag scheme to give awards to especially attractive parks.
That is a brief description of the state of parks and campaigning activity; I want now to turn to problems. The first problem that we highlighted was that many local authorities did not know how much parkland they had. That seems surprising—I was amazed during the inquiry that, in so many cases, we could not find that out. The question had almost crept up on authorities. For much of the 20-year period in which buildings were being pulled down, bits of land were landscaped—when a new road scheme has developed, the extra bit of land was often grassed over and one or two litter bins were put in and cotoneasters and berberis were planted. Litter would blow across the landscaped area into the so-called flowerbeds. That land cost money to look after as it was added to the parks and recreations department's lot.
In a city such as Manchester, parks did not diminish. During those 20 years, the city kept its parkland and often added to it. However, its population dropped dramatically by a third during the period. The amount of parkland per person increased substantially, so maintaining it became a greater burden. I should pay tribute to the work that Manchester has done with some of its parks. The cost of maintaining them all is formidable.

89WH
Manchester had fine historic parks such as Philips park and Queens park. There should be more recognition of a national duty to look after parkland, especially if it is of historic value. The duty should not rest only with the city's council tax payers.
On the issue of town versus country, we wanted the title for the inquiry to be "Town and Country Parks". We thought that town parks might be declining because the emphasis had switched to new country parks, but we found no evidence of that. Country parks are in better heart than urban parks but, on the whole, there is no conflict. However, there was a small concern that one or two country parks were starting to decline.
There was much argument about how far compulsory competitive tendering could be blamed for the decline of parks. The Select Committee was clear that it wanted to place the blame not on CCT, but on the process of CCT. A battle occurred between the Government, who wanted to push the process forward, and local authorities, which did not want to follow it. The outcome was disastrous for parks. I hope that, in replacing the compulsory competitive tendering regime with best value, we will start the process to restore parks, but I have not been encouraged by best value so far. There is a fair amount of waffle, but not much specific factual content.
Paragraph 165 of the reports states:
In implementing best value, we expect all local authorities to have a Master Plan for parks and greenspace and to ensure that local people, as well as members of the Council, have easy access to a regularly updated version of it. Local authorities should use the Master Plan to show how their parks address the many cross-cutting issues which both Government and the Local Government Association are promoting such as sustainable development, life long learning, crime and disorder and social exclusion. The public—
this is the key point—
should also have easy access to detailed plans for each park or small group of greenspaces and know what budget is allocated to each one.
It also stipulates that nationally set target indicators should be taken into account. I hope that they are in place, but I fear that they are disappearing under the best value regime. We need some clarity so that my constituents can see the state of their park, examine the local authority's plan for it and decide where it is going wrong. That would do a great deal to enhance democracy. I hope that the Minister will be able to say in detail how best value will work for parks.
Although there is disappointment about how compulsory competitive tendering has been applied to parks and some concern about best value, parks have been let down in other ways. English Heritage has done a good job to list historic public buildings that need to be looked after, but its record on stepping in and protecting parks is lamentable. As the Select Committee will consider that issue shortly, I shall say no more on it.
It was heartening to learn that, in many parks, people have grouped together to form friends of the park. They should be given every encouragement, not just so that they can put together a lottery application, but so that they can campaign to look after their park. The groups could also develop voluntary activities. That is a
90WH
personal view; it is not expressed in the Select Committee's report. An increasing number of people who can best be described as the young elderly, have the opportunity to put in some form of community service and they should be encouraged to help look after parks. I hope that the Government will consider ways of making it easier for people to do that, and possible to have flowers in flowerbeds in parks that have been grassed over. Much of the effort involved in that task is in planting the flowers, so if someone could provide the money for seeds and tools, some voluntary effort could be made. I am not suggesting that voluntary effort should take the place of the work of councils, but that would be one way to regenerate the attractiveness of our parks.
I pay tribute to the fact that heritage lottery money has produced an improvement in some parks, but of the 5,000 municipal parks recognised as significant, only 93 have received money so far. That is a very small number. It is exciting to see what has been done in those parks and that money was well spent. However, I emphasise that it is not just a question of carrying out capital works in parks; it is also necessary to look after them. I hope that the new opportunities fund will be able to offer a little more money for work in parks.
I now turn to one of the central issues highlighted in the report: the lack of a champion for the urban park. A considerable amount of evidence suggests that we need someone to campaign for the urban park, as the Countryside Agency has campaigned for country parks. We need an urban parks and green space agency. When I looked at the Government's response to the report, I was particularly disappointed that the Government could not see any way of supporting that idea. We need a national body to campaign for the urban park and ensure that the good practice that operates in some parks is spread throughout the country. Such a body could tackle the problems of training because, as parks have declined, the number of trained professionals who know how to look after and manage them has also declined.
Parks need more money. The Minister should lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer because parks could be one of the recipients of money from green taxes. The whole intention of a green tax is to change people's behaviour, so it should be a temporary source of money. If some of that money could be used to regenerate parks, they could be restored to their previous standards.
Finally, the Government should see the urban park as an engine for urban regeneration. The Government have the opportunity to consider the matter in the urban White Paper, in which there should be no timidity. The White Paper should be a bold declaration of the Government's aspirations for the next five to 10 years. I fear that the Department is waiting to see how much money it can get from the Chancellor in the present spending round before it curtails its ambitions to the amount of money available. The urban White Paper should set out the Government's plans for urban regeneration and, if we cannot have all the money at the start, it should set out a timetable for obtaining that money, rather than trimming its sails to the amount of money that is available over the next three years. I plead that the park should be at the centre of that ambition. New York, Paris, Barcelona, Seattle and other cities have shown that whole areas can be lifted by starting regeneration with parks.

91WH
If we want to make our cities attractive places, we should bear it in mind that their greatness will be measured in the quality of their parks. I return to the John Ruskin quotation:
The measure of any great civilisation is its cities and a measure of a city's greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces and squares.
The Select Committee report points the way for the Government to use our parks as a way of regenerating our big cities and of giving a great deal of pleasure to the large numbers of people who still go out to enjoy them.
2.50 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the Select Committee report on town and country parks. Although I believe that the Committee might have been carried away by its own zeal in making some of its more bureaucratic recommendations, a report that draws attention to the value of our parks and the threats to them is long overdue. There is no doubt that, unless our parks are better protected, they will continue to be eroded, such is the pressure of development. However, I note in the Committee's recommendations that it sees no point in legislating to give statutory protection for parks.
I should like to use this debate to describe what is happening to the five historic parks in the borough of Bournemouth, which contribute so much to the attractions of our resort and which are the subject of protective legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) wishes to be associated fully with my remarks. Three of Bournemouth's five parks are located in his constituency, although King's park, the park currently under most threat, lies in mine.
Bournemouth's five parks have long been subject, Sir Alan—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is making his debut in Westminster Hall, but I remind him that the correct form of address for me is Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Atkinson: Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for putting me right.
Bournemouth's five parks have long been subject to the protection of local Acts. In 1984, the local authority sought Parliament's approval for the consolidation of various local powers into what became the Bournemouth Borough Council Act 1985. Section 28 of the Act—another section 28—relates to the five parks and confirms the council's principal obligations as their trustee. Those obligations are to keep the parks unbuilt on and to preserve their natural aspect and state. There is no doubt, that without the foresight of the councillors who petitioned Parliament for the special protection provided by the Act, many of the five parks would now have been built on, for example, for the proposed residential development in Meyrick park in 1985 or the proposed road scheme through Redhill common in 1998. Both sites are situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West.
Last year saw the publication of two major schemes that would have had a major impact on King's park in my constituency. Unlike most other parks in
92WH
Bournemouth, King's park provides a wide range of organised sports and recreational facilities in addition to its open space. By far the largest enterprise is the Dean Court football ground, the home of AFC Bournemouth, or the Cherries, who are now halfway up the second division. They defeated their Blackpool rivals last weekend by two goals to one. Such was the cash crisis faced by the club several years ago, I had to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury for a stay of execution. Since then, the club has been revitalised under the inspiring leadership of its chairman, Trevor Watkins, who rescued professional soccer for the town with his pioneering, community-based approach, inspired by American clubs. Despite the understandable reservations of my constituents in the neighbourhood, Bournemouth borough council has approved a new £9 million all-seater stadium, which will involve rotating the current ground by 90 degrees. Restrictive covenants have been lifted on public land needed for the scheme. The Football Trust has pledged £3 million and Bournemouth council has approved a £1 million loan. I hope that the project will be a great success for the club and I am pleased to support it.
Unfortunately, the council is minded to allow another development in King's park which undoubtedly goes against the spirit of the 1985 Act and which the Charity Commissioners may yet determine to be illegal—as I believe it to be. That is the leasing of part of the public open space in King's park to a private developer for a commercially operated ice rink as a regional venue for competition ice skating. That building would have spectator seating and cover 100,000 sq ft. The proposal seems to be outside section 28 of the Act and consequently a serious breach of trusteeship duties by the councill. It is certainly contrary to the principal obligation that section 28 imposes on the council: to keep the five parks from being built on.
Thanks to the tireless dedication of one councillor in particular and several constituents, the matter has been drawn to the attention of the Treasury Solicitor, who is rightly concerned. It continues to be the subject of negotiation between the council and the Charity Commissioners. I hope that the council will be told that it cannot proceed and that a commercially operated ice stadium—which I accept would enhance our town as a resort should be developed on a brownfield site.
It is in response to the Select Committee's report that I have used the Bournemouth experience to emphasise that legislation has its uses in helping to protect urban parks from development, even when the local authority concerned is not abiding by the relevant Act.
Another threat to urban parks such as ours in Bournemouth is not mentioned in the report, but it should be. It comes from their invasion almost every summer by travellers. Last summer, they invaded King's park, Redhill common, Millham Meads and Iford playing fields in our borough. Two weeks ago, a group of them left King's park after occupying its paying car park for six weeks. The experience of people living in the neighbourhood is the same every time. Crime and vandalism rise. Garden sheds and garages are broken into. Pets disappear. Human excrement is left. When, eventually, the council obtains a court order to remove the invaders, a great deal of rubbish is left behind to be cleared up at the council tax payer's expense. I

93WH
applauded the Home Secretary last year when he described such travellers as crooks who thought that they had a licence to commit crime and act unlawfully, and said that it was time to end sentimentality about them as travellers. He certainly did not deserve to be reported to the Commission for Racial Equality for his comments. He was speaking the truth.
Bournemouth's parks are of course not the only ones that are regularly invaded and there have been questions and Adjournment debates on this national problem. I hope that all local authorities that are as frequently affected as mine will, perhaps through the Local Government Association, press the Government for new powers to enable them immediately, without having to obtain a county court order, to obtain possession of any council-owned land in the occupation of caravan-dwellers, travellers and gypsies. Better still would be the power to have licences taken away from those licensed to drive the vehicles. I am surprised that that threat to our parks was not considered by the Select Committee in preparing its otherwise worthy report.
2.58 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I welcome the debate on parks and hope that it and the Select Committee report, rather like the report on allotments, will focus continuing attention on something valued by many people that for a long time was ignored and neglected by those with responsibility.
Parks are recognised as an important public asset. Access to green space and parkland is especially important in urban areas. The importance and value of parks have long been recognised for recreation, health, community development and education, especially in studying biodiversity and wildlife, but increased emphasis has been given recently to the value of parks in urban regeneration. The provision of green space and parkland has been recognised belatedly as an important part of urban design and land-use planning. I was pleased that the importance of providing parks in the way in which communities want them, as part of urban design and regeneration, was recognised in the Rogers report on urban renaissance.
Parks can be made available in several ways—in small projects and larger ones. Sub-regional projects, such as the Mersey forest scheme, are important in providing parkland in urban areas. That scheme is one of 12 national community forest projects, in which local authorities join the public and private sectors to consider the provision of recreational space, the development of environmentally friendly land and the encouragement of wildlife and biodiversity across a large area. The aim of the Mersey forest project is to produce a high-quality environment in and around towns and cities. Such projects need to be supported by a wide variety of funding institutions, and their local relevance to urban areas, including town centres, must be recognised.
Parks and green fields are also important in localised areas and one-off schemes. Particular emphasis should be put on retaining local playing fields, which often provide opportunities for local recreation in highly urbanised areas. I welcome the Government's recent
94WH
moves to support the retention of playing fields, going against the previous Government's policy of encouraging local authorities to sell off playing fields.
Mr. James Gray: I have leapt to my feet because the hon. Lady is repeating the Government's oft-quoted mantra that we sold off playing fields and this Government have not done so. Is she not aware of the statistics that show that the rate of sports field sell-off is vastly greater now than under the previous Government? The Ministry of Defence is selling two in my constitutency.
Mrs. Ellman: I recognise that the previous Government advocated selling off playing fields and that this Government are doing the opposite.
Parks and green space have been, and still are, extremely important in the inner-city constituency that I represent. Those spaces are provided in various ways. The large areas include the magnificent Princes park, which was designed by Paxton in 1840 to enhance the potential of the property being developed then and which greatly benefits local people now; and Sefton park, which was built in 1872 by the local authority on 200 acres after an international design competition. There are local spaces, such as Greenbank park, and magnificent Georgian squares, such as the Faulkner, Abercromby and St. George squares, which were built originally to provide communal facilities for the surrounding high-quality terraces. There are parks on brownfield sites, such as Everton park, and inner-city projects, such as the town centre projects run by the KIND organisation, which finds green space and opportunities for ecological education in the middle of the city.
All those parks and green spaces are much valued by people in inner-city Liverpool, but it is clear that much work needs to be done in them. For example, there is a great deal of acitvity in much-loved Sefton park, financed by European regional development funds. The park is also awaiting lottery funding. Rangers in that park do an excellent job but, ironically, a conflict has arisen as heritage lottery funding designated to restore part of the park to how it was in another era requires trees to be destroyed. I hope that that conflict will be resolved.
The friends of Sefton park palm house have done a magnificent job in bringing together funding from the local authority, Europe, English Heritage, heritage lottery and private sources to restore the palm house for public benefit.
During the Select Committee investigation, it became clear that there were several reasons for the decline of parks and green spaces in urban areas in the past 20 years. Cuts imposed by central Government on local authorities had taken a toll which, with compulsory competitive tendering, led to a reduction in both maintenance standards and, indirectly, horticultural skills. Responsibility for and an overview of the importance of parks and green spaces were lacking. It is clear that progress is now being made and that changed uses of parks are being defined when appropriate.
There is new interest in local authority funding for parks. However, local authorities must have access to funding if that is to be a realistic prospect. Friends'

95WH
groups are developing to support parks, although how much responsibility they can be expected to take in the long term is not certain. Long-term funding from joint sources is especially significant, and European funding, lottery funding and heritage funding are all important. However, examining how funding and support can be maintained over time and brought together for a single purpose is equally important.
Liverpool is now regenerating. Liverpool Vision, the new company set up by the regional development agency, English Partnerships, Liverpool city council and the private sector, is now assembling plans for redesigning Liverpool city centre which include ideas for building green spaces and parks into the urban environment. Those proposals are being consulted on.
There are hopeful moves to support the future of urban parks, such as regional and local plans for culture and tourism that examine the value of parks as cultural and economic assets. The local authorities' duty to be responsible for the social, environmental and economic well-being of their area is, potentially, very promising.
I hope that those combined forces will help to achieve recognition of the importance of parks and green spaces in recreation, health, pleasure, education and the design of the urban fabric. The report and our debate will be worth while if they contribute to achieving that.
3.8 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: First, I apologise that I may need to leave before the Minister's winding-up speech if our debate goes its full length.
The report is excellent. It is detailed and comprehensive and I agree with almost all of its key recommendations. More information, however, is needed on the key recommendation on the role of the agency. My informal soundings suggest that the agency should be supported in spreading best practice and collating information about parks. I do not support the idea that it should direct or dictate what happens locally, but I am sure that the Committee is not advocating that.
I should like to focus on a limited number of areas in the report. Other hon. Members have already touched on the importance of identifying how many parks there are in the country so that we can monitor them and work towards improving their condition. I should like to touch first on the safety and security aspect, then on friends of parks and the funding issue, to which other hon. Members have already referred, and finally on the Government's response to the Select Committee report.
There is no doubt that the major deterrent to park use concerns safety and security. I can think of a number of factors in my constituency, which I am sure will apply across the country. Drinking in parks by groups of youths, for instance, is clearly a deterrent to park users. I can think of other examples where parks, because they are open spaces where people can come and go easily, have been used to bombard passing buses with bricks or stones, thereby forcing bus companies to reduce bus routes or take a bus off entirely. But there are solutions. Closed circuit television is an obvious, albeit costly, solution, with heavy revenue implications for staffing the CCTV cameras or the monitors so that they are used effectively. Much more work can be done on parks constabularies. Three London boroughs have parks constabularies and that should be promoted.
96WH
Another possible and controversial solution is to push for more cycling in parks. I wish that there were a more rational approach to cycling. It seems to generate more heat and less light than any other matter. I occasionally cycle with my daughter, who is two and a half years old. She is secured in a cycle seat and wears a helmet. Recently, when I was cycling in a local park, I overheard people muttering about these cyclists cycling through the park, yet I was cycling past them at a pace that was slower than had I been on foot. There is an irrational concern about letting cyclists use parks. Having more people in parks, whether pedestrians or cyclists is one way of addressing concerns about safety. The more people there are, the safer people feel.
Friends of parks are an excellent initiative. I am sure that all hon. Members will have participated in events in their constituencies organised by such bodies as friends of Mellows park and friends of Oaks park in my constituency. One of the concerns identified by the Select Committee was that some friends were feeling put upon and were being asked to take on too much responsibility. That is not the case where I am. They feel comfortable with their responsibilities and, if anything, would like to take on additional responsibilities rather than cut back on them. One area of concern that should be looked at is that it is the young elderly who are involved in these organisations, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out. Perhaps we should promote young friends of parks to get young people and children involved in helping to run their parks.
As we have already heard from two hon. Members, funding is central to their concerns. It is the single biggest issue for all local authorities. All hon. Members know that what slips when budgets are tight are the so-called soft cuts—the things that allegedly do not hurt anyone. The maintenance of parks may be affected. Fewer flowers and shrubs may be planted and there may be more grass because that is easier and less costly to maintain. Paths and fences may not be repaired as quickly as in the past. It is in that respect that the Government's response is weakest; they sing the praises of parks but fail to take account of the cost implications, which can be heavy. In their response, the Government state that they have abolished crude, universal capping, and perhaps that is true. What is certainly true is that a clawback operates. The further a council's spending deviates from what is considered to be appropriate, the harsher is the clawback.
The Government do not agree that less local authority funding should be provided by Government grants. That is one way of saying that they do not agree that more funds should be raised locally. Why should not more funds be raised locally? That is something that the Select Committee advocated when considering other reports. What better way is there of re-establishing the link that seems to have been broken between our constituents, the local authority and their voting habits in council elections? If that link were restored, there would be a higher turnout at local elections and authorities would have more flexibility to take decisions about their priorities, or what their electors want to be their priorities.
The Government's response offers no help in respect of the Select Committee's request that they should help local authorities to find ways to reverse cuts in park

97WH
maintenance. The Government were silent on the funding issue, but they made some commitments. I hope that the Minister will provide more details of those commitments and perhaps set out a time scale.
When will the parks database, which is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Government's response, be established and able to take research inquiries? In paragraph 26, which relates to trusts and friends organisations, the Government state that they will
consider further the issues raised in conjunction with the LGA
and others. What are the terms of reference for the review? When will the report be published? When will we know what the Government's deliberations have produced?
The Minister has already been asked whether she will be talking to the Chancellor about funding. If he says that the country cannot afford it, will she point out that he is about to give away £2.5 billion in tax cuts? Perhaps the Minister will press him on the matter.
All hon. Members can agree on the subject of town and country parks. As the Government's response states, well-maintained parks and open spaces are essential to improve the quality of living and working environments. Saying that those things are essential will not improve the parks, but dissemination of best practice and increased resources will.
3.18 pm
Mr. Hilary Benn: As someone who joined the Environment Sub-Committee relatively recently, I especially welcome the report. In highlighting the importance of parks as green lungs and oases for our cities, the report has done a good job, if a depressing one, in also highlighting the decline in the state of some parks in recent years, something that should worry all hon. Members. I congratulate the Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee on the cover of the report, to which he referred in his opening remarks. To anyone who does not want to delve into the words of the report, the pictures on the back and front tell the story. We have already heard various reasons for the decline, such as the natural ravages of time, inadequate capital for repairs and improvement, lack of maintenance, other demands on local government, which is an important contributory factor, and the effect of compulsory competitive tendering—a lesson that I hope has been learnt in relation to best value.
I want to talk specifically about parks in our great cities. Leeds is a city of contrasts. It has its own north-south divide in terms of prosperity. It also has a wide variety of green open spaces. Anyone who has been to Roundhay park or Temple Newsom is able to attest to that. Cross Flatts park in Beeston in my constituency epitomises, in many ways, the problems that we are discussing. It is a monument to Victorian vision. A substantial recreation space, it lies between two communities, and people talk about houses as being either above or below the park. To those who live to the east of Cross Flatts park in tightly packed, back-to-back houses with no gardens, it is an important recreation space.
The park is vital to the community, but over the years it has suffered from under-investment. All the issues raised in the report can be used in respect of the park: the
98WH
railings disappeared a long time ago, there are no permanent park staff and people are sometimes afraid to walk across the park at night. The Public Accounts Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Audit Commission performance indicators, and it would be nice if a performance indicator could be used to measure the problems in public open spaces.
The good news is that help is now at hand. Partly because of lottery funding and the fourth round of the single regeneration budget funding, there is an opportunity to make a difference. I congratulate the city council on its approach to the park. It has used a consultation technique, "planning for real", with which some hon. Members may be familiar. It has worked successfully in the community of Beeston and Holbeck. It involves setting out a large-scale map of the area and inviting people to put little flags on the map setting out what is needed in certain areas, such as new railings or better lighting. People being involved in the planning of their areas makes a great difference because ownership is crucial to sustaining and developing an interest in our parks and open spaces.
I am pleased to tell the Chamber that new fencing is to be put around Cross Flatts park so that joyriders who, for some strange reason, like to bring their cars into the park and burn them out, can no longer do so. A nice old building, known locally as the Watsonia, is being refurbished so that community groups and young people can use it. Vandalised tennis courts that have been neglected over the years symbolise more than anything else the decline of our public open spaces. Two such courts are to be renovated so that they can be used and the other six will be turned into a multi-purpose hard play area, which is a wonderfully flexible phrase to describe the fashion activity of the moment, whether it be football, roller-blading, skateboard or basketball.
A different example of the community approach is the millennium green in Woodhouse. The local community took the initiative in identifying an embankment that was covered with rubbish, neglected and overgrown. It received lottery funding to turn it into a small park and recreational space, and work has already begun. It is an absolutely wonderful project, and the local community is making it happen. It is working with Leeds Groundwork. As the millennium green is created, there will be a training programme, which will give unemployed young people the opportunity to learn more about horticulture and land management. I have no doubt that, at the end of that process, the sense of ownership and the pride in the millennium green will be all the greater because the community itself created it. Another example is St. Matthew's community garden in Holbeck, where an old graveyard is being turned into an open space.
Last autumn, I visted the Meanwood Valley urban farm in my constituency to collect acorns. It is a wonderful green corridor of animal husbandry, horticulture and open space. I was taking part in the constituency oaks project. Growing a tree from seed puts us all in our place: I have grown several oak trees from seed and know that the trees will be here long after all of us have disappeared into the dust of time. It, too, engenders a sense of ownership. One feels very strongly about a tree that one has planted and grown from a seed, and one has a unique bond with it. One of the problems in our parks is vandalism. How often have we seen a new

99WH
tree snapped off a few days after it is planted? I should like to think that if we had planted a tree and seen somebody snap it off, we might be courageous enough to go up to that person and say "Excuse me, do you know that I planted that tree?" I suspect that I know what the answer would be, but I hope that the person would say, "I am very sorry, I didn't realise that it was your tree." If one thinks about it, all the trees in our parks are ours and we must develop a greater sense of ownership.
As hon. Members may gather, I am rather keen on trees. One of the other distinguishing features of Leeds is the contrast between north and south in terms of the number of trees. Trees are everywhere in the north-west, but south of the River Aire, and especially in south Leeds, which I have the honour of representing, there are not that many of them. Trees act as a buffer against noise and they soak up CO2, as we know. Even in the ordinary urban environment, trees soften the landscape and provide beauty and the opportunity for contemplation. Trees within a city create a park on their own, and I am keen that we should have many more in our city. I never thought that I would say this at the time, but as a youngster I used to be intimidated by the London county council park keepers in Holland park. Even if one was climbing a tree with a view to mild enjoyment—I never tried to damage trees—they intervened forcefully. The park keeper, who was the expression of our sense of community ownership and responsiblity for trees, is a great loss.
My final point concerns the future of parks in cities. Where are new parks going to come from? The Victorian Society made an important point in the evidence that it submitted to the Select Committee. It stated:
Public parks did not come into existence by chance, or simply survive as accidentally undeveloped ground. They were deliberately created.
As our cities develop and change, we need to think about where new parks will come from.
Mr. Bennett: It is perhaps unfortunate that my hon. Friend was not a member of the Committee when we considered evidence relating to the new Hulme development in the city of Manchester and the creation of a new park there. If my hon. Friend goes and looks, he will see a well-loved park whose creation was influenced by local people. The cover of the Select Committee report has a picture of youngsters driving up the wall and thoroughly enjoying themselves in that park.
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to having that opportunity. When the Committee visits Leeds in the near future, my hon. Friend will have a chance to see the millennium square, one of the new projects being developed there.
I believe that civic vision and leadership still have an important role to play, as they did in the 19th century. The millennium square is to be the middle of the town centre and will be the first new square in the city for 60 years. It will be a new focal point with trees, a fountain, cafés and flowers and it will be capable of use for open-air concerts and other events. In a sense, it will be a bridge I am not quite sure whether a square can be a
100WH
bridge—between the report and the inquiry currently being undertaken in connection with the urban White Paper. The project will happen because it has been planned for. The centre of Leeds is a hive of activity and development, which is a sign of its great economic success. Two large developments are being planned, at Clarence dock and Tetley's wharf, and they will add greatly to the city's regeneration. However, as I have said to the planners and developers, we should not concrete over every square inch of the land. We need green space so that, if we are successful in bringing people back to the city to live, their children will have somewhere to play.
People will be drawn to live in the city by the exitement and bustle, and the fact that it is a thriving place, but they also need opportunities for tranquillity and contemplation. The parks—the green lungs and oases—provide us with the opportunity for that.
3.30 pm
Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasing and daunting experience to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) who transported this mundane Chamber into something better with his lyrical description of the parks in Leeds and his historical vision of oaks. It is interesting to speak after him because the Benn dynasty played a significant part in ending the hereditary principle in the House of Lords. He appears to have inherited the best instincts of the long Benn dynasty in the House of Commons and is, perhaps, a walking endorsement of all that is good about the hereditary principle. We welcome him to the Select Committee and look forward to his contributions.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) who led the inquiry. I was going to say that he has moved on to better things, although I am not sure that a job in the Conservative Whips Office is better. Still, he has moved on and cannot be here today.
We have had a difficult week, especially with the all-night sitting, but two pleasant experiences have made my life slightly better. Yesterday, I had the good fortune to be invited to lunch in the Carlton club, and today I went to the Savoy hotel for the Automobile Association's awards lunch. Both occasions gave me the opportunity to walk across parks—Green park to the Carlton club and along the embankment to the Savoy—which gave me a chance to think about the reports. I was struck by the fact that both Green park and Victoria embankment—I apologise to the Royal Parks Agency and others who will write to me tomorrow to tell me that I am wrong—are living examples of what parks should not be. It is difficult to walk along Victoria embankment; it needs to be reorganised to make it pedestrian accessible. Many of the plants are overgrown; the section in front of the Ministry of Defence is an empty patch of green grass, and rather low-quality grass at that. Victoria embankment is one of the finest park sites in London, and we should be maximising the benefits that we get from it.
That experience, although pleasant, highlighted the problems that the report tries to address. Most of our town parks were first planted or donated 100 or 200 years ago. They were quite well maintained for a long

101WH
time, but for a large part of the last century—certainly since the second world war—most of our town and country parks have been in gradual gentle decline. It is timely that we are considering what can be done to put them right.
Despite the Government's complexion, it is true that we are enjoying relative economic prosperity, thanks, of course, to the golden legacy that they inherited three years ago. It is at such times that we can consider what to do about heritage, history and parks, so that we can pass them on to people who may be less fortunate economically. I welcome the report, even though I was not able to take as active a part as I would have liked in the study that preceded it.
Our 250 country parks attract a not insignificant 57 million visits a year. Five thousand of our 30,000 parks, including town parks, are of national or local heritage merit. One hundred million park visits are made each year in London. Parks are a huge national asset and they improve the life of the people, and it is right that we should consider what can be done with them.
Why do we want parks, and what is their purpose? Hon. Members have referred to a variety of purposes, but they have skipped over some. Until the second world war, a large part of our population lived in the countryside and had plenty of experience of nature and wildlife. Our way of life is increasingly urban or suburban. Parks are more important than ever in terms of contact with nature and wildlife. There are more red foxes in London than in my North Wiltshire constituency. Red foxes, badgers and deer are plentiful in London.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: That is because we have not hunted them.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is because we have not hunted them. Red foxes are knocked down by cars in London or are covered with mange and are suffering from unspeakable diseases because their central London population is grossly large. We like to keep it under control in Wiltshire through that activity.
Providing contact with nature and wildlife is an extraordinarily important role for parks. That is true not only in London but in Chippenham, which is in the centre of the countryside. People in Chippenham use John Coles park, which was donated in the last century to the town by a Conservative mayor, as their main contact with fresh air, the countryside and plants. It is extremely important, especially for people with limited mobility. Disabled people probably enjoy our parks more than anyone else.
Never one to shy away from controversy, I might go further and say that making our parks attractive places to go and use as I have described is vastly more important than opening up acres of countryside, as is proposed in the right to roam Bill shortly to be put before Parliament. Even people in places such as Chippenham like to walk for about a mile in a circular route from their house, as they can through John Coles park. Unless they are radical and extreme ramblers—a few are around—they do not want access across the
102WH
beautiful countryside surrounding the town. The right to roam addresses a need that is not there; it is a licence to trespass rather than a benefit to people.
We seem determined to concrete over our nation; the more green areas and biodiversity we can have in our parks, the better. In its evidence, Bristol city council used the good metaphor of parks as the lungs of the city. It said that
parks contribute to the ecological health of the city.
That might seem paradoxical, but it is important to think in that way.
I was less convinced by what the report refers to as "biophilia", which links environmental quality to social behaviour. It suggests that
close contact with nature, on a regular or casual basis reduces stress, anxiety and aggression.
I am sure that that is right, but not about the neologism "biophillia". If the removal of my stress this week by a stroll across Green park was "biophilia", I am glad that I enjoyed it.
Hon. Members have referred to the community spirit and civic pride that comes from the use of parks. The Wootton Bassett in bloom competition, in which I had the honour to be a judge and to present a prize last year, meant that people worked hard in their gardens and parks, but developed a keen interest in each other's as well. That engendered civic pride.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) contrasted what she saw as a sharp reduction in sports facilities under the previous Government with an increase under the present Government. That is not true. Sport England has produced figures to demonstrate that the sale of sports pitches under the present Government has been catastrophic, and faster in percentage terms than under the previous Government. Leaving that aside, all sensible Members of Parliament would agree that we should find ways to preserve and increase the number of sports pitches. About 500 children currently play football in Chippenham on a Saturday on a waterlogged pitch. No amount of lobbying of the Liberal Democrat-controlled district council will persuade it to provide a worthwhile sports pitch, even though the Conservative-controlled Wiltshire county council is happy to provide the land. Perhaps a copy of today's Hansard will spur the council on.
A more worrying problem surrounds a large area of land in Corsham in my constituency, which the Ministry of Defence is selling to developers to build 590 houses. That is a controversial decision, especially because in the centre of the land are a large sports field, changing rooms and car parking. The MOD has in the past allowed the children of Corsham to use it, which is sensible. One can imagine the horror of Corsham people when they were told, a year ago, that the whole sports pitch would be built on, because the MOD wanted to maximise the return on the sale of the ground. After much pressure from councillors and from me, the MOD has agreed to keep the sports pitch and the cinder running track around it, but it is none the less continuing with the plan to build on all the associated land, including the children's sports pitches and play area, the car park and changing rooms. They will all be bulldozed in favour of houses because it is said that the Ministry of Defence needs the money in the post-strategic defence review era.

103WH
I have written to Ministers about this matter. Government hypocrisy is highlighted when they claim to believe in the value of children's play areas but decided to build houses on the Corsham sports pitch because they do not have enough money for the Army's rifles. If the Government want to be seen as sports pitch-friendly, I challenge them to announce immediately that they have rethought the question of selling the sports pitches in Corsham. Sport is an important aspect of our parks.
Several hon. Members have commented on the decline of our parks. They are dreary and covered in litter. They are overgrown, with poor plants and rusty railings. They attract vandals. I do not know why people drive cars to places and set them on fire; it seems a bizarre way of life, but people do it. Parks have declined significantly and we must do something about it—but how?
The first point to be made is that the task will be enormously expensive. Recently, it was decided to repair the iron railings of Vincent square—a wonderful square near here owned by Westminster school. The cost was in tens of thousands of pounds, if not in six figures. After much debate and in a joint venture between the school and Westminster city council a way was found to do it, but the cost was gigantic. To turn around 100 years of decline of the parks will take an awful lot of money.
I welcome the tone of the report which does not, as an old Labour report would have done, conclude that the Government must spend more money. We want somebody elsewhere to spend money. The report moves towards concluding that there is more than one way to skin this cat. Green spaces can cover their own costs through cafeteria franchises and charging for car parking and for all kinds of things—including, in some places, for access. The Royal Horticultural Society gardens at Wisley have not received a single penny from local or national government, but because of an intelligent admission policy of charging some people and giving the deserving and others free admission, and by making use of first-class cafeteria facilities—some good, some bad, some indifferent—and garden shops, the society has raised more than enough money to provide the best gardens that I have seen. One would expect nothing else.
PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that the parks have a value of about £5 billion per annum, and that tourist expenditure in parks is now about £300 million per annum. If decent parks, like the RHS garden at Wisley, were to be found throughout the country, that income could be maximised and plenty of ways found to regenerate parks that are now less attractive to the tourist. Finding a way to move money from one to the other would be an intelligent and useful thing to do. Many ways can be found to shift money towards them without necessarily seeking massive Government or local authority grants.
In that context, like the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, I pay tribute to the work of the Groundwork Trust. It makes the best possible use of volunteers, and it gets people out doing things to improve our parks, which is to be applauded.
I welcome most of the report's proposals. However, like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I found the Government's response deeply
104WH
disappointing. The Government pay lip service to most of the Committee's proposals, but rarely do they say that they disagree with a report. They usually say, "Yes, we entirely endorse the report. We must find ways of doing it. We shall examine it, we shall look into it." I listened recently to a road safety announcement; it contained no proposals, but lots of words—"We will commission a report; we will set up a committee; we will look into; we will think about it." A journalist said to me today that it contained not one proposal to improve road safety. Having read the Government's response to this report, I cannot imagine that parks will get any better. It contains no proposals that might achieve any of the things called for in the report.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary is spending the afternoon listening to the debate; I know that she will think carefully about the matter. It is important that in this time of economic prosperity the Government should not take the easy option and shelter behind fine words, launches and reports. The Under-Secretary should tell us what the Government will do to turn round the decline in parks that hon. Members have described this afternoon. Our parks are in a disgraceful state, yet they are a huge national asset. It is time that the Government did something about it.
3.47 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I was a member of the Select Committee when it started its investigations; unfortunately, I am no longer a member. However, I remember that, when the Chairman announced that the Committee would be undertaking an investigation of parks, I was a little bemused because of my knowledge of the parks in my constituency. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke of the many fine parks in his constituency. Southampton, too, has many parks—indeed, I am sure that we have enjoyed each other's parks—but the tradition of parks in our part of the world is not shared by many other parts of the country.
Southampton has 660-odd hectares of parkland. Of that, 134 hectares forms Southampton common, which leads into the city centre. More recently—this will encourage those who believe that there are no new parks—another 197 hectares of greenways have been created. That is mainly the result of the city council's efforts to join together the green spaces next to the streams that run through the hilly areas of Southampton, and to give access to those greenways from the public parks in the city centre.
Southampton has a tradition of substantial parks. It also has a deep civic consciousness of how important those parks are to the city. Southampton common has existed as land in common ownership since early medieval times. It is interesting to reflect on the use of the common and the pride that local residents take in its status as a site of special scientific interest in the middle of the city. Southampton common is home to one of the few remaining colonies of the greater crested newt, which is the Ronseal of the amphibian world—it does exactly what it says it does, being larger than the average newt and having a crest. The fact that there is an SSSI in the middle of the city is a source of price to city dwellers, but the common is also used for many events, and has been since medieval times. Indeed, looking at the roster of events in Southampton parks over a three-month

105WH
period, I see about 41 major events were held, including a big bug tour, a daisy dip fun day, a fair, a common conservation walk and a model car club fun day. A whole range of activities take place in the parks, which are used regularly by the city's residents.
An organisation called Southampton Parks and Commons Protection Society defends Southampton common with the tenacity of a lion defending her cubs. Some time ago, a substantial dispute took place about whether a post should be located inside the common, which would give the people who live in a house on the edge of the common access to their garage. Although one might regard that as a trivial point, the fact that city residents were prepared voluntarily to undertake activity in defence of parks and open spaces is good for the health and future of those parks.
A combination of civic pride, on-going public support, action by voluntary organisations to protect the parks and investment in parks are the ingredients for ensuring that parks in towns and cities remain healthy and vibrant. Recently, Southampton city council obtained a heritage lottery fund grant of £3 million to restore the central parks to their state in Victorian times. In Southampton, it is true to say that any politician who stood up in a public place and suggested that anything untoward should be done to a park would quickly disappear from the local political scene, because parks are an important part of Southampton's public life, and long may they remain so.
Mr. Bennett: It is rare for a politician to suggest that anything should be done to destroy a park; the problem is neglect. I listened with sympathy to what my hon. Friend said about Southampton parks. Indeed, Southampton seems to have done much better than most places, but then he reminded us that the central park needed lottery money for regeneration, which demonstrates that, even in Southampton, quiet neglect has done more damage than would be done by a council leader's suggestion that a park should be closed or abandoned.
Dr. Whitehead: That is a strong point. I was about to mention the other side of the coin, namely what happens when parks are not loved and cherished, money is not forthcoming for maintenance and the other ingredients are not present. The ambitious scheme to restore Southampton centre parks to their Victorian form has been made possible only by the grant. The city council tried hard, but several features of the Victorian period were impossible to replace.
I wish to move on to my experience of taking part in the inquiry, which radically changed my views about parks. Before proceeding, I should explain that my name is absent from the list of visitors in the annexe to the general report. I am not sure whether members of the Committee airbrushed my name out in their rage at my resignation, like the disappearance of Bukharin from pictures of the Soviet Central Committee after he fell out with Stalin. I can assure hon. Members that I was present and that I distinctly remember being there when our chairman took photographs, juxtaposing the best and the worst in parks. On the outside cover of the document I recognise a picture of Stockport's
106WH
Burntwood park and the inside cover has a picture of its Hollywood park. One park was revived; the other remains in a very sad state.
The Committee presciently highlighted aspects of what we would all want for the future development of parks in the UK. It is extraordinary that we have no knowledge at a national level of exactly where parks are, what they do, who runs them, what condition they are in, and so forth. The difficulties encountered by the Committee in attempting to acquire information speak volumes about the national consciousness of the heritage of our parks. It is also worrying that no one speaks on behalf of parks to Government. They are too often regarded as open spaces in which things happen, but no one really knows much about them—perhaps they are the resort of old ladies and kids on skateboards. In most parks, nothing much of an organised nature takes place, which causes them to fade from public view—at least in relation to policy options.
Some time before the Select Committee visit, I read a report by Commedia entitled "Parklife", which pointed out how well used parks were, even though that often appeared not to be the case. Commedia counted people coming in and out of parks and found that, although use was overwhelmingly informal, it was astonishingly heavy by any standards. The idea that parks are empty spaces with grass that no one uses or cares for is mistaken. Unfortunately, that mistaken impression is often in the heads of those who consider what should be done with parks. Gaining a clearer picture at national level of exactly what happens in our parks would be a step forward. It is important to raise consciousness of the debate among our national policy makers.
I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the Select Committee's suggestion that an urban parks and green space agency could usefully formulate opinion on parks, but there are more positive aspects to the Government's response to the report, which offer some mitigation.
Another issue connected with parks is often neglected. I recall that the Committee took evidence from someone who had worked on the development of Central park in New York and he pointed out that a neglected park can spread blight around its boundaries and become a severe negative factor for an entire neighbourhood. Conversely, a vibrant park's influence spreads well beyond its boundaries. People want to live nearby, things happen in that park, people are drawn to it and the neighbourhood benefits from more than the park itself.
I was encouraged by the consideration given to the best value scheme in the Government's response to the Committee report. Having listened to the evidence put before the Committee and visited parks to discover their condition and how they are managed outside Southampton, I think that the compulsory competitive tendering regime, to which local government was subjected for such a long time, had at least a hand in the decline of our parks.
During a previous debate, I mentioned the, possibly apocryphal, story of the Barnet ducks. The local authority put its parks out to tender under the leisure management provisions of the CCT regime. Everything was measured for the tender, but in the winter after the parks came under the management of the organization

107WH
that won the tender, the ducks on the pond died. The reason was that the park keeper had previously fed the ducks, but no one had measured the park keeper doing so and, therefore, the ducks were not fed after the contract had gone out to tender.
The best value scheme should bring together in a positive way several of the issues that I have mentioned. Some the performance indicators used in the scheme will be relevant to parks. Community plans, which local authorities will be required to draft under the best value regime, will undoubtedly take into account local authorities' proposals on parks and show how improvements can be monitored regularly as the regime develops.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman implies that CCT had a role in the decline in parks, but that is not stated in the report. Equally, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) went to some lengths to say that there was no evidence of that and that it was not the reality of the process. None the less, the hon. Gentleman has given an example of park keepers working out how long it takes to feed ducks. Is he suggesting that, under the best value regime, people will know how much it costs a local authority to employ someone to feed the ducks? How will ducks' lives be saved under the best value regime when they were not saved under CCT?
Dr. Whitehead: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what I have said. If everything is put out to tender on the basis of a document in a brown envelope and a job, such as the park keeper's informal feeding of the ducks, is not measured, the contractor that successfully bids for the tender will not do it.
A good park depends on many factors, including a partnership between the local authority and the local population. The authority has to do what is necessary to make the park work well, and local people have to have pride in it, playing a positive role, perhaps as friends of the park. All sorts of organisations come together to make parks vibrant. Several of those ingredients were effectively discouraged under CCT. Although I do not lay all the blame for the decline in our parks at the door of CCT, it had a hand in ensuring that people may have decided to put in ground cover rather than plant flowers because doing so was cheaper and easier, whatever the wishes of those who lived around and used the park may have been.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is most generous to give way to me twice. Even if that were the case, why would it be different under best value? Best value also specifies what the contractor will do. If the specification is incorrect, the job will not be done. His point that under CCT the ducks were not fed and that under best value they will be is fundamentally flawed. What is the logic of that statement?
Dr. Whitehead: I am about to tell the hon. Gentleman the circumstances in which best value will be better. It is at least intimated in the Government's response to the Committee report. It is because one is not subject to a rigid system of measuring everything, putting it into a document, opening a brown envelope and then being stuck with that way of doing things for a number of years.
108WH
The point about best value is that a range of possible service options is considered. It is possible to put something out to tender; it is possible to develop a partnership between local authorities to run a service; it is possible to run a service in a partnership between the local authority and the voluntary sector, or between the local authority and the private sector; it is possible to develop a long-term partnership in any of those models so that the basis of the partnership and the judgment of what is the best value for that particular park is based on the best overall outcome, not on a single narrow definition of how a particular service can be run in pure accountancy terms. The best value regime, which encourages those partnerships, can develop and change the way a park service is maintained and developed over a period of time, in conjunction with local people and the development of the community plan.
That gives me considerable encouragement, but overall—certain parts of the country notwithstanding—our parks are still declining. That should be a proper concern of all hon. Members. On that point, I wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). As we continue with the process of urbanisation, parks become more and more vital as green lungs. On the edge of our towns and cities, country parks become important as bridges between the city and the countryside surrounding it. We neglect our parks at our peril. The Committee has done sterling work, not least in drawing this to the attention of the House and the public, and I congratulate it.
4.8 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I add my congratulations to all those who served on the Committee—half of whom seem to have gone on to greater and better things since producing the report—and in particular to the Chairman. I congratulate them not just because the report addresses an important subject and produces arresting evidence and conclusions, but on the felicity of its literary style. One is always encouraged by a report that starts with a quotation from Ruskin. The rest of the report did not lose in the comparison. It was a much better read than many Select Committee reports.
To continue the theme from Ruskin, one of the things that comes out of the pages of the report is the tribute to the idealism of many city fathers in the Victorian and Edwardian eras who felt both a sense of service and a self-confidence about the future of their towns and cities, of which the parks were such a great symbol. In many ways, the report is suffused with some of that spirit of idealism. Apart from that spirit which shone out of it, I was struck by the degree of suppressed anger at things that had gone wrong in too many country and urban parks. Most important of all is the report's sense of urgency. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) clearly stated that action is urgently required as the problem cannot go on without harm resulting. By contrast, he said that the Government's response to the report was disappointing. I am aware that, in this Chamber, we are not required to be as robust as we might be in the other Chamber, so I shall confine myself to describing the Government's response as inadequate, but I would use a lengthier and more robust description elsewhere.

109WH
It is important to put the report and the Government response in context. One of the most interesting points mady by the hon. Gentleman was his assertion that, despite a common background of problems, there is huge variation in the state of parks in different parts of the country. Indeed, that variation is represented on the cover of the report, which shows the stark difference between the best and the worst of our parks. That points to the conclusion that decline and neglect are not inevitable, whatever the system of local government funding and however local government performance is measured by national Government.
Broadly speaking, good local authorities will continue to provide good park services and bad local authorities will not. I hope that local authorities throughout the country will draw on that lesson. In our debate, hon. Members have spoken about good and bad things in parks in their constituencies. There are good and bad parks in my own constituency, but all could probably be better.
The general conclusion to be drawn from the report is that good local authorities provide better parks. Our discussion about the effect of best value has been interesting. I accept the assertion of the hon. Gentleman that the existence of CCT was not the primary cause of problems and that a change in the process created resistance from some local authorities. I am afraid that hon. Members who say that everything will be better under best value will be proved wrong.
Any transition will cause problems. Indeed, councillors in my constituency and elsewhere say that the great problem with best value is the bureaucracy that it creates. One councillor told me that one has a choice. Either one fills in all the forms or one provides the services, but there are not enough hours in the day to do both. That problem will affect park services and other vital local authority services if the best value regime continues. The hon. Gentleman was being polite when he said that he was not encouraged by the best value regime in that context. I was struck by the harsh criticism of English Heritage's performance. I hope that it will take that as a warning shot. The Select Committee will return to the subject later, but has identified serious problems.
Various hon. Members have taken us on tours of their local parks. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made a powerful point about the problems caused by travellers in and around parks which will resonate with hon. Members around the country. To my surprise, I agreed with virtually every word of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). He identified the need for park keepers to stop damage to trees in parks and hoped that, because we all own them, we should all feel a sense of responsibility for them. Unfortunately, when everyone owns something, no one feels a responsibility for it, which is why capitalism works and socialism does not, but I shall not go any further down that route. I am sure that we all admired the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), both for the parks in his constituency and for the various London parks that he often visits at lunchtime every day. That is obviously why he keeps so fit, despite his evidently heavy lunching programme.
110WH
The report contained some shocking facts. It is unthinkable that we have no reliable figures on the number of parks in this country, estimates varying from 30,000 to 5,000. I note that, by the end of the reporting process, 5,000 seemed to have been accepted as the realistic figure. It is equally extraordinary that, despite the Select Committee's best efforts, there were no reliable figures on how much local authority expenditure on parks has changed over the years. Most noteworthy of all is the fact that the Committee itself was shocked by the evidence that it found. Indeed, that is more or less what the report says. That identifies the chronic and acute problems evident in so many parks. The Chairman of the Committee said that he was disappointed with the Government's response, so it would be useful if the Minister addressed in her reply the most disappointing aspects of the Government's response.
The first disappointing aspect is the lack of a proper review, which the Government have not so much rejected as brushed aside. I draw the Minister's attention to the successful royal parks review, which took place a few years ago. If I remember my history, I recall consulting people at the time. The Department was not keen on the review then, partly because it was wary of a recommendation for an agency structure. However, during the course of the review, the sheer weight of the evidence convinced the Department that a new regime was necessary—and it was subsequently implemented. The review was properly resourced and had a proper secretariat; it was genuinely independent of the Government, who listened to what was said. It produced an overwhelming case, which Ministers acknowledged, and they implemented many of the recommendations. Will the Minister acknowledge the force of my analogy between that review and the potential review of our urban and country parks?
Another disappointing element is the Government's delayed reaction to the Rogers report. Parks are only part—but, we would all agree, an important part—of his many recommendations for promoting urban revival across the country. The Government's delay in responding to that report has caused problems. I know that no White Paper will be produced until after the comprehensive spending review. That review is, of course, important, but the fact that the Government seem paralysed by it for months, sometimes years on end, cannot be good for governance. I hope that the Minister will deal with that too.
The Minister should also enlighten us about the provision of lottery money. It is clear from both the report and what hon. Members said that much of the good work done in parks in recent years has been funded by lottery money, but the Minister will be aware of the different ways in which lottery money is now distributed. Those have been fragmented in recent years by the Government's own acts. They wanted to set up new forms of lottery giving, and my fear is that such fragmentation will cause new cracks, into which the needs of parks will fall.
I know that the Minister's Department is not responsible for the lottery. That is a symptom of a wider problem that affects parks: they can look to her Department, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Local Government Association or the local authorities to take responsibility for them. All those

111WH
bodies play a role, but it seems that none of them seems to feel that it has the prime responsibility for them. That calls to mind an analogy with trees in the parks. The Minister's presence suggests that her Department regards itself as principally responsible for preserving and enhancing our parks, so perhaps she should tell the Chamber whether she agrees that what I have described is a genuine and significant problem.
Local government is a vital player because local authorities have the hands-on, day-to-day responsibility for running parks. Can the Minister explain the LGA's role in that? The Committee resisted the temptation to propose new statutory duties for local authorities or statutory protection for parks and I am sure that that was right, because placing new central burdens on local authorities would be a move in the wrong direction. If we accept that point—as the Committee rightly did—we should also accept that central bodies, such as the LGA, should provide advice and help. Does the Minister consider that a legitimate role for the LGA, or should her Department fulfil that function?
Inevitably, many hon. Members have identified money as one solution to the problems. Parks are vulnerable when local authorities are, as they see it, under-resourced, because there is no statutory duty on them. Similarly, parks are vulnerable when there is no national voice for them, like the Arts Council or the Sports Council. It has already been said that the existence of matched funding for institutions such as museums means not only that those bodies can receive money from various sources, but that the temptation for local authorities to cut budgets in those areas is reduced, because they would lose the matched funds and entire institutions would disappear. Where should local authorities place parks in the hierarchy of their duties? It is clear, not least from today's debate, that well-run parks are as good and visible a symbol as there can be of a well-run local authority, so it is surprising that too many authorities seem to regard them as a relatively low priority.
That brings me to the Committee's central recommendation: the setting up of a new urban parks and green spaces agency. Many people's instinct, including mine, is to be wary of setting up another quango. I congratulate the Committee on the argument that it advanced for doing so and on the thoroughness of the appendix setting out how such a body would work. It is important not to leave those things hanging and to have a stab at saying what would actually happen. However, doing so gives rise to legitimate qualms in that the appendix suggests that the budget would be about £30 million to £50 million, which is a significant sum. When Select Committees advocate setting up a new quango, they should perhaps have a moral duty to recommend at least one other quango to be abolished in order to retain the balance in public life.
Whatever our views about the merits of creating a new agency, the matter deserves more analysis and argument than the Government have given in their response. It is clearly a serious suggestion based on evidence taken from a wide range of people. The rather bland and simple dismissal of the suggestion in the Government's response is regrettable, and I hope that the Minister will discuss the matter. The Government did not even promise a review. Perhaps the most powerful argument for the agency is that parks do not
112WH
have a national voice, which puts them at a disadvantage. I am wary of the suggestion, but it should not be rejected out of hand, as it is in the Government's response.
The report is passionate and focused on genuine problems. In contrast, the Government's response is a classic piece of Sir Humphrey drafting: it drizzles indifference over the subject and tries to put a blanket over the suggestions. I hope that the Minster will give a fuller explanation, not least because, as the debate has made clear, parks have mattered to millions of people for decades and centuries. Many political reforms that cause enormous day-to-day controversy are fleeting and evanescent. If the Minister can put parks on a more stable footing, she will deserve thanks from millions of people for generations to come, and I hope that she will reassure us that her thoughts are moving in that direction.
4.26 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on having initiated the debate. It is extremely difficult for me to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to acknowledge those of my hon. Friends who are behind me. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not turn around very often.
I thank the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs for its thorough and thoughtful consideration of the wide range of evidence that it collected and for having produced a report that is so timely in relation to our objectives for parks and open spaces. I am pleased that we have debated the subject, because I share the views that hon. Members have expressed about the importance of parks and open spaces, as do my colleagues, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The debate gives me an opportunity to explain the Government's position.
Our position contrasts starkly with the record of the previous Government, who presided over the decline that the report has illuminated. I have some sympathy for the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Ashford (Mr. Green), who have been wrong-footed. Their protestations inevitably have a hollow ring, because for the long period during which the Conservative party could have introduced measures to protect or enhance parks and gardens, it did the reverse.
Mr. Gray: The Minister echoes what her colleagues say for almost any aspect of policy—the Conservative party is to blame; it is the natural party of government and has been in power for 75 or 80 per cent. of the time in the past century, which is correct. However, to say that all the nation's ills must be blamed on the Conservative party because it is the natural party of government seems to be an abdication of the Government's responsibilities. We want to hear, not an easy jab at the Conservative Government for allowing parks to decline, but clear and positive factual information about how her Government will correct that decline.
Ms Hughes: I said not that the Conservative party is the natural party of government, but quite the reverse.

113WH
For various reasons, it happened to have control of central Government for the 18 years following 1979. In saying that his party cannot accept responsibility for what its Government did during that time to parks and gardens, the hon. Gentleman lays bare the dismissive attitude to such matters that the Conservatives displayed when they were in power.
By contrast, the Labour Government are committed to making our towns and cities attractive and vibrant places in which people can live and work. That has been a central theme developed by the Government and my Department for some time. We want to create more socially inclusive and economically competitive communities in our cities. We recognise, even if the Conservative party did not, that parks and open spaces improve the quality of life in our urban environment and will be important in bringing about the urban renaissance that we are determined to effect.
Enormous benefits can be gained from well designed and managed parks and open spaces. They are a vital recreational resource, as many hon. Members have said. Although the evidence might be insubstantial, we believe that parks can improve the health and social well-being of people and enhance their enjoyment of local environments. They make a valuable contribution to biodiversity in cities, and provide an important wildlife and educational resource for many children, especially in urban areas. The Government need no convincing that open spaces and parks play a vital role in enhancing the quality of people's lives, which is the remit of my Department.
The Environment Sub-Committee suggested that several parts of park provision and management should be improved, and hon. Members have touched on some of those during the debate. Our response to its report, which I do not accept was inadequate, contained proposals to deal with those recommendations.
The Sub-Committee expressed concern about the lack of adequate information on the quantity and quality of our parks and the way in which they are used. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and agree with him that the fact that no data were available is shocking, and is testimony to the previous Government's lack of concern. Unlike us, they did not even want to know where or in what state the parks were, or how many of them there were. Information of good quality is a foundation without which nothing can be done to improve parks, and is essential to inform other decisions that we shall make as a Government to achieve the urban renaissance.
That is why we started to fill the information deficit outlined in the report. My Department, the heritage lottery fund and English Heritage are jointly funding the needs assessment survey of publicly owned parks, which I hope will remedy our lack of knowledge about their condition and use. I hope that it will also help to identify aspects of park management on which we might need to do further research. In answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), we expect the research to be collected by the end of April. The early responses are encouraging: we have already received more than 200 from local authorities about the parks and their condition, and we hope to have a substantial database by the end of next month.
Mr. Bennett: I was going to press the Minister on when we would get that information and I am pleased that that is now on the record. I hope that she will urge local authorities to produce rather more accurate information than that which they gave the Committee. Many of them were uncertain about that information—yet they have been sending back figures to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for years and years, on the basis of the figures that they had put in for parks the preceding year. I hope that she insists that they check how much park area they have and are maintaining.
Ms Hughes: Information is useful only to the extent that it is accurate. We are pressing local authorities to check before telling us what parks they have and what state they are in. I am therefore confident that we will get a much clearer picture.
Secondly, the Sub-Committee felt that there was a need to redefine best value in park services. We have had considerable debate about the potential role of best value in improving parks and park services. The Sub-Committee recommended that local authorities develop masterplans for parks and open spaces, setting out clearly how they would be managed. Under best value, local authorities will be encouraged to develop local cultural strategies in which they can express their cultural vision and priorities, taking into account the needs of local communities. We expect those strategies to cover parks and open spaces and will check that they do.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish who thinks that there is a lack of clear information about best value; how it works is to him a fuzzy concept. Most local authorities would probably not share that view. If they have a complaint about best value, it is that there is too much for them to do in establishing it. It is nearly 1 April, when best value comes into formal operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test alluded to the partnership aspect of best value, but the performance element of best value will enable better assessment of how local authorities manage and maintain their parks. That drive for performance is the foundation of best value, which, unlike CCT, will deliver in relation to services in general, and parks in particular, because it will place much greater priority on improving the quality of services provided.
The performance indicators that we have produced alongside the best value regime will be reviewed each year and we will look closely at how effectively they achieve that continual drive in performance. In our response to the Sub-Committee's report, we gave a commitment to consider, with other interested groups, whether the next round of performance indicators should be more specific about parks. If the current indicators are not working as well as they might, we will revise them. We believe that best value will provide local authorities with the opportunity to make specific improvements across the services they provide, including parks and open space provision.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of funding. The Sub-Committee advised that the funding of park services has declined as a result of resources having been

115WH
spread very thinly. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) that that was largely a consequence of the previous Government's CCT regime. It is interesting that both my hon. Friends were, like me, council leaders and had first-hand experience of operating CCT. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that it was a consequence of the process itself. Under the previous Government's regime, there is no doubt that in its drive to keep down costs, and in its narrow interpretation of value for money, CCT contributed to a dramatic decline, not only in funding, but in the quality of staffing and maintenance of our parks. We have much lost ground to make up.
I mentioned the improvements that I expect best value to make in the quality of parks management and in helping to reverse some of those consequences. I confirm that we are also reviewing expenditure on parks and environmental services as part of the current spending review, about which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked. We are pursuing the issue and we shall announce the outcome of the review later in the year. In addition, we have committed extra capital funds for park improvements through the two major lottery progammes to which hon. Members have referred.
Net expenditure by local authorities on parks is beginning to rise. The increase is slow, but expenditure rose to £513 million in 1995–96 and to £538 million in 1997–98—the last year for which we have figures. The money put into parks does not come only from the revenue support grants given by the Government to local authorities, or from the annual capital guidelines, which include an element relating to parks and environmental services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside said, other investment is being made where environmental improvement can be delivered for parks.
Such funds can come from the single regeneration budget, European funding and from the Groundwork Trust. I have visited a number of its projects throughout the country and seen the work being done to revitalise parks. Community forests are another valuable type of scheme: I launched a community forest recently in the north-west and saw the enormous impact that such projects can have on park facilities. The environmental task force of the new deal is also channelling Government money into projects with an environmental impact, which often involve work in parks. The environmental action fund, which supports the green flag award, is another source of investment. Indeed, the Government are discussing ways in which we can better promote and develop that award. The Government are, therefore, supporting local authorities in refurbishing their parks through a wide range of initiatives and sources of targeted funding as well as through mainstream revenue support grant funding.
Mr. Green: At the start of that list of funding, the Under-Secretary made an interesting statement. She said that the Government have added to capital spending through lottery funding. Can I confirm that she has destroyed the myth that lottery grants are
116WH
independent? Are we to take it that lottery money is now central Government funding? That would be an interesting constitutional development.
Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman cannot see the wood for the trees. I confirm what he well knows: lottery organisations allocate money independently of the Government and extra capital funding has passed through that mechanism into parks—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North Wiltshire wish to intervene?
Mr. Gray: I was speaking to myself, but as the Under-Secretary has so kindly given way, I shall speak aloud. The fact that money has been invested from lottery funds has nothing to do with the Government. The only Government who have anything to do with that are the previous Government, who invented the lottery.
Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentlemen seem unable to grasp the point. Money is invested through lottery funding as well as through a wide variety of Government mechanisms providing targeted funding for particular areas. Taken in the round—I could add in money invested by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on tourism—the amount going into refurbishment of parks is much greater than the figure often considered, which is the revenue support grant to individual local authorities.
The report recommended that a number of other aspects of parks management be addressed. One of the most important recommendations was the establishment of a national parks and green spaces agency. A new agency is one way to tackle the more fundamental issue of how we ensure that nationally and locally we keep our eye on the ball. We need to know what is happening to parks. We cannot allow the situation of the past 18 years to continue, when no one had their eye on the ball.
Local authorities, working in partnership with their local communities, are best placed to decide how to deliver local economic, educational, health and environmental services. In that context, the responsibility for making decisions about parks and open spaces should remain with local authorities. It would not be right for such decisions to be in the hands of a new quango, as the hon. Member for Ashford called it, that is not locally elected and therefore not locally accountable. We would be concerned about the possible overlap between the activities of the agency and the actions and decisions that are rightly matters for local authorities. I think local authorities woud agree. It is one reason why we are not persuaded that a new agency would be the best way to tackle the Committee's concerns.
Mr. Bennett: Surely that argument would apply to the Sports Council, the Arts Council and similar bodies. We were suggesting not that parks should be taken away from local authorities, but that there should be support for local authorities to get across the messages of best practice, to help with training and to campaign for parks. That is not taking management responsibilities away from local authorities. Does my hon. Friend not

117WH
recognise that the Countryside Commission did a huge job in getting country parks established, even though the work was carried out by local authorities?
Ms Hughes: In a sense, I can answer yes to part of my hon. Friend's question. We are giving careful consideration to the Committee's arguments for a champion for parks. Had the Committee's report argued for that, without prescribing the method of achieving it, the Government might have been more enthusiastic.
Mr. Bennett: That is the usual device of Ministers. If a Select Committee puts forward a vague idea, it is attacked for not giving the detail. It would be great to hear my hon. Friend announce that she is considering a proposal to do the same thing. We are not saying that we have devised the right way to proceed, but at least we took the trouble to include some detail for discussion. If she wants to produce a different way of achieving the same thing, the Committee would not be too upset. What we want is someone to champion parks effectively.
Ms Hughes: I agree with some of the Committee's arguments about the need to have a champion for parks, because there should be a mechanism to focus on what is happening in parks, but I do not think that my hon. Friend has proposed the best mechanism for that. He said that the Committee had to be specific in the report or the proposal would have been put to one side. The report went into great detail: it outlined what the agency would do, and costed it to the tune of between £30 million and £50 million. The Committee proposed a specific solution to the issues that the report raised. We are not convinced that that is the best or only mechanism by which to achieve the broader objectives with which we agree.
Hon. Members should appreciate that several other bodies might be able to take on the role described by my hon. Friend. Local authorities cannot be airbrushed—the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test—from the equation. We wish to discuss the Committee's proposals with the Local Government Association, English Heritage, the Countryside Agency, the Audit Commission and several other interested bodies.
I assure my hon. Friend of our commitment to the issue. That brings me to one of the most important points, which was made tangentially in the report and, more clearly, in the debate: the importance of parks and open spaces to regeneration. My hon. Friends the Members for Riverside and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) spoke clearly about the importance of parks and open spaces for wider regeneration objectives, particularly in relation to their cities, but also in relation to other towns. That is an essential Government objective. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside that recognition of the importance of parks and open spaces is belated. However, the Government made regeneration a primary objective as soon as they had the opportunity to do so. The Rogers report made the link between parks and open spaces and regeneration, and our work in the urban White Paper will build on that. Those points have been well made and are congruent with our vision in the White Paper.
118WH
The White Paper will set out our vision for achieving more inclusive, sustainable communities. It will consider a wide range of issues, including the centrality of parks, and show how those cross-cutting issues relate to each other. In preparing the White Paper, we have taken the initiative to bring people together to consider specifically what we call management of the public realm. Through our focus on that concept and on the quality of the fabric of the urban environment, including the green elements in our environment, we will spell out the importance of parks and open spaces in towns.
Mr. Brake: On the Government's commitment to parks and open spaces, the Under-Secretary said earlier that information is the foundation. I agree with her on that, and the parks database is very welcome. However, the Government will also need to analyse the content of the database and act on the results of that analysis. Will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking to provide solutions to the problems identified by the parks database?
Ms Hughes: That is a rather redundant question. We are collecting a database as an essential prerequisite to understanding where our parks stand, what state they are in and what has happened to them. We will use that information as the basis of discussions with interested parties, including local authorities and the Local Government Association, on how the results of the survey should be taken further. The urban White Paper is one of the mechanisms through which we will engage in that debate.
Through the White Paper, we are carefully considering ways to raise the profile of and provide information about our parks and open spaces; to develop and disseminate good practice in the design, management and care of parks and open spaces, and promote higher quality standards; and to encourage the development of the skills needed to improve the management of our parks and their safety and cleanliness—an important matter that some hon. Members mentioned. We are considering ways to develop more effective partnerships that are capable of identifying and co-ordinating new sources of funding for parks and open spaces, and new ways of managing them that could involve local people, as some hon. Members suggested. We are considering also how to promote the effective implementation of best value, to help local authorities begin to deal with some of the adverse effects of CCT, and to encourage the active involvement of local communities and businesses in caring for and championing the cause of local parks and open spaces.
That is not an exhaustive list, but I assure the Committee that we are considering it actively. We are doing so not because the Select Committee told us to, but because it is part and parcel of our understanding of the wide range of issues that are central to achieving sustainable regeneration in many of our towns and cities. We certainly did not need to be prompted to say that parks and open spaces are central to that agenda. When the White Paper is published, we shall establish constructive dialogue with other Departments and with a wide range of interested parties.
Mr. Gray: I have been listening carefully to the Under-Secretary's proposals for making parks better places. She spoke of filling the information deficit and of promoting local cultural strategies; she is going to drive through performance on the basis of best value; she is going to review expenditure; she is going to think about the urban White Paper; she is going to engage in dialogue with various people. Does she really think that words and aspirations such as those are a reasonable substitute for action called for in the Select Committee report?
Ms Hughes: I have talked about a series of actions.
Mr. Gray: Like what? The lottery?
Ms Hughes: Perhaps, because of the previous Government's record, the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise an action when he sees one.
I have outlined our strong commitment to parks and open spaces. We are undertaking a range of activities and measures, which we shall pursue further. We shall put our commitment into practice. As I said, we do not need to be told about the importance of parks and open spaces. Many of us represent constituencies in major cities that have an industrial past. We can see for ourselves what parks used to be like, and what they could be like, and what they should be for our communities. The Government recognised that of their own volition. It is part and parcel of our approach to regeneration—a central theme, not only in the White Paper but in all the regeneration activities that we are undertaking.
I hope that I have been able to reassure at least those hon. Members who have understood what I said that we have taken the Select Committee's report seriously. We have considered all its recommendations and have responded constructively to the vast majority of them. Our work is not finished; the White Paper will take it forward with several further large strides. I thank the Committee for its contribution to the debate, and for the part that it has played in championing and highlighting the importance of parks and open spaces, particularly those in our towns and cities.
4.59 pm
Mr. Bennett: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it is the custom that the Chairman of the Select Committee is allowed to say a few words at the close of the debate.
I thank the Under-Secretary for her response and all those who participated in this useful debate. I stress that Select Committees have a function to undertake reports, but the process must be on-going. I would not want people to feel that we had finished. I hope that the Under-Secretary will understand that we shall consider returning to the issue, possibly through the White Paper on urban regeneration.
I welcome the database and the fact that it will be in place quickly. I hope that there will be a relationship between the database and local authority resources. I do not disagree with the Under-Secretary's view that CCT did much damage. The money saved on the maintenance of one bit of park was not spent on the other parts. That use of money was most devastating, although much time and effort were wasted on it. I shall judge best value by how soon my constituents can look at a park, such as North Reddish park, say how much money Stockport council is spending on it and compare it with sums spent elsewhere.
I hope that we can have a dialogue with the agency so that we can quickly get the urgently needed champion for parks. When considering the way forward, I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary talk about the management of the public realm, which is fundamental.
Statues, including those in tribute to people who had fought on behalf of others, were provided by public subscription in previous centuries. It would be nice to think that there might be a statue to the Under-Secretary in Longford or Gorse park, reminding everybody that she pushed the Government into taking urban parks seriously again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to have allowed the debate to end consensually and pleasantly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Cadets
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to improve recruitment to the cadet branch of HM armed forces. [105144]

  Mr. Spellar
  Recruitment to the cadets is undertaken through the local and national initiatives of each individual cadet force. The three Services provide funding and advice to these national youth organisations, with the help of the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations.

  Army funds support Army Cadet Force recruitment, including the recent "Attitude" marketing campaign. Phase 2 of this successful national campaign to recruit cadets and adult instructors will start later this year.

  RAF funding and advice supports local recruiting initiatives by the Air Training Corps. Advice and support from the Services and MOD is available where required to units of the Combined Cadet Forces. Although the Sea Cadet Corps is an independent charitable body, the Royal Navy provides support and advice in the context of recruitment.

  In addition, we fully expect that the additional £3 million we have made available over a four-year period following the Strategic Defence Review, for a range of manpower, training equipment, and infrastructure enhancements for all cadet forces, will further encourage cadet recruitment.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to phase out the use of peat compost in gardens(a) owned and (b) tended by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [110727]

  Dr. Moonie
  In line with the MOD's Departmental Plan on the Greening Government Initiative, my Department is looking at ways to ensure that any use of peat in the maintenance of its grounds is substituted by organic waste. This reflects the advice within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Greening Operations Guide.

  Defence Catering Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to transfer the Defence Catering Agency to York. [109444]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 33W, to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).

  Nuclear Weapons Exercises
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names, dates and locations of the nuclear weapons exercises being organised by his Department during 2000. [112366]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following nuclear weapon accident response exercises are planned to be held during 2000:

  Date

  Name

  Location

  May 2000

  Exercise BOWLINE

  Coulport

  June 2000

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Wiltshire

  July 2000

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Oxfordshire

  July 2000

  Exercise SENATOR

  North of England

  September 2000

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  South Glamorgan

  September 2000

  UK/US Exercise

  Norfolk

  October 2000

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Suffolk

  November 2000

  RAF nuclear weapon convoy Standardisation

  To be decided

  1 RAF Station Nuclear Accident Response (NAR) teams provide immediate response forces for the air transportation of nuclear weapons

  European Peacekeeping Corps
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 63W, on the European Peacekeeping Force, what is his policy on the level of capabilities the European Peacekeeping Corps should attain, in terms of (a) operational deployment range and (b) optimal UK commitment. [112387]

  Mr. Hoon
  As explained in my answer of 24 January, there is no intention of creating a "European Peacekeeping Corps". At the Helsinki European Council EU states committed themselves to being able, by 2003, to deploy rapidly and sustain up to 50,000–60,000 troops capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks.

  The operational range of these forces and the question of national contributions are being discussed as part of the follow-up work to Helsinki under the Portuguese Presidency. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Embassy Staff
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out since 1 January 1995 on the value for money provided by defence attachés and advisers at British embassies; and on what dates each of them was concluded. [112368]

  Mr. Hoon
  The MOD in conjunction with the FCO carried out a detailed and comprehensive review of attaché and adviser placement and their roles as part of the follow up work to the Strategic Defence Review. This review, which was approved by the Defence Council on 20 September 1999, determined where British Defence attachés and advisers should be accredited to best serve British Defence interests abroad. The Official Committee for Service Attachés and Advisers (OCSAA) subsequently scrutinised each post in every Defence Section prior to approving, on 20 October 1999, the implementation plan which will bring into effect the changes agreed in the review.

  Dimming Sun
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the nuclear weapon accident exercise, Dimming Sun, will be held, and where. [112365]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is planned to hold the UK/US joint nuclear weapon accident response exercise Dimming Sun in Norfolk in June 2003. The precise date and location have not yet been finalised.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what has been the outcome of the investigation by the officer in command into the appearance in photographs of members of the Royal Irish Regiment in uniform with banners of the Orange Order; [112686]

  (2) if members of the Royal Irish Regiment have been disciplined as a result of their appearance in photographs in uniform with banners of the Orange Order. [112685]

  Mr. Spellar
  The circumstances surrounding the publication of a photograph of the Royal Irish Regiment in the Andersonstown News on 15 January 2000 are currently under investigation by the Special Investigations Branch of the Royal Military Police. The investigation is in its final stages and a report is expected later this month.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 67W, on the Royal Irish Regiment, when the Royal Military Police will complete its investigation; and if he will publish its conclusions. [111945]

  Mr. Spellar
  The investigation by the Special Investigations Branch of the Royal Military Police is in its final stages and a report is expected later this month. I will write to my hon. Friend in the light of the outcome and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Microwave Communications Link
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose and at what cost he has purchased a microwave communications link between Shrewton telephone exchange and Salisbury Plain training area. [112546]

  Mr. Spellar
  This microwave telephone link will allow greater access to the public telephone system for troops wishing to make welfare calls from the training facility at Copehill Down. The cost to the Ministry of Defence was £6,674.

  HMS Vigilant
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the naval and other vessels that were within one hour's sailing distance from the site of the Solway Harvester disaster on 11 January; what was the precise location of HMS Vigilant at this time; what was the cause of damage to the radar system of HMS Vigilant and what was the time taken for repairs carried out before docking at Faslane, while in harbour, and elsewhere; and if he will place a copy of the submarine's log for the period from 8 to 15 January in the Library. [111949]
  328W
  Mr. Spellar
  No Royal Navy ships or submarines were within one hour's sailing distance from the site of the Solway Harvester disaster on 11 January. At the time the mayday was raised, the nearest vessel was the RFA Bayleaf, which was some 30 miles west of the Solway Harvester's position. HMS Vigilant was in the Atlantic Ocean conducting training in deep water. I am withholding her precise location under exemption 1 (Defence Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. HMS Vigilant returned to Faslane on 14 January for repairs to a defective seal on her radar mast, sailing again on 16 January.

  Private Security Companies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the private security companies employed(a) currently and (b) in the past three years by his Department; for what purpose they have been employed; at what cost; and at which locations. [112547]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following private security companies are currently employed by the Ministry of Defence:

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  Chilport (UK) Ltd.

  Chubb Guarding Services

  Dardan Security Ltd.

  Initial Security Ltd.

  Medway Ports

  RCO Support Services

  Reliance Security Services Ltd.

  Securicor Guarding Ltd.

  Securi-Guard Ltd.

  Serco

  Solo Security Services

  Thorn Security.

  Other private security companies employed by the Ministry of Defence in past three years (who are no longer employed) are:

  Centuryan Security Ltd.

  Guarda Security plc.

  Private security companies have been employed on general guarding duties at some 40 sites (just under half of which are awaiting disposal) throughout Great Britain. The total whole life cost of current contracts is £32 million.

  Private security companies are employed at the following sites:

  Alamein Barracks

  Ashford Barracks

  Cambridge House

  Cheadle Hume (Pay and Pensions Agency)

  Cwrt-Y-Gollen Training Camp

  Defence Clothing and Textile Agency, Caversfield

  Defence Munitions Depot, Broughton Moor

  Defence Storage and Distribution Centre, Aston Down

  Distribution Outlets, Aldershot

  Finningley and Harrogate (Army Site and Government Buildings)

  329W

  Garats Hay Barracks

  Glen Parva Barracks

  HMS Forest Moor

  HMS Forward

  HMS Osprey

  Holton Heath

  Merryfield Airfield, RNAS Yeovilton

  NATO Mooring and Support Depot, Fairlie by Largs

  Norton Manor Camp, Taunton

  Oakington Bks

  Ordnance Support Unit, Burscough

  Pembroke Dock

  RAF Cowden

  RAF Edzell

  RAF Greenham Common

  RAF Kemble

  RAF Macrihanish

  RAF Oakhanger

  RAF Quedgeley, Moreton and Stirling Lines

  RAF West Raynham

  RAF Wroughton

  RM Sites, Plymouth

  RMB Chivenor

  RN Sites, Plymouth

  RN Sites, Portsmouth

  Saighton Camp, Chester

  Shoeburyness (Army Site)

  St. Georges Bks, Gosport

  Support Engineering Facility, Exeter

  Waste Disposal Site, Gillingham

  Woodbridge (Army Site).

  Mozambique
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he received requests for help in disaster relief in Mozambique; what his response was; and what personnel and equipment have been provided. [112693]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) was approached by the Department for International Development (DfID) on Saturday 26 February as to the availability of British military equipment in and around Mozambique. We advised them that there were no military assets in the region. Since then we have been examining, in conjunction with DfID, options for the deployment of MOD personnel and equipment from beyond the immediate area. An MOD team was sent to the region on 29 February to carry out reconnaissance and planning work.

  As a result, on Wednesday 1 March we jointly announced a decision to provide four Puma helicopters and around 100 aircrew and support personnel to assist in the immediate rescue operation. We are continuing to work closely with DfID to determine what further help we can provide.

WALES

  Local Government Remuneration
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the First Minister on issuing guidance to(a) councillors, (b) council leaders and (c) elected mayors on future levels of remuneration. [104847]

  Mr. Hanson
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: My right hon. Friend has discussions on issues affecting Wales with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on a regular basis. The Secretary of State has had no discussions with the First Secretary on issuing guidance to councils on future levels of remuneration or allowances. The setting of members' allowances is a matter for individual councils.

  Under the present draft of the Local Government Bill, the National Assembly will have the power to make regulations to require councils in Wales to establish an independent panel to review councillors' allowances and pensions.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has initiated into child poverty in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [107419]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have not initiated any research into child poverty in Wales. However, the Government are committed to tackling poverty and social exclusion in the UK. The Government's Poverty Strategy Report "Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion" launched in September 1999 set out a concerted cross-Government drive to highlight the underlying cases of poverty and social exclusion.

  The National Assembly for Wales has set up a Social Exclusion Unit to look at poverty issues and will promote effective joint working to combat family poverty and social exclusion in Wales.

  In addition, the Joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty has agreed to future joint working between the UK Government and the devolved administrations to tackle poverty across the UK.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has made to the Lord Chancellor concerning the future of magistrates courts in rural areas and small townships in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [107422]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have made no such representations to the Lord Chancellor.

  The Government consider that magistrates courts are best managed locally by magistrates courts committees under the provision of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in Wales, whether rural or urban, are for the relevant magistrates courts committee to determine, in consultation with the paying authority or authorisations.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for(a) each local authority in Wales and

  331W
  (b) Wales as a whole the amount of revenue that will be raised from the uniform business rate in (1) 1990–2000 and (2) 2000–01. [112306]

  Mr. Hanson
  Estimated figures for the amount of revenue that will be raised from the uniform business rate in 1999–2000 are as follows:

  £000

  Isle of Anglesey

  7,517

  Gwynedd

  29,616

  Conwy

  17,027

  Denbighshire

  14,135

  Flintshire

  29,315

  Wrexham

  23,850

  Powys

  16,504

  Ceredigion

  8,144

  Pembrokeshire

  20,032

  Carmarthenshire

  22,331

  Swansea

  40,712

  Neath Port Talbot

  26,524

  Bridgend

  25,450

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  16,934

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  31,849

  Merthyr Tydfil

  8,505

  Caerphilly

  20,099

  Blaenau Gwent

  9,055

  Torfaen

  13,864

  Monmouthshire

  12,587

  Newport

  38,186

  Cardiff

  90,481

  Wales

  522,717

  Since July 1999 business rates in Wales have been the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington

  Indicative projection of 15 Year investment expenditure

  £million 1999–2000 prices

  Stations

  Lifts and escalators

  Trains

  Track

  Civil infrastructure

  Communications

  Management systems

  Signalling

  Total

  Bakerloo

  100

  50

  90

  60

  40

  10

  20

  20

  390

  Central, Waterloo and City

  220

  90

  100

  160

  100

  30

  10

  70

  780

  Victoria

  220

  30

  250

  90

  40

  10

  10

  250

  900

  Northern1

  320

  70

  —

  180

  40

  10

  20

  310

  950

  Jubilee2

  80

  50

  —

  40

  60

  20

  20

  10

  280

  Piccadilly

  220

  50

  500

  180

  50

  20

  20

  150

  1,190

  Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith and city

  330

  20

  590

  210

  170

  40

  10

  330

  1,700

  District

  210

  20

  250

  130

  100

  30

  10

  220

  970

  East London3

  50

  —

  —

  10

  130

  —

  10

  —

  200

  1 Northern Line train investment costs are contracted for under a separate PFI scheme and are excluded from these figures.

  2 Excludes operating and maintenance costs for the Jubilee Line Extension project.

  3 Excludes costs from potential project for extending East London Line.

  Aircraft Near-misses
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out
  332W
  (Mr. Brake), of 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 524W, what comparators he used to calculate the PPP infrastructure companies' estimated efficiency improvement of 20 per cent. [115921

  Mr. Hill
  The briefing note PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) published in December 1999 assumed that under the Public Private Partnership for London Underground the private sector infrastructure companies will bring efficiency improvements of 20 per cent. The PwC note, which has been placed in the House Library, sets out the basis for assuming this level of efficiency savings, which is in line with the experience of other industries where the financing and management of infrastructure programmes has been transferred to the private sector.

  Since the PwC briefing note was published, Arthur Andersen and the London School of Economics have completed a report for the Treasury Taskforce called "Value for Money Drivers in the Private Finance Initiative". This shows the PFIs of all types are, on average, delivering efficiency savings of 17 per cent.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 521W, covering investment in London Underground, if he will list the specific projects envisaged, indicating the estimated cost of each. [111591]

  Mr. Hill
  Under the terms of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) for London Underground, infrastructure companies will be required to implement a combination of specific projects and performance enhancements specified in output terms. The PPP will not, therefore, in general specify particular amounts of money to be spent, nor particular works to be carried out. It will be for bidders to decide what they have to do to meet the performance specification for each infrastructure company.

  However, when the PPP competition was launched in June 1999 London Underground published a briefing document containing estimates of how much they then believed it would cost over the first 15 years to implement the performance regime under development for the PPP. This was broken down as follows:

  the definition of a near miss between aircraft; how many such incidents have taken place at Heathrow in the past three years; and how many of those incidents occurred within three miles of Wargrave in Berkshire. [111259]
  333W
  Mr. Mullin
  The definition of a near miss (or Airprox) applied by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is a situation in which, in the opinion of a pilot or controller, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised.

  In the last three years (1997–99) there were four reported Airproxes in the London Heathrow (LHR) Zone, an area 24 nautical miles (nm) East-West by 16 nm North-South, centred on Heathrow. Wargrave does not lie in the LHR Zone but in the same period there were two reported Airproxes within a circle radius 3 nm centred on the town.

  Euro
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been spent to date by his Department and by bodies funded by his Department in connection with the National Changeover Plan; on what headings this money has been spent; and how much his Department plans to spend on implementing the plan over the next 12 months. [112145]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 29 February 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 29 February 2000, Official Report, column 233W.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list, for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, the total amount NATS has(a) borrowed from and (b) repaid to the Civil Aviation Authority and HM Treasury and (c) the total amount of capital investment made by NATS; [112393]

  (2) what profits NATS has made in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [112392]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: NATS was incorporated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Civil Aviation Authority on 1 April 1996—figures are not available for NATS as a separate entity before that time. The relevant figures for NATS for financial years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 are as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Profits after interest and tax

  13.7

  14.7

  30.9

  Borrowed from CAA

  0

  2.1

  12.0

  Repaid to CAA

  31.3

  28.2

  67.9

  Capital Investment

  56.5

  42.7

  35.7

  Profits in 1998–99 were up due to higher than expected levels of traffic, and a reduction in NATS" operating costs. Borrowing repayments increased in order to allow NATS to carry increased funds forward to 1999–2000, to prepare for the higher levels of capital expenditure on the New Scottish Centre expected in that year. Profits in 1998–99 were up due to higher than expected levels of traffic, and a reduction in NATS' operating costs. Borrowing repayments increased in order to allow NATS
  334W
  to carry increased funds forward to 1999–2000, to prepare for the higher levels of capital expenditure on the New Scottish Centre expected in that year.

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112661]

  Ms Armstrong
  The annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" provides information on public bodies. The 1997 edition lists those bodies in existence prior to May 1997, and the 1998 and 1999 editions list bodies in existence in subsequent years. Copies of "Public Bodies" have been placed in the Library of the House. They are also available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet—office.gov.uk/quange).

  Marine Accidents Investigation Branch
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the staff and funding of the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch; and if he will make a statement. [111824]

  Mr. Hill
  The staffing and funding requirements of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch are kept under constant review.

  Three additional staff were recruited in 1999—one accident investigator and two administrative staff. A further accident investigator has been recruited this year and is expected to be in post within the next few months. Another investigator may be recruited later in the year for one year to assist with Lord Justice Clarke's inquiries into the Marchioness disaster.

  London Mayor
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost to public funds is of the leaflet "Your questions answered about electing a Mayor and Assembly for London"; how many copies of the leaflet(a) have been and (b) will be printed; how the leaflet will be distributed; and at what cost to public funds. [112490]

  Mr. Hill
  Six million copies of the leaflet have been printed. They are available in nine languages, including English, as well as in braille, large print and on audio cassette. Just over three million leaflets are being distributed to households in London. Two million are being distributed to customers involved in transactions with Post Office Counters in London. The rest are being distributed through local authorities, voluntary bodies and in response to requests for information through a telephone help line and a website. The total cost of printing, translating and distributing the leaflets through the Post Office's commercial direct mail service is estimated to be £475,000.

  Flooding, Melton
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Melton Borough Council
  335W
  under the Bellwin Scheme in respect of costs incurred following flooding in the area on 25 December 1998 and 16 January 1999. [113149]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in this case given the exceptional circumstances. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant has generally been paid to authorities at a rate of 85 per cent. of their eligible expenditure above a threshold. However, a Bellwin scheme was activated for Melton as a result of the 1998 Easter floods. Since Melton have already spent over their threshold for 1998–99 in dealing with that emergency, it seems reasonable that they should not have to do so in dealing with further incidents in the same financial year. I therefore propose to waive the threshold.

  Trains
  Mr. Leslie
  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 175 trains to be introduced into service by First North Western Trains Ltd. in respect of any of the provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998; and if he will make a statement. [1132841

  Mr. Hill
  As my predecessor explained in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 167W, we are expecting to receive a number of exemption applications from train and tram operating companies whose designs for new rail vehicles were well advanced prior to the 1998 Regulations coming into force.

  We have received an application from First North Western Trains Ltd. relating to the new Class 175 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 trams has been laid in Parliament today. Copies are available from the Library.

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

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Judicial Review (DPP)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General in how many instances in the past three years decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions have been subject to judicial review; what the outcome was in each instance; and in what percentage of reviews the original decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been upheld. [111947]

  The Solicitor-General
  The information requested is not collated centrally. The table shows the information for the last three years (i.e. 1997–99) which has been collated from various sources and is the best available information at present. Percentages may not give an accurate picture as such small numbers are involved but, where leave for 336W
  judicial review was granted, the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions was fully upheld in 56 per cent. of the cases and partly upheld in 6 per cent. of cases.

  Year

  Number of DPP's decisions subject to judicial review

  Outcome

  1997

  6

  3 applications dismissed

  2 applications allowed

  1 application withdrawn

  1998

  2

  2 applications allowed

  1999

  8

  1 application allowed

  6 applications dismissed

  1 application dismissed in part

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General in how many instances in the past three years decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions have been subject to judicial review; what the outcome was in each instance; and in what percentage of reviews the original decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been upheld. [111943]

  The Solicitor-General
  During the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, four applications have been made for judicial review of decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in connection with his functions under the Prosecutions of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. In one case, the application for review was dismissed after a full hearing. In two cases, the application was withdrawn following upon correspondence between the parties. In one case, leave to apply has been granted pending a full hearing. The percentage of reviews where the original decision of the Director has been upheld by the Divisional Court in the three years considered is 100 per cent.

  A decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland not to prosecute a case was successfully challenged by judicial review in 1996. Although the court gave an oral judgment in December 1996 quashing the Director's decision, a written judgment was not handed down until February 1998.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement concerning the Crown Prosecution Service as prosecuting authority and the case of Senator Pinochet. [106948]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service as prosecuting authority for England and Wales has advised the Metropolitan Police Service that the material provided by the Kingdom of Spain for the purposes of the extradition proceedings would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution in England and Wales and could not be put into admissible form without a full police investigation. On the material presently available to the CPS, therefore, there is no realistic prospect in this jurisdiction of convicting Senator Pinochet of any criminal offence.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has also advised the Metropolitan Police Service that, in view of the independent medical report on Senator Pinochet commissioned by the Home Secretary and taking into

  337W
  account representations made to the Home Secretary concerning the reports, no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place, whatever the evidence.

  The CPS advised the police further that the allegations contained in the Swiss, both French and both Belgian requests did not disclose offences which could be tried here since the conduct alleged in each of the requests occurred before the relevant legislation came into force.

  I was consulted about this matter by the DPP and agree with these conclusions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Union Recognition
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding the adequacy of the consultation period for statutory trade union recognition. [111530]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have received no representations on this matter.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to provide a network of support for those businesses which trade on the internet. [111553]

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures he intends to take to assist small businesses to take advantage of e-commerce. [111556]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have established a network of 100 support centres throughout the UK under the Information Society Initiative (ISI) at which businesses can get impartial, jargon-free advice and support. In England, these Centres will be fully integrated into the new Small Business Service.

  We have also worked with the digital content sector—which includes many key service and content providers for e-commerce based businesses—to agree with them an Action Plan for Growth. This was published on 29 February and copies are available in the Library of the House. We are now working in partnership with the newly formed Digital Content Forum to take forward the Plan's proposals.

  Beyond this, work is under way to develop a new, industry led mentoring scheme for internet based start-ups, building on recommendations in the Performance and Innovation Unit's report e-commerce@its.best.uk.

  Mineworkers Pension Funds
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the use of surpluses from the mineworkers pension funds. [111554]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Surpluses in the coal pension schemes (The Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme) are split 50/50 between the membership of the schemes and the Government in our role as guarantor to the schemes.
  338W
  In accordance with Coal Industry Act 1994 (Sch.5, paragraph 2(10)), all surpluses received by the Secretary of State must be paid into the Consolidated Fund. However, under Government Accounting rules, receipts can be used to offset related expenditure by the Department concerned. In this case, the Treasury has agreed that DTI may, for the present, retain pension fund receipts to help offset expenditure on liabilities inherited from British Coal.

  Family-friendly Employment Policies
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making on encouraging businesses to adopt family-friendly employment policies. [111557]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will shortly be announcing details of the Government's campaign to promote good practice that both benefits the business and enables employees to balance work and the rest of their lives better. It will be delivered in partnership with leading employers and others.

  The campaign will build on the framework of rights to maternity leave, parental leave and emergency time off which came into force last December.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy that the purchasing power of the national minimum wage including the 10p increase recently announced is maintained in future. [111559]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have always made clear that there should be no automatic mechanism for making changes to the national minimum wage rate.

  We have asked the independent Low Pay Commission to continue monitoring the minimum wage and to examine the case for an increase.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate how many 21-year-olds would be entitled to the full minimum wage if they were treated as adults rather than young people; what estimate he has made of the impact of such a change(a) nationwide and (b) in the constituency of Hereford; and if he will make a statement. [112430]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The total number of 21-year-olds entitled to the national minimum wage is, according to Autumn 1999 Labour Force Survey figures, around 440,000. Of these fewer than 20,000 would benefit from being entitled to the full national minimum wage rate rather than the rate for young people, according to the Low Pay Commission's estimate, which covers Great Britain. There are no figures available for individual constituencies.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the Government's detailed response to the Low Pay Commission's report, placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament on 22 February 2000, which explains the Government's position on 21-year-old workers and the national minimum wage.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure safety at nuclear installations. [111560]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The primary responsibility for ensuring safety at nuclear licensed sites falls to the licensee. Safety is independently monitored and regulated by the Health and Safety Executive's Installations Inspectorate.

  Both for licensees and for Ministers, safety at nuclear installations is the top priority. In particular, in their capacity as shareholder of BNFL and sponsor of UKAEA, Ministers make it clear they expect licensees to respond in a constructive and timely way to any regulator concerns.

  Hi-tech Electronics Firms (South Devon)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist the development of a centre for high technology electronics firms in South Devon; and if he will make a statement. [111561]

  Ms Hewitt
  Although I am not aware of a proposal for such a development, my Department, through the Government Office for the South West, stands ready to advise on assistance that may be available, for example, through the Enterprise Fund.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's consultation on its proposals to extend the rights of part-time workers. [111565]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The consultation on part-time work began on 17 January and ended on 27 February. We will now be looking closely at the responses before taking the next steps in implementation of the Directive.

  Design and Innovation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet chairmen of the regional development agencies to discuss their role in encouraging higher levels of investment in design and innovation. [111566]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State met Regional Development Agency Chairmen on 13 December 1999. He has no immediate plans for further meetings. However, I meet with them regularly to discuss a broad range of economic development issues, including both investment and innovation.

  Consumer Protection
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account he takes of the interests of consumers in forming his Department's policies. [111567]

  Dr. Howells
  Our White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" set out how we would bring the interests of consumers to the heart of government. We recognise that well-informed, empowered consumers are good for business. They help promote innovation and stimulate better value. Our policies reflect this important role of consumers in a modern economy.

  Technology-based Companies
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to extend the availability of venture capital for technology-based companies. [111568]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have created a £180 million Enterprise Fund to address the difficulties growth businesses face in accessing appropriate finance. This Fund will complement existing market provision, using public resources to partner private sector funds to address acknowledged gaps in the market.

  An integral part of the Enterprise Fund is the UK High Technology Fund. The Fund will raise some £105 million from the private sector alongside some £20 million of Government money to invest in the United Kingdom's early stage high technology businesses.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 10 November last year that Westport Private Equity Ltd. had been appointed to manage the UK High Technology Fund.

  The Fund Manager has already secured over £50 million of private sector investment alongside the Government's investment of £20 million.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the future of the sub-post office network in Britain. [111569]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are fully committed to a nationwide network of post offices, and are contributing nearly £500 million towards the cost of equipping the network with a modern, automated, online IT platform. This system, which will be installed at nearly 40,000 counter positions in some 18,000 post offices throughout the country, will enable the Post Office to improve its services to existing clients and to take advantage of new business opportunities in the marketplace. Under the provisions of the Post Office Reform Bill, the Postal Services Commission, assisted by the Post Office Users National Council will monitor developments in the network of post offices against published access criteria. In addition, the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office is carrying out a study to identify the contribution made by post offices to the vitality of local communities, and to consider how the network can best contribute to the Government's objectives for the future.

  Competition Policy
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding the conduct of competition policy. [111550]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State and I receive a number of representations covering a variety of competition policy matters.

  Single European Currency
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has
  341W
  had with representation of business and commerce on the cost of replacing the pound with the single European currency. [111552]

  Mr. Byers
  I have regular meetings with business representatives to discuss a range of issues including the single currency.

  Labour Market Reforms
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on business competitiveness of labour market reforms introduced since May 1997. [111558]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government's labour market policies help people into work and provide additional flexibility and security for those in work. These policies are good for individuals, good for business and good for the economy as a whole. Employment is at its highest ever level. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 20 years. Decent minimum employment standards promote employee commitment, reduce absenteeism and staff turnover and increase incentives for individuals and employers to invest in training and lifelong learning.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to assist the textile sector. [111562]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The DTI is currently funding around 30 projects to encourage the growth and competitiveness of the UK textiles and clothing industry. These projects cover research into product innovation and development, design, education and training, benchmarking and the development of supply chain partnerships.

  On a national level, my Department has been actively involved in an industry led-group, the Textile and Clothing Strategy Group (TCSG), which has been established in direct response to concerns from the industry about its future. A draft report containing several recommendations aimed at helping safeguard the future of the sector has recently been produced by the Group and is currently out for consultation among the industry.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the Government's response to the recent consultation exercise upon the future for renewable energy. [101071]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) on 1 February 2000, Official Report, column 536–37W.

  Clean Development Mechanism
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential for increased British exports under the Clean Development Mechanism of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. [112067]
  342W
  Ms Hewitt
  The UK Government fully support the aims of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): to help achieve sustainable development and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We wish to see the CDM operate in a way that fully encourages business involvement to help achieve these goals.

  It is too early usefully to quantify the effect of CDM activity on UK exports, since the rules for its operation will not be agreed until the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Sixth Conference of the Parties in November 2000.

  However, we are already promoting business awareness of the CDM through, for example, our work with the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment (ACBE) and a joint DTI-DETR website and named contact points. Furthermore, British Trade International are appointing an Export Promoter for Energy and the Environment, who will work closely with the Power Sector Working Group and with two existing renewable energy Export Promoters, to raise awareness of, and developing, export opportunities arising from the Kyoto provisions.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he or officials of his Department have received from representatives of the British or foreign nuclear industry concerning the eligibility of nuclear power projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. [112068]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has received representations from a number of organisations, including representatives of the British nuclear industry, about the eligibility of nuclear power projects for the Clean Development Mechanism and has noted their concerns. Neither I, nor my officials, have received any representations from representatives of foreign nuclear industry.

  Objective 2
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes were made in the draft map of authorities designated for Objective 2 status, including internal ward changes, prior to publication of the final map; and how such changes were made. [111920]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government made some small changes in England and some in Scotland to the UK Objective 2 proposals which were submitted to the Commission on 8 October. The changes set out below were made following discussions with the European Commission, in order to meet the requirements of the Structural Fund Regulation on statistical data and size of each proposed area. The changes were made with the agreement of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for England, and of the Scottish Executive for Scotland.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if ECGD support has been(a) discussed, (b) requested and (c) granted for any projects of the South East Anatolia Development Project in Turkey other than the Ilisu Dam. [112329]
  343W
  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD support has not been granted for any project in the South East Anatolia Development Project, including Ilisu.

  There are no current applications for projects in the South East Anatolia Development Project other than Ilisu and the wastewater treatment plant at Diyarbakir.

  An informal preliminary inquiry was received in 1999 regarding a possible application for a subcontract on the Cizre project; no application has been received.

  Because applications/records of discussions which do not result in a guarantee are kept for only a limited time after the exporter has advised that they may be closed, it is not possible to state definitively that no discussions were held, or requests for cover received, in the early years of the South East Anatolia Development Project.

  Euro
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent by his Department to date in connection with the National Changeover Plan; on what headings this money has been spent; and how much his Department plans to spend on implementing the plan over the next 12 months; and what steps his Department has taken to encourage businesses to make preparations for the introduction of the euro. [112149]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 29 February 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer which the Economic Secretary gave to him on 29 February 2000, Official Report, column 233W.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export credit support is(a) currently allocated and (b) under consideration, in respect of arms export decisions. [112411]

  Mr. Caborn
  As at the end of January 2000, guarantees in respect of defence-related exports accounted for £3,875 million of ECGD's amounts at risk, representing 22.3 per cent. of ECGD's total amounts at risk.

  Information relating to business under consideration is commercial in confidence.

  Zero Hours Contracts
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on(a) his Department's policy in respect of the House of Lords decision in the case of Carmichael and another v. National Power and (b) zero hours contracts. [112675]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The House of Lords decided the case of "Carmichael and another v. National Power" in the light of its own particular facts. Whether a particular contract between a worker and a work provider is one of service or for services, or some other type, remains a common law question of mixed fact and law to be assessed on a case by case basis.

  The Government consider that zero hours contracts can contribute to the flexibility necessary for a modern labour market, provided there are mutual benefits for employers and employees. The National Minimum Wage and the Working Time Regulations have significantly reduced
  344W
  the scope for abuse of zero hours contracts, as will the regulations implementing the Part Time Work Directive when they come into force.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. [111539]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme is a very successful scheme which, since its introduction in 1981, has guaranteed over 70,000 loans valued at around £2.5 billion.

  It is now one of the Component parts of the new Enterprise Fund and continues to play an important role in the Government's support for small businesses.

  Shipbuilding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters he discussed relating to domestic and international shipbuilding markets at his last meeting with representatives of management and trade unions in the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry. [111542]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  On 13 October 1998, I attended the most recent meeting of the Shipbuilding Forum which comprises representatives of management and trade unionists in the shipbuilding industry, its suppliers and customers, as well as key Government Departments. At the Forum, I discussed a wide range of topics including the domestic and international ship market, UK competitiveness, productivity and employment, improvements the Department had made to the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund and the Home Shipbuilding Credit Guarantee Scheme and individual prospective orders. I also received reports on the projects which my Department is supporting to enhance the competitiveness of the industry.

  Since that formal meeting, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had other meetings with industry representatives&management and unions&as well as interested hon. Members. Again, discussion has included the wide range of topics I have just outlined.

TREASURY

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 28 February; and if he will make a statement. [111885]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  The Council agreed to publish the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) Report of 23 November.

  The UK and Danish Convergence programmes and the Stability programmes of Italy, Germany, Belgium and Spain were agreed. The UK Convergence programme was commended. The Council thought it appropriate that the programme stresses the securing of macro-economic stability supported by a sound budgetary position and

  345W
  continued structural reform. The Council noted that the monetary framework of inflation targeting has been an important condition for securing low inflation expectations. The Council further noted that the UK convergence programme was fully in line with the Broad Economic Guidelines.

  Discussion on the Broad Economic Guidelines and the Lisbon European Council showed general agreement on the need to push ahead with structural reforms, particularly in the labour market. The Chancellor's proposal to include timetables and benchmarking in Lisbon conclusions received wide support.

  The Commission presented their report on the Functioning of Product and Capital Markets (the Cardiff Process). The Presidency concluded that this report was an important contribution to the Lisbon European Council.

  Bio-diesel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on tax revenue of giving bio-diesel produced through recycling waste edible oils parity with fossil-based low petroleum gas; and if he will make a statement. [112452]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: A reduction of duty on bio-diesel produced through recycling waste edible oils, from the current diesel duty rate to the rate applicable to road fuel gas, would cost £35 million in a full year if 90,000,000 litres were to be produced. This is the maximum estimated UK production capacity, and does not take account of any possible imports. There is little information available to support the case for a duty reduction to the same level as road fuel gas.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1978 the number of women who have exercised their right for the married women's option in national insurance. [112162]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of women in Great Britain who paid class 1 National Insurance Contributions at the reduced rate for each year since 1978–89 are given in Table 11 of "Contributions and Qualifying Years for Retirement Pension 1995/96—Volume 2", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Employment Trends
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in work have been with their present employer for(a) three, (b) four, (c) five and (d) six or more years. [112153]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Frank Field, dated 2 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the length of time people have been with their present employer. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  346W
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the ONS's major source of labour market data on individuals. Estimates from the LFS of the number of employees who had worked for their current employer for three, four, five or six or more years are given in the table below. The figures are for the United Kingdom and for the autumn (September to November) 1999 quarter, and are not seasonally adjusted.

  Length of time employees had worked for their current employer UK, autumn 1999, not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  Less than 3 years

  10,066

  3 years, but less than 4

  1,616

  4 years, but less than 5

  1,283

  5 years, but less than 6

  1,117

  6 or more years

  10,002

  All employees1

  24,144

  1 Includes some employees who did not state how long they had worked for their current employer

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey

  Earnings
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the (i) number and (ii) proportion of people in work who were below the(a) lower earnings limit and (b) the tax threshold for each of the last 30 years. [112154]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 2 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the people earning below the lower earnings limit and the tax threshold for the last thirty years.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the ONS's major source of labour market data on individuals. It can provide information on the earnings of employees and the number and proportion of employees earning below (a) the lower earnings limit for National Insurance contributions and (b) the tax threshold. This information is given in the attached table.
  The LFS provides fuller coverage of people on low pay than another major source of earnings data, the New Earnings Survey (NES), and is the most appropriate source of data to answer this question. However, data on earnings in the LFS are only available from the winter (December to February) 1992/3 quarter onwards. The table gives data for autumn (September to November) quarters from 1992 to 1999. The data are for Great Britain and are not seasonally adjusted.

  Employees with gross weekly earnings1 below the National Insurance lower earnings limit and the tax threshold Great Britain, autumn quarters 1993 to 1999, not seasonally adjusted

  Autumn quarters

  Weekly limit (£)

  Thousands

  Proportion of all employees2

  National Insurance lower earnings limit

  1993

  56

  2,340

  10.9

  1994

  57

  2,191

  10.2

  1995

  58

  2,265

  10.3

  1996

  61

  2,490

  11.2

  1997

  62

  2,449

  10.8

  1998

  64

  2,375

  10.2

  1999

  66

  2,210

  9.4

  347W

  Employees with gross weekly earnings1 below the National Insurance lower earnings limit and the tax threshold Great Britain, autumn quarters 1993 to 1999, not seasonally adjusted

  Autumn quarters

  Weekly limit (£)

  Thousands

  Proportion of all employees2

  Tax threshold3

  1993

  66

  2,782

  13.0

  1994

  66

  2,668

  12.4

  1995

  68

  2,753

  12.6

  1996

  72

  2,954

  13.2

  1997

  78

  3,143

  13.8

  1998

  81

  3,172

  13.7

  1999

  83

  2,947

  12.6

  1 LFS earnings are based on those employees earning less than £100 per hour

  2 Bases for calculation of percentages exclude employees who did not give a valid response regarding their hourly or weekly earnings

  3 Single persons tax threshold

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers and proportions for full-time men and women workers who earned below two-thirds of average earnings for each of the last 30 years. [112157]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Frank Field, dated 2 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question regarding earnings of full-time male and female employees. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) is based on a one per cent. sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold, and in particular those who work part-time. Below is a table showing the requested information from the 1986 to 1999 New Earnings Surveys. This information is not available from 1970 to 1985.
  We are only able to give percentages earning below specific thresholds, rather than numbers, because appropriate grossing factors for the NES sample are not available.

  New Earnings Survey, April of each year (GB)

  Full-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence. Percentage earning less than two-thirds of average gross weekly earnings

  Males

  Females

  1986

  23.0

  19.6

  1987

  24.4

  20.8

  1988

  25.7

  22.8

  1989

  26.1

  23.7

  1990

  26.4

  24.0

  1991

  27.2

  23.8

  1992

  27.5

  24.8

  1993

  28.4

  25.3

  1994

  29.0

  25.4

  1995

  29.2

  25.5

  1996

  29.8

  25.7

  1997

  29.5

  25.7

  1998

  30.4

  26.1

  1999

  30.3

  26.7

  Income Trends
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the proportions of income from work, social security and dividends, which make up total income; and if he will list the equivalent data for(a) 10, (b) 20 and (c) 30 years previously. [112161]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 2 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on proportions of income from work, social security and dividends.
  The information available from the Family Expenditure Survey shows the proportions of income deriving from work, social security and investments as follows.

  Proportion of gross income

  Percentage

  Source of income

  1968

  1978

  1988

  1998–99

  Wages and salaries (including self-employment)

  84

  80

  77

  76

  Social security benefits

  9

  12

  12

  12

  Investments

  3

  3

  5

  4

  Note:

  The balance is made up of annuities and pensions, and other sources.

  Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability.

SCOTLAND

  Murder Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), of 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 743W, on murder statistics, if the entry in the table for 1996 includes the murders committed at Dunblane. [112165]

  Dr. Reid
  Yes. The entry for 1996 includes the 17 victims who were murdered at Dunblane.

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in the last five years, what proportion of women employees in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies under the control of his Department,(a) returned to work after childbirth; (b) returned to work after childbirth before the end of maternity leave, indicating the (1) time-range and (2) mean time, (c) returned to work after childbirth on reduced working hours, indicating the average hours worked and (d) returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours. [109236]

  Dr. Reid
  The Civil Service as a whole is striving for an improved balance between work and family life. I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office has provided my hon. Friend with some information in respect of the family friendly policies being developed as part of the Civil Service Reform programme. My own Department
  349W
  follows the arrangements of the former Scottish Office. Wherever possible, we try to accommodate the wishes of those who take or return from maternity leave. This includes arrangements for alternative work patterns. However, I am afraid that detailed information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister has responsibility for policy on(a) drug misuse and schools and (b) drug misuse and young people. [112382]

  The Prime Minister
  A number of Government Departments have interests and policy responsibilities for drug misuse and young people, principally the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. Work across Government is co-ordinated by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, advised by the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he has visited the United States since 25 April 1999; and on which of these occasions he met President Clinton. [112334]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not visited the United States since April 1999.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates since 3 September 1998 President Clinton has visited Britain to meet him. [112333]

  The Prime Minister
  President Clinton has not visited the United Kingdom since September 1998.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit; and if he will make a statement. [113147]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) to undertake a further project looking at effective leadership in delivering public services.

  The project will look across the public sector and at international and private sector organisations. It will consider the needs of public sector leadership in the future; carry out an audit of the extent to which current activity aimed at developing leaders can be expected to meet those needs; make recommendations on the action needed across the public sector to get good leaders into place and enable them to operate effectively; and identify practical ways of increasing the diversity of public sector leadership.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is the Sponsor Minister.

  The PIU aim to complete the project work in the summer.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will answer the questions on Millennium Dome attendance and ministerial responsibility tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for answer on 17 January. [108039]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 21 February 2000, Official Report, column 800W, and 28 February 2000, Official Report, column 84W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what requirement there was that all foods sold meet the standards required of domestic producers in the contracts with the operators of catering outlets that operate in and around the Millennium Dome at Greenwich. [110506]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 February 2000, Official Report, column 237W.

  Free Television Licences (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many families in Alyn and Deeside will benefit from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [111293]

  Janet Anderson
  This information is not available. 1991 Census information is out of date and no household survey has a sample size sufficient to make reliable estimates of qualifying households at a constituency or local authority level.

  Tourism Summit
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will publish the list of invitees to the Tourism Summit; [112080]

  (2) which Ministers will be attending the Tourism Summit; [112087]

  (3) how many invitations to the Tourism Summit have been issued; and how many (a) acceptances, and (b) refusals have been returned. [112078]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: All Members of the EA Cabinet Committee and the Foreign Secretary were invited to nominate a Minister to attend the Summit. Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh devolved Administrations and from the Northern Ireland Assembly were also invited. Further invitations were also issued to Lord Haskins and Teresa Graham, Chairman and Deputy Chair of the Better Regulation Task Force, to David Quarmby, the Chairman of the British Tourist Authority; Alan Britten, Chairman of the English Tourism Council; Sir Ron Watson, Chairman of the Tourism Executive at the Local Government Association and Bob Cotton, the Chief Executive of the British Hospitality Association.

  The following Ministers accepted invitations to the Summit which I chaired: Patricia Hewitt MP, DTI; Beverley Hughes MP, DETR; Tessa Jowell MP, DfEE;

  351W
  Mike O'Brien MP, Home Office; Patricia Scotland, FCO; Stephen Timms MP, Financial Secretary, HM Treasury; Joyce Quin MP, MAFF; and Alasdair Morrison MSP.

  Lord Haskins, Teresa Graham, David Quarmby, Alan Britten, Sir Ron Watson, and Bob Cotton also attended.

  A number of officials were also present.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total cost of providing and administering free television licences for over 75-year-olds, for each of the first five years of the scheme. [112164]

  Janet Anderson
  Estimates of £117 million in 2000–01 and £283 million in 2001–02 formed part of the pre-Budget Report. Updated estimates are being prepared and will be incorporated in the Department of Social Security's Departmental Report which is due for publication following the Budget. These are likely to be higher than the earlier estimates as a result of the final structure of the scheme.

  Free Television Licences (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many families in Wirral, South will benefit from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [110906]

  Janet Anderson
  This information is not available. 1991 Census information is out of date and no household survey has a sample size sufficient to make reliable estimates of qualifying households at a constituency or local authority level.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Industrial Injuries Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to reform the industrial injuries scheme in respect of self-employed workers; and if he will make a statement. [111589]

  (2) what recent (a) consultations he has conducted and (b) representations he has received concerning reforms of the industrial injuries scheme with respect to self-employed workers; and if he will make a statement. [111590]

  Mr. Bayley
  We continue to see a case for reforming the industrial injuries scheme to reflect better the needs of today's labour market and to improve incentives for prevention of work-related accidents and diseases, and incentives for rehabilitation back into work. Initial discussions with key stakeholders last year have confirmed our belief that there is scope for reform. However, much work remains to be done to decide the best way forward. Against the background of the current major programme of reform to other parts of the Social Security system, the work cannot be completed quickly.

  The basis of the current scheme is that Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit is payable to employed earners who suffer a loss of faculty through an industrial
  352W
  accident or disease, and that those who undertake self-employment do so knowing that provision against industrial injury is their own responsibility.

  We have not conducted further consultation, nor received recent representations, about reform of the industrial injuries scheme with respect to self-employed workers.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a code of practice for use by the Child Support Agency of deduction from earnings orders for the enforcement of payment of child support arrears. [111778]

  Angela Eagle
  Deduction from earnings orders are an effective way of ensuring payment of child support where a non-resident parent chooses to pay in this way, or where other methods have failed.

  Guidance for Child Support Agency staff on the use of such orders is contained in volume 9 of the Child Support Guide, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the (i) numbers and (ii) percentages of single parents on(a) Income Support, (b) Income Support and the remainder of a Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit award, (c) Income Support and Housing Benefit, (d) Working Families Tax Credit and Housing Benefit, (e) Housing Benefit and (f) other benefits. [112167]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Single parents receiving various benefits, Great Britain at a point in time 1

  Number of claimants

  Percentage of single parents 2

  Benefit

  Income Support

  1,042,000

  65.1

  Income Support and Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit

  14,000

  0.9

  Income Support and Housing Benefit

  826,000

  51.6

  Working Families Tax Credit and Housing Benefit3

  151,000

  9.4

  Housing Benefit

  1,016,000

  63.5

  Other benefits

  Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance

  14,000

  0.9

  Widow's Benefit

  47,000

  2.9

  Family Credit

  405,000

  25.3

  Disability Working Allowance

  2,511

  0.2

  1 Numbers are given at a point in time. For all benefits except Widow's Benefit and Housing Benefit information is given at August 1999. Housing Benefit and benefit combinations with Housing Benefit are given at May 1998 (latest figures available), and Widow's Benefit is given at March 1999.

  2 Percentage of lone parents is based on the caseload, as a proportion of official best estimates of the lone parent population for 1996 (provisional).

  3 Housing Benefit with Working Families Tax Credit information is not yet available as the Housing Benefit data predates the introduction of WFTC. Figures represent Housing Benefit with Family Credit.

  Notes:

  1. There will be a significant overlap between recipients of some benefits as a claimant may be in receipt of more than one Social Security Benefit.

  353W

  2. Income Support, Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit, Widows Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance information is based on a 5 per cent. sample and is therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. Disability Working Allowance (DWA) figures are based on a 100 per cent. count of claims and are unrounded.

  4. Widows Benefit information is based on a 1 per cent. sample and is therefore subject to a degree of sampling error. Figures are for those widows resident in GB and overseas and are in thousands.

  5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand, except DWA where exact figures are quoted.

  6. Figures are based on all single parents with dependants, and not just those with a lone parent premium.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1999.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1999.

  3. Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1999.

  4. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  5. Official Best estimates of the lone parent population taken from Population Trends.

  6. Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries, taken on the second Thursday of May 1998.

  7. Pensioners Strategy Computer System, March 1999.

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average number of children in single parent families claiming income support/ supplementary benefit for each of the last 30 years. [112158]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Average number of children in supplementary benefit/income support lone parent families, 1969–99

  Year

  Average number of children

  1969

  1.95

  1970

  1.93

  1971

  1.97

  1972

  1.92

  1973

  n/a

  1974

  1.94

  1975

  1.90

  1976

  1.89

  1977

  1.85

  1978

  1.80

  1979

  1.76

  1980

  1.73

  1981

  1.68

  1982

  1.69

  1983

  1.66

  1984

  1.65

  1985

  n/a

  1986

  1.64

  1987

  1.65

  1988

  1.68

  1989

  1.65

  1990

  1.68

  1991

  1.68

  1992

  1.69

  1993

  1.70

  1994

  1.72

  1995

  1.73

  1996

  1.74

  1997

  1.76

  1998

  1.77

  1999 May

  1.78

  1999 November (latest)

  1.79

  Notes:

  1. Lone parents are classified as single claimants with dependants who are not receiving the disability or pensioner premium. Children are classified as aged 0–15 years.
  354W
  2. The average number of children per lone parent family, is based on the Income Support lone parent caseload as a proportion of the total number of children in such families.

  3. Average number of children figures have been rounded to 2 decimal places.

  4. All numbers are given at a point in time. For 1969–74 and 1977–79 the month was November, for 1975–76 and 1980–84 the month was December, for 1986 the month was February, and for 1987 to the present time the month was May.

  5. n/a = information not available.

  6. Supplementary Benefit was replaced by Income Support in 1988.

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, 1969 to 1993.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, 1994 to 1999.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of single parents were drawing income support or supplementary benefit in each of the last 30 years. [112166]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of lone parents receiving Supplementary Benefit/Income Support (IS), 1971–99

  Year

  Percentage of IS lone parents receiving benefit

  1971

  37

  1972

  n/a

  1973

  n/a

  1974

  n/a

  1975

  n/a

  1976

  40

  1977

  n/a

  1978

  39

  1979

  36

  1980

  36

  1981

  41

  1982

  45

  1983

  48

  1984

  52

  1985

  n/a

  1986

  57

  1987

  60

  1988

  64

  1989

  65

  1990

  64

  1991

  67

  1992

  70

  1993

  70

  1994

  69

  1995

  68

  1996

  66

  1997

  63

  1998

  60

  1999

  58

  19991

  58

  1 November (latest)

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are given at a point in time. For 1971–74 and 1977–79 the month was November, for 1975–76 and 1980–84 the month was December, for 1986 the month was February, and for 1987 to the present time the month was May.

  2. Lone parents are classified as single claimants with dependants who are not receiving the disability or pensioner premium.

  3. Sample sizes: 1971–76 Supplementary Pension cases 1 in 160 and Supplementary Benefit cases 1 in 40 1977–87 Supplementary Pension cases 1 in 200 and Supplementary Benefit cases 1 in 50 1988–92 1 in 100 1993–99 1 in 20.

  4. Supplementary Benefit was replaced by Income Support in 1988.

  5. "N/A' information not available.

  6. Population estimates upon which percentages have been based— official best estimates of the numbers of one parent families published in population trends—for the years 1995 and 1996 are provisional. These official best estimates are not available for 1983,

  355W
  1997 and subsequent years; the best estimate for 1982 has been used for the 1983 percentage and the provisional best estimate for 1996 used for subsequent years from 1996.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, 1971 to 1993.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, 1994 to 1999.

  Official Best Estimates from Population Trends.

  Lowest Income Decile
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentages of(a) pensioners, (b) households with children and (c) households without children who (i) are currently in the lowest income decile and (ii) were in that decile for 10, 20 and 30 years previously. [112160]

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

  Percentage of individuals in each family type in the bottom decile

  Including the self-employed

  Excluding the self-employed

  BHC

  AHC

  BHC

  AHC

  1979

  Pensioners

  22

  19

  23

  21

  Families with children

  9

  10

  9

  9

  Families without children

  5

  6

  5

  6

  1988–89

  Pensioners

  14

  8

  15

  9

  Families with children

  11

  12

  11

  12

  Families without children

  7

  8

  7

  9

  1997–98

  Pensioners

  11

  6

  12

  6

  Families with children

  12

  12

  11

  12

  Families without children

  8

  10

  7

  9

  Notes:

  1. Information is derived from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data sets. 1979 is the earliest year for which DSS statistics are available.

  2. Estimates for 1979 and 1988–89 are derived from the Family Expenditure Survey and relate to the United Kingdom. Estimates for 1997–98 are taken from the Family Resources Survey and relate to Great Britain. All estimates are subject to sampling error. Results for individual years are sensitive to the precise way in which household incomes are adjusted for household size and composition; the picture of changes over time is generally not sensitive to this.

  3. Individuals are classified by the family types in which they live. Pensioners are here defined as a single person is of State pension age or over, or a couple where the man is of State pension age or over. A child is defined as an individual aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18-year-old on a course up to and including 'A' levels or 'Highers' in Scotland.

  4. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs in line with HBAI conventions. Figures are also provided including and excluding the self-employed reflecting concerns over the accuracy of income information for the self-employed at the bottom of the income distribution. All figures for the bottom decile should be treated with caution; the bottom decile of reported incomes cannot safely be construed as the bottom decile of living standards.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the proportions of pensioners, unemployed, sick and disabled, single parents who compose the lowest decile in the distribution of income; and if he will list the equivalent data for 10, 20 and 30 years previously. [112330]
  356W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The composition of the lowest decile of the income distribution based on available households below average income (HBAI) data percentage of bottom decile whose family type/economic status is:

  Including the self-employed

  Excluding the self-employed

  BHC

  AHC

  BHC

  AHC

  1979

  Pensioners

  36

  31

  40

  36

  Head or spouse unemployed

  15

  16

  17

  17

  Sick and disabled

  8

  8

  8

  9

  Single with children

  9

  9

  10

  9

  1988–89

  Pensioners

  23

  14

  28

  17

  Head or spouse unemployed

  27

  30

  31

  35

  Sick and disabled

  6

  5

  7

  6

  Single with children

  9

  10

  11

  12

  1997–98

  Pensioners

  19

  9

  23

  11

  Head or spouse unemployed

  18

  23

  21

  27

  Sick and disabled

  5

  4

  5

  5

  Single with children

  13

  14

  15

  18

  Notes:

  1. Information is derived from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data sets. 1979 is the earliest year for which DSS statistics are available.

  2. Estimates for 1979 and 1988–89 are derived from the Family Expenditure Survey and relate to the United Kingdom. Estimates for 1997–98 are taken from the Family Resources Survey and relate to Great Britain. All estimates are subject to sampling error. Results for individual years are sensitive to the precise way in which household incomes are adjusted for household size and composition; the picture of changes over time is generally not sensitive to this.

  3. Individuals are classified by the family types in which they live and/or their economic status. Families may belong to more than one group. Pensioners are here defined as a single person who is of State pension age or over, or a couple where the man is of State pension age or over. A child is defined as an individual aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18-year-old on a course up to and including 'A' levels or 'Highers' in Scotland. The sick and disabled in this analysis are those in receipt of at least one of the following benefits relevant to the period: invalidity benefit, incapacity benefit, disability living allowance, disability working allowance; war disability pension, attendance allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefit, mobility allowance, severe disability allowance, statutory sick pay and sickness benefit.

  4. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs in line with HBAI conventions. Figures are also provided including and excluding the self-employed reflecting concerns over the accuracy of income information for the self-employed at the bottom of the income distribution. All figures for the bottom decile should be treated with caution; the bottom decile of reported incomes cannot safely be construed as the bottom decile of living standards.

  New Deal for Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many lone parents in(a) the target group and (ii) the non-target group who have gained employment under the New Deal for Lone Parents are now in receipt of Income Support and have no earnings; [112755]

  (2) have gained employment under the New Deal for Lone Parents; and how many of these have subsequently claimed Income Support. [112754]
  357W
  Angela Eagle
  From the national launch in October 1998 to December 1999, 20,400 lone parents from the target group and 14,800 lone parents from the non-target group have obtained jobs through NDLP.

  The number of those who obtained jobs through NDLP and subsequently claimed Income Support is not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the case of Senator Pinochet. [110637]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today decided that I will not order the extradition of Senator Pinochet to Spain. I made this decision under section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989. I have referred the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of a domestic prosecution, in accordance with Article 7 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I have also decided not to issue Authorities to Proceed in respect of the extradition requests from Switzerland, Belgium and France. Full reasons for my decisions are contained in the letters to the parties concerned from one of my officials as set out:

  Letter to the Spanish Ambassador:

  2. I am writing to inform you that the Secretary of State has this morning decided pursuant to section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989, to make no order for the return of Senator Pinochet to Spain. This letter sets out the Secretary of State's reasons. He reserves the right to expand on them should it become necessary to do so.

  The Secretary of State's approach to his decision

  3. On 14 April 1999, the Secretary of State issued an Authority to Proceed under section 7 of the Act on certain of the charges made in Spain's extradition request. On 8 October 1999, Senator Pinochet was committed by the Bow Street Magistrate on all charges covered by the Authority, to await the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether he should be extradited to Spain. A habeas corpus application was made on Senator Pinochet's behalf on 22 October 1999, which has not yet been heard.

  4. The Secretary of State is precluded by the Act from making an order for Senator Pinochet's extradition while his habeas corpus application is still pending. In the ordinary course, the Secretary of State would not make a decision to refuse such an order until all proceedings arising out of the habeas corpus application had been completed. However, he has a discretion to do so in appropriate cases and a duty to consider whether this is such a case. In approaching that discretion, he has proceeded on the basis that he should not at this stage decide against making an extradition order unless it is already clear that there is some decisive factor which would lead him to refuse such an order at the end of the day. The only factor militating against the extradition of Senator Pinochet which is potentially decisive at this stage is the state of his health, and in particular his mental fitness to stand trial.
  358W
  Representations

  5. On 11 January 2000, the Secretary of State informed those acting for Senator Pinochet and the Kingdom of Spain that he had commissioned a medical report on Senator Pinochet, which had been delivered to the Home Office on 6 February 2000. He informed them that the report indicated that Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial, and that no significant improvement to that position could be expected. Subject to representations to be received at the Home Office by 5 pm on Tuesday 18 January 1999, he said that he was minded to conclude that no purpose would be served by continuing the current extradition proceeding arising from the Spanish request. Similar letters were sent to representatives of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights organisations, which invited them to make such representations if they wished. A statement to the same effect was made to the press on 11 January 2000, and in the House of Commons on the following day.

  6. The Secretary of State has received representations from most of those who were expressly invited to make them, as well as from a large number of other parties. He has taken careful account of them. He has also taken account of the points in recent judicial review proceedings in the High Court. In addition, he has reminded himself of the representations which were made to him on the two occasions, in December 1998 and April 1999, when he considered whether an Authority to Proceed should issue under section 7 of the Act in respect of Spain's extradition request.

  7. On 15 February 2000, the High Court decided that the Secretary of State was bound to disclose copies of the medical report in confidence to the authorities of Spain, Belgium, France and Switzerland, all of whom have made requests for the extradition of Senator Pinochet. Copies of the report, together with certain ancillary material, were supplied to the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of Spain and to the embassies of Belgium, France and Switzerland later on the same day. They were invited to make any representation on the report by 5 pm on Tuesday 22 February 2000. Representations were received in response to this invitation from all four requesting states. In the case of Spain, Belgium and France these included opinions from medical practitioners about the material sent to them on Tuesday 15 February 2000. In addition, some other representations on the medical report have been received. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these representations and the opinions annexed to them, with the benefit of expert advice.

  Senator Pinochet's health

  8. At the time when the Secretary of State was considering his first and second Authorities to Proceed, he received representations and a certain amount of information about Senator Pinochet's state of health from his solicitors. The tenor of this material was that Senator Pinochet was in some respects frail, as was to be expected in a man of his age. It did not, however, suggest that he was either physically or mentally unfit to stand trial. The Secretary of State did not regard this information as justifying the refusal of either of the Authorities to Proceed which he then issued.

  9. The first sign that a serious problem about Senator Pinochet's health might be developing came on 6 October 1999, when, two days before judgment was given in

  359W
  the committal proceedings, the Bow Street Magistrate excused him from attending the judgment in person. This decision was based on evidence given to the court by the general practitioner attending Senator Pinochet.

  10. On 14 October 1999, shortly after the decision of the Magistrate to commit Senator Pinochet, the Secretary of State received through diplomatic channels representations from the Chilean Embassy, supported by medical reports, which suggested that there had been a recent and significant deterioration in Senator Pinochet's health. The Secretary of State did not regard this material as conclusive. It did, however, suggest the possibility that Senator Pinochet might be unfit to stand trial. He therefore decided to invite Senator Pinochet to submit to a medical examination by a team of clinicians appointed by him. The object was to obtain an independent, comprehensive and authoritative report on the relevant clinical facts. Senator Pinochet consented to undergo an examination, and the Secretary of State then selected, with the assistance of the Chief Medical Officer's advice, a team of clinicians to carry it out, having the required range of specialisations and no inappropriate personal interest in the case. They were:
  Sir John Grimley Evans FRCP, Professor of Clinical Geratology at the University of Oxford. He is a former Vice President of the Royal College of Physicians and serves on the World Health Organisation expert panel on the care of the elderly. The Chief Medical Officer identified him as probably the most respected individual in British geriatric medicine.
  Dr. Michael Denham MD, FRCP (Lond., Edin.), FRSA, Consultant Physician in Geriatric Medicine at Northwick Park Hospital, London. He is a former President of the British Geriatrics Society and the author of numerous papers on the care of the elderly.
  Professor Andrew Lees MD, FRCP, Professor of Neurology at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London. Professor Lees is a specialist in movement disorders and dementia. He is medical adviser to, and Co-Director of, the Parkinson's Disease Society.

  All three are independent practitioners of outstanding national and international reputation in their fields. On their advice and with the agreement of the Chief Medical Officer, Maria Wyke MA, PhD, Consultant Neuropsychologist, was added to the team. Professor Lees and Dr. Maria Wyke are fluent Spanish speakers.

  11. The clinicians were instructed to undertake the examinations and procedures which they judged desirable in order to provide the Home Secretary with a fully comprehensive report on the state of Senator Pinochet's health. In particular, they were asked to advise the Secretary of State whether, in their view, there were any aspects of Senator Pinochet's state of health which, separately or together, suggested that he was not then fit, or was likely to become unfit, to stand trial in Spain. They were told that the Secretary of State was particularly interested in Senator Pinochet's ability to follow a line of questioning, to recall events, some of which took place as long ago as the 1970s, and to give coherent evidence. To the extent that any of the contents of their report were influenced by observation of Senator Pinochet's conduct and manner, they were asked to advise the Secretary of State on the extent to which that conduct and manner were capable of being consciously influenced by the Senator himself.
  360W
  12. It should be pointed out that the clinicians were not expected, in reaching their conclusions, to take responsibility for the legal test of fitness for trial, nor does the Secretary of State consider them to have done so. Their function was to ascertain the clinical facts. The test of fitness for trial which has been applied, both in framing their instructions and in assessing their report, is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who in turn has drawn extensively upon the opinions of his legal advisers.

  13. The medical examination was conducted in Spanish at the Northwick Park Hospital in London over a period of some six hours on 5 January 2000, and the report was delivered to the Home Office on the following day. Certain information supplementing the report was supplied afterwards. This comprised (i) a short account of the procedures followed at the examination, which was supplied by Professor Grimley Evans on 7 January 2000; (ii) a copy of the neuropsychological report of Dr. Wyke, which had been summarised in the principal report but not annexed to it; and (iii) an explanation of neuropsychological testing by way of introduction to Dr. Wyke's report. This material was supplied to the four requesting states with the principal report on 15 February 2000. In addition, the Secretary of State has referred to Professor Grimley Evans and his colleagues the representations received on their report, and medical opinions annexed to those representations, and he has received their comments.

  14. As the Secretary of State disclosed in his announcements on 11 and 12 January 2000, the conclusions of the medical report indicated that Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvement to that position could be expected. The Secretary of State has considered the matter afresh in the light of all the material referred to in the preceding paragraph, and in the light of representations which he has received on the subject. Having done so, he is satisfied that the conclusions of the original report were correct and that it is right to regard Senator Pinochet as unfit to stand trial.

  15. The critical facts are as follows:

  (1) Senator Pinochet was born on 25 November 1915. He is 84 years old. The Secretary of State does not regard Senator Pinochet's age as being in itself a sufficient basis for his present decision. But he has taken account of it in assessing the significance of other aspects of his state of health.

  (2) The clinicians instructed by the Secretary of State concluded that Senator Pinochet would not at present be mentally capable of meaningful participation in a trial. In reaching that conclusion, they were obliged to make assumptions about what kind of participation in a criminal trial would in law be regarded as "meaningful" in determining the fitness of an accused. Those assumptions are apparent from the conclusion of their report and are considered in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) below. So far as the Secretary of State has attached weight to them, he is satisfied that they are appropriate.

  (3) The clinicians expressed their opinion about Senator Pinochet's capacity for meaningful participation in a trial on the basis of (i) Senator Pinochet's memory deficit for both recent and remote events; (ii) his limited ability to comprehend complex sentences and questions

  361W
  owing to memory impairment and a consequent inability to process verbal information appropriately; (iii) his impaired ability to express himself audibly, succinctly and relevantly; and (iv) easy fatiguability. The Secretary of State considers that all of these factors are potentially relevant to Senator Pinochet's mental capacity to participate in a trial. In this context, he attaches particular importance to Senator Pinochet's memory deficit for recent events, which would affect his ability to relate and understand items of information given to him at a trial, and to his limited ability to comprehend complex sentences and questions and to process verbal information. The Secretary of State has not attached weight to the impairment of Senator Pinochet's capacity to remember remote events, save in so far its recent deterioration is symptomatic of brain damage having a wider significance: see sub-paragraph (6) below.

  (4) With these impediments Senator Pinochet would be unable to follow the process of a trial sufficiently to instruct Counsel. He would have difficulty in understanding the content and implications of questions put to him and would have inadequate insight into this difficulty. He would have difficulty in making himself understood in replying to questions.

  (5) In assessing the significance of the above matters, the Secretary of State has considered the nature of the issues which would be likely to arise in a criminal trial on the serious charges for which Senator Pinochet has been committed. He has also assumed that at any trial reasonable steps would be taken to mitigate Senator Pinochet's disabilities, for example, by attending to his physical comfort and medical needs, by adjusting the timetable of hearings, and by endeavouring to simplify the proceedings so far as their nature permitted. He has reminded himself that the burden of proof at any trial would be on the prosecution. The Secretary of State does not consider that these matters are capable of mitigating to a significant degree the difficulties to which Senator Pinochet's disabilities would give rise.

  (6) The disabilities identified in the medical report are due to widespread brain damage, the major episodes of which seem to have occurred during September and October 1999 when Senator Pinochet suffered a number of strokes. They are not due to the ordinary processes of ageing.

  (7) The examination took place on a single day, but the clinicians had access to reports prepared by reputable British general practitioners and specialists attending Senator Pinochet who had examined him on a number of occasions in September and October 1999. These enabled them to cross-refer their observations on 5 January 2000 to earlier observations and to evaluate a characteristic pattern of illness as it had evolved over a period of several months.

  (8) The clinicians considered that further deterioration in both his physical and his mental condition was likely to occur, but were unable to express an opinion on the effect (if any) which a trial would have on the rate of deterioration. Their view was that although some day-to-day fluctuation in functional abilities was characteristic of brain damage due to cerebrovascular disease, further sustained functional improvement of a significant degree was unlikely.

  362W
  16. The Secretary of State has always attached great importance to being able to satisfy himself that the results of the medical examination were not influenced by feigning of any kind. His instructions to the clinicians drew attention to the point and he is satisfied that they have been conscious of it throughout. They have advised him that there was no evidence that Senator Pinochet was trying to fake disability. The impediments were coherent in nature and consistent in manifestation, and the neuropsychological testing showed none of the features of deliberate exaggeration. In particular, those neuropsychological tests which were indicative of original intelligence and educational level showed superior performance. The Secretary of State is advised that there is no practical possibility that the results of the neuropsychological tests were influenced by coaching. He is also advised that while it is possible to simulate with drugs the symptoms of a global impairment of cognitive functions, (i) this is a problem with which geriatricians are particularly familiar, and (ii) Senator Pinochet's cognitive impairment was focal rather than global, a pattern not seen in drug-induced impairment. It is important to point out that the outward manner of Senator Pinochet is not necessarily a reliable guide to his mental condition. It is characteristic of persons with a high level of original intelligence that they are able to mask superficially a significant impairment of cognitive functions.

  17. The report of the clinicians who examined Senator Pinochet has been criticised by a number of medical practitioners whose opinions have been transmitted by the examining magistrates responsible for criminal investigations of Senator Pinochet in Spain, Belgium and France, and by certain other parties. In considering these criticisms, the Secretary of State has borne in mind that those who have made them have not examined Senator Pinochet, as the authors of the report of 6 January 2000 did, nor have they had the advantage which the clinicians enjoyed of studying records of Senator Pinochet's recent medical history. The Secretary of State is advised that most of the criticisms made of the report are irrelevant to its conclusions, and certainly to the conclusions that are critical to Senator Pinochet's fitness for trial (see paragraph 15). He is advised that those criticisms which are relevant are medically unjustified. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the advice he has received on these points has been based on a careful and objective analysis of the criticisms. He accepts that advice.

  18. The medical report on Senator Pinochet of 6 January 2000 is an entirely independent report by highly qualified specialist practitioners on the relevant clinical facts. In commissioning it, the Secretary of State did not set out to prove any particular point and had no expectation of any particular outcome. He is satisfied that the clinicians who prepared it undertook their task in the same spirit.

  19. Letters of request from the examining magistrates in Belgium and France have been transmitted to the United Kingdom, each of which seeks a further medical examination. In addition, Judge Garzon, the examining magistrate in Spain, has called in his representations for a further examination of Senator Pinochet. Senator Pinochet has consistently declined to comply with the invitations addressed to him by requesting states for a further medical examination. The Secretary of State, having taken advice on the point, does not consider that a

  363W
  further examination would yield further material of significance. He does not therefore regard it as either necessary or appropriate to commission one in order to determine whether Senator Pinochet is fit to stand trial.

  Unfitness to stand trial

  20. The conclusions to which the Secretary of State has come mean that in a criminal trial in England, Senator Pinochet would be found unfit to stand trial, and there would not therefore be any trial of the charges against him on their merits. If this were a peculiarity of English criminal law, the Secretary of State would not attach as much weight to it as he does. However, in the view of the Secretary of State, the principle that an accused person should be mentally capable of following the proceedings, instructing his lawyers and giving coherent evidence is fundamental to the idea of a fair trial. He is advised that the attempted trial of an accused in the condition diagnosed in Senator Pinochet, on the charges which have been made against him in this case, could not be a fair trial in any country, and would violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in those countries which are party to it.

  21. After receiving the initial representations of Spain, the Secretary of State asked for further information from those representing Spain about the principles governing these matters in the Spanish system of criminal justice. This information has satisfied him that while the procedure differs in significant respects from that which would be followed in England, the underlying principle is substantially the same. The test of fitness to stand trial in Spain depends mainly on whether the accused is capable of understanding and following the charges against him, answering questions put to him, understanding the oral and documentary evidence for the defence and the prosecution, defending himself and instructing his lawyers. This is consistent with the representations as to Spanish law made on behalf of Senator Pinochet and on behalf of human rights organisations represented by Bindman & Partners. If Senator Pinochet were to be extradited to Spain, his fitness for trial would be assessed there by an objective process of clinical examination and testing. There is no reason to believe that that process would lead to conclusions any different in substance from those of the medical report commissioned by the Secretary of State in England. The Secretary of State is conscious that in Spain as in England, a "trial" may include the process of assessing the Defendant's fitness for trial. However, on the material before him, it is reasonable to assume that if Senator Pinochet were to be extradited to Spain, a trial there on the merits of the charges against him would be found impossible.

  22. In considering whether to decide against extradition on account of Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial, the Secretary of State has given careful thought to the alternative possibility of leaving that question to be determined in accordance with Spanish judicial procedures in Spain, in the event that there was no other objection to extraditing him there. He has been advised and has concluded that on the basis of English law he is bound to form a view of his own on Senator Pinochet's fitness to stand trial, and that he cannot refrain from reaching a concluded view on this point on the basis that the question can be determined in Spain. In the light of his conclusion that no improvement in Senator Pinochet's condition can be expected, he considers that no purpose
  364W
  would be served by the continuance of the current extradition proceedings in England. These would involve the continued detention of Senator Pinochet here for a period which, allowing for the habeas corpus proceedings and any appeal arising out of them, might be substantial. Any order for the extradition of Senator Pinochet which might then be made would involve the compulsory removal to another country of a man of 84 years of age who must at this stage be presumed innocent, for the purpose of a trial which could not result in any verdict on the charges against him, for reasons that are already apparent to the Secretary of State as the extradition authority in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State considers that that course would serve no purpose of any substantial value to the interests of justice and that it would be oppressive to Senator Pinochet.

  23. The Secretary of State would not necessarily have taken the same view if there had been any realistic prospect that Senator Pinochet's condition would improve, either spontaneously or as a result of treatment. He is aware that in Spanish law the effect of a finding that an accused is unfit to stand trial is to suspend a prosecution for as long as that state of affairs subsists, but it is not tantamount to an acquittal.

  Section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989

  24. Section 12(2)(a) of the Act provides that the Secretary of State may not order the extradition of the accused in relation to any alleged offence if it appears to him that: (i) by reason of its trivial nature; or (ii) by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed it … or (iii) because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice, it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him.

  25. The Secretary of State considers that this provision has no application to the present question. Although it would in his view be oppressive to order Senator Pinochet's extradition given his unfitness to stand trial, this state of affairs has not arisen by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed the offences. But for the lapse of time since the alleged offence, a decision under section 12 might possibly have fallen to be made before Senator Pinochet became unfit, but the cause of his unfitness is the supervening brain damage which appears to have occurred in September and October 1999. That damage was not itself either caused or aggravated by the lapse of time since the alleged offences. Neither of the other two factors identified in the sub-section is relevant.

  26. It follows that Senator Pinochet's unfitness for trial is not an absolute bar to his extradition. It is a matter to be addressed as part of the general discretion of the Secretary of State under section 12(1).

  The European Convention on Extradition

  27. The United Kingdom and Spain are parties to the Convention.

  28. The Convention requires extradition in all cases to which it applies, subject only to specific and limited exceptions, and to any reservations made by particular contracting states on their accession. In cases falling outside these exceptions and reservations, there is no general discretion. There is no express exception applicable to this case, nor is there any relevant

  365W
  reservation of the United Kingdom or Spain. The Secretary of State is advised that it is open to argument whether the Convention is subject to an implicit exception for cases where the primary purpose of any extradition, namely the trial of the charges alleged against the accused, could not be served. In the circumstances of this case, the Secretary of State considers it unnecessary to form a concluded view about that. He has assumed, in reaching his decision, that the Convention does not allow for the refusal of extradition on the ground that the accused is and will remain unfit to stand trial in the requesting state.

  29. The Convention is not incorporated into English domestic law save to the limited extent provided for by the European Convention on Extradition Order 1990, SI 1990/1507. This provides simply for the Extradition Act 1989 to apply as between the United Kingdom and other parties to the Convention, and for it to do so on the basis contemplated in section 9(8)(a) of the Act that a prima facie case need not be shown on the committal hearing. Section 12 of the Act therefore applies, as a matter of English law, to extradition proceedings arising out of requests from states party to the Convention. The discretion conferred by it on the Secretary of State must be exercised in such cases.

  30. Although the Convention is not part of English domestic law, the Secretary of State attaches great importance to the international obligations of the United Kingdom, and in the exercise of his discretions under the Extradition Act he regards those obligations as both relevant and entitled to considerable weight. In most cases to which the Convention applies they will be decisive. However, the Secretary of State recognises that given the breadth of his discretion under section 12 of the Act there may be some occasions on which the requirements of the Convention are outweighed by other compelling considerations peculiar to particular cases. The Secretary of State considers that they are outweighed by such considerations in this case, having regard in particular to the nature of Senator Pinochet's condition in a man of his age, to its probable permanence, and to its impact on the possibility of a trial of the charges against him.

  31. The experience of the Home Office has been that in practice parties to the Convention operate its provisions in a more flexible fashion than its absolute language suggests, and in accordance with basic principles of justice which are common to all of them. It is consistent with this approach that Belgium should have been recorded in the judgment of the High Court on their recent application for judicial review as having
  clearly stated that they would support the Secretary of State's decision if only they could be satisfied that Senator Pinochet is indeed shown by the report to be permanently unfit to stand trial;

  and that Spain should have informed the Secretary of State that they will respect any decision made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretionary powers. In making his decision, the Secretary of State has not attached weight to the matters summarised in this paragraph, but he considers it right that they should be recorded.

  Other countervailing considerations

  32. The main consideration which has been urged upon the Secretary of State in favour of allowing the current extradition proceedings to take their course is the importance of ensuring so far as possible that the
  366W
  allegations made against Senator Pinochet should be tried. The Secretary of State agrees that this is important. The scope of the charges against Senator Pinochet was substantially reduced as a result of the decision of the House of Lords in R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p. Pinochet (No. 3) [1999] 2 WLR 827, but the remaining charges are extremely serious. The Secretary of State attaches great importance to the principle that universal jurisdiction against persons charged with international crimes should be made effective, and he is aware that the practical consequence of refusing to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain on account of his unfitness to stand trial is that he will probably not be tried anywhere. The Secretary of State is also mindful of the sense of injury which will be felt by those who suffered from breaches of human rights in Chile in the past, as well as their relatives. All of these are matters of legitimate concern, and he has had them very much in mind when considering the evidence about Senator Pinochet's state of health. They are among the reasons why he has required the evidence of Senator Pinochet's condition to satisfy a high standard of expertise, thoroughness, objectivity and cogency before he was prepared to act on it. Ultimately, however, the reservation "so far as possible" cannot be brushed aside. A trial of the charges against Senator Pinochet, however desirable, is no longer possible.

  33. The Secretary of State has considered other factors, including a wide variety of matters raised in representations received at the Home Office. This letter has dealt in terms only with those matters which have had a significant bearing on the Secretary of State's decision. It is, however, right to mention the following further points:

  (1) The Secretary of State understands that if Senator Pinochet were convicted in Spain of the offences charged against him, victims of those offences might be entitled to recover civil damages in proceedings ancillary to the criminal trial. The Secretary of State doubts whether this point could be relevant to a decision whether to extradite a person on a criminal charge, but he has reached no concluded view on its legal relevance, because he does not in any event feel able to attach significant weight to it. It is right to add that the point assumes the possibility of a verdict on the charges.

  (2) The Secretary of State has not had regard to the possibility, if indeed it is a real one, that Senator Pinochet might be tried in Chile.

  (3) The Secretary of State considers that in some circumstances it may be appropriate for him to have regard to political, economic or diplomatic interests of the United Kingdom in exercising his discretions under the Extradition Act. He has not had regard to such factors in making his present decision.

  Referring the decision to the Court

  34. The Secretary of State has been urged by a number of those who have made representations to him to leave to the Courts the question whether Senator Pinochet should be discharged on account of unfitness to stand trial. He has considered this possibility but does not propose to adopt it.
  367W
  35. The High Court has power to discharge accused persons who are being unlawfully detained, and such further powers as are specifically conferred on it by the Extradition Act 1989. It has no inherent supervisory power over extradition. Under section 11(3) of the Act, the High Court on the hearing of a habeas corpus application has a duty similar to that of the Secretary of State under section 12(2)(a) to discharge an accused if by reason of the lapse of time since the offences are alleged to have been committed it would in all the circumstances be unjust or oppressive to order his extradition. If the Secretary of State had regarded these provisions as applicable he would have been bound to refuse to extradite Senator Pinochet. However, the facts making it oppressive to extradite Senator Pinochet do not arise from the lapse of time since the alleged offences. Therefore neither section 11(3) nor section 12(2)(a) applies. The Secretary of State is the only authority on whom a general discretion is conferred whether to order extradition. He has had regard in exercising it to the principle expressed by the courts on a number of occasions that the proper exercise of that discretion by the Secretary of State is the principal safeguard for the accused against oppression.

  36. The Secretary of State would not, even if the Court had concurrent jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case, have thought it right to refrain from performing a duty or exercising a discretion conferred on him by statute, which he was in a position to exercise on material which he had commissioned for that purpose, simply because at some future stage another authority might take the decision instead.

  Domestic prosecution

  37. Article 7 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment requires the Secretary of State, if he does not order the extradition of a person accused of torture, to submit the case to the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities for the purposes of a domestic prosecution. The Secretary of State has supplied papers in advance to the Solicitor General and the Director of Public Prosecutions for that purpose and has this morning referred the case to them under Article 7. Their functions in the matter are entirely independent of his.

  Letters rogatory

  38. The only additional matter is the application of Judge Garzon by letters rogatory of 15 January 2000 for Senator Pinochet to be required to appear in court to respond to a request for a statement. The Home Secretary has decided not to give effect to this request on the grounds that Senator Pinochet is not a compellable witness as a matter of English law.

  Letter to the Belgian Ambassador:

  39. The Secretary of State has today made a final decision not to issue an Authority to Proceed under section 7 of the Extradition Act 1989 in respect of the two requests of Belgium for Senator Pinochet's extradition, transmitted on 15 December 1998 and 11 November 1999. In making this decision, the Secretary of State has treated the "Elaborative Memorandum" transmitted on 3 February 2000 as supplementing those requests and has had regard to the full range of offences alleged against Senator Pinochet in all three documents.
  368W
  40. Under 7(4) of the Extradition Act 1989, the Secretary of State is required to refuse an Authority to Proceed if an order for the extradition of Senator Pinochet could not lawfully be made or would not in fact be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under those provisions, extradition is available only in respect of extradition crimes. The Secretary of State has directed himself on this point in accordance with the decision of the House of Lords in R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p. Pinochet (No.3) [1999] 2 WLR 827. An offence committed outside the United Kingdom is not an extradition crime unless it was punishable in the United Kingdom at the date when it is alleged to have been committed. Torture outside the United Kingdom and conspiracy to torture outside the United Kingdom first became punishable in the United Kingdom on 29 September 1988 when section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force.

  41. None of the matters set out in the two extradition requests of Belgium and the Elaborative Memorandum disclose offences of torture or conspiracy to torture committed after 29 September 1988. In the Elaborative Memorandum, attention is drawn to three cases in which persons disappeared in circumstances which have never been disclosed to their families. It is alleged that their disappearance constituted torture of themselves and their families, which in the absence of news of them continued, or must be treated as continuing, to the present day. It is an essential requirement of the offence of torture in English law that the accused should, by some act or omission, have intentionally inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering on another person or been party to the infliction of such pain or suffering. The Secretary of State does not regard the two extradition requests or the Elaborative Memorandum as alleging (i) any act or omission inflicting severe pain or suffering and occurring on or after 29 September 1988, or (ii) that any intention to inflict pain or suffering was continuing until 29 September 1988 or any later date, or (iii) an intention existing at any time to inflict pain or suffering on any one other than those who disappeared. Furthermore, the Secretary of State does not regard any such allegations as being implicit in the facts alleged.

  42. There are no offences other than torture or conspiracy to torture disclosed in the two extradition requests or the Elaborative Memorandum which have at any time been punishable in the United Kingdom if committed outside the United Kingdom. The requirement that offences alleged in an extradition request should be punishable under the law of the requested state is of course reflected in the European Convention on Extradition.

  43. If the Secretary State had regarded the two extradition requests and the Elaborative Memorandum as disclosing extradition crimes, he would nevertheless have refused to issue an Authority to Proceed in this case because he is satisfied that Senator Pinochet is unfit to stand trial and that there is no likelihood of significant improvement. He has today decided on that ground that he will not order the extradition of Senator Pinochet to Spain. It appears to him that even had the Belgian extradition requests and the Elaborative Memorandum disclosed extradition crimes Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial would have precluded his extradition to Belgium for the same reasons as it precluded his

  369W
  extradition to Spain. The enclosed copy of my letter this morning to the Spanish Ambassador sets those reasons out.

  44. In these circumstances, the question whether Senator Pinochet could claim state immunity in respect of the offences alleged against him does not arise.

  45. I refer to the three letters of request issued by the examining magistrate Mr. Vandermeersch and transmitted on 19 and 24 January and 22 February 2000. The first of these seeks a further medical examination of Senator Pinochet. It has been executed in accordance with English law by inviting Senator Pinochet to submit voluntarily to the examination sought. He has declined to comply. In the light of the judgment of the High Court on 15 February 2000, the second letter of request has been executed so far as it seeks disclosure of the medical report. The Secretary of State does not propose to give effect to the second letter of request to any greater extent, having regard to the terms of that judgment and to his decision to refuse an Authority to Proceed in respect of Belgium's extradition requests. If Senator Pinochet were at some future stage to enter Belgium or to be extradited there from a third country, the Secretary of State will consider what further assistance might be appropriate. The third letter of request invites the Secretary of State or other competent authority to carry out an assessment of the frontal functions and of the autobiographical recall capacities of Senator Pinochet with the latter's consent. This letter has been executed so far as it can be by inviting Senator Pinochet's consent. He has declined. There is accordingly nothing more by way of execution to be done.

  46. As indicated, I am enclosing a copy of the letter which I have sent this morning to the Spanish Ambassador.

  Letter to Swiss Ambassador:

  47. The Secretary of State has today made a final decision not to issue an Authority to Proceed under section 7 of the Extradition Act 1989 in respect of the request of Switzerland for Senator Pinochet's extradition, received on 11 November 1998 and renewed on 7 October 1999.

  48. Under section 7(4) of the Extradition Act 1989, the Secretary of State is required to refuse an Authority to Proceed if an order for the extradition of Senator Pinochet could not lawfully be made or would not in fact be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under those provisions, extradition is available only in respect of extradition crimes. The Secretary of State has directed himself on this point in accordance with the decision of the House of Lords in R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p. Pinochet (No.3) [1999] 2 WLR 827. An offence committed outside the United Kingdom is not an extradition crime unless it was punishable in the United Kingdom at the date when it is alleged to have been committed. Torture outside the United Kingdom and conspiracy to torture outside the United Kingdom first became punishable in the United Kingdom on 29 September 1988 when section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force.

  49. The requirement that offences alleged in an extradition request should be punishable under the law of the requested state is of course reflected in the European
  370W
  Convention on Extradition. None of the offences alleged in the extradition requests of Switzerland are alleged to have been committed after that date.

  50. If the Secretary of State had regarded the extradition request of Switzerland as disclosing extradition crimes, he would nevertheless have refused to issue an Authority to Proceed in this case because he is satisfied that Senator Pinochet is unfit to stand trial and that there is no likelihood of significant improvement. He has today decided on that ground that he will not order the extradition of Senator Pinochet to Spain. It appears to him that even had the request of Switzerland disclosed extradition crimes Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial would have precluded his extradition to Switzerland for the same reasons as it precluded his extradition to Spain. The enclosed copy of my letter this morning to the Spanish Ambassador sets those reasons out.

  51. In these circumstances, the question whether Senator Pinochet could claim state immunity in respect of the offences alleged against him does not arise.

  52. As indicated, I am enclosing a copy of the letter which I have sent this morning to the Spanish Ambassador.

  Letter to French Ambassador:

  53. The Secretary of State has today made a final decision not to issue an Authority to Proceed under section 7 of the Extradition Act 1989 in respect of the requests of France for Senator Pinochet's extradition, transmitted on 13 November 1998 and 4 February 1999.

  54. Under section 7(4) of the Extradition Act 1989, the Secretary of State is required to refuse an Authority to Proceed if an order for the extradition of Senator Pinochet could not lawfully be made or would not in fact be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under those provisions, extradition is available only in respect of extradition crimes. The Secretary of State has directed himself on this point in accordance with the decision of the House of Lords in R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p. Pinochet (No.3) [1999] 2 WLR 827. An offence committed outside the United Kingdom is not an extradition crime unless it was punishable in the United Kingdom at the date when it is alleged to have been committed. Torture outside the United Kingdom and conspiracy to torture outside the United Kingdom first became punishable in the United Kingdom on 29 September 1988 when section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force.

  55. The requirement that offences alleged in an extradition request should be punishable under the law of the requested state is of course reflected in the European Convention on Extradition. None of the offences alleged in the extradition requests of France are alleged to have been committed after that date.

  56. If the Secretary of State had regarded the extradition requests of France as disclosing extradition crimes, he would nevertheless have refused to issue an Authority to Proceed in this case because he is satisfied that Senator Pinochet is unfit to stand trial and that there is no likelihood of significant improvement. He has today decided on that ground that he will not order the extradition of Senator Pinochet to Spain. It appears to him that, even had the requests of France disclosed extradition

  371W
  crimes, Senator Pinochet's unfitness to stand trial would have precluded his extradition to France for the same reasons as it precluded his extradition to Spain. The enclosed copy of my letter this morning to the Spanish Ambassador sets those reasons out.

  57. In these circumstances, the question whether Senator Pinochet could claim state immunity in respect of the offences alleged against him does not arise.

  58. A letter of request of 22 February from Judge Le Loire sought a further medical examination of Senator Pinochet. That request was forwarded to Senator Pinochet's legal representatives on 29 February. They confirm that he does not propose to comply.

  59. As indicated, I am enclosing a copy of the letter which I have sent this morning to the Spanish Ambassador.

  Tote
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the sale of the Tote and the future of the Levy Board. [111812]

  Mr. Straw
  The futures of the Horserace Totalisator Board (The Tote) and the Horserace Betting Levy Board have, for different reasons, been under review. I am now able to set out the Government's conclusions.

  I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), on 12 May 1999, Official Report, columns 159–160W, that the Government had decided to sell the Tote and that further work would be put in hand to determine the most appropriate method of sale. That work, which included the evaluation by independent financial advisers of a range of sale options, has now been completed. The options included flotation of the Tote on the stock market, its sale by open competitive auction and a sale to horseracing. Consideration of the best option was helped by the agreement of all relevant horseracing interests to support a single proposal to buy the Tote on behalf of racing, in order to maintain the position under which all the Tote's profits are used for the benefit of racing.

  Following careful consideration of all the available sale options, I have concluded that a sale to racing represents the best match, in principle, with the Government's objectives for the sale as a whole, as set out in my May 1999 statement. While the price to be paid by racing for the Tote will need to be the subject of commercial negotiation, it will be important to ensure that it is a fair one which strikes the right balance between the respective legitimate interests in the Tote of both racing and the taxpayer.

  Racing's proposal to Government aims to ensure that those who are responsible for managing and developing the Tote's business do so within a fully commercial operating environment. I believe that this represents the best options for the Tote and its staff, not forgetting, of course, all those who bet with it.

  We therefore propose to bring forward legislation, at the appropriate time and when Parliamentary time allows, which would enable the sale to proceed on this basis. However, a final decision will need to take account of circumstances at the time, including the outcome of commercial negotiations and relevant legal considerations.
  372W
  I have also today published the report of the quinquennial review of the Horserace Betting Levy Board; copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Levy Board was set up in 1961 to collect a levy on horserace bets from bookmakers and to disburse it for the benefit of racing.

  The Report concludes that the Levy Board is an efficient body which carries out its statutory functions well, but that most of those functions no longer need to be carried out in the public sector. In particular, the arrangements under which racing receives income from bookmaking should become a matter for settlement between the parties on a commercial basis.

  The Report recommends that the Government, in co-operation with the Levy Board and the industries involved, should take forward detailed consideration of all of the associated issues including the Board's important role in the provision of integrity services and its regulatory functions.

  The Government agree with these conclusions, and propose to bring forward, once again at the appropriate time and when Parliamentary time allows, legislative proposals for the abolition of the Levy Board. We shall now be discussing with the Board, the British Horseracing Board and other representatives of the racing and bookmaking industries, the steps needed to put alternative arrangements in place. As part of this process I shall be asking the British Horseracing Board, as racing's governing body, to prepare a realistic plan which shows how racing will be run as a national sport without a statutory levy.

  I should make it clear that the decision to abolish the levy system is no reflection on the performance of either the Board or its staff. Both have made a significant contribution to the administration of racing over many years, which we gratefully acknowledge.

  The sale of the Tote and the abolition of the levy system will together mark an important change in the relationship between the Government and horseracing. The Home Secretary is responsible for policy on the regulation of gambling, which requires consideration of its social impact and measures to ensure protection against crime and exploitation. For reasons of history, this responsibility has involved the Government in the administration and financing of British horseracing to an extent and in ways which are no longer needed.

  My recent announcement that the Government are to establish an independent review of gambling offers racing, and others, an opportunity to put forward their ideas for the future control and regulation of betting on horseracing. Meanwhile, the sale of the Tote and the abolition of the Levy should enable racing to take more control of its own affairs and finances, as befits a mature sport. In preparing the legislation needed to give effect to these changes, the Government are committed to working closely with racing, bookmaking and other relevant interests to ensure that the results which are delivered match up to our aspirations. Horseracing is an important and successful national sport which gives employment and pleasure to many people. We want it to prosper.

  Metropolitan Police (Private Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the Metropolitan Police Service report into the pilot project which involved the use of private medical facilities to treat Metropolitan police officers. [112751]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner tells me that the Metropolitan police are undertaking a "Spend-to-Save" pilot scheme for the early diagnosis of musculoskeletal conditions that involves the use of private medical facilities. The scheme commenced in May 1999 and will run to the end of April 2000, after which a report will be published. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  River Thames (Bodies Recovered)
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bodies recovered from the Thames by the Metropolitan police in the last five years have been incapable of identification. [111987]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police has informed me that between 1 January 1995 and 24 February 2000 his officers recovered 197 bodies from the River Thames. Of these, seven currently remain incapable of identification.

  Gammahydroxybutyrate
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Belmarsh

  22,251

  23,607

  25,400

  26,445

  27,090

  Brixton

  18,570

  17,722

  17,491

  17,677

  17,488

  Feltham

  15,776

  15,711

  16,472

  17,067

  19,615

  Holloway

  15,768

  16,796

  17,824

  18,386

  18,622

  Latchmere House

  2,404

  2,396

  2,497

  2,440

  2,667

  Pentonville

  16,323

  16,229

  17,346

  19,352

  19,988

  Wandsworth

  21,668

  19,015

  20,323

  21,821

  22,640

  Wormwood Scrubs

  20,273

  20,803

  20,912

  20,937

  20,558

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government make use of relocation companies when relocating civil servants. [112063]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office and its agencies use one relocation company, Hambro Countrywide Relocation, to assist members of staff who have been authorised to move home at public expense following a transfer within, or into, the Department.

  Correspondence
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire concerning the asylum application concerning Mr. Arif and Mrs. Susan Tuysuz originally lodged in 1994. [111717]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 28 February. I am sorry for the delay.
  374W
  (1) the recent announcement by the President of the United States of America of the decision to place gammahydroxybutyrate in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act; and if he will make a statement; [111873]

  (2) the impact of recent moves in the US to place gammahydroxybutyrate under the Controlled Substances Act; and if he will make a statement. [111722]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am aware that in the United States of America the Controlled Substances Act has recently been amended to include gammahydroxybutyrate. This information will also be made available to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs who are responsible for keeping drug misuse in the United Kingdom under review.

  It is important to bear in mind that drug misuse patterns vary from country to country. Gammahydroxybutyrate misuse has given rise to concern in the United States of America for a number of years. Historically, it has been widely available there and could be purchased over the counter in health food stores until 1992.

  Prison Budgets (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the financial budget allocated to each London prison in each of the last five years. [111938]

  Mr. Boateng
  Budgets are adjusted periodically during the year. The final budgets for the years 1995–96 to 1998–99 and the latest budget for 1999–2000 are given in the table.

  Police Recruitment
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Elmet of 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 172W, if he will publish a breakdown of the figure of 12,478 police recruits on a (a) force by force and (b) year by year basis. [111872]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 828W.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that magistrates should take into account possible loss of reputation in deciding whether to allow an election for jury trial under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. [112361]
  375W
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on the confidence of(a) the general public and
  (b) members of the ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system of his proposals under the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [112519]

  Mr. Straw
  The Bill is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system, to make it more responsive to the needs of victims of crime and the public at large. It is designed to prevent defendants from manipulating the system by demanding Crown Court trial in trivial cases just to delay proceedings. It does not prevent cases from being tried by jury where Crown Court trial is appropriate, and there is no reason why there should be any diminution in public confidence. Rather, it is likely to enhance public confidence.

  The Government have given careful consideration to the concerns that the changes could adversely affect minority ethnic defendants. They are satisfied that this is not the case. Home Office data published on 9 December 1999 show a higher conviction rate for white defendants (67 per cent) than for black defendants (57 per cent) in the magistrates courts. A similar pattern emerges from a separate study (to be published on 3 March), which shows that both in magistrates courts and in the Crown Court white defendants are more likely (by about six percentage points) to be convicted than black defendants.

  Under the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, magistrates courts would consider the circumstances of the offence but not the circumstances of the defendant. They would therefore be precluded from taking account of the effect of conviction on an accused's reputation (or livelihood), which under the original Mode of Trial Bill they would have been required to consider. The change was made in response to the widely-expressed concern that such considerations might discriminate in favour of certain categories of defendant and against others. The criteria in the new Bill will ensure that the courts make an objective decision on where a case should be tried.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of(a) lay magistrates, (b) stipendiary magistrates, (c) recorders and assistant recorders and (d) circuit judges if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [112518]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to increase the number of lay magistrates, stipendiary magistrates, recorders and assistant recorders and circuit judges as a consequence of enacting the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average(a) cost of, (b) length of and (c) waiting time for (1) a trial in the magistrates court following the dismissal of an appeal to the Crown Court from the decision of magistrates on mode of trial, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; [112539]

  (2) a hearing of (i) an oral and (ii) a written appeal to the Crown Court from the decision of magistrates on mode of trial, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. [112537]
  376W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply given on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 250W. There will be no change under the Number 2 Bill.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) cost of additional appeals to the Crown Court against the (i) verdicts and (ii) sentences of magistrates, if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [112531]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply given on 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 544W. There would be no significant change under the (No. 2) Bill.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue national guidelines to magistrates in England and Wales on the nature of the circumstances for each type of either-way offence which would normally lead to that offence being tried(a) summarily and (b) on indictment if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [112534]

  Mr. Straw
  National Mode of Trial Guidelines were issued in 1995 by the then Lord Chief Justice, setting out the circumstances in which magistrates should consider committing an either-way offence for trial in the Crown Court. Although the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is not intended significantly to change the basis on which magistrates make their decisions on mode of trial, some amendments to the guidelines would be necessary to bring them into line with the Bill.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect of the requirement in(a) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill and (b) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill for magistrates courts to state the reasons for their decision as to mode of trial on the percentage of appeals to the Crown Court against the magistrates' decision. [112530]

  Mr. Straw
  The requirement (which is in the (No. 2) Bill only) for magistrates to give reasons is not expected to affect the number of defendants exercising the right of appeal to the Crown Court on mode of trial.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of defendants who will exercise the right of appeal to the Crown Court on mode of trial, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; and what estimate he has made of the percentage of appeals that will be successful. [112538]

  Mr. Straw
  It is assumed that 3,500 defendants (25 per cent. of those who would have elected and whom the magistrates have decided to try) will appeal; that 17.5 per cent. of these cases will proceed to an oral hearing; and that 12.5 per cent. of appeals considered on the papers, and 27.5 per cent. of oral appeals, will be successful.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the increase in the number of cases in(a) the Divisional Courts (b) the Court of Appeal and (c) the House of Lords as a result of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill being enacted; what will be the additional costs to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [112535]
  377W
  Mr. Straw
  Our estimate is that any change in the number of cases going to these courts will be de minimis.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what factors underlay his estimate of(a) the cost savings that would be made and (b) the number of defendants who would be tried in the magistrates' courts rather than the Crown court under (i) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill and (ii) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill; [112528]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated savings to the criminal justice system from the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill by each principal category of expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [112533]

  Mr. Straw
  For the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill it was assumed that 12,000 fewer defendants would be tried in the Crown Court annually, resulting in resource savings to the criminal justice system of £105 million a year. For the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill it is assumed that 14,000 fewer defendants would be tried in the Crown Court annually, resulting in resource savings to the criminal justice system of £128 million a year.

  The £128 million estimated annual resource savings are made up as follows:
  for the courts—£12.5 million on committals and £41.5 million on Crown Court trials which would no longer take place. This would be offset by the cost of magistrates courts trials (£8.5 million, including the cost of any subsequent committals for sentence), and the cost (estimated at £0.5 million) of interlocutory appeals to the Crown Court.
  for the Prison Service—savings of £83.5 million annually would result from a reduction in remand times and the shorter sentences imposed by magistrates courts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that appeals to the Crown Court against magistrates' decisions as to mode of trial under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill should be heard (1) by circuit judges only; and if he will make a statement; [112536]

  (2) in open court; and if he will make a statement. [112529]

  Mr. Straw
  The intention is that the appeal should be heard by the Resident Judge or by a deputy nominated by the senior presiding Judge. The Government believe that most appeals will be determined on the basis of the papers. It would however be open to the parties to seek to make oral representations, which the judge could agree to hear if he considered it necessary in the interests of justice; the arrangements for such an oral hearing would be a matter for the judge's discretion.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the length of the average waiting time for a trial in a magistrates court if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [112517]

  Mr. Straw
  The magistrates courts deal with over 400,000 either-way cases annually and will have no difficulty in absorbing the additional cases which it is expected that they will retain as a result of the Bill.

  Asylum Seekers (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers the Chelmsford Borough Council area will be expected to house from April; and if he will make a statement. [112493]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number and location of asylum seekers accommodated under the national asylum support scheme throughout the country will depend on where accommodation, whether in the private or public sector, is made available to the Home Office for that purpose, on where there are existing ethnic minority communities and on where there is the potential for support services to be developed.

  The Home Office intends to secure accommodation from local authorities through Regional Consortia. Chelmsford is in the Eastern Region Consortium.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include in the code of practice on freedom of information a provision that, where a request is made for information about a third party, the holder of the information should consult the third party before deciding what information is to be released and in what form. [112676]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I can confirm that this will be covered by the code of practice, a working draft of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I hope to place in the Parliamentary Libraries shortly.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the minutes of all meetings of the Commission for Racial Equality at which the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. were discussed. [112682]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. Disclosure of minutes of meetings of the Commission for Racial Equality is a matter for the Commission.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the involvement of the Home Office Race Equality Unit in the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the relationship between the Unit and Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112716]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The head of the unit attended on my behalf at two meetings of the International Steering Committee of the Congress. The Unit provided names of possible speakers and suggested topics for workshops.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the persons who wrote messages of support in the Global Cultural Diversity Congress registration brochure published by the Commission for Racial Equality, indicating in each case when they were first informed that the Global Cultural Diversity Congress had been cancelled, and by whom. [112726]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  These are matters for the company and the Commission for Racial Equality.
  379W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenses the Commission for Racial Equality has paid to(a) Commissioners or (b) members of the Commission's staff in respect of their functions as Directors of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [112725]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available to me.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the actions of Mr. Hugh Harris as acting Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality at the Commission's meeting on 7 February in respect of business related to Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112715]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. I will need to consider the report of Gurbux Singh before doing so.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when(a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department learned that a request for additional funding from Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. would be discussed at the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February; and if he will make a statement. [112712]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The dates are 4 February, 3 February and 1 February respectively.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what (i) funding and (ii) promises of funding under whose authorisation and on what terms(a) his Department and (b) the Commission for Racial Equality have given to Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd; when his Department promised funding; and if he will make a statement. [112737]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I approved, in September 1999, Home Office funding of £10,000 for a "think-tank" and up to £40,000 for a research report on the costs of racial discrimination to be used at the Congress. The other matters will be addressed in the review which my right hon. Friend has asked Gurbux Singh to conduct.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who is ultimately liable for the debts of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd; and if he will make a statement; [112740]

  (2) what are the total (a) assets and (b) liabilities of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd; and if he will make a statement; [112681]

  (3) if he will refer the collapse of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd to the Department of Trade and Industry for investigation; [112722]

  (4) what was the total level of sponsorship and donations given to Global Cultural Diversity Congress by (a) commercial, (b) charitable and (c) community organisations; what was the level provided by each organisation; on what terms that money was provided; what arrangements have been made for the money to be repaid; and if he will make a statement; [112708]

  (5) which foreign Governments gave money towards the costs of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress; what was the amount provided by each Government; on what
  380W
  terms that money was given; what arrangements have been made for it to be repaid; and if he will make a statement. [112709]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  That is a matter for the liquidator.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if at meetings of the Commission for Racial Equality, Commissioners who were at the same time directors of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. voted on business related to Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112714]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The decision-making process will be examined by Gurbux Singh in the review he is to undertake.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when members of the International Strategic Steering Committee of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress were informed that the Congress had been cancelled, and by whom; and if he will make a statement. [112679]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The decision to cancel the Congress and to notify interested parties was primarily a matter for Global Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary action he plans to take against officials of(a) his Department and (b) the Commission for Racial Equality in respect of the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the collapse of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd; and if he will make a statement. [112721]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This must await the outcome of the review.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) foreign dignitaries who had confirmed that they would attend the Global Cultural Diversity Congress as speakers, members of panels or hosts of sessions, indicating in each case (i) when they confirmed they would attend, and (ii) when they were first made aware that the Global Cultural Diversity Congress had been cancelled, and by whom. [112724]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. Organisational issues relating to the event and its cancellation were the responsibility of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. We are unaware of all of those who were expected to take part in this way at the moment.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if(a) he (b) Ministers in his Department or (c) officials in his Department authorised the donation of money from his Department to fund the Global Cultural Diversity Congress; and if he will make a statement. [112742]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I approved, in September 1999, Home Office sponsorship of £10,000 for a "think-tank" and up to £40,000 for a research report on the costs of racial discrimination which was intended to be used at the Congress. The results of this report are valid in any event and will be publicised.
  381W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the involvement of the hon. Member for Warwickshire North, with the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112741]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I was invited to join the International Steering Committee that held its launch on 8 February 1999 at the South African Embassy but did not personally attend any subsequent meetings. I spoke at the launch of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress at the Foreign Office on 8 February. I hosted an event at the Home Office on 10 May 1999 for representatives of business and the voluntary sector to raise awareness of the Congress.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions representatives of(a) Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. And (b) the Commission for Racial Equality had with Ministers in his Department or his officials about the request for additional funding for the Global Cultural Diversity Congress which was discussed at the Commission's meeting on 7 February prior to the meeting taking place. [112677]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Discussions between officials and representatives of Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the Commission for Racial Equality about funding took place during the three weeks prior to the Commissioners meeting on 7 February. Ministers were not involved in these discussions.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received from(a) commercial, (b) charitable and (c) community organisations and from (d) foreign Governments regarding the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the collapse of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112723]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates since 1 January(a) he, (b) ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department met representatives from the (i) International Strategic Steering Committee of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, (ii) Commission for Racial Equality and (iii) Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd; if (1) the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and (2) Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd were discussed; and if he will place in the Library the minutes of such meetings. [112718]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I met representatives of the Commission for Racial Equality to discuss the Congress and the company on 21 and 22 February. Officials had meetings with representatives of the International Strategic Steering Committee or the Commission or Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 limited on 13 January, 27 January, 1 February, 3 February, 7 February and 15 February.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the involvement of Sir Herman Ouseley as Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality with the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112717]
  382W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The role of the Commission will be examined as part of the review I have asked Gurbux Singh to undertake.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the appointments on public bodies held by(a) members of the Commission for Racial Equality and (b) directors of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112711]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not readily available. My officials will have to make inquiries and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd; and if he will make a statement. [112678]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary advised the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly of the decision that it would not be justifiable to use substantial public funds to support the event on 21 February.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the involvement of the International Strategic Steering Committee of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress with Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112680]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The International Strategic Steering Committee of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress was established to advise on issues for discussion, possible speakers and representation at the event and to ensure a global perspective for the Congress. The organisation of the conference was for the Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on directors of a company in liquidation holding office on the Commission for Racial Equality. [112710]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Government policy on public appointments is set out under Nolan guidelines by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. There is no specific reference to directors of a company in liquidation.

  Matters relating to the appointment of Commissioners are considered on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Hugh Harris was appointed Acting Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, and by whom. [112713]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appointed Hugh Harris to take on the role of Acting Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality on Monday 7 February, following Sir Herman Ouseley's retirement.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many limited companies currently
  383W
  trading have been set up by (a) the Commission for Racial Equality and (b) other non-departmental public bodies; and if he will make a statement. [112727]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  One. Five other Home Office Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies have limited companies currently trading.

  Strip-search Procedures
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date a review of strip search procedures was undertaken; if the report was completed; when he will publish and respond to its recommendations; if he will make a statement concerning the management of this review indicating how many staff were allocated to its completion and at what level supervision was undertaken; what consultation took place with non-Governmental organisations; and how many communications he has received on the issue. [111948]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am pleased to announce that I received the Prison Service's report on searches of the person last week. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available on the Prison Service website at www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk.

  The report makes 16 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Prison Service.

  The review was co-ordinated by one senior executive officer in the Prison Service's security group who consulted and involved many staff of a variety of grades both in the Prison Service headquarters and in prison establishments. As this was an internal review, non-governmental organisations were not consulted, but publications on the subject by several such organisations were taken into account.

  Five Parliamentary Questions have been received from my hon. Friend, and one from hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). In addition, a letter was received from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak.

  The emerging findings were then subjected to rigorous competitive analysis by other staff across the Service, including senior managers. This process has taken a long time, and other priority tasks prevented the earlier completion of the report. But I am satisfied that the Prison Service took the completion of this report very seriously.

  Departmental Press Office
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to public funds of his plans to expand his Department's Press Office; and if he will make a statement. [112527]

  Mr. Straw
  Individual salaries differ but our estimate is that the cost of extra staff for the Home Office Press Office will be up to £400,000 in a full year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost is to public funds of the relocation of his Department's Press Office to Queen Anne's Gate; and if he will make a statement. [112523]

  Mr. Straw
  An independent consultant's report, produced by Clear Communications Ltd. in 1999, recommended a major restructuring of the Home Office 384W
  Press Office. The Home Office Press Office is now being restructured and a number of additional posts have been created. It is not possible to fit it into its existing accommodation in Queen Anne's Gate, which in any case is considerably substandard. It is therefore proposed to move it and some other parts of Communication Directorate to another floor in the same building some time in May. Detailed costings are dependent on a number of factors and are not yet available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to modernise his Department's Press Office IT system; what is the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [112525]

  Mr. Straw
  In the short term, the Home Office Press Office is taking part in the pilot running of a Briefing and Reference Database (BARD). This combines published information such as news releases, speeches, Parliamentary business and basic facts and figures about Home Office business so that press officers can answer quickly and accurately media inquiries. In the long term the Communication Directorate, along with the rest of the Home Office, will benefit from new working practices and Information Technology (IT) systems under a proposed Private Finance Initiative project called IT 2000. No detailed costs are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers are employed by his Department's Press Office; how many are to be recruited to the news team as part of the current restructuring process; and if he will make a statement. [112544]

  Mr. Straw
  At present there are 14 press officers (including three trainees and one Chief Immigration Officer on secondment) employed in the main Home Office Press Office, with three unfilled vacancies. The restructuring of the Press Office could involve the appointment of up to 10 further press officers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) minimum and (b) maximum starting salary for recruits to his Department's new Press Office news team; and if he will make a statement. [112524]

  Mr. Straw
  The new Press Office news team will largely be recruited at Information Officer grade, for which the pay band is £15,902 to £27,709 p.a.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the functions of his Department's new Press Office news team. [112522]

  Mr. Straw
  The planned restructuring of the Home Office Press Office will enable it to separate the functions of dealing with breaking news from those of more medium to long-term communications planning. The plan involves the setting up of a team of press officers who would operate from roughly 6 am to about 10 pm on weekdays in order to deal with the growing 24-hour demands of the media. This team would deal with today's stories in the media, handle media bids for interviews with Ministers and urgent media statements when these are needed.
  385W
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers are to be recruited to his Department's new Press Office news team; and if he will make a statement. [112526]

  Mr. Straw
  An independent consultant's report, produced by Clear Communications Ltd. in 1999, recommended a major restructuring of the Home Office Press Office and an increase in staff resources of up to 10 press officers. This restructuring will enable the unit to deal better with the growing number of media calls it is receiving and be reactive and proactive to the growing number of continuous 24-hour news operations. An advertisement recently appeared in the trade press and the plan is to recruit up to 10 additional staff.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers were employed in his Department on(a) 1 May 1997, (b) 1 January 1998, (c) 1 January 1999 and (d) 1 January 2000; at what grades they were employed; and what was the cost to public funds of their employment. [112397]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: Records of staff numbers are of necessity a snapshot of a particular month and do not take into account staff arrivals and departures which are happening constantly. The press office has for instance seen a turnover of staff of nearly 200 per cent. since January 1997.

  The relevant staff numbers and staff costs (which include Superannuation and National Insurance) are:
  May 1997—total of 15 Press Officers at approximate cost of £370,000. The grades were: three Senior Information Officers, ten Information Officers, two part-time, one Assistant Information Officer and a Higher Executive Officer on secondment;
  January 1998—total of 14 Press Officers at approximate cost of £330,000. The grades were: three Senior Information Officers and 11 Information Officers, two part-time;
  January 1999—a total of 14 Press Officers at approximate cost of £330,000. The grades were: two Senior Information Officers, eight Information Officers, two part time, three Assistant Information Officers and a Higher Executive Officer on secondment; and
  January 2000—a total of 13 Press Officers at approximate cost of £345,000. The grades were: three Senior Information Officers, six Information Officers, three Assistant Information Officers and a Higher Executive Officer.

  In addition, at various times throughout this period Chief Immigration Officers were on six-month attachment to the press office. It should also be noted that the grades referred to are substantive grades and that at various times press officers may have been on temporary promotion to a higher grade.

  Internal Communications Advisers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many internal communications advisers are to be recruited by his Department; what is their(a) minimum and (b) maximum starting salary; and if he will make a statement. [112520]

  Mr. Straw
  Ten Internal Communication Advisers are to be recruited by the Home Office.

  They will be Grade 7 appointments with a minimum starting salary of £29,777 and a maximum starting salary of £46,112.
  386W
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the functions of his Department's Internal Communications Advisers. [112521]

  Mr. Straw
  The functions of the Internal Communication Advisers are to:

  (i) support the modernisation programme and business change within individual Directorates and Agencies in the Home Office;

  (ii) tailor the Home Office internal communication strategy for a specified Directorate or Agency incorporating best industry practice;

  (iii) support the implementation of the Home Office Internal Communication strategy, working as part of a team of Internal Communication Advisers within the Home Office;

  (iv) develop the key communication skills of senior managers and managers within Home Office Directorates and Agencies, making full use of in-house and external agency expertise;

  (v) ensure local communication activities are co-ordinated with other communication activities across the whole Home Office by working via the Head of Internal Communication; and

  (vi) develop and manage mechanisms to gather feedback, such as surveys and focus groups.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the medical condition of General Pinochet since 16 February; and if he will place copies of them in the Library. [112695]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received various representations which I intend to place in the Library when I have secured the agreement of the requesting states which have provided them.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of his Department's staff were(a) registered disabled, (b) women, (c) from ethnic minorities and (d) from (i) independent, (ii) grammar and (iii) other schools in (1) 1970, (2) 1979, (3) 1989 and (4) 1999. [106762]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the percentage of the Department's staff who were registered disabled, women and from ethnic minorities in 1999 are given below and comprise staff in DfEE Head Office sites, the Employment Service and DfEE staff working in the Government Office network. The figures for permanent and temporary (casual) staff are shown separately.

  Permanent staff

  There were a total of 36,934 permanent staff employed in DfEE at 1 April 1999 of whom:

  1,933 had declared a disability, which is equal to 5.4 per cent. of the total number

  27,296 were women, which is equal to 73.9 per cent. of the total number

  2,317 were known to be from an ethnic minority background, which is equal to 6.3 per cent. of the total number.

  387W
  Temporary (casual) staff

  There were a total of 3,539 temporary (casual) staff employed in DfEE at 1 April 1999 of whom:

  52 had declared a disability, which is equal to 1.5 per cent. of the total number

  2,279 were women, which is equal to 64 per cent of the total number

  102 were known to be from an ethnic minority background, which is equal to 2.9 per cent. of the total number.

  The provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act, 1995, replace the former quota scheme, the designated employment scheme and the requirement to register as a disabled person. Instead, individuals may now voluntarily declare a disability under the definitions contained in the Act; this is the basis for the information given.

  DfEE (in line with the Commission for Racial Equality guidelines) asks staff to voluntarily declare their ethnicity in order to monitor progress against its Equal Opportunities Action Plan. The figures reflect the position for those who have provided this information. We are unable to supply details of the percentage of the Department's staff who were registered disabled, women and from ethnic minorities in 1970, 1979 or 1989, nor statistical information on the type of school attended by staff. This is for the following two reasons:

  The Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) came into existence in 1995, following Machinery of Government changes. The records retained for predecessor departments are limited and incomplete and are insufficient to provide the information requested for the three years in question. Neither does DfEE (nor did its predecessor departments) hold information centrally on the type of secondary school attended by its staff. Individual records hold the name, but not the classification, of the school.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in each of the last five years, what proportion of women employees in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies under the control of his Department(a) returned to work after childbirth, (b) returned to work after childbirth before the end of maternity leave, indicating the (1) time-range and (2) mean time, (c) returned to work after childbirth on reduced working hours, indicating the average hours worked and (d) returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours. [108967]

  Mr. Wills
  We are unable to answer all elements of the question because the information needed could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, details of the proportion of women employees in DfEE (which includes DfEE staff in Government Offices) and ES, who returned to work after childbirth in each of the last five years (part(a) of the question), is shown in the following table. The figures for 1995 include, from January to July, women in the former Department for Education and Employment Department Group who transferred to DfEE following Machinery of Government change in July 1995.

  The figures are expressed as a percentage of the total number who completed maternity leave in each of the years shown.
  388W

  Total number taking maternity leave

  Percentage returning to work

  1995

  1,644

  99.9

  1996

  1,641

  98.1

  1997

  1,338

  99.3

  1998

  1,099

  100.0

  1999

  970

  99.8

  New Deal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent to date on the New Deal for the long-term unemployed aged 18 to 24 years. [107437]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]Since its start in 1998, to the end of December 1999, £550.8 million has been spent on the New Deal for young people. Expenditure on the New Deal is planned over the lifetime of this Parliament; any unspent resource in one year is therefore available in future years. Independent research published last year indicates that the impact on the economy of the New Deal for young people is likely to be of a sufficient scale to largely offset the cost of the programme.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment the Government have made of the level of retention in employment of those on the New Deal employment option; and if he will make a statement. [109282]

  Ms Jowell
  Of the 24,670 young people who joined the employer option before October 1999, 80 per cent. remained on the option for at least 13 weeks.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of each New Deal scheme on unemployment in Cumbria. [109286]

  Ms Jowell
  In the period ending December 1999, 2,245 young people in Cumbria had found employment through the New Deal for Young People. Over the last two years, the numbers of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for six months or more has fallen by 74 per cent.

  Similarly, in the period ending December 1999, 506 people in Cumbria had found employment through the New Deal for long term unemployed adults aged 25 or over. In the period July 1998 to December 1999, the numbers of adults aged 25 or over unemployed for at least two years fell by 41 per cent.

  These results demonstrate the positive impact the New Deal has on long term unemployed people of all ages.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate the Government have made of the cost to businesses of participating in the New Deal in(a) the UK as a whole and (b) Cumbria. [109285]

  Ms Jowell
  There is a comprehensive programme of evaluation of New Deal underway, which includes qualitative and quantitative research with employers at a national level. A report on the survey is due to be published around the end of July 2000.

  Leeds LEA
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) infant children in classes of 31 or more, (b) after school clubs, (c) summer literacy schools, (d) summer numeracy schools, (e) school projects benefiting from New Deal for Schools capital funding and (f) qualified teaching assistants there were in the area of Leeds Local Education Authority for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000. [109048]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Numbers of children in maintained primary schools in infant classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher in Leeds local education authority area: 1997–2000

  Number of children in infant classes of 31 or more in

  January

  September

  2000

  1—

  2—

  1999

  5,094

  2,720

  1998

  7,847

  5,132

  1997

  7,817

  2—

  1 Provisional national estimates are due to be published in April 2000

  2 Not available

  Numbers of out of school clubs in the Leeds local education authority area: 1997–2000

  Position as at 31 March

  Out of school clubs1

  2000

  2—

  1999

  111

  1998

  105

  1997

  3—

  1 Includes clubs which operate before and/or after school

  2 Not available

  3 Information was collected by the Department for Education prior to 1998

  Number of summer literacy and numeracy schools in the Leeds local education authority area: Financial years 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  Summer literacy schools

  Summer numeracy schools

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  11

  3

  1998–99

  8

  1

  1997–98

  1

  2—

  1996–97

  2—

  2—

  1 Not available

  2 Scheme did not exist

  Numbers of new deal for schools projects in Leeds local education authority area: Financial years 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  New Deal for Schools projects1

  1999–2000

  65

  1998–99

  41

  1997–98

  37

  1996–97

  2—

  1Comprises projects which benefited from New Deal for Schools Capital Funding

  2Scheme did not exist

  390W

  Number of Full time equivalent educational support staff in schools1 in Leeds Local education authority area: 1997–2000

  Position as at January

  Full time equivalent of other educational support staff1

  2000

  2—

  1999

  2,212

  1998

  2,179

  1997

  2,073

  1 Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff Liberians and technicians

  2 Includes Maintained Nursery, Primary, Secondary and all Special Schools and Pupil Referral Units

  Class Sizes (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the number of pupils in Somerset in classes with over 30 pupils in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000, broken down by (i) Key Stage 1, (ii) Key Stage 2, (iii) Key Stage 3 and (iv) Key Stage 4; and if he will make a statement. [110763]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  The January class size count for the academic year 1999–2000 is currently being undertaken and provisional national estimates are expected to be published in April.

  Numbers of pupils in classes of size 31 or more taught by one teacher, by key stage of education, in maintained primary schools in the local education authority area of Somerset—1997 and 1999 Position as at January

  Key stages

  1

  2

  3

  Mixed

  Total

  1999

  4,266

  10,274

  0

  792

  15,372

  1997

  4,887

  8,876

  0

  333

  14,096

  Numbers of pupils in infant classes of size 31 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the local education authority area of Somerset—1998 and 1999 Position as at September

  Number

  1999

  1,545

  1998

  4,598

  1997

  1—

  1 Not available

  Numbers of pupils in classes of size 31 or more taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools in the local education authority area of Somerset—1997 and 1999 Position as at Januar

  Secondary ages1

  Middle-deemed secondary

  Mainly under 14

  Mainly 14 and 15

  Toatal secondary

  1999

  1,578

  2,455

  930

  4,963

  1997

  975

  1,672

  1,193

  3,840

  1 Ages as at the start of the academoc year (August 31)

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to
  391W
  phase out the use of peat compost in gardens (a) owned and (b) tended by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [110726]

  Mr. Wills
  My Department's policy is based around the Model Improvement Programme for Greening Operations which DETR published in 1998, and includes a commitment to substitute the use of all slow renewables such as peat with organic wastes such as coir, manure, leaf mould and bark chippings. The Department's procurement policy reflects this commitment.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111597]

  Mr. Wills
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested. My Department's contracted stationery suppliers offer recycled paper. Individual Divisions within the Department make decisions on the purchase of paper under the Departmental wide contract based on value for money, quality and fitness for purpose. My Department's HQ sites have paper recycling schemes in place.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 25W, on asset sales, if he will list the individual land and buildings sold by the Employment Service and the value realised from the sale of each item. [111267]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated February 2000:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question pursuant to his Answer of 24 January, Official Report, column 25W, on asset sales about the individual land and buildings sold by the Employment Service and the value realised from the sale of each item. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  In answer to your question, I have listed below the details you have requested.

  £

  Land and building

  Sale proceeds

  West London Area Training Centre (Chiswick)

  450,111

  Elephant and Castle Jobcentre

  3,250,643

  Crosby Jobcentre

  170,000

  Sub total

  3,870,754

  Romsey1

  136,973

  Total

  4,007,727

  1 This building was sold late in 1999, but was not included in the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 104497 as the details had not been confirmed at the time

  I hope this is helpful.

  Carlisle Jobcentre
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to relocate the jobcentre in Carlisle; and if he will make a statement. [111419]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated February 2000:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning plans to relocate Carlisle Jobcentre. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Our Jobcentre in Carlisle is currently located at Edenbridge House, Lowther Street, Carlisle in premises leased from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The current lease is due to expire on 31 March 2001 and we understand that the Ministry of Agriculture would like to be able to utilise the space currently occupied by the Jobcentre.
  Accordingly, we are currently looking at possible alternative premises. In doing so we will, of course, aim to find a location which offers at least the same standards of accommodation for both our customers and staff as we have currently.
  I hope this is helpful.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 470W, on the New Deal, if he will list the number of young people on each of the New Deal options in Shrewsbury and Atcham broken down into (a) employment, (b) full-time education/training, (c) voluntary sector and (d) environment task force; and if he will make a statement. [111063]

  Ms Jowell
  The numbers of young people on each of the New Deal Options in Shrewsbury and Atcham at the end of December were as follows:

  Number

  Employment Option

  4

  FTET

  17

  ETF

  12

  VS

  12

  I expect many of these to join the 155 young people who have already found work as a result of New Deal in Shrewsbury and Atcham.

  New Deal (JSA)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the requirement under the New Deal programme whereby a JSA claimant who stops claiming JSA to work on a temporary contract with a employer has, on completing the contract to wait a further six months before becoming eligible for training. [112089]

  Ms Jowell
  There is no case for a review. Anyone who has been in employment for several months or more immediately prior to making a claim for Jobseeker's
  393W
  Allowance (JSA) has an excellent chance of finding a job quickly and will be helped to do so by the Employment Service.

  The New Deal for Young People is designed to help those who are at risk of long-term unemployment. It is essential that we target resources effectively. New Deal advisers have discretion to allow early access to the programme for young people claiming JSA who are likely to find it particularly difficult to find work.

  Equal Pay Act 1970
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he intends to amend section 2(5) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 to entitle an employee in Scotland to arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the principle of equal pay for a period of six years. [111929]

  Ms Jowell
  We are considering the implications of recent case law for the provisions in the Equal Pay Act on entitlement to arrears of pay for employees across the UK. I will make a further statement in due course.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many awards have been made of the education maintenance allowance in the 15 pilot areas in England so far; and what is the cost of these awards(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the budgeted amount. [111714]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested is shown in the table (figures refer to the period up to and including 18 February):

  Current EMA recipients

  Total cost to date (£)

  Bolton

  1,130

  420,760

  Cornwall

  2,770

  1,442,447

  Doncaster

  1,241

  634,959

  Gateshead

  953

  502,261

  Greenwich

  205

  108,178

  Lambeth

  179

  89,350

  Leeds

  962

  508,108

  Lewisham

  175

  70,591

  Middlesbrough

  913

  443,841

  Nottingham

  1,184

  821,835

  Oldham

  1,205

  641,975

  Southampton

  804

  358,836

  Southwark

  108

  37,175

  Stoke

  1,179

  656,569

  Walsall

  1,114

  594,851

  Total

  14,122

  7,331,736

  There is no set budget as the scheme is demand led. Some EMA applications remain uncleared where further information is required from applicants.

  We are encouraged by anecdotal information which suggests that EMAs are having a positive impact already. A number of institutions have reported improved
  394W
  attendance and a stronger work ethic among EMA recipients. EMAs have the potential to make a real difference to the life chances of young people and we are pleased that the pilot areas have made an encouraging start and continue to consolidate the progress already made.

  University Fees and Grants
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the proposed annual university(a) fees and (b) repayable grants for tuition at universities in each part of the United Kingdom for students who are (i) UK citizens, (ii) other EU citizens, (iii) Commonwealth citizens, (iv) Irish and (v) other, (A) educated and (B) resident in the previous four years in (1) England, (2) Scotland, (3) Ireland, (4) other European Countries, (5) Commonwealth countries and (6) other places. [111996]

  Mr. Wicks
  The maximum tuition fee contribution for "home" (including other EU students) studying in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (and for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, who are studying in Scotland), if they are assessed as eligible for fee support, will be £1,050 in the next academic year (2000–01). Universities may charge fees to other students at higher rates. To qualify for "home" fee status, a student must normally meet certain conditions, including having been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom (or the European Economic Area for EU nationals) for three years on the relevant date closest to the beginning of their course. However, no part of that three year-period can have been wholly or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education.

  Public support towards tuition fees is not repayable. Because of the system of income-assessment around a third of home and EU students make no contribution to tuition fees.

  This answer covers Northern Ireland (given the suspension of devolved government there) but tuition fees for Scottish-domiciled and EU students studying in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament.

  Key Stage 4
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the Key Stage 4 results for 16-year-olds in English, maths and science for each year since 1992(a) for Shropshire and (b) nationally; and if he will make a statement. [111915]

  Mr. Wicks
  The GCSE is the main means of assessing the performance of pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 and these results for(a) Shropshire and (b) nationally are shown in the table. The figures show the number of 16-year-olds achieving the specified grades, as percentages of those 16-year-olds entered for the relevant GCSE subjects.
  395W

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (a) Shropshire

  Percentage of 16-year-old candidates achieving grades A*-C in:

  English

  51

  56

  57

  54

  57

  54

  59

  61

  Mathematics

  42

  48

  50

  45

  46

  48

  53

  54

  Science

  42

  43

  50

  48

  51

  51

  55

  56

  Percentage of 16-year-old candidates achieving grades A*-G in:

  English

  99

  99

  98

  98

  98

  98

  100

  99

  Mathematics

  95

  97

  97

  96

  96

  96

  97

  98

  Science

  98

  98

  97

  97

  97

  97

  98

  99

  (b) England

  Percentage of 16-year-old candidates achieving grades A*-C in:

  English

  54

  56

  57

  56

  56

  55

  56

  58

  Mathematics

  44

  46

  46

  45

  46

  47

  47

  49

  Science

  43

  44

  46

  47

  48

  48

  50

  50

  Percentage of 16-year-old candidates achieving grades A*-G in:

  English

  98

  99

  97

  97

  97

  97

  99

  99

  Mathematics

  94

  94

  95

  95

  96

  96

  95

  96

  Science

  96

  96

  95

  95

  96

  96

  97

  98

  New Deal (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the number of businesses in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Renfrewshire and (c) Scotland which have participated in the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [111502]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]Employers across Scotland are strongly committed to New Deal, with almost 11,000 signing New Deal Agreements to date, and many others recruiting New Dealers into unsubsidised jobs (for which Agreements are not required) or supporting the Programme in other ways. In Inverclyde and Renfrewshire 417 employers have signed Agreements (Agreement figures are not broken down below the level of New Deal Delivery Units).

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the relationship between(a) class sizes in the years when (i) Key Stage assessment (ii) GCSEs, (iii) A-levels, and (iv) equivalent vocational training are taken and (b) pupil performance as measured at each of those stages; and if he will make a statement. [112434]

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in Maintained Primary Schools by Key Stage in Hereford Parliamentary constituency and in England: 1996–1999

  Hereford Parliamentary constituency

  England

  Key stage 1

  Key stage 2

  Overall primary1

  Key stage 1

  Key stage 2

  Overall primary1

  1999

  24.4

  27.4

  25.8

  26.5

  28.4

  27.4

  1998

  25.2

  27.4

  26.4

  27.1

  28.3

  27.7

  1997

  24.7

  27.0

  26.2

  26.9

  28.1

  27.5

  1996

  24.7

  26.2

  25.4

  26.8

  27.9

  27.3

  1 Includes middle schools

  Note:

  position at January each year
  396W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The evidence, including that from Ofsted, indicates that class size is most important at Key Stage 1. That is why we have pledged to reduce the size of infant classes. The pledge will ensure that all children benefit from infant classes of 30 or below, and will help to give young pupils the important start they need.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the size of classes was in(a) Hereford and (b) nationwide, in each of the last four academic years, leading up to (i) each Key Stage assessment, (ii) GCSEs, (iii) A-levels and (iv) vocational courses equivalent to A-levels; and if he will make a statement. [112437]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on class sizes is not available in the form requested. The available information on class sizes from January 1996 to 1999 is shown in the table. A class size count for January 2000 is currently being undertaken and national estimates are expected to be published in a Statistical First Release in April.

  The most recent count of infant classes was carried out in September 1999. Figures derived from this count show that the average size of infant classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Hereford Parliamentary constituency was 23.7 pupils per class. The Government have pledged to limit to 30 the size of infant classes for five, six and seven-year-olds by September 2001 at the latest. We are well on course to deliver that pledge.
  397W

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in Maintained Secondary Schools by age group1 in Hereford Parliamentary constituency and in England: 1996–1999

  Hereford Parliamentary constituency

  England

  Aged under 14

  Aged 14 and 15

  Aged 16 or older

  Overall secondary2

  Aged under 14

  Aged 14 and 15

  Aged 16 or older

  Overall secondary2

  1999

  24.7

  22.3

  13.8

  23.4

  25.1

  21.7

  10.5

  21.9

  1998

  24.5

  20.3

  8.3

  22.0

  24.9

  21.6

  10.7

  21.7

  1997

  24.4

  20.0

  8.3

  21.8

  24.7

  21.6

  10.8

  21.7

  1996

  25.2

  20.9

  10.1

  22.7

  23.5

  21.5

  10.6

  21.7

  1 Ages at the start of the academic year (August 31)

  2 Includes middle schools

  Notes:

  Position at January each year

  Ex-ASTRA Civil Servants
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many ex-ASTRA civil servants have been re-employed in the Civil Service under the reinstatement initiative; of those reinstated what were their grades(a) before privatisation and (b) on reinstatement; and how many have subsequently left the Civil Service and on what terms. [112152]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]The information sought is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, reinstatement is the return to work of former established civil servants in the same permanent grade as when they left the Civil Service. All former established staff have the right to apply for reinstatement.

  School Terms
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the pattern of school terms and school holidays; and if he will make a statement. [112691]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Decisions about the number, length and dates of school terms and holidays are taken locally, not by central Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to change these arrangements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chevening Scholarship Programme
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the Chevening scholarship programme for(a) young Chinese officials and (b) others. [112012]

  Mr. Hain
  The FCO's Chevening Scholarships programme in China is the largest in the world, with more than 100 Scholars in 1999–2000. The Scholars (future "leaders, decision makers and opinion formers") come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including government, business and NGOs. Our survey of departing students shows that 97 per cent. of Chinese Scholars in 1999 rated their academic experience in the UK as "excellent" or "good", and 97 per cent. rated the experience of their stay in the UK as "excellent" or "good". Chevening Scholars coming to the UK from China acquire new knowledge and skills, and learn more 398W
  about our way of life and values. In future, as their careers progress, we hope they will tend to look to the UK for ideas, technology, trade and investment. China has been designated as one of the target countries for the Prime Minister's initiative to attract more international students to the UK. As a result, we plan to expand the Chevening programme in China in the coming academic year, by at least 15 scholars.

  Abkhazia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the joint OSCE/UN fact finding mission will visit the Gali region of Georgia; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's efforts to resolve the issue of Abkhazia. [112128]

  Mr. Vaz
  No date has yet been fixed for the OSCE fact-finding mission to Gali. Her Majesty's Government are working actively within the Friends of the Secretary-General group to help find a solution to the conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia. The Secretary of State discussed the situation in Abkhazia with President Shevardnadze and others during his visit to Georgia on 23–24 February.

  Mrs. Layla Zana
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what views he has expressed to the Turkish Government regarding its refusal to allow members of the European Parliament to visit Mrs. Layla Zana in prison; and if he will make a statement. [111986]

  Mr. Vaz
  We regret that the Chairman of the EU/Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, Daniel Cohn Bendit, was refused access to Layla Zana in late February, and have raised this in discussions with the Turkish authorities. We remain hopeful that a meeting may be possible at a later date.

  As referred to in my parliamentary answer of 1 December 1999, Official Report, column 262W, the British Embassy in Ankara closely monitors the case of Mrs. Zana.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the support given by the Kosovo Liberation Army to Albanian protesters in Mitrovica on 21 February. [112111]
  399W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Kosovo Liberation Army was demilitarised in September 1999, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We are aware of press reports of Kosovo Albanian extremists being involved in disturbances in Mitrovica.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the progress that the European Union has made in its economic and infrastructure efforts in Kosovo; [112094]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the progress that has been achieved in the civil implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in Kosovo; [112091]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the progress made in establishing and overseeing the development of the first stage of provisional democratic self-governing institutions in Kosovo. [112092]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 133W.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the security situation in(a) Prizren, (b) Pec and (c) Gnjilane; and if he will make a statement. [112112]

  Mr. Vaz
  Although we keep the security situation across the province under review, we have not made specific assessments of the situation in Prizren, Pec or Gnjilane, which are respectively in the German, Italian and US-led KFOR sectors. We understand, however, that the situation in Gnjilane is currently tense, with isolated incidents of violence.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning recent Serbian protests in Kosovska Mitrovica at KFOR troop activity. [112102]

  Mr. Vaz
  We condemn any attacks on KFOR, whose mission is to provide security for all people in Kosovo.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the policing requirement for(a) Pristina, (b) Kosovska Mitrovica and (c) Kosovo. [112109]

  Mr. Hain
  The UN Secretary-General has estimated the international policing requirement for Kosovo as 4,718 officers. We accept this. We have agreed to double our own contribution as part of the international effort to meet this requirement.

  Within Kosovo, UNMIK are best placed to decide on the day-to-day operational requirements for the various regions, including Pristina and Mitrovica. These requirements are kept under continuous review, and adjustments made as necessary. For example additional police officers, as well as KFOR troops, were sent recently to Mitrovica.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British troops were involved in activity in Kosovska Mitrovica between 15 and 22 February. [112106]
  400W
  Mr. Vaz
  Two hundred and thirty troops from the Royal Green Jackets were involved in security operations in Kosovska Mitrovica between 15 and 22 February.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the support given by the Government of President Milosevic to Serbian protesters in Kosovska Mitrovica. [112110]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have no evidence of any direct support given by the Government of President Milosovic to stirring up trouble in Mitrovica.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was informed of the mass protests by ethnic Kosovo Albanians which began on 21 February in Kosovska Mitrovica. [112105]

  Mr. Vaz
  My Department was informed of the news when it broke on 21 February.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress made in the re-establishment of an independent, impartial and multi-ethnic judiciary in Kosovo. [112096]

  Mr. Vaz
  I am satisfied with the progress being made on the re-establishment of an independent, impartial, multi-ethnic and effective judiciary in Kosovo and that it is being given a very high priority. The UN Mission in Kosovo has changed the basis of applicable law to that which applied in 1989, before Milosevic removed Kosovo's autonomy, as the Kosovo Albanians and others were reluctant to accept the discriminatory Yugoslav and Serbian laws. This helps recruit local multi-ethnic judges and prosecutors and 130 were appointed in January alone. Council of Europe legal experts are reviewing Kosovo's laws to establish whether they are in conformity with internationally recognised standards. The OSCE's Judicial Training Unit is providing intensive training to local judicial personnel.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of progress made by UNMIK in setting up the administration of social services, utilities and the consolidation of the rule of law in Kosovo; [112058]

  (2) what assessment he has made of progress made by UNMIK in the establishment and consolidation of its authority and the creation of interim UNMIK-managed structures in Kosovo. [112061]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: UNMIK inherited a massive challenge in June 1999: nothing less than the rebuilding of society in Kosovo. The UK has made a substantial contribution, including to emergency repair of utilities. We gave US$1 million to pay the salaries of utilities workers for the UN Mission last summer.

  The Kosovo Albanians and Serbs have now both agreed to join the UN Mission in the new Joint Interim Administrative Structure (JIAS). This will involve joint departments, each headed jointly by a member of UNMIK and by a Kosovar. One of these, which is already being

  401W
  established, deals with Health and Social Welfare. UNMIK have recently recruited more than 300 judges and prosecutors to put in place an effective legal system.

  UNMIK
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contributions made by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the European Union to the manning and resources of UNMIK. [112905]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK and its EU partners continue to make a major contribution to the international effort in Kosovo. The main elements of the UK's bilateral contribution include:

  60 officers for the international police presence, a contribution we are now going to double;

  40 police officers training the future Kosovo Police Service;

  30 civilian secondees working on human rights/rule of law, democratisation, media development, elections and administration;

  DFID has 50 staff working on the ground in Kosovo.

  UK pays 6.25 per cent. of UNMIK assessed contributions. Our contribution for June 1999-June 2000 is £15.7 million. We pledged $13 million in the second half of 1999 on activities in support of UNMIK:
  $4.8 million for upgrading Pristina airport.
  $1 million for salary costs for utility workers.
  $1 million on prisons and the use of an Emergency Engineering Unit to help repair prison facilities.
  $3 million for activities related to the transformation of the Kosovo Liberation Army and $1 million for socially valuable projects to be carried out by the Kosovo Protection Corps.
  $2.9 million on other support including the UN Mine Action and Co-ordination Centre, the provision of a health management team for Pristina Hospital and providing experts to the UNMIK Civil Administration pillar.

  In November 1999, we pledged a further $10 million in budgetary support to UNMIK.
  A UK Scenes of Crime team (up to 20 personnel) carried out forensic investigations in Kosovo last year. Work will be resumed in the spring.

  EU has agreed to provide 360 meuro to Kosovo in 2000 most of it for reconstruction and in budgetary support to UNMIK, with around 50 meuro in humanitarian aid. The EU is providing emergency budget support to UNMIK through accelerated procedures.

  The EU Task Force (which has been strengthened to become the EU Reconstruction Agency) is responsible for the delivery of EU assistance. Since starting work in July 1999, it has disbursed over 52 million euros.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress that UNMIK has made in(a) the establishment and consolidation of its authority, (b) the creation of interim UNMIK-managed structures, (c) setting up the administration of social services and utilities and (d) the consolidation of the rule of law in Kosovo. [112093]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 400W.

  Hungary
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from Hungary concerning ethnic Hungarians in Vojvodina. [112107]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have not received any recent official representations from Hungary concerning ethnic Hungarians in Vojvodina. We are aware of Hungarian concerns about the situation in Serbia and we share the view that the promotion of democratic change in FRY/Serbia will be the best way of helping minorities within that country.

  Danube
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government are giving to those countries affected by the cyanide contamination of the Danube. [111972]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have followed with concern reports of the pollution in the Danube caused by a serious spill of cyanide-contaminated water from a gold mine in Western Romania. There is no UK involvement in this disaster nor have we provided any assistance directly to those countries affected. We support the EU initiative in calling for an investigation into the causes of this pollution. We also support the EU principle that the polluter should pay.

  The European Commission has confirmed that it will provide some practical assistance. The EU Commissioner for the environment, Margot Wallstroem, visited the region in February to assess the damage and what help might be offered. The EU is to set up a working committee of international experts and is ready to send experts to the region to help if necessary. No decision has yet been taken on financial assistance.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from(a) commercial, (b) charitable and (c) community organisations and from (d) foreign Governments regarding the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the collapse of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112720]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received no representations regarding the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the collapse of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the review of regional service centres for the Intervention Board Executive Agency began; how much it has cost; when he expects it to report; and if he will list all the present sites of the Intervention Board Executive Agency with the whole-time equivalent staff numbers employed at each site. [111351]
  403W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]My right hon. Friend the Minister commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to review the administration of payments under the CAP subsidy schemes. The review, which began last September, covered the payments made through MAFF's nine Regional Service Centres (RSCs) and through the Intervention Board Executive Agency (IBEA). PwC submitted their report at the end of January and my right hon. Friend is now considering their recommendation that the payment functions of MAFF and IBEA should be merged. Any significant reorganisation of MAFF's RSCs and IBEA will require new funding, and the case for this will be considered in the context of the Spending Review 2000.

  PwC's fees for the study which was completed in January amounted to approximately £300,000 (excluding VAT and expenses).

  The Intervention Board currently operates form two main sites, in Reading and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Some control staff are also based at outstations in England based at Bristol, Harrogate, Wolverhampton and Cambridge. The whole-time equivalent staff numbers employed at each site are as follows:

  Number

  Reading

  1,002

  Newcastle

  1293

  Bristol

  22

  Harrogate

  12

  Wolverhampton

  17

  Cambridge

  9

  Total

  11,355

  1 Includes 15 control staff

  BSE
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the underspend in the Treasury's budget for BSE-related expenditures. [111707]

  Ms Quin
  There is currently no underspend in this Department's budget for BSE-related expenditure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  H-blocks
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what savings arose as each of the H-blocks in the Maze Prison was emptied of prisoners. [102160]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1998–99, there was a reduction of £0.33 million in the budget operating costs for which HMP Maze was directly responsible. Currently operating costs are £1.10 million less than the 1998–99 budget.

  In addition, there was a 26 per cent. reduction in staffing at the prison between June 1998 and September 1999.

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions the issue of the 404W
  personal security of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson was raised in meetings between the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition and officials of the Northern Ireland Office and the Prime Minister's Office. [103817]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government's long-standing policy is that they discuss security with the individual concerned and not with third parties. The Committee on the Administration of Justice, who wrote on behalf of Rosemary Nelson on 10 August 1999 were informed of this and were given details of how Rosemary Nelson might apply to the Northern Ireland Office's Key Person's Protection Scheme. She did not do so. Additionally, where the police have intelligence of a specific threat, which they did not in this case, they will notify the individual concerned and offer advice on security.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the recorded number of incidents of violence caused by paramilitary groups during 1999; and if he will make a statement. [111428]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following tables show the security related incidents in Northern Ireland for the period 1 January to 31 December 1999.

  Number of incidents

  Shooting

  125

  Bombing

  1100

  1 Excludes incidents involving incendiaries, petrol bombs or hoax bombs

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Deaths

  3

  4

  Shootings

  47

  26

  Assaults

  90

  44

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111605]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Decommissioning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement about decommissioning of illegally held arms in Northern Ireland. [111405]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no doubt that we have experienced a number of setbacks in recent weeks. However, the maintenance of the IRA cease-fire, as General de Chastelain has acknowledged, represents an important step and has contributed greatly to the peace process. It is important that we build upon that.

  General de Chastelain's last report gave some grounds for optimism, but it is imperative that we have clarity on the issue of decommissioning before we can restore

  405W
  devolved government in Northern Ireland. We are all agreed that the Good Friday Agreement has to be implemented in full. The obligations on all sides have not changed.

  Our priority is to work together with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland parties to restore the institutions quickly, and to see that decommissioning begins as soon as possible. What we all need to do now, after recent disappointments, is to move on together without any recrimination and without any precondition. What is important is that substantive progress is made now. The next step is to decommission weapons, and that must happen soon.

  Ballymena Government Training Centre
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of Ballymena Government Training Centre, Co. Antrim indicating the steps being taken to redeploy instructors, administrative staff and industrial staff employed at the Centre and the likely number of redundancies in each group of employees. [112406]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive. Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 1 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about the future of Ballymena Training Centre, the steps being taken to re-deploy staff, and the likely number of redundancies.
  Following a review of training centres and Further Education colleges, the then Minister, Mr. McFall, confirmed in September 1 that planning would proceed on the merger of the training centres and FE colleges. Plans are underway for Ballymena Training Centre to become fully integrated into the North East Institute of Further and Higher Education and the aim is for the merger to take effect in September 2000.
  To help facilitate the merger process, the Department, acting through the Agency, has introduced a voluntary redundancy scheme for training centre staff in the instructional and industrial grades. In Ballymena, 11 staff out of a total of 30 staff have applied for and been granted voluntary redundancy. There will be a further opportunity for staff in these grades to apply for the voluntary redundancy scheme in the next few months.
  Arrangements are being discussed for instructional and industrial staff who prefer to transfer to employment with North East Institute, to do so with appropriate protection of their employment rights.
  I expect that all administrative staff in the training centre will be re-deployed to other parts of the Department or, perhaps, the wider Northern Ireland Civil Service. There is no need for a voluntary redundancy scheme for this group of staff.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes there are to his Department's departmental expenditure limit. [113148]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Revised Spring Supplementary Estimate the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Northern Ireland Office will be increased by £4,221,000 from £1,025,277,000 to £1,029,498,000. This is to fund 406W
  expenditure arising from the Northern Ireland Act 2000. Pending that approval, expenditure of £4,221,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  This increase will be offset by a reduction in expenditure of the Northern Ireland Departments and will therefore not add to the total of planned Public Expenditure.

CABINET OFFICE

  Drugs
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent appointments she has made to support her work on the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [112384]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend has made no recent appointments in this area.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) on what projects the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator will work with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward); [112383]

  (2) what Civil Service support will be made available to the hon. Member for Witney in his work in relation to drugs and children. [112385]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has been asked to consider what more could be done to co-ordinate work on drugs in schools. This involves discussions with the Department for Education and Employment and organisations such as the Metropolitan Police and Childline. In the light of his experience with Childline, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) has met the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator on this issue. There is no question of civil service support being made available to the hon. Member for Witney.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Mozambique
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the emergency help sent so far to Mozambique during the recent flooding; and if she will make a statement. [112694]

  Clare Short
  My Department deployed two humanitarian specialists to the region during the initial stages of the flooding on 11 February. They conducted rapid assessments and liaised with the Mozambican authorities and humanitarian organisations to help identify priority needs. We despatched a consignment of over 400 tents on 12 February from the UK to Maputo for the Red Cross to distribute for emergency shelter to those made homeless. We also supported the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination Team who are assisting the Mozambican authorities with the targeting and coordination of the relief efforts. Given the deteriorating situation over the last week we redeployed a humanitarian specialist to Mozambique to work alongside permanent DFID staff in Maputo.

  We have mobilised 11 helicopters, including four from the RAF, to assist with the rescue and relief effort. We have also provided US$1 million to the World Food

  407W
  Programme to support the continued operations of helicopters from the South African Defence Force. To assist with the effective tasking of all helicopters, we have seconded a logistics expert into the World Food Programme. But helicopters are not the total answer. We are also deploying 70 boats and specialist trained crews, together with a number of large capacity self-inflating life rafts. DFID has already contributed over £5.8 million for rescue and immediate relief including the provision of shelter, water, sanitation and health support. This funding has been channelled through the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UNICEF, World Food Programme, Red Cross, ActionAid, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and World Vision. These activities are being coordinated with the Mozambican authorities. We stand ready to provide further assistance.

HEALTH

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the level of demand for NHS dentistry in the next five years; [109828]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of dentists required to meet current demand for NHS treatment; [109855]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of patients waiting to see an NHS dentist; [109866]

  (4) what is the average waiting time to see an NHS dentist in Shropshire. [109835]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of dentists in the General Dental Service in England at December 1999 (the latest date for which figures are available) was 17,746, an all time high and an increase of 480 from the previous year. Access problems are largely attributable to increases in the proportion of the time which dentists spend treating private patients and in the numbers of dentists working part-time. We therefore believe that we need to increase the level of dentists' commitment to the National Health Service. The Government will discuss with the profession a scheme to encourage and reward commitment to the NHS, paying out about £17 million a year.

  Plans for the future direction and development of NHS Dentistry have been made taking into account past, present and future trends in registrations and demand for NHS dentistry. Information on the number of patients waiting to see a NHS dentist, or the length of waiting time for dental services in Shropshire, is not available centrally. For information on protocol for waiting times at the Shropshire Dental Access Centre, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on 19 January 2000, Official Report, column 511W.

  Dentists
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage competition amongst dentists. [112321]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]The NHS expects all its dentists to provide a high quality and reliable service. Patients should be told whether they can 408W
  expect to pay the standard charge for this service and, if so, how much a course of treatment will be. On top of this, we welcome the initiative of individual dentists who attract patients by offering exceptional service in some way.

  Old Church Hospital
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there will be at the proposed new hospital at Old Church; and what is the current number of beds in the present hospital at Old Church. [111953]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently 463 beds at Old Church hospital. The Trust has submitted proposals which are currently under consideration by the London Regional Office of the NHS Executive to provide 711 beds at Old Church Park.

  Adoption
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reform the system for the adoption of children; and if he will make a statement. [111780]

  Mr. Hutton
  Through the Government's Quality Protects Programme we aim to develop a modern adoption system which puts the interests of the child first and provides a sensitive and efficient service. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is reviewing with ministerial colleagues how we can build on Quality Protects, moving further and faster to secure our aim of maximising the use of adoption for all children for whom it is appropriate and minimising delay. My right hon. Friend will make further announcements on the work programme in due course.

  Long-term Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if nursing care funded by the Government for those in long-term care will be restricted to that given by trained nurses; [112004]

  (2) if he intends to adopt the definition of nursing care set out in the report of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care. [112003]

  Mr. Hutton
  No options for change have been ruled in or out at this stage. The Department of Health held a seminar on 1 March to discuss approaches to defining nursing care. Participants included representatives of professional and managerial organisations, private sector providers and voluntary organisations representing users of services. The issues raised at the seminar will help to inform our consideration of national standards for staffing levels in nursing homes and our final decision on the future funding of long-term care, following the conclusion of the spending review.

  Crowns and Bridges
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of claims for(a) precious metal based and (b) non-precious metal-based crowns and bridges in each of the last three years. [111724]
  409W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 February 2000]The tables show the number of claims scheduled for payment for crowns and bridges in precious and non-precious metal carried out in England from 1996–97 to 1998–99.

  General Dental Service: Number of treatments for crowns: 1996– to 1998–99 England

  Thousand

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Precious metal

  Crowns full or 0.75—precious metal

  21.7

  192.0

  248.2

  Bonded FJC—gold or precious

  1,264.2

  892.8

  870.1

  Total

  1,285.9

  1,084.8

  1,118.3

  Non-precious metal

  FJC—non-precious metal alloy

  3.6

  26.8

  26.9

  Bonded FJC—non precious

  14.5

  12.6

  15.1

  Total

  18.1

  39.4

  42.0

  Total for all metals

  1,304.0

  1,124.2

  1,160.3

  General Dental Service: Number of treatments for bridges1: 1996–97 to 1998–99 England

  Thousand

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Precious metal

  Retainers

  Retainer—gold-inlay compound

  1.1

  0.8

  0.4

  Inlay—compound confluent cavity or 0.75 crown

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  FJC

  1.1

  1.2

  0.8

  Retainer—other-FJC precious

  1.1

  0.9

  1.4

  Bonded FJC—gold or precious

  174.1

  142.0

  156.0

  Pontics

  Pontics—gold

  1.4

  1.2

  1.1

  Others precious

  0.4

  0.1

  0.4

  Bonded gold/precious

  118.8

  98.2

  109.4

  Total for precious metal1

  298.5

  244.8

  270.0

  Non-precious metal

  Retainers

  FJC non-precious

  0.4

  0.1

  0.2

  Bonded FJC non-precious

  1.7

  2.2

  2.8

  Acid etch retainer—metal

  33.7

  30.6

  33.5

  Pontics

  Other alloys non-precious

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  Bonded non-precious

  1.2

  1.7

  2.0

  Acid etch pontic—bonded

  19.4

  18.8

  20.5

  Total for non-precious metal1

  56.6

  53.5

  59.2

  Total for all metals1

  355.1

  298.3

  329.2

  1 Figures for bridges are available only for the individual parts

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) numbers of and (b) cost to the NHS of employing agency nurses (i) nationally and (ii) by region for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [112396]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]Information on the number of agency staff is not available centrally.
  410W
  The table shows the total expenditure on non-National Health Service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in England, for the financial years 1994–95 to 1998–99. These figures include all agency staff and any staff not directly employed by individual NHS trusts and health authorities.

  Expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff England

  £

  Financial year

  Total expenditure

  1994–95

  132,836,673

  1995–96

  166,631,983

  1996–97

  191,496,635

  1997–98

  216,338,567

  1998–99

  272,225,162

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals 1994–95 and 1995–96

  2. Annual financial returns of health authorities 1996–97 to 1998–99

  3. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts

  Correspondence
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 29 October 1999 from the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire regarding Dr. Egerton, a constituent. [112540]

  Ms Stuart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, replied to the right hon. Member on 29 February.

  Breast Implants
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations made by the Independent Review Group set up to examine the health risks of silicone gel breast implants relating to(a) information about benefits and risks of surgery for patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation surgery, (b) advertisements promoting breast implant surgery, (c) a consent form which incorporates the issues to be discussed between surgeons and women considering breast implantation, (d) measures to ensure that standards of care in private clinics, (e) registration of details of each breast implant and explain, (f) reporting breast implant-related adverse incidents, (g) information to patients on the likely financial implications of breast implant surgery and (h) a steering group to organise research. [112549]

  Mr. Denham
  A group chaired by the noble Baroness Emerton of Tunbridge Wells is producing an information booklet for women who are contemplating having breast implants. The booklet will provide expanded information on the issues identified by the Independent Review Group, including consent and financial implications. This will be available shortly.

  There have been discussions between the Advertising Standards Authority and Departmental officials about advertising, and we are currently considering how best to take this matter forward.
  411W
  The use of such forms is good practice, and in 1992 the Department issued model consent forms which can be adapted by National Health Service trusts for any procedure. This will be supported by the information leaflet which will give advice to women on the questions they will need to ask surgeons before giving consent.

  We are committed to introducing new and modern regulatory arrangements for independent healthcare provision through the Care Standards Bill, which is currently before Parliament. Copies of the Government's response to the Health Committee report of the regulation of private healthcare are available in the Library.

  The group's recommendations on registration were about ensuring good clinical practice. Measures are also in hand, through initiatives such as the Care Standards Agency and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, to increase compliance with good clinical practice in both the public and the private sector.

  The Medical Devices Agency guidance was published last year on the reporting of adverse incidents. This was circulated to liaison officers in the public and the private sectors, to all members of the British Association of Plastic Surgeons and the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, and to manufacturers. Copies are available in the Library.

  A steering group has been established within the Department to identify suitable approaches that could lead to research of high scientific quality into breast implants and cosmetic surgery. The group's membership includes a consultant plastic surgeon, an Emeritus Professor of immunology, a representative from industry and the Chairman of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme.

  Non-medical Supplies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which private firms were invited to tender for the supply of non-medical supplies and equipment to NHS trusts in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date. [112570]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not available because National Health Service trusts are not required to report to the Department which firms they have invited to tender.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much NHS trusts spent on non-medical supplies and equipment in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date. [112541]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available for 1999–2000.

  Expenditure on non-medical supplies and equipment 1997–98 and 1998–99 is shown in the table.

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Revenue expenditure:

  Supplies and services—general

  627,624

  704,052

  Premises

  1,480,979

  1,468,051

  Establishment

  638,573

  674,119

  Transport

  173,104

  173,955

  Audit fees

  18,468

  18,828

  412W

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Other auditors' remuneration

  13,031

  12,675

  Other

  722,149

  847,930

  Capital assets:

  Equipment—additions

  352,296

  343,690

  Descriptions of the entries in the revenue expenditure lines are as follows:

  Supplies and services—general
  This is the trust's total revenue expenditure on such things as:

  cleaning equipment, materials and external contracts;

  provisions;

  contract catering;

  staff uniforms and clothing;

  patients' clothing;

  laundry equipment, materials and external contracts;

  hardware and crockery; and

  bedding and linen (both disposable and non-disposable).

  Premises
  This is the trust's total revenue expenditure on:

  coal;

  oil;

  electricity;

  gas;

  other fuel;

  water and sewerage;

  general supplies and services;

  furniture;

  furnishings and fittings;

  office equipment;

  computer hardware and software;

  data processing services;

  rates;

  rent;

  property insurance;

  engineering and building maintenance; and

  other miscellaneous.

  Establishment
  This is the trust's total revenue expenditure on administrative expenses including:

  printing and stationery;

  postage;

  telephones;

  advertising;

  travel;

  subsistence;

  removal expenses; and

  staff cars.

  Transport
  This is the trust's total revenue expenditure on:

  vehicle insurance;

  fuel and oil;

  maintenance equipment, materials and external contracts;

  hire of transport;

  hospital car services: and

  miscellaneous transport expenses.

  413W
  Audit fees
  This is the total of fees paid or payable to the external auditor for the reporting year in respect of fees for auditing the annual accounts and returns.

  Other auditors' remuneration
  This is the total of fees paid or payable to the external auditor for the reporting year in respect of fees for any work other than auditing the accounts and returns, e.g. fees for value for money reviews.

  Other
  This is the total revenue expenditure of the trust not covered above. These include:

  patients' travelling expenses;

  redundancy costs;

  expenditure related to contracts with security firms;

  insurance payments other than car or property insurance; and

  losses and special payments, net of related insurance proceeds.

  There may be medical expenditure within this category but there is insufficient information to identify and exclude this.

  Descriptions of the entries in the capital asset line are as follows:

  Equipment—additions
  This represents the net book value of equipment assets acquired using both exchequer funds and from donations in the year. It also includes transfers from assets under construction where these have been completed in the year. Insufficient information is available to split the category into medical and non-medical equipment. This net book value does not equal the actual cash expenditure. Cash expenditure just on equipment is not available.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets were set for savings to be made in the purchase of non-medical supplies and equipment by NHS trusts in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date. [112571]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service trusts were not set targets for savings in the purchase of non-medical supplies and equipment in 1997–98, 1998–99 or 1999–2000.

  The NHS Supplies Authority has been set purchasing targets covering all areas it influences—medical and non-medical goods and services. Those targets and achievements are set out in the table:

  £ million

  Target

  Achievement

  1997–98

  175.6

  104.2

  1998–99

  182.5

  113.3

  1999–2000

  1111.0

  2122.0

  1 More than

  2 To 31 January 2000

  Source:

  NHS Supplies Authority

  Ambulances
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the breakdown on the M4 motorway of a St. John Ambulance under contract to the London Ambulance Service carrying a patient awaiting a heart and lung transplant on 19 February; [112626]

  (2) what requirements there are for ambulances carrying patients long distances to carry spare tyres. [112627]
  414W
  Ms Stuart
  The breakdown of the ambulance carrying a patient from London to Wales was regrettable, but I understand that another vehicle was speedily provided and the patient suffered no adverse effects from this incident. It is policy among all ambulance services not to carry a spare wheel. A replacement vehicle was sent to ensure proper transport for the patient.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data he has collated for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99 on the indicators in the Government's poverty audit Opportunity for All relating to (i) intensive home care for people over 65 years of age in England and (ii) community based care for people over 65 years of age. [112156]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data for these indicators, which are also part of the Personal Social Services Performance Assessment Framework, were published on 24 November 1999 in a summary form in Social Services Performance 1998–99 and in detail in the form of computer tables on the Department of Health's internet site (reference: www.doh.gov.uk/paf/). The data show that in England (i) 8.4 households per 1,000 head of population aged 65 or over received intensive home care (more than 10 contact hours and 6 or more visits during the survey week) in England in 1998–99. Comparable data are not available for 1997–98 due to changes in the data collection. (ii) 71 people aged 65 or over per 1,000 head of population aged 65 or over received community based services in 1998–99. The comparable number for 1997–98 was 81.

  Cleft Lip and Palate Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with patients and their families about the future provision of cleft lip and palate centres. [112730]

  Mr. Denham
  The Chief Executive of the Cleft Lip and Palate Association (CLAPA) was a member of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group that reviewed cleft lip and palate services. He is currently a member of the Cleft Implementation Group. Representatives of cleft support groups have been involved in proposals in all regions and the Deputy Chief Medical Officer attended the CLAPA's Annual General Meeting in October last year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expert qualifications and experience members of his Clinical Standards Advisory Group have on cleft lip and palate. [112733]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is contained in Appendix A of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group on Cleft Lip and/or Palate (available in the Library) which lists the members of the CSAG committee established to look into this. The cleft committee was chaired by Professor John Murray, Dean of the Dental School at the University of Newcastle.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of his Department's Clinical Standards Advisory Group on cleft lip and palate. [112732]
  415W
  Mr. Denham
  The members of the sub group of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group which looked at cleft lip and palate services are listed in appendix A of the CSAG Report on cleft lip and palate services, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals his Department is assessing as future cleft lip and palate centres; and when he will announce his decision on the future locations of such centres. [112731]

  Mr. Denham
  Decisions about the designation of specialist cleft lip and palate centres are matters for Regional Specialist Commissioning Groups, in accordance with the commissioning framework issued in

  Region

  Chair

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Barry Fisher, Chief Executive of North Yorkshire Health Authority

  North-West

  Professor Maggie Pearson, North-West Regional Office

  Trent

  Dick Stockford, Director of Policy Development, Trent Regional Office

  West Midlands

  Henry Foster, Chief Executive, Dudley Health Authority

  London

  John James, Chief Executive, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority

  Eastern

  Chris Heginbotham, Chief Executive, East and North Herts Health Authority

  South-East

  Mike Gill, Regional Director of Public Health, Eastern Region

  South-West

  Tony Laurence, Regional Director, South West Region

  416W
  the Health Services Circular HSC 1998/238, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the regional specialised services commission groups and the relevant sub-groups charged with taking forward the Government's plans for the future provision of cleft lip and palate services. [112729]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it should be noted that Regional Specialised Commissioning Groups (RSCGs) have been established in all the English health regions, and Regional Directors of the NHS are accountable for their performance. The chairs of the RSCGs are as follows:

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Conditional Fee Agreements
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
What research they have carried out into the practice of charging conditional fees and, in particular, into whether the way in which the risk is assessed and the success fee is calculated is operating fairly.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, my department provided assistance to two research studies undertaken by the University of Westminster in 1997 and 1999. The first showed that solicitors were treating their clients fairly when setting success fees and that conditional fee agreements (CFAs) were increasing access to justice. The second found that most clients were satisfied with the damages they received and the success fees they paid to their solicitors, but made recommendations about improving the information clients received about conditional fees. I am carrying that forward in regulations which will come into force on 1st April.
A research project based at the Anglia University, with part funding from the European Social Fund, is aimed at helping solicitors with risk assessment, including through subsidised training workshops.
My department has also commissioned major research involving the Universities of Nottingham, Oxford and Surrey. It will be the first comparative evaluation of the effects of CFAs on all kinds of personal injury litigation and will provide a basis for policy evaluation of the forthcoming changes on recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for that full and detailed Answer. Does he recall his Answer to a Question on 7th October 1998 (col. 432) that his department was currently considering research projects, and his later observation that he would shortly be publicising the terms on which that research was to be undertaken? If that is so, why has there been no announcement of the details of the results and the basis on which those researches have been conducted?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on my feet, I am not clear that there has been no such announcement. However, I shall undertake to write to the noble and learned Lord and give him the fullest detail, which I also gave in my Answer, about all the pieces of research which I had hoped he might have acknowledged are comprehensive.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept that the Access to Justice Act was largely based on the assumption that CFAs will work and that if it is proved that they are not working to their full extent, we must go back to the drawing board? In that case, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the research will be most important in assessing whether they are working?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I accept that the research certainly is important. However, all common sense suggests that CFAs will succeed in giving access to justice for the first time to hundreds of thousands of people who are currently outside the legal aid eligibility limits. Research will keep the operation of the system under supervision. However, I have to say that the barrenness of the position of those who oppose CFAs in principle is that the only alternative is to pour more public money into legal aid and therefore to the lawyers who live a risk-free life under legal aid.
Our number one priority is schools and hospitals. I am confident that CFAs will work and that they will enable the existing legal aid budget to be directed to meet unmet and priority needs, such as child welfare, debt, housing and employment, giving an associated boost to the voluntary sector.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lord, what steps are being taken to ensure that the new scheme of CFAs is fair as between the interests of claimants and defendants?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, CFAs have been available for personal injury cases since 1995. They were made available by me in 1998 for all money and damages claims. From 1st April, claimants will be able to recover the success fee and any insurance premium from a losing opponent rather than having to meet those costs out of their damages. They will therefore retain 100 per cent of their recovery.
On the other hand, a losing opponent will be able to challenge a success fee as excessive and will not be liable for any part disallowed by the court. For the benefit of claimants, I am making a regulation to the effect that CFAs must include a term that a solicitor may not recover from a client any part of the success fee disallowed by the court. I believe that the scheme in its entirety is balanced and fair to both sides.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will those carrying out studies on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department also keep an eye on how law firms promote themselves under the new schemes? I have found extremely worrying some television advertisements inviting people to enter into no-risk litigation. At lunchtime on television a company called Claims Direct seemed to be offering viewers an invitation more to join the National Lottery than to enter into litigation. It showed happy, smiling litigants who had won between £50,000 and £70,000. Does the noble and learned Lord

655
agree that this kind of aggressive promotion and advertising may hold dangers, and will he keep this matter under close review?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, regulations will shortly come before noble Lords that will require those offering conditional fee arrangements to hold a preliminary discussion with clients to see whether they are already covered for the cost of taking a claim under a pre-existing insurance policy or through membership of a scheme run by an organisation such as a trade union. There will also be obligations to discuss with the client the most appropriate means of funding his claim, and ally financial liabilities that he may face; for example, for disbursements if the claim fails. Noble Lords will see in the regulations an impressive list of those matters which must be discussed and explained to clients before a CFA is entered into. This area will be effectively regulated.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is fully aware that crucial to the success of conditional fee arrangements will be the willingness of the private insurance market to provide appropriate insurance at reasonable prices. Will he undertake to publish all the work sponsored by his own department on the willingness of the insurance market so to behave?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and make available to him all the information that we have. However, I have to say that there is growing public confidence in CFAs and insurance products. Insurance premiums are set according to risk. They are affordable and there is little doubt that the overwhelming majority of people who want to arrange CFAs will secure them on proper terms.

Lord Chancellor: McGonnell Judgment
3.15 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the McGonnell judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the position of the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the position of the Lord Chancellor is unaffected by this decision. It is confined to the special position of the Bailiff of Guernsey and to his role in that particular case.
While this decision was awaited, there was a great deal of excitable speculation that Article 6 of the ECHR, which guarantees a fair trial, would set aside some of our basic constitutional arrangements. I have always said that that would be proved wrong; it would be extraordinary if it were not. The question in every case is whether Article 6 is complied with on the facts. The European court confirmed that, saying:
"the question is whether, in a given case, the requirements of the Convention are met".
656
The court also accepted the Government's submission that neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the convention required,
"States to comply with any theoretical concepts as such".
That, too, is what I have said.
There are some absolutists (I hasten to say that my noble friend is not among them) on the doctrine of the separation of the powers—as distinct from British pragmatists—but they get no comfort at all from McGonnell.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor bear in mind the conclusion of the Wakeham commission which pointed out the usefulness of having the Law Lords continue to sit in the second Chamber? The report also mentioned that it was important that the Lord Chancellor should continue to exercise the same functions in the second Chamber. However, having said that, perhaps I may say that I welcome enormously the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We have had a great deal of constitutional upheaval and I am glad that we shall be spared yet more upheaval over this issue given that the present system works very well.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall attempt a short answer to the noble Lord's question. I welcome the Wakeham commission's comments on the Law Lords, as does the noble Lord. They have direct, high quality, practical experience of the administration of justice. That is what makes their contributions so valuable to your Lordships' debates on this subject. The quality of what they say enhances our debates. They are much appreciated and I am glad to say that this ruling does not begin to compromise their independence or impartiality.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, speaking as a non-absolutist pragmatist—as is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—does he also agree with the Wakeham commission recommendation that it would be wise for the Lords of Appeal to publish an up-to-date statement of current constitutional practice so as to ensure that those who wear two hats—one legislative and one judicial—or even three, as in the case of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, are able to explain the new principles to be applied to ensure that there is no future case like McGonnell ill which Article 6 must be relied upon?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that McGonnell usefully reinforces the circumspection required of the Law Lords when they participate in the legislative process. When they participate in your Lordships' debates, it would, of course, be prudent for them to abstain from concluded views of a judicial character on issues which might later disqualify them from adjudicating should those issues come before them. The Wakeham commission recommended in Recommendation 59 that the Lords of Appeal should set out in writing and publish a statement of the principles that they intend to observe. The noble Lord,

657
Lord Lester, drew attention to that. The senior Law Lord has informed me that the Law Lords will discuss that matter at their next meeting later this month.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, given that a very wide range of cases comes before the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, is it not better that the Lord Chancellor and future Lord Chancellors use their discretion to ensure that they comply with Article 6, rather than that there should be any general ban forbidding the Lord Chancellor dealing with, and gaining experience of, judicial cases?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree. Noble Lords will appreciate that there are very many appeals—a multitude of appeals—in which on no conceivable reading of McGonnell could there be any objection to the Lord Chancellor sitting; for example, in cases arising under the common law where there is no issue concerning any statute arising. Your Lordships can rest assured that I shall take care to ensure that I do not sit in cases where to do so would infringe Article 6.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that under our constitution the separation of powers has been ignored for centuries, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is some advantage in having him preside over your Lordships' legislative Chamber as responsible for the legal system and as a member of the Cabinet, and that that co-ordination of powers under his responsibility is an advantage within our constitution?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I clearly believe that the role of the Lord Chancellor in upholding the independence of the judiciary—an important unwritten article of our constitution—is vital. The noble and learned Lords who have held this office previously have said—I must agree with them—that the office acts as a strong buffer between the judiciary and the executive. The office will be the more necessary in that regard as decisions come forward under the Human Rights Act which inevitably will not give pleasure to all and may sometimes give displeasure to government.

Speeding: Self-incriminatory Evidence Ruling
3.23 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take in the light of the court decision in Edinburgh that Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, used extensively in speeding charges, contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the court in the Edinburgh case did not hold that the use of Section 172 to obtain information infringed Article 6(1) but, rather, that in the circumstances of the case the prosecution could not use the self-incriminatory evidence obtained. It is a long and detailed judgment and the court granted the Crown leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. All aspects of the case are being considered carefully before a decision is taken on whether to appeal. That being so, inevitably there is a risk that any discussion of the case in the House could be prejudicial to further legal proceedings. Accordingly, I am constrained in any answers that I can give to further questions. That said, the question as to whether the case has implications for other circumstances, such as those where safety cameras are used, was not addressed by the court, which was very clear on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate the measured response given by the noble Lord. Does he appreciate just how serious this judgment is, coming as it did from the Lord Justice General and from two of his colleagues on the Scottish Bench? While I appreciate that the case centred around a drunk driver who incriminated herself, the press and other legal people consider that it has serious implications, for example, for speed cameras. The current position in Scotland may well be that people can go through speed cameras with impunity because they cannot be forced to tell who is driving the car. Is the noble Lord aware that the same circumstance could occur in England after 2nd October? I wonder whether the Government appreciate exactly the consequences of incorporating the ECHR into the Scottish and, eventually, the English legal systems. Is the noble Lord aware that if action is not taken to proof legislation against the ECHR, instances such as this will occur again and again and again?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, were the noble Lord to be correct that there is a read-across from this particular case into other areas of road traffic offences where the keeper is required to give evidence, then clearly there would be a serious problem. However, I reiterate that the justices in this case indicated that they had not considered the facts of other possible cases. They said in terms that not all the features of the present case would be found, for example, in cases where the police send out a written request to the keeper of a vehicle which is caught speeding by a roadside camera. Therefore, the read-across to which the noble Lord refers, and on which comment has been made in Scotland, does not necessarily exist.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome of the case—a possible appeal to the Privy Council is pending—does the Minister agree that the case illustrates a success for the Scotland Act read with the Human Rights Act in that

659
three senior Scottish judges, following full and careful analysis of Scots law and European Convention law, confined themselves carefully to the narrow issues in the case? In his judgment, one of the judges, Lord Marnoch, went out of his way to explain that he found nothing in European case law that added significantly to what has long been the common law of Scotland in regard to the treatment of suspected persons. He pointed out that Scots law requires that such persons should normally be cautioned that they are not obliged to say anything and, even with a caution, anything in the nature of cross-examination.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is particularly apposite in this case. However, I believe that in any further value judgment I make of this case I should confine my remarks to what I said earlier because the Scottish Law Officers are still considering the case on appeal.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I accept the necessity for the law to protect suspects in crime from incriminating themselves. However, particularly in a week when road safety initiatives have been introduced, does the Minister agree that it is important that we, and justice, take account of the human rights of innocent victims of crime and not only of those of the perpetrators of crime?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend. The road safety strategy launched yesterday by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was intended to address the fundamental human rights of people whose lives are taken away through road traffic accidents—at present, 3,500 each year. Therefore, it is important that both our system of catching such criminals—and they are criminals—and our system of justice surrounding that are robust.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, does the Minister agree that on occasion everyone is so busy worrying about road safety that it is forgotten that three speeding offences can mean the loss of someone's driving licence? If one lives in the country, that totally destroys one's ability to earn. It can therefore totally destroy one's family life and, in fact, have far greater repercussions than what were perhaps three minor offences causing no damage to anyone else. Sometimes the issue is completely out of balance.
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, I do not agree. I fundamentally disagree. The family life and, indeed, life itself of many people is affected seriously and, on occasion, taken away by people conducting themselves on the roads by committing what the noble Earl describes as "minor speeding offences". Speed kills. It is therefore important that we should deter people from speeding on our roads.

Scottish Parliament Building
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any approaches from the Scottish Executive to cover the increased costs of the proposed Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there has been no such approach.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not entirely unsurprising reply. Does the noble Baroness accept that the decision to build the Scots Parliament at a cost of £50 million was made by the Westminster Government before devolution was implemented and that, therefore, members of the Scots Parliament had no part in it? Does the Minister accept that that £50 million was only for the shell of the building? It did not include purchasing the site, demolition work, furniture, fittings, fees nor reasonable changes to the specification. The total cost is now between £120 million and £200 million.
In view of that massive error, will the Government ensure that the extra sum required, at any rate for the original project, will be added to the Scots Parliament's allocation from the Treasury; or will the Scots alone have to fund it out of the tartan tax or by cutting expenditure on hospitals and schools?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there is so much confusion and misinformation in that question that I do not quite know where to begin. Perhaps I may deal with some facts. The initial estimate of the construction cost was £50 million, excluding site acquisition. VAT, fees and fittings. That was always made very clear in this House and in another place. Indeed, I have many Hansard references, if the noble Baroness would like to have those.
The construction cost estimate subsequently increased to £62 million. That reflected changes to the original outline specification, including the provision of a formal entrance, increased circulation space and increased staff accommodation. That was all taking into account the work of the consultative steering group, which was an all-party group, on how the parliament should operate.
The legal and financial responsibility for the project passed to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—the SPCB—on 1st June 1999. In June 1999, the cost of the building was estimated to be £109 million. That figure includes the £62 million construction costs which I mentioned earlier, VAT, fees, site acquisition and works, fitting out and provision of IT. I understand that provision for costs totalling £109 million has been made in spending plans for the Scottish Parliament. Those are the facts.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour did not dispute that it was £50 million plus VAT and a few other things,

661
totalling, as I recall, when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, announced this to your Lordships' House, no more than about £80 million. The figure is now over £230 million for what is now being called "Donald's Dome" because it was Donald Dewar, when Secretary of State, who announced that. Will John Reid, the current holder of the office, fulfil the obligations which his predecessor laid down to fund that? Will he therefore fund it out of his budget and not ask for fewer Scottish policemen or nurses because of the money needed to fund Donald's Dome?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I do not know where all those figures are coming from, other than from the pages of the Scottish press. I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, in his place today. On Tuesday, during the Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill, he tossed around a figure of £280 million. I am not quite sure whether or not that was the figure used by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I do not know where those figures are coming from.
As I told your Lordships, the last official factual figure is the £109 million. But as everyone is aware who reads the Scottish press and who pays attention to these matters, the Presiding Officer announced to the parliament on 24th February that he had commissioned an assessment to allow the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body to give MSPs a complete and detailed report with sufficiently robust information on cost and timetable. He confirmed that the review will be carried out by independent assessors; will assess the current position of the project; and will advise the SPCB ahead of its report to MSPs next month.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the responsibility for a matter like this was very clearly and consciously devolved by this Parliament to the parliament in Edinburgh during the proceedings on the Scotland Act? In those circumstances, would it not be altogether better to leave those responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament responsible to the Scottish electorate without back-seat driving from this Chamber?
Will the Minister further agree that, while ensuring value for money, of course, the parliament building in Edinburgh is being built for posterity, far beyond the horizons of the peevish Scottish press and that we should have a building of which Scotland can be proud?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I could not agree more with every word that the noble Lord said.

Business: Private Notice Questions
3.37 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with permission of the House, I should like to raise a matter, of which I have given notice, which I believe is of great importance to the rights of this House to be informed.
662
There is a clear case of good practice which exists in this House; that is, that when information is offered to Parliament in another place by way of a Statement or a Private Notice Question, that Statement is offered to your Lordships. On 7th December 1999, the Foreign Secretary chose to use a Deferred Question procedure to make an important Statement on Chechnya. When I learnt of that, I asked a PNQ to protect the rights of this House to be informed. That PNQ was refused and I did not dispute the right of the Leader of the House to do that, and the House must respect the decision of the Leader or, indeed, her Deputy.
However, I said on the Floor of the House that that matter needed to be addressed by the Procedure Committee. I warned that we must address the effects of this device being used in another place by Ministers; namely, that Statements made in that way would not then be offered to your Lordships' House.
I subsequently raised the matter in a letter to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, but she said that she could not support a reference to the committee. She said that the Deferred Question procedure was,
"not likely to arise again with any degree of frequency".
On 18th February I wrote again to the noble Baroness to say that I was not satisfied with that as a reason and 1 repeated that I felt that this House should be protected. As a solution, I said that the House might, perhaps, be offered an arranged PNQ when the Deferred Question procedure was used in another place. As yet, I have received no reply.
But so far from it being an almost unknown occurrence, the Deferred Question has arisen again. This morning, in another place, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry used the Deferred Question procedure to announce major changes to the Utilities Bill.
Quite apart from what it reveals about the shambles that is so much of the Government's legislative programme, that Statement is important. It touches on our major utilities and so it affects every citizen in this country. Once again, the Official Opposition, in the person of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, tabled a PNQ to enable this House to be informed. Once again, the PNQ was refused. I do not dispute the right of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to refuse a PNQ on this occasion. But I must ask again—this time with some force—whether it would not be a courtesy to this House for Ministers to find some way in which Statements made in another place under the Deferred Question procedure could be offered here. That is not much for Members of this House to ask and to expect. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, will assure the House this afternoon that the matter of how this House is informed by Ministers when Deferred Questions are used to make Statements in another place will be reconsidered sympathetically and with urgency. I formally ask him to do so now.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I apologise for the absence of my noble

663
friend the Leader of the House. As I believe is known, she is on official business in the United States. I sympathise with the thrust of what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps I may put it in the immediate context. He is quite right; the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, sought to table a PNQ relating to future regulation of the telecommunications industry. I believe that the noble Lord will concede that the usual test was applied; namely, did it fulfil and meet the criterion of urgency? I do not believe that any rational mind could say that it did.
However, the noble Lord's question goes to a more fundamental point. He is quite right that he wrote on 18th February and he has not received a reply. I agree with him that it is unfortunate that a Deferred Question arose in another place before the correspondence proceeded any further. I believe that through the usual channels we can find a way forward which all your Lordships will find satisfactory. I do not believe that it is for me on this occasion to say anything further, because I know from my noble friend the Chief Whip that he has not had an opportunity, bearing in mind the limited time available today, to discuss matters fully with the usual channels. They are also entitled to have their view considered.
I sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord. It will not be an insoluble problem. Perhaps we may rely again on our faithful, trusty and well-beloved friends: the usual channels.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, leaving aside the particular circumstances today, I believe that the House will welcome what the noble and learned Lord has said. But when the usual channels have had their discussions, is this not an appropriate matter for wider discussion in the Procedure Committee? Will he promise that it will go there in due course?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot promise that, but if there is a consensus in the usual channels that that is the proper course, the proper course will be followed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we move to the two Statements on General Pinochet, it may be helpful if I remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords since the Back Bench interventions are strictly limited to up to 20 minutes in total.

Senator Pinochet
3.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place.
664
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the case of Senator Pinochet, former Head of State of Chile.
"This morning I informed the House by Written Answer that I had discharged Senator Pinochet from the Spanish extradition request, on the grounds that he was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvement in his condition could be expected. I also reported my decision not to issue an Authority to Proceed in the competing extradition requests from Belgium, France and Switzerland because none of these disclosed an extradition crime. A detailed explanation of my reasons is included in my Answer.
"The House will also now be aware, from the Written Answer given earlier today by my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General that the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that, on the material available to him, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction in this jurisdiction and, in any event, in the light of the medical condition of Senator Pinochet, no court here would allow a trial to take place. My right honourable and learned friend will be making a Statement to the House immediately after mine.
"This morning, Senator Pinochet departed from his bail address at Wentworth and was driven under police escort to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire. He left the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at 1.10 p.m.
"Let me now give the House a full account of what happened in this case as I said I would once the proceedings were concluded. I begin by making some general observations. My role under the Extradition Act 1989 is a quasi-judicial one. Although neither is generally incorporated into our domestic law, both the European Extradition Convention and the United Nations Torture Convention place important obligations on the UK, but I have to discharge those obligations within the powers and responsibilities placed on me by UK law.
"All the decisions which I have taken have been mine alone, and have not been decisions of Her Majesty's Government. Throughout, I have been keenly aware of the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed by Senator Pinochet, and of the desire for justice by those who suffered at the hands of the former Chilean regime. This has been an unprecedented case. Both I and the courts have had to navigate in uncharted territory. Two Judicial Committees of the House of Lords took different views about what offences constituted extradition crimes. More recently, Mr Justice Maurice Kay ruled that my refusal of Belgium's request for disclosure of the medical report which I had commissioned was correct: shortly afterwards a full Divisional Court, while acknowledging strong arguments on both sides, came to the opposite view.
"The following is the chronology of the significant events. Senator Pinochet landed at Heathrow Airport on 22nd September 1998, for a

665
private visit to the United Kingdom. On 16th October the Metropolitan Police received an extradition request from a Madrid court for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet for serious offences including the murder of Spanish citizens. The police were advised by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials that Senator Pinochet did not enjoy diplomatic immunity from arrest. The Bow Street Magistrates' Court then issued a provisional arrest warrant and Senator Pinochet was arrested that evening.
"Senator Pinochet's solicitors made representations to me on 21st October 1998, asking me to cancel this provisional arrest warrant. I declined to do so on the basis that the issues raised at this stage were a matter for the court. They challenged my decision. A Divisional Court, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, rejected that challenge and awarded me my costs. The court nevertheless quashed the warrant on the grounds that Senator Pinochet had sovereign immunity as a former head of state and that the warrant did not disclose an extradition crime. The Crown Prosecution service, acting on behalf of Spain, then entered an appeal to the House of Lords. In a unique feature of this case, the issue was considered twice by the House of Lords, first in November 1998 and then, after the first judgment was vacated, in March 1999. The key majority finding of the second court was that torture was an international crime over which the parties to the Torture Convention had universal jurisdiction and that a former head of state did not have immunity from such crimes. This ruling was a landmark judgment in human rights law, whose impact has been felt far beyond our shores. It will be a permanent legacy of the Pinochet case.
"The second House of Lords judgment restricted the scope and number of the alleged crimes in respect of which Senator Pinochet could be extradited to torture and conspiracy to torture committed in Chile after the UK's ratification of the Torture Convention in December 1988. These charges were of course still extremely serious. I issued a second Authority to Proceed on 14th April 1999, giving my reasons. A second judicial challenge by Senator Pinochet's representatives was again rejected by the Divisional Court. On 8th October 1999 Senator Pinochet was committed by the Bow Street Magistrates' Court to await my decision whether or not to extradite him to Spain. Senator Pinochet's solicitors applied for habeas corpus and a hearing date was set for 20th March this year.
"On 14th October 1999, I received representations from the Chilean Embassy, supported by medical reports, which suggested that there had been a recent and significant deterioration in Senator Pinochet's health. I commissioned a medical examination of Senator Pinochet by a team of independent practitioners of outstanding national and international reputation in their fields. The team consisted of Professor Sir John Grimley
666
Evans, Professor Andrew Lees, and Dr Michael Denham. On the teams advice, Dr Maria Wyke, a consultant neuropsychologist, was brought in.
"I should like to put on record my gratitude to Sir John Grimley Evans and his expert medical team for their assistance. They have performed a very significant public service. They have not been able to speak freely in explaining and, where necessary, defending their findings, despite widespread public scrutiny.
"The clinicians were instructed to undertake the examination to provide me with a fully comprehensive report on the state of Senator Pinochet's health. In particular, they were asked to advise whether there were any aspects of Senator Pinochet's health which suggested that he was not then fit, or was likely to become unfit, to stand trial in Spain. They were told that I was particularly interested in Senator Pinochet's ability to follow a line of questioning, to recall events, some of which took place as long ago as the 1970s, and to give coherent evidence. They were asked to advise me on whether Senator Pinochet could be feigning any of his symptoms.
"As I disclosed in my Statement on 12th January, the conclusions of the medical report, applying the tests I had outlined to them, indicated that Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvement in that position could be expected. The Government's Chief Medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, confirmed the quality and thoroughness of the report. I am placing the report in the Library.
"I informed the interested parties on 11th January that in the light of this medical evidence and subject to any representations received by 18th January, I was minded to conclude that no purpose would be served by continuing the Spanish extradition request.
"On 25th January a judicial review application was made by Belgium and Amnesty International for disclosure of the medical report. In inviting Senator Pinochet to undertake the medical examination, officials on my behalf had given an undertaking of confidentiality. I indicated to the Divisional Court that, while I would have preferred to disclose the medical report to the requesting states, I considered myself bound by the undertaking I had given, subject to any overriding public interest. Mr Justice Maurice Kay held that the report should not be disclosed, but a full Divisional Court, in a judgment of 15th February, said that whilst the issue had been a very difficult one, the need for transparency to the requesting states in this exceptional case outweighed any duty of confidentiality. It however said that I should disclose the report to Spain, Belgium, France and Switzerland only in terms of strict confidence. I complied with that judgment. I regret to say that the content of this report was almost immediately leaked to the press.

667
"Requesting states were invited to make any representation on the medical report by Tuesday 22nd February 2000. The representations included opinions from medical practitioners questioning the conclusions of the report.
"I asked Professor Sir John Grimley Evans and his team to review these medical opinions, and received their advice on 27th February.
"The team's advice was also reviewed on 28th February by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson. He commented as follows:
'I was very impressed with the care with which Sir John (and his team) has responded to each oldie points of criticism of their report. This is not a crude rebuttal—it is a sound and logical reply supported by clinical evidence. I believe it is a further reflection of the skill, integrity and independence with which this task has been carried out by the clinicians'.
"I considered the matter afresh in the light of all this material. Having done so, I was satisfied that the conclusion of the original report was correct. I intend to place the medical representations and the team's response in the Library when I have secured the agreement of the requesting states.
"The principle that an accused person should be mentally capable of following the proceedings, instructing lawyers and giving coherent evidence is fundamental to the idea of a fair trial. The trial of an accused in the condition diagnosed in Senator Pinochet, on the charges which have been made against him in this case, could not be fair in any country, and would violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in those countries which are party to it.
"A number of the representations which I received argued that even if there were questions about Senator Pinochet's fitness for trial, these should be determined in Spain and not here. I looked at this question with great care. However, I was advised and I concluded that on the basis of English law I was bound to form a view of my own on Senator Pinochet's fitness to stand trial and that I could not refrain from reaching such a view on the basis that the question could be determined in Spain.
"In any event, I established with the assistance of the Spanish authorities that their principles for determining the fitness of an accused to stand trial were similar to ours. I therefore concluded that given the advice that no improvement in Senator Pinochet's condition could be expected, no judicial purpose would have been served by the continuation of extradition proceedings for the objective of a trial in Spain which could not result in any verdict on the charges against him.
"Of the 70,000 letters and e-mails from the public which I have received from all over the world, and many letters from Members of Parliament and organisations, almost all have urged me to allow the extradition proceedings to take their course, so that the allegations made against Senator Pinochet could
668
be tried. I attach great importance to the principle that universal jurisdiction against persons charged with international crimes should be effective. I am all too well aware that the practical consequence of refusing to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain is that he will probably not be tried anywhere. I am very conscious of the sense of injury which will be felt by those who suffered from breaches of human rights in Chile in the past, as well as their relatives. All of these are matters of great concern, and I had them very much in mind when considering the evidence about Senator Pinochet's state of health. They are among the reasons why I required the evidence of Senator Pinochet's condition to satisfy a high standard of expertise, thoroughness, objectivity and cogency before I was prepared to act on it. Ultimately, however, I was driven to the conclusion that a trial of the charges against Senator Pinochet, however desirable, was simply no longer possible.
"The case has taken 17 months, much in court proceedings. While the House of Lords hearings on state immunity were an exceptional feature, this is not an unusual period of time in a complex contested extradition case. The Extradition Act is now over a decade old and I believe the time has come to review it. Work on this was, in fact, already under way before the Pinochet case began, and I intend to publish a consultation paper in due course on options for streamlining our extradition procedures.
"As I have already made clear, this case has been an unprecedented one. Throughout the process, I have sought to exercise my responsibilities in a fair and rational way in accordance with the law.
"It has understandably aroused great debate and feeling, and its impact has been felt world-wide. It has established, beyond question, the principle that those who commit human rights abuses in one country cannot assume that they are safe elsewhere. That will be its lasting legacy'.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating in this House this long and important Statement. I think that the main reaction of many of us to the events of today is one of relief that the matter has finally been decided and that our diplomatic and trade relations with Chile and, more widely, South America, can start to be rebuilt.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Foreign Office or any other part of the Government—the noble Lord answers for the whole Government—had any indication of the likelihood of the Spanish extradition request before they welcomed Senator Pinochet to Britain? Can the Minister confirm that on two occasions, before the visit of Senator Pinochet in 1998 which led to all these proceedings, Senator Pinochet had been welcomed as a VIP by this Government?

669
I turn to the later events. Can the Minister confirm that the idea that an attempt should be made to keep the medical report confidential, which ultimately failed, was the suggestion of the Home Secretary and not of Senator Pinochet or his advisers? The Statement says that the Chilean Government raised the medical questions and gave the medical report to the Home Secretary in October 1999. But when did Senator Pinochet's lawyers raise such medical doubts with the Home Secretary?
It is right that extradition law should be reconsidered in the light of this case. But will that consideration include the involvement of political figures, such as the Home Secretary of the day, in such difficult decisions as the present Home Secretary has had to face, particularly in view of the possibility that that Home Secretary may be influenced by political considerations or, for that matter, by his political background? After all, the present Home Secretary was involved in Chilean matters many years ago. Secondly, is it intended that the review should include our extradition arrangements with the Republic of Ireland?
In reflecting on everything that has happened and considering possible questions for the extradition review, I conclude that it is undesirable that where a country is trying to go through a period of reconciliation—as are Chile, South Africa and various other countries, including ourselves in the Irish context—the government and law of other countries should interfere with that reconciliation and make it more difficult.
4.2 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches believe that the Home Secretary has had a difficult decision to make but that he carried out his responsibilities with scrupulous fairness and great compassion?
It is regrettable that General Pinochet will escape standing trial in Spain. The Home Secretary made two points which should be underlined. First, the crimes of which Pinochet was accused were serious, and in normal circumstances he deserved to face justice for them. Secondly, the Home Secretary is right to express concern for those who suffered under the Pinochet regime or lost loved ones at the hands of his torturers. They will have a real sense of justice denied today and have our sympathy.
I welcome what the Home Secretary said about speeding up the extradition process. In relation to the medical evidence which clearly swayed the Home Secretary's judgment, and without trying to counter the expertise that was brought to bear, much of the evidence of disability was circumstantial rather than clinical. I understand that General Pinochet refused to co-operate with a Belgian request for a second opinion. Should an accused in such circumstances have the right to resist such a request? In any event, let us hope that General Pinochet does not experience a miracle cure of his disabilities as his plane crosses the Andes.
670
The Home Secretary chose to ignore the European convention on extradition in these exceptional circumstances. Can the Minister confirm that that in no way weakens the Government's commitment to see established an international criminal court to try such cases? When will they ratify the ICC treaty? The Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, in July 1998 stated in Parliament that it was the Government's intention to be among the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty. We hope that that momentum is not lost.
In the meantime, while we understand why the Home Secretary made his judgment under English law, it is strange that he should second-guess Spanish law. Is it not normal to let all legal processes go forward and allow the Spanish courts to make their judgment on whether or not the general should face trial?
We acknowledge that this was not an easy decision. But the Minister should be aware that General Pinochet leaves our shores because of the Home Secretary's sense of compassion, a compassion the general did not show to the people of Chile during his years of repression and torture. He may be too mentally impaired to stand trial, but he knows that we abhor what he did and what he stands for. We send to the people of Chile our good wishes that democracy and human rights will continue to flourish there, and trust that they take the appropriate decisions now that the general is returning to Chile to defend those rights in the future. For Pinochet and today's generation of murderers and torturers, we should strengthen the message that we intend to create a system of international justice which, for them, will provide no hiding place.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall try to deal with some of the questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that there may have been some collusion between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Spanish authorities. There was no such collusion. There was no connection between the two bodies. The arrest was a matter for the police acting on information provided to them through Interpol.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked when Senator Pinochet's advisers first raised the issue of his ill health and expressed some doubts over his medical condition. The Statement made clear that that was primarily in October last year.
In relation to the review of extradition, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary reasonably concluded that, as a result of this case, which perhaps because of its complexities took as long as it did, there is a case for reviewing the procedures. Quite rightly, he wants to see what can be undertaken to speed them up. That is an important development.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised the question of bias in the Home Secretary's mode of consideration. My right honourable friend had an almost impossible job in this particularly difficult and complex case. He exercised his powers and duties to the highest level.

671
He performed magnificently and acted in his quasi-judicial role in a way which is a good example to the rest of the world. He is to be congratulated and commended on his objectivity and on the dispassionate way in which he exercised his duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised the issue of reconciliation and drew comparisons with Northern Ireland. But each case Northern Ireland, South Africa, Chile—involves different political circumstances. The process of reconciliation in Chile has not been damaged by the consideration of Senator Pinochet's case. It is clearly a matter for the Chileans to resolve. We acted quite properly in regard to the issues facing our Government. That will be respected and acknowledged not only in this country, but also internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised a number of points and I suspect that there will be great sympathy for those points. He mentioned specifically the Spanish courts and said that they were perhaps best placed to consider matters relating to Senator Pinochet. We did not take that view. The Home Secretary took the view that he had to exercise his duties. I believe he did so very fairly indeed, with the Crown Prosecution Service effectively acting as an agency of the Spanish authorities. The Home Secretary was properly advised in the way in which he conducted himself. He felt it right that he should personally take such decisions rather than off-loading them somewhere else. Again, that is a reflection of the integrity of the Home Secretary and of the very careful way in which he has handled and managed this most difficult affair.
I am most grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions. If I have missed particular points, we can no doubt return to them. We obviously await with interest further developments and comments.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that many of us are concerned not only about the legal developments in this case but also about the long-term political consequences of such developments, which we simply cannot ignore? It is acknowledged that General Pinochet was welcomed to this country. I have to ask—I use this as just one example—what sort of welcome do the Government plan for President Mugabe when he next comes to this country, after the slaughter, torture and rape of thousands of civilians in Matabeleland in the 1980s, which has now been revealed? Is he not just one of many from all over the world? Indeed, there are people in China and Russia who have committed the most ghastly crimes and who, from now on, will be at risk if they travel outside their own countries and come here.
What is the Government's answer to this question? What will happen when the next person comes to represent Russia and people raise questions about murder and pillage in Chechnya? What will happen when someone comes from China a country with
672
which we want good relations and allegations are made about the appalling human rights abuses in that country? We simply cannot look at this as being a purely legal question. Surely we must now hear from the Government how they view the political fallout and how they propose to address it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for his contribution. He has occupied the important office of state of Home Secretary and will no doubt appreciate the complexities of the issues that have arisen in this case. Indeed, he made a very fair and reasonable point. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a very important observation in that regard in his Statement. He acknowledged that the issue has aroused great debate and feeling and that the impact of the case has been felt worldwide—I repeat: worldwide. It has established beyond question the principle that those who commit human rights abuses in one country cannot assume that they are safe elsewhere.
Clearly that important statement and observation will have worldwide ramifications and implications. I suspect and hope that it will lead to an improvement in human rights across the world. That is something of which we in this country should be rightly proud. If our position in this matter is understood worldwide, I think that that will do a great deal to improve the observance of human rights, as well as the rights, of people who perhaps suffer from unfortunate, oppressive and unwelcome regimes across the world.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, speaking for myself, I believe that the Home Secretary has got it absolutely right? When General Pinochet arrived in this country and a request for extradition was made, the Home Secretary and the Government were absolutely right to see that as a judicial and not a political matter. It was right that it should be dealt with through the courts. Indeed, it was dealt with twice through the courts, right up to the highest court in the land. If no issue had been raised as to General Pinochet's state of health, no doubt it would have continued to be determined as a judicial matter, as should be the case.
Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, says, matters of extradition are primarily for judicial and not political determination. Once the issue of Senator Pinochet's health was raised, it was right for the Home Secretary to ask that he should be properly examined; and, indeed, he was. We have all had the opportunity to read the report that has been produced, as someone leaked it during the course of the proceedings. It was firm, very clear and quite conclusive that the man could not stand trial; that he could not understand; and that he might well not be able to follow the charges that he would face. In those circumstances, if Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial, the Home Secretary was absolutely right to take the decision that the trial should not take place.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his contribution. He put his

673
finger very expertly on all of the issues raised by this case. The Home Secretary, quite properly, dealt with this as a judicial matter. He considered the case on its merits at every stage; indeed, he was very mindful to do so and took careful cognisance of all the legal advice that he received. Yes, when confronted with the medical facts regarding Senator Pinochet's condition, the Home Secretary, again, considered them most properly and thoroughly. When someone is unfit to stand trial medically, physically and intellectually, such considerations must, quite rightly, be taken into account. I believe that the Home Secretary acted entirely properly in taking his decision today.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, as someone who has been critical of the Government on this matter, perhaps I may acknowledge that there were very serious abuses of human rights under the military government, as, indeed, I have always acknowledged. However, would not today's Statement have been more honest if it had acknowledged that the proceedings in this country have been strongly opposed from the very beginning by the democratically-elected government of Chile, consisting of General Pinochet's opponents?
How can it be that the Spanish Government—of all governments—who have never put a single person on trial after the abuses of the Franco years, think that they can sit in judgment on the internal political settlement in Chile? How can a British Government, who have let out of gaol hundreds of torturers, bombers and murderers (people who belong to an organisation that has killed a higher proportion of the population of Ulster than has ever been alleged against the army of Chile) and allowed a former terrorist into the government of Northern Ireland, assume the right to interfere and over-rule the judgment of the elected government of Chile? Was not the interference simply what President Frei of Chile called it; namely, "judicial colonialism"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I totally reject the noble Lord's last comment and observation. Frankly, I believe that to be utter nonsense. We have to abide by the processes of international law when considering extradition cases. That is only right and proper. The rule of law is the rule of law, and we should stick by it. I believe that to be a fundamental and important building block of our British constitution. I am sure that all other Members of your Lordships' House share that view.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support what the Minister has just said. The Home Secretary is endeavouring to uphold a system of international law, which is under constant attack. We have made it plain from all sides of the House that his behaviour was both courageous and steadfast. However, Chile will now be receiving not a returned hero but a dictator whose poor health has meant that he has escaped the proper processes of justice.
674
Can the Minister tell us whether we can expect a reasonably early ratification of the International Criminal Court, to which my noble friend referred? In the desperate attempt by the world to establish a legal system that will be recognised beyond borders, the ICC is the long step towards establishing such a system of law. By ratification, this Government's support for it at this stage would be an extremely important step to take.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness always speaks with great wisdom on these matters. It is worth reminding ourselves that the United Kingdom Government have fully supported the establishment of an international criminal court. The publication of a Bill in this Session to implement the Rome statute was announced in the Queen's Speech. The Foreign Secretary is deeply committed to continuing to push for an effective international criminal court. We see the establishment of that court and conforming with the practices, processes and procedures of international law and the requirements that it places upon us as an important part of our international obligations. I am happy to confirm our position on that matter. I very much welcome the noble Baroness's other comments.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I wish to take a stage further the question that was first put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. After the Home Secretary made the decision that Pinochet should be extradited, why did he keep to himself—he will, of course, have received medical advice on the matter—the issue of whether or not he was fit to stand trial? Procedures, trials and forms of trial arc different in different countries. I do not claim to be an expert on Spanish criminal procedures. In Spain counsel may take a prominent part in the procedures, but the accused may take part to a far lesser extent than is the case in this country. A great deal of the defence may be conducted by defence counsel, although the accused will, of course, discuss matters with them in private. Surely one may be considered fit to stand trial in Spain, whereas one may not necessarily be considered fit to stand trial in the UK. Did the Home Secretary take adequate advice from Spanish lawyers and others as to whether fitness to stand trial in Spain was considered, rather than just general advice as though trials and procedures are the same everywhere?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's question. The Home Secretary has to make a judgment based on the medical evidence in front of him. He quite properly took the view that the mode of trial in Spain that was proposed was similar to our procedure. The medical evidence was an important consideration. There had to be an equality of understanding in both jurisdictions. Given the medical condition of Senator Pinochet, he was no better qualified to stand trial in Spain than in our own jurisdiction. Having taken those considerations into account, the Home Secretary reached his conclusion. If Senator Pinochet could not achieve a coherent understanding of the legal procedures and processes in

675
Spain, he could not achieve such a coherent understanding in this country where the same requirement applies. The important considerations are his fitness to stand trial, his ability to follow and understand proceedings, to reflect on them, and to give instructions to lawyers in any jurisdiction.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord can help me. Am I right in understanding from the Home Secretary's Statement, which the noble Lord so kindly repeated, that the application of the universal principle that no transgressor of human rights would be safe if he or she travelled to this country goes a little wider than someone merely being trapped by an extradition order? If I am right in understanding that to be the burden of what was implied by the noble Lord's right honourable friend, would it not be helpful—perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General might be able to assist us here—for the Government to make some kind of statement in this House in order that we should understand how the Government will apply this fine-sounding new principle? Do they intend to be selective in applying it and, if so, what rules will they apply if the matter goes wider than merely extradition? If the Government do not intend to be selective in applying the principle, how will they deal with the political consequences of not being selective?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks some interesting questions that require deeper consideration than we can give to them this afternoon. The question of how one addresses human rights abuses committed by heads of state in other jurisdictions who subsequently visit this country is an interesting one. Obviously, it is a matter to which we shall have to give further and clearer thought. I am sure that we would have to consider individual cases on a case-by-case basis and consider whether or not the individuals concerned have immunity. Those are important considerations. As regards the establishment of general rules in these matters, we shall have to give further thought to that. I have already made it clear that the Home Secretary will undertake a review of the Extradiction Act. That may have some bearing on these matters.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the decision—correct though it may have been in the end—will be a great disappointment to all those victims of the regime of General Pinochet, particularly those victims in this country who have suffered, such as Dr Sheila Cassidy, a victim of torture under Pinochet, and the relatives of Fr Michael Woodward, who died as a result of being tortured on board a naval vessel in Valparaiso harbour after Pinochet came into office? Those relatives have recently supplied the Home Secretary with important new testimony regarding that case which was under consideration at the time the decision was made. Is not the assurance to those people that in future no one will be immune from prosecution for such crimes the best way to assuage their grief?
676
In answer to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will the Minister confirm that since we enacted Section 132 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 a person who commits an act of torture in a foreign country, whether against a British citizen or against a citizen of any other country, is liable to the jurisdiction of our courts and will be dealt with in the future under a provision which has been made by the Home Secretary establishing a special unit in the Metropolitan Police to examine evidence which may be presented in cases of torture and which may result in prosecutions in our own courts as a result of decisions made by the CPS?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's questions. The noble Lord's summary of the situation is correct vis-á-vis our jurisdiction and abuses of UK nationals. The noble Lord mentioned a special unit to deal with this matter. We must take those issues carefully into consideration. I believe I have made plain that we have universal jurisdiction as regards torture. I refer to the important issue of the disappointment that some people will feel at the decision that has been announced. I fully understand and sympathise with the disappointment that many will experience as a consequence of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's decision. However, important long-term gains have resulted from the way in which this case has unfolded and from the stand that my right honourable friend has taken. I believe that most people will welcome that in the future.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too express my relief that Senator Pinochet has at last been returned to Chile. It is—and always has been, in my view—for the people of Chile to decide what should be done with him. However, looking to the future, and in view of the excellent relations we have always enjoyed with Chile, what have the Government in mind in terms of building bridges after this unfortunate incident, particularly as a new government are about to take office in Chile?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. We have always tried to ensure that we have the best possible relations with the Chilean Government. That has been the case in the past and no doubt it will continue to be the case in the future. With the change in the political administration of that country we shall no doubt renew our efforts to continue those good relations, particularly in business, trade and commerce. I believe that it is important to do so. As the noble Baroness wisely said, some relief will be felt at the return of Senator Pinochet to Chile, but there will also be divided opinions, which we must recognise.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, should it turn out eventually that human rights abuses have occurred in Chechnya, would that mean that the president or prime minister of Russia would not be welcome in this country or, if they arrived in this country, would be subject to arrest?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. The answer to her last point probably is that it would depend on whether they have immunity. As to whether they would face prosecution, that would be, of course, a matter for the police to consider, acting on information.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in repeating the Statement the Minister said that sovereign heads of state do not have immunity.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is not my understanding of the Statement.

Senator Pinochet: CPS Role
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General on the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of Senator Pinochet.
"The Crown Prosecution Service, as prosecuting authority for England and Wales, has today advised the Metropolitan Police Service that the material provided by the Kingdom of Spain for the purposes of the extradition proceedings would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution in England and Wales and could not be put into admissible form without a full police investigation. On the material presently available to the CPS therefore, there is no realistic prospect in this jurisdiction of convicting Senator Pinochet of any criminal offence.
"The CPS has also advised the Metropolitan Police Service that, in view of the independent medical report on Senator Pinochet commissioned by the Home Secretary, and taking into account representations made to the Home Secretary concerning the report, no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place, whatever the evidence.
"Following that advice the Metropolitan Police Service has decided that no purpose would be served in seeking to effect the arrest of Senator Pinochet.
"These decisions are necessary because of Article 7 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which provides that if a state does not extradite, it must consider whether to prosecute the person itself.
"Accordingly, following the Home Secretary's decision today not to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain, the Spanish extradition papers were submitted formally to the CPS as the independent prosecuting authority for England and Wales.
"The CPS in turn formally referred the papers to the Metropolitan Police Service, which is responsible for investigating offences and deciding whether to arrest or charge people.
678
"In fact, the papers had previously been supplied to the CPS and the police and had been carefully studied by them, and so both the CPS and the police are in a position today to announce their decisions. But before I say more, let me set out the CPS's involvement in this case.
"First, there has been its role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain. That arose following Senator Pinochet's arrest on 16th October 1998 pursuant to a warrant issued by the fifth central magistrates court in Madrid. So, on 18th October 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service commenced acting as agent on behalf of the Kingdom of Spain in the extradition proceedings. It has continued to act for the Kingdom of Spain throughout the extradition process.
"In its role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain, the CPS has acted in accordance with the instructions of the requesting state. This is in accordance with longstanding reciprocal arrangements common between this jurisdiction and other countries. In doing so, it has been quite independent of the United Kingdom Government.
"In performing its role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain, the CPS has given confidential legal advice on the extradition proceedings and received instructions.
"I turn now to the separate, and distinct, function of the CPS in this matter, which is the main focus in this Statement—that is, as the independent prosecuting authority for England and Wales. Its involvement in this regard has arisen in two ways.
"First, in October 1998, two firms of solicitors, acting for a number of individuals, applied to the then Attorney-General for Law Officer consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet in this jurisdiction. This was for offences of torture contrary to Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and for offences of hostage taking contrary to the Taking of Hostages Act 1982. The papers in one of those applications was also copied by the solicitors to the Metropolitan Police Service, which in turn sought the advice of the CPS as prosecuting authority. In these circumstances, the then Attorney-General deemed it appropriate to liaise with the CPS before reaching a final conclusion on the applications for Law Officer consent to prosecute. The Attorney-General also received advice from senior Treasury counsel. Subsequently, the Attorney-General advised the solicitors: that decisions on whether or not to grant Law Officer consent to prosecute are made by applying the tests set out in the code for Crown prosecutors; that the legislation criminalising torture and hostage-taking is not retrospective—a point later confirmed by a decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords; and that the material submitted in support of the applications contained insufficient admissible evidence against Senator Pinochet to justify the granting of Law Officer consent to prosecute for either offence.
"Consent to prosecute was, accordingly, refused.

679
"I should add here that a third firm of solicitors, acting for a number of Chileans, applied last week for my consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet for offences of torture. That application has been carefully considered and the advice of counsel obtained. Again, the code for Crown prosecutors was applied to the decision-making process. The first requirement of the code is that there should be sufficient admissible evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction before a prosecution may follow. The application contained no evidence of a kind admissible in this jurisdiction and I accordingly declined to grant my consent.
"The second function of the Crown Prosecution Service, as prosecuting authority, has been to consider the case for a prosecution of Senator Pinochet in this jurisdiction under Article 7 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I have already outlined that provision.
"The CPS and police recognised that Article 7 might come into operation in respect of the Spanish extradition papers. Therefore, in March and April 1999, to prepare for that contingency, the CPS obtained copies of all the relevant Spanish extradition papers. That was in its capacity as the prosecuting authority for England and Wales. The Metropolitan Police Service, as investigating authority, was also supplied with a copy of those papers. All this was done with the agreement of the Kingdom of Spain and the Home Office.
"The Spanish extradition papers were allocated to separate lawyers in the CPS from those acting for the Kingdom of Spain. The CPS's provisional conclusion was that the material provided by the Kingdom of Spain for the purposes of the extradition proceedings would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution in England and Wales; and that the material could not be made admissible without a full police investigation. The CPS advised the police along these lines. Whether or not the Metropolitan Police Service institutes a full investigation in this or any other case is a matter for it to decide.
"It may help the House to understand the CPS's provisional conclusion if I explain that in European extradition proceedings it is not necessary to bring evidence before a court to show that a person has committed the offences of which he or she is accused. All that is necessary is that the court here must be satisfied that the allegations amount to an extradition crime and that the formal request complies with the requirements of the Extradition Act 1989 and the European Convention on Extradition 1959. This explains why the CPS has come to its provisional conclusion that, in the absence of a full investigation by the police, there is no admissible evidence for the purpose of a prosecution here.
"In addition to this evidential consideration, the CPS, again in its role as independent prosecuting authority, received a copy of the medical report
680
prepared by the independent experts commissioned by the Home Secretary. This was in January this year and with the consent of Senator Pinochet. The CPS has also seen the representations made to the Home Secretary concerning that report. The report and subsequent advice makes it clear that Senator Pinochet's ill health is now such that he would not be able to defend himself properly in any criminal prosecution brought in this country. The CPS's provisional conclusion in the light of this material was that no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place because of his ill health, whatever the evidence. Again, the CPS advised the police of this.
"In reaching its provisional conclusions, the CPS consulted me. I agreed with them, after myself taking the best independent legal advice available.
"I should add here that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has not involved himself as Law Officer in this case. He and I agreed that his previous patronage of Redress, from which he resigned on taking ministerial office in May 1997, meant that it would be more appropriate if I handled the case. The solicitors acting for Senator Pinochet were advised of this in September last year.
"Following today's formal submission of the Spanish extradition papers to the CPS under Article 7(1), the CPS has confirmed its provisional conclusions: first, the material in the possession of the CPS would not be admissible in any criminal prosecution in England and Wales and it could not provide a realistic prospect of conviction; secondly, an investigation, for which the police are responsible, would be required to gather evidence admissible in this jurisdiction; and, thirdly, whatever evidence might be available, no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place in view of his ill health. I agree with these conclusions.
"Accordingly the CPS has not applied for Law Officer consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet for torture in respect of the Spanish extradition material. The Metropolitan Police Service and Senator Pinochet's lawyers have been advised of the CPS's conclusions. The Metropolitan Police Service, which has taken its own legal advice, has decided not to arrest Senator Pinochet.
"The House will also be aware that on 11th and 13th November and 15th December 1998, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary received requests for the extradition of Senator Pinochet from the Confederation of Switzerland, the Republic of France and the Kingdom of Belgium. Further requests were received from the Republic of France on 4th February 1999 and from the Kingdom of Belgium on 12th October 1999.
"On 9th December 1998 the Home Secretary decided not to issue an authority to proceed with regard to the requests from France and Switzerland. On 27th January 1999 the Home Secretary decided not to issue an authority to proceed with regard to the request from the Kingdom of Belgium. On

681
22nd February 1999 and 19th November 1999 respectively the Home Secretary decided not to issue an authority to proceed in respect of the second French and second Belgian requests.
"Following the Home Secretary's decisions, the extradition papers were submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service as the prosecuting authority for England and Wales in accordance with Article 7(1) of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The CPS in turn referred the papers to the Metropolitan Police Service to enable the investigating authorities to consider them. The CPS also advised the police that the allegations contained in the Swiss, both French and both Belgian requests did not disclose offences which could be tried here since the conduct alleged in each of the requests occurred before the relevant legislation came into force.
"Accordingly the CPS will not apply for Law Officer consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet for torture in respect of the Swiss, French and Belgium extradition material.
"In performing its role under Article 7 of the convention in respect of the Swiss, French and Belgian material, the CPS has also taken into account the medical report commissioned by the Home Secretary and the representations made to the Home Secretary concerning Senator Pinochet's medical condition. The CPS has concluded that no court in England and Wales would permit a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place in these circumstances, whatever the evidence. The CPS has consulted me about these matters and I agree with the CPS conclusions".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I warmly thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for repeating the Statement and for being willing to take questions on it, particularly in view of the fact that he had debarred himself, as it were, from the consideration for reasons which we understand entirely and accept.
I am a layman in legal matters, although I am not without helpful advice. I think that advice from A P Herbert would have been valuable in this case. As I understand from the Statement, at no time have the Crown Prosecution Service, the Metropolitan Police or the Solicitor-General considered that the material provided by the Kingdom of Spain for the purposes of the extradition proceedings would be admissible in a criminal prosecution in England and Wales, and that the material stood no prospect of convicting Senator Pinochet of any crime in the English courts. It would be helpful to know from the noble and learned Lord—because it was not revealed in the Statement—when the CPS first reached the view that no prosecution could succeed and why these proceedings could not have been brought to a conclusion at that point. On the assessment by the CPS of the evidence and the other
682
material available, if the action was bound to fail then it should have been brought to a conclusion at that stage.
I realise that the CPS was acting as agent for the Kingdom of Spain in large part. After all, a lawyer owes it to his client not to proceed if, in his judgment, his case cannot succeed. He should not accept instructions to persist in something that is bound to fail.
I understand that no evidence is required to succeed in extradition proceedings alone—only allegations and the fact that the charges are covered by the relevant legislation. I should like to ask how it could ever be possible in an extradition case, where no evidence of that kind is produced, to prosecute within the United Kingdom.
I should like to ask about the legal costs of the whole affair. As I understand it, the costs total several million pounds. I am not clear how much of that will fall on the British taxpayer. Has the CPS been paid, or will it be paid, by the Kingdom of Spain for the work that it did in the role of agent?
This whole matter, from the legal point of view as well as in terms of the political and other considerations, will clearly be the subject of much further study by many people. Do the Government intend to publish in some form a full account of the affair? The Government have given quite a lot of information today. It would be helpful if a full, authorised account from the point of view of the Government could be set out, if only as a preliminary to the consideration of extradition law which is to take place. I would welcome such an account in the light of all the complexities of this particular case.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for repeating the Statement. I express my own relief that the Crown Prosecution Service has clearly acted professionally and properly in this matter and kept separate its functions as agent of Spain, on the one hand, and in its own capacity on the other.
While welcoming the Statement, there are certain lessons to be learnt. I am glad that there is to be a fresh look at extradition law. I wish to make three points. First, in cases of universal jurisdiction such as conspiracy to torture, as this one was, surely, until there is the establishment of the international criminal court, the United Kingdom should either accept the responsibility itself of prosecuting people who have committed these crimes—as I suggested to the House in July 1999 when last we debated this matter—or, alternatively, should refuse requests for extradition to jurisdictions with no greater claim than our own. I found it unedifying that countries should queue up to make extradition requests in this way.
Secondly, the Statement says that there was no admissible evidence for prosecution in this country. What exactly does that mean? The allegations were not bare allegations. They could not have succeeded, as they did succeed before the metropolitan magistrate,

683
unless there was a statement of facts that demonstrated that an extradition crime had been committed. Those facts could readily have been turned into admissible evidence for the courts of this country with not a great deal of investigation by the Metropolitan Police. Was it the fact that the allegations were simply hearsay—simply second-hand evidence—or were there not, as I am sure there must have been, witnesses to these facts who were identified and who could have given first-hand evidence in the courts if an investigation had been carried out to turn their evidence into a form which is acceptable in every court in this country? Could that evidence have been obtained easily? Did the Crown Prosecution Service ever ask the police to investigate along those lines?
My third point relates to the medical issues. If this case demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that there should be transparency on medical issues. Senator Pinochet is certainly not unfit to travel, having regard to the way in which he left this jurisdiction within a matter of minutes of the decision being announced. If there was an approach by his advisers in October last year, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said, why was an undertaking ever given by the Home Secretary that the results of that medical examination, which the senator requested, would not be published? That would not happen in the ordinary courts of this country because, where there is an issue of fitness to plead that is in any way controversial, it is not decided by a Minister; it is decided by a jury which is sworn to try the particular issue as to whether a person is fit to plead. The medical evidence can be examined, looked at and published for all to understand it. It is only in circumstances where there is clearly a medical problem—I recall only one such case where a person was about to die—that the Attorney-General can issue a nolle prosequi, which puts an end to the proceedings. Surely the lesson of this is transparency on medical issues.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may explain some of the apparent confusions which have arisen. There are a number of distinct areas which need to be considered separately. The first is the matter with which Mr Straw, as Home Secretary, had to deal; and that is in the context of the Extradition Act 1989, which was brought in by the previous government. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly observed, what is required for the purposes of court proceedings in this country is relatively limited; that is to say, there has to be the assertion of the fact that a relevant offence has been committed together with an adherence to the appropriate formal procedures. That having been done, the magistrate himself has very little discretion, if any, in the context of the Extradition Act 1989.
There has been a good deal of misapprehension, partly arising out of the long, drawn-out proceedings which were carried out on an entirely different basis altogether; namely, the issues ultimately decided by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House as to whether or not state immunity or any similar legal
684
concept could apply to Senator Pinochet in the circumstances of the present case. It is well known to your Lordships that the Appellate Committee on the second occasion came to the conclusion that Senator Pinochet indeed had no continuing immunity in certain circumstances. That is one set of legal circumstances with which the Home Secretary has to deal. That has nothing at all to do with whether there is admissible evidence under the rules of evidence and the rules of justice in this country as to whether Senator Pinochet might be tried here.
The important matter is this. By virtue of Article 7(1) of the convention, if the requested state—the United Kingdom in this instance—does not extradite, there is an automatic obligation on the national authorities to consider the prosecution internally within this jurisdiction. So it is not a question of "Does the CPS want to pay any attention?" or "Do the Metropolitan Police want to inquire?" There is an obligation on the United Kingdom, by virtue of Article 7(1) of the convention, to consider these matters. That is exactly the point of the letter that was sent from my office to Senator Pinochet's solicitors on 1st September last year, pointing out that I would disqualify myself from any consideration relating to this matter because I had previously been patron of Redress, an organisation which tries to help people who have been tortured by state engines of oppression. I decided to disqualify myself. But in that letter we pointed out to Senator Pinochet's solicitors—I think rightly and I hope your Lordships will think fairly—that if there were to be a non-extradition, the Article 7(1) obligations would still apply. My office took the view—I have no doubt rightly—that it would not be fair to anyone for there to be a decision against extradition and then for the Article 7 position, perhaps if his lawyers had not considered it—I did not know whether they had or they had not—to be sprung upon them.
No admissible evidence in the context of our country's jurisdiction is required for the extradition proceedings. Your Lordships may have views as to whether that is right or wrong. I repeat: the provision was brought in by the previous government. As the Home Secretary said in the Statement read out by my noble friend Lord Bassam, it is 10 years ago now and it needs to be looked at for all kinds of reasons. The Home Secretary is setting up that review.
As I said when repeating the Statement made by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General, the Metropolitan Police Service makes its own decision about whether to investigate. It does not go on the basis of any instruction from the CPS. The facts were these. Of the material available, from whatever source, there was nothing that was available and admissible in this jurisdiction which could lead to the sensible prospect of a successful prosecution. The code for Crown prosecutors has a two-fold test. First, is there a realistic prospect of conviction? Secondly, are there public interest considerations which militate against a prosecution? There was no admissible evidence which could have formed the basis of a realistic prospect of conviction in this jurisdiction.

685
The public interest matter did not therefore arise. But since the CPS knew the conclusion of the medical team, which was referred to in some detail by noble friend Lord Bassam, it rightly came to the view that no court in England and Wales would allow a trial to continue.
There are a number of circumstances in which a prosecution can be halted. I have the right to enter a nolle if I want to. A jury can be empanelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. Frequently these days, as your Lordships will know, applications are made to judges to stop cases on the basis of abuse of process because of the nature of the defendant's ill health. So it is not simply a jury decision. The judge can decide; I can decide; or a jury can decide.
Questions were raised about the CPS and whether or not a lawyer has a duty not to follow instructions which, to the lawyer in his professional, ethical capacity, appear inappropriate. That is not the situation. The CPS acted, as the CPS always does and has done for a number of years, as the agent for a foreign government; in this case, the Kingdom of Spain. The lawyers who dealt with the other issues were completely separate and distinct. They were not acting for any client; they were discharging their public duty as part of a statutory body set up within this jurisdiction.
I was asked whether a full account could be given. An extremely full Written Answer—I appreciate that your Lordships may not have had the opportunity to see it—has been lodged. It bears some study. A good deal of the chronology is well known. All I can say is this. We must all ask ourselves, if we have anything to do with the administration of justice: did we discharge our duties properly? I have no doubt at all that my colleague the Solicitor-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service behaved immaculately and discharged their legal duties without fear or favour.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about costs. I am not in a position to give the final figure. Not all the bills have been received. The best information I had earlier was that £600,000 had been run up. I do not pretend for a moment that that is a definitive figure. If one wants a goal as valuable as the rule of law applied internationally, it is sometimes necessary to pay.
5 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, after this unfortunate history—which, to put it at its lowest, has not exactly improved relations between this country and Chile—it is important to see whether we can learn some practical lessons? If, in the future, it comes to the knowledge of the Government, through diplomatic channels, for instance, or as a result of a request for VIP treatment, that a politician from a country where human rights abuses are known to have occurred, such as China or Russia, is about to enter this country, will the Government first inquire of the CPS and others whether an arrest warrant is a serious risk? If there is
686
such a risk, will they advise the person not to come? Or will the Government welcome the person into the country and then have him arrested? It is an important question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course it is an important question. It is an important political question. I must stress to your Lordships that I do not act politically in this arena—nor should I; nor have any of my predecessors. I act as an independent legal officer. I make no decisions of the sort queried by the noble Lord. He wondered whether or not the Foreign Office or the Home Office might tip off someone coming into this country. But that would seem to be the very kind of collusion that he and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, deprecated earlier. I stress that my work is confined to the legal role which is placed by statute on the Attorney-General. I have nothing to do with whether or not people are tipped off, nor indeed whether people are arrested.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, used the phrase, "the unfortunate history". I do not think that history will regard this matter as unfortunate. I think the verdict of history will be that Jack Straw behaved immaculately well, and that although the legal proceedings were lengthy, they upheld something that matters: that, however powerful you are, and to whatever elevated status you have aspired, if you commit monstrous crimes the law will not be silent.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, surely the noble and learned Lord will accept that, notwithstanding the impeccable credentials of the Attorney-General and the integrity of the Home Secretary, the sight of General Pinochet returning to Chile today will not send a message that dictators will be brought to trial and will find no corner in which to hide. Does he agree that, since 1948 and the creation of the convention on genocide and torture, the practical problem has been that no individual country has been properly able to police these kinds of cases, and that this saga has again demonstrated our impotence when it comes to dealing with such matters? Will the noble and learned Lord therefore reflect for a moment on the need to create an international court that will deal with these matters and on the failure so far, not least of the American administration, to ratify the creation of an international court? Where do Her Majesty's Government now stand in that process?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the spirit of the noble Lord's remarks, as I so often do; however, I do not agree with his conclusion. I believe that those who, it is alleged, were monstrously treated, had their relatives taken away from them—or, in that agreeable phrase, whose relatives were disappeared—ought to have some comfort. They will have immediate disappointment—of course they will—and there is no solace I can offer them, except from the proposition, I repeat, that; however mighty you are, in the end the law will not remain silent. That is of no immediate consolation. I recognise that, I hope with a decent humility.

687
International law is developing very quickly in this area. My noble friend Lord Bassam pointed out that in the Queen's Speech we gave our undertaking to become a full party in the International Criminal Court. I do not think that anyone who has heard Robin Cook speak on this matter doubts his commitment. At present, there is a tribunal sitting in respect of allegations of atrocities in Rwanda, with convictions having been obtained. There is a tribunal on atrocities sitting in the former republic of Yugoslavia, with convictions having been obtained. Sanctions are available in the international criminal justice system. We have legal duties that do not depend on the politics of the moment. I know that the noble Lord will agree. I mentioned Article 7. Under those duties, if extradition fails, we have to consider prosecution. Assertion and allegation, statement of facts, are not the same as admissible evidence.
Perhaps I may bring one final point into the equation. If the rule of law matters, even disagreeable people, even guilty people, are entitled to benefit from it. It is possible that Senator Pinochet was guilty of these offences; he has not been tried. It is possible that he is not guilty of these offences, he has not been tried. But guilty or not guilty, if he is not fit to stand trial it is abusive of the legal process to make him stand trial.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General about the role of the CPS as agent for the Kingdom of Spain. Does he agree that it is important that the CPS acts only as the agent of the Kingdom of Spain and is not proactive as a prosecution authority? In that context, can the noble and learned Lord explain why the CPS did not confine itself simply to meeting representatives of Judge Garzon, but held meetings with Joan Garces, the political secretary of Salvador Allende? Why was that necessary?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know. As I said, I disqualified myself even from looking at any papers. I may be the only person in this House who has not read the medical reports on Senator Pinochet because, however they might have come to me, I thought that it was not right to involve myself in them, having given the undertaking that I did to Senator Pinochet's solicitors.
I believe that the CPS acted rightly within its remit as agent for the Kingdom of Spain. That is a longstanding and well-known arrangement between sovereign jurisdictions and the CPS here. When it acts as a proactive prosecution authority—a phrase that has been used by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—that is in a separate category, and I assure the House that wholly different lawyers dealt with those matters.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord ensure that I receive an answer to my question?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course; I can certainly ask my colleague the Solicitor-General, who
688
had more knowledge of this matter on a day-to-day basis. If he does not know the answer—I do not know whether the noble Lord's suggestion is factually right—I shall make sure that I obtain the answer. I shall provide it to the noble Lord as soon as may be and will place a copy in the Library.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm one point? Is it the case that, in relation to extradition proceedings, the evidence that it is necessary to produce for the purpose of those proceedings does not have to be admissible evidence in the sense that we would use the term if, say, a defendant were standing trial here? As I understand the position, there was not sufficient evidence available to the CPS for anyone to be tried here; however, there was sufficient for the purpose of the extradition proceedings. In that respect, therefore, the CPS behaved perfectly properly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My noble friend is absolutely right. I do not think that any court that has examined this matter has come to a contrary conclusion. It was found that the extradition proceedings were correct; that there was no appropriate or relevant immunity for Senator Pinochet. Therefore, the whole conduct following the arrest has been upheld by the courts in our jurisdiction. However, my noble friend is quite right. That does not necessarily make the background material admissible, bearing in mind the rules of evidence that we have in our system.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as one who presumes to think that both Law Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service acted with propriety in this case, arising out of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, can consideration be given to the dual role of the CPS which may give rise to misunderstanding; namely, as agents for a foreign government and its traditional function as a prosecuting authority in this country?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that I always pay very careful attention to the observations of the noble and learned Lord. His suggestion may be an avenue usefully to be followed. Substitute arrangements would have to be made. The present arrangements are well known, but that does not necessarily mean that they are perfect in every respect. I shall certainly give thought to the suggestion, even if the conclusion is that the arrangements work perfectly well at the moment. There is a possibility of confusion, which was why earlier I took a moment or two to explain the difference between the nature of extradition proceedings and successful criminal prosecutions in this country.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to put two questions which I preface with a comment. It seems to me that the result is: phew! We are off the hook. Senator Pinochet has now gone home and we do not have to offend more people than is absolutely

689
necessary. First, will the noble and learned Lord answer the very apposite question put by my noble friend Lord Cope? At what stage was it realised that Senator Pinochet should not be tried? It seems to me from the response of the noble and learned Lord that that realisation was a good deal earlier than the day before yesterday. If so, the man should have been let go a lot earlier than this morning. Secondly, allegations have been made that the original warrant issued by the Spanish court was faulty. If the CPS acted only as agent, was it under a duty to point out to the foreign court that its process was wrong or merely to act on the evidence presented to it? If it is to give legal advice to foreign governments, that is very different from acting as agent.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl confuses two issues which I tried to keep separate. He asked—almost rhetorically—whether, if it had been decided a long time ago that Senator Pinochet could not be tried, he should have been discharged a long time ago. That is the confusion which I sought to illuminate earlier. When the material went to the Metropolitan Police on the date specified in the Statement the intention was to discover whether there was any admissible evidence for the purposes of a possible prosecution in this country. We have the jurisdiction and the obligation to consider a prosecution under Article 7(1) of the convention. That is one set of factual circumstances. That has nothing whatever to do with whether or not Senator Pinochet is fit to stand trial in Spain. They are completely separate matters. The disqualification for trial in Spain is the nature of the concluded medical evidence, whereas the disqualification for trial in this jurisdiction is that there is insufficient admissible evidence for a prosecution to be properly mounted. Those are wholly separate and distinct circumstances.
The question of whether when one is the lawyer or agent of a client one simply acts on the evidence is not really in point. If there is faulty documentation, then it is the duty of the lawyer to point out to the person whom he represents that it is faulty. But, if there were a faulty warrant, it would have been perfectly open to the lawyers representing Senator Pinochet (of whom there were many), in whose hands many days and weeks of court time were spent, to take that point. If they did take that point, it does not seem to have succeeded.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the lucidity and care with which he has answered the questions put to him. We can all understand why he was so successful in persuading juries. I should like to put a question to which the noble and learned Lord may want to give overnight consideration before he replies. In the light of all that he has said about the need to ensure that those who commit such vile crimes as torture and murder and cause people to disappear should not escape the law, is he now entirely comfortable with the legislation, which he helped to take through this House, which enables
690
those who tortured and caused to disappear United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland to be protected from prosecution?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone who was present on the occasions to which the noble Lord refers would have gone away happy. They would have gone away having tried as best they might to reconcile the almost irreconcilable. Let us remember that the legislation was voted through, not by executive fiat or on the basis, "We are powerful and above the law", but by two Chambers of a free Parliament, which I believe makes a very significant moral and political difference. But I join with the observations of the noble Lord. I was not happy about it. There are many things about compromises, legal or political, with which neither he nor I feel entirely content. However, sometimes we have to bite the bullet—the noble Lord has much more experience than I—and go for the best rather than the perfect solution.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether the Government will consider compiling and publishing a list of all the countries where torture has been officially sanctioned at one time or another during the past 50 years? Such a list would be quite a long one. In this way one would be able to judge whether double standards are being applied by the international community.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure what practical validity would derive from that. The sub-text to the question of the noble Lord is that the rogue countries are perfectly well known. One should try to devise a system of justice that works rather than—I hope that he does not find my adjective disagreeable a—cosmetic list. The fact is that these were grave crimes and whoever was guilty of them caused monstrous, wicked offence not only to living human beings, who then had their lives taken from them, but to their relatives. To appreciate that one has only to go occasionally to South America, as I did before the election of the previous government when in power, to talk to people whose lives are utterly bereft and whose faces are blank because they simply do not know what happened to their 16 year-old son or brother 30 years ago.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I did not suggest that my list should be "cosmetic" but a complete one.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one can produce lists for all kinds of purposes. I am wondering whether the moral seriousness of what we are now discussing is really attended to by the production of a list which everyone knows about anyway.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I apologise to the House for rising to my feet again, although we still have three minutes. It appears from what the noble and learned Lord said that we shall prosecute the vile who have no power but not the vile who have power.

691
We welcomed to this country the President of China, who is not exactly a parish councillor from Scunthorpe. We also have as part of the establishment Martin McGuinness and Mr Adams, who are up to their elbows in blood, because it is convenient to us. As a Conservative, I have no difficulty with that because there are times when the ends justify the means. But it is slightly sickening that somebody who has no power is prosecuted for these horrible crimes. I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord's description of these crimes. It is unattractive that we prosecute the "weak vile" but not the "strong vile".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not put Senator Pinochet in the category of the "weak vile". According to the medical evidence which the Home Secretary looked at and accepted on the basis that it was independent material, he is now weak. But he was not weak when he came here; nor was he weak in the years of his power and his glory. I do not know of any admissible evidence against either Mr McGuinness or Mr Adams—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if the noble Earl has some, I expect that he will discharge his duty by providing it to the relevant authorities. I repeat: I know of no admissible evidence against either of the two men he identified sufficient to justify a charge of murder, if that is what he is alleging.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to look up the instructions to the Grenadier Guards in Ulster 15 years ago: to arrest McGuinness on a charge of murder; he was their most wanted man. I assume that the authorities had some evidence for that: that they would not have done it just for a whim—"Let's lock up all ginger-headed Ulstermen".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl identifies precisely the trap he should be avoiding. To arrest someone it is necessary to have reasonable grounds to suspect that he has committed an offence. Thank God in our country reasonable grounds for suspicion are not the same as proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
5.22 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 19,

Schedule 2,

692

Clauses 20 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 to 30,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 31 to 46,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 47 to 50,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 51 to 101,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 102 to 116,

Schedule 8,

Clause 117,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 118 to 119,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 120 to 122.—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
5.23 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill he further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 22 [Absence of requirement for political balance]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved]
Clause 23 [Proposals]:
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert (". and
(c) ensure they deliver both value for money and quality standards of service").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall not dwell again on my concern—I have shared it with noble Lords previously about—the requirement in Clause 18(b) that 400 and more local authorities of different sizes and circumstances have to report their internal structures to the Secretary of State.
I emphasise again that my desire is simply to allow local governments to determine the structure which they judge best to produce good quality services. It is not to be interpreted, as I fear that it has been on some occasions, as a defence by me of the status quo. As the Minister will know, I have experienced both the best and the worst of local government; and I should be the last person to wish to defend the continuation of stifling and time-wasting bureaucratic committees.
My point is quite different. In this day and age we should evaluate all organisations, even your Lordships' House, not by the procedures that they employ (however fancy they may be) but on the outcomes achieved. It should be the results rather than the administrative structures employed upon which we should concentrate.
By referring again to best value evaluation system, I fear that I may be accused of being even more enthusiastic about that system than are the Government; but I am sure I am not. My concern is that the Government give to local authorities a clear message that it is the outcomes, not the structures, against which they will be evaluated. For that reason I proposed that Clause 18(b) be deleted. However, the steely response from the Minister caused me to be pragmatic. I accept that Clause 18(b) will remain. However, I have been greatly assisted by a letter which the noble Baroness kindly sent me. I am grateful and happily leave it to the Minister to decide how best these matters will be taken forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. I have not had sight of the letter he received from the Minister. However, if it gives him some encouragement, I am delighted. The Government resisted our Amendment No 11. Perhaps at this point they will consider drawing together an overall plan so that local authorities can judge whether they have the right balance of considerations—they may have too much emphasis on economic well-being at the cost of environmental well-being, and so on—which should be included in the standards of service. I look forward to seeing a copy of the letter.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall endeavour not to appear steely to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. The Government strongly believe that the new forms of constitution available in Part II of the Bill will lead to more efficient, transparent and accountable local government, and that they will reinforce the best value regime in the Local Government Act 1999—I endorse the view of the noble Lord—for delivering value for money and high quality services. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer said, high quality services are the ultimate test of effective and good local government.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, I undertook to consider further how we could meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. The noble Lord has discussed the matter briefly with me and with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I have written this week to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, indicating that we shall bring forward an amendment at Third Reading which I believe will meet the substance of his concerns. I hope, therefore, that the House will indulge me by considering a further amendment at Third Reading. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and for her courtesy in writing to me as she did. I readily accept that the amendment in my name on the Marshalled List is in lay language which might not pass the test of a constitutional lawyer. Therefore, I happily leave it to the noble Baroness and the department to get that right. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Operation of and publicity for, executive arrangements]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Referendum following petition]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 18, line 33, after ("operate') insert ("or cease to operate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is tabled in order to enable local communities to have a petition and subsequently a referendum to cease to operate executive arrangements. We are back in the business of whether local communities have opinions which they are entitled to express, which have validity and worth and are appropriate in the management of affairs in their own community.
The Minister made much of figures indicating that the public at large are in favour of elected mayors. I am bound to say that in general those figures could be interpreted in that way. But one needs to be extremely careful with statistics. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for persuading the Minister that the statistics should be revealed. They indicate support for elected mayors, in particular from urban communities.
That could be interpreted as being representative of the total community because the majority of the population lives in urban communities. Indeed, a large proportion of the population lives in cities, as the figures show. However, we must bear in mind that the community at large does not live entirely in cities; many people live in more rural environments. It is not possible to detect from the survey whether those who believe that elected mayors are less appropriate to their community come from one particular area as opposed to another, and possibly from rural areas.
Of the earlier survey work which backs up the most recent survey, one was in the London Borough of Lewisham; the second was of 763 adults across Britain, producing a similar result; and the third was a survey of 1,000 people in five major cities. That is interesting, but as one goes further into the papers one discovers more interesting information. A survey conducted by MORI shows that 92 per cent of the population believe that councils need to consult the public more. If that is so, it must be because the public believe that they have opinions which have validity and worth and which ought to be recognised.
The purpose of my amendment is to increase the recognition of local views in particular communities. The Bill as drafted is a one-way track into a cul-de-sac. It is executive arrangements as described in the Bill or nothing—and, unless there is further primary legislation, you cannot come out once you have passed a resolution to go in.
That is not the way to deal with the management of local government. I am a great believer in local communities. I believe that they have views and that where appropriate they should be allowed to determine their own arrangements. I believe that, if not in the big cities, in many of the more rural parts of the country people should be given the opportunity to

695
determine how they manage their affairs. I do not believe that the surveys which the Minister quoted on Monday in support of the general thesis necessarily support that in relation to particular communities.
For that reason, I have tabled the amendment. The provision in the Bill is not good government. It shows a remarkable lack of confidence on the part of the Government that they feel that they have to dragoon everyone into the new managerial systems. We should be quite clear that those managerial systems are not yet proven in this country. They are still highly experimental. I remember years ago, when we were being obliged by another Labour government to undertake a great social experiment, remarking to a colleague that if we were wrong we bore a dreadful responsibility.
I should prefer that that responsibility rested with the local communities so that they could make up their minds and had themselves to blame if subsequently things did not go well. It is not that I want to wash my hands of responsibility, but that I believe that other people are responsible and that where they can be responsible for their own affairs they should be. In this matter, I believe that they should have the right to choose and therefore I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for making available the survey material. I am sure that it will repay more examination than we have been able to give it during the short time we have had it. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I was struck by the 92 per cent of people who believe that councils need to consult the public more and by the 91 per cent who believe that councils need to improve their provision of services. Those were the highest figures in response to any of the questions.
I note that the work was carried out on behalf of the new local government network. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have undertaken any surveys and whether those he has placed in the Library are all that are available to them? During the first day of the Report stage on Monday, the Minister referred to the survey evidence that was available to the Government. I should be grateful if he could explain whether this is the extent of it.
I also noted the not insignificant number of people who responded to the question whether having the opportunity to vote for a mayor would make them more or less likely to vote. Many people stated that it would make them less likely to vote. I am still trying to work out the significance of that because there must be some.
Questions were asked about knowledge of the proposed mayor of London. Knowledge of London's new mayor was high. That is not surprising. Respondents would be aware of the fact, but certainly not of the detail. We must be careful in extrapolating from these surveys and applying the response directly to local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, there are many varieties of local authority.
696
The executive arrangements which an elected mayor of a local authority will encapsulate will be very different from those of the mayor of London, who has considerable powers to influence, but few powers to act.
I thank the Minister for making the material available, but I support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said for the reasons he gave.
Lord Whitty: We debated a similar amendment in Committee and I indicated that we could not accept the proposal. It would create significant instability in the new arrangements. The noble Lord says that this is a one-way track. It is not, because the authorities can initiate a change in any system back to an alternative system.
The electorate will twice have approved the arrangements for an elected mayor: in a referendum and in the mayoral election. Therefore, that situation is different from that of a petition to move to arrangements including an elected mayor from those where there is not an elected mayor. In that situation, local people would not normally have expressed their support, through a referendum, for the arrangements in operation at the time.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to the evidence that we have placed in the Library. On Monday, I used the term "such evidence as we have available". It repeatedly shows that people favour arrangements with an elected mayor, but that the majority of councils do not.
In response to the noble Baroness, the only research undertaken by the Government was a survey of the People's Panel which gave roughly the same result as that given by the network. We do not have comprehensive material available. I would be happy to provide what we have, but I must be a little hesitant here and refer only to that evidence. However, all the evidence points in the same direction. Given the dichotomy of views between councils and local people, it is sensible, where a council does not follow the wishes of the people, that the people should be able to force through a referendum for an elected mayor.
There is, of course, the possibility that local people could petition the council for such a referendum, but afterwards it should be for the authority to decide whether to act on such a petition. It will have to judge whether public opinion is such that it would be right to hold a referendum to change from mayoral executive arrangements to different systems, despite the relatively recent approval of existing arrangements on at least two occasions.
Provided that five years had passed since the previous referendum, it would be open to an authority, be it a rural, urban, district or county authority, voluntarily to draw up proposals and hold a referendum to change from executive arrangements involving a mayor to different executive arrangements.
One other consideration as regards the detail of the noble Lord's proposal needs to be taken on board. Noble Lords will recall that, in a slightly different context in response to the Joint Committee, we have

697
put in place arrangements for fall-back proposals for referendums to change to a form of constitution involving an elected mayor. Those arrangements will ensure that local people know exactly what the result of their vote will be. In other words, if they vote, "Yes", the mayoral system will be implemented, but if they vote, "No", then whatever fall-back has been stipulated will be put in place.
Under the provisions of the noble Lord's amendment, what would happen if people voted to abandon the arrangements? It is not specified in the amendment that an alternative system would have to be proposed. Would a council be able to propose any system? For example, would it be able to return to the status quo—the current committee system? I realise that this returns to an old difference between us, but I am afraid that the Government could not accept a situation where we would allow a return to the present committee-based system. If I interpret the noble Lord's amendment correctly, this could be something of a back-door method of returning to those arrangements.
For those reasons the amendment is not acceptable in principle. Because it does not specify an alternative outcome to abandoning the mayoral structure, it does not go far enough in offering a practical format on which to conduct a referendum. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for his reply. However, I am bound to tell him that that is as far as my gratitude can go. Regrettably, his reply was exactly what I expected and I cannot say that I find it acceptable.
Towards the end of his remarks, the noble Lord summed up the difference between us. He said that,
"the Government could not accept a situation where we would allow a return to the present committee-based system".
That committee-based structure has served this country well. We know that it works, albeit not perfectly and, as with all things, it is always capable of improvement. However, that structure is set against a system that we know nothing about; its benefits are still entirely hypothetical. It may work, but then, it may not.
I am sorry to disagree with the Minister; indeed, earlier I described the Bill as a one-way track into a cul-de-sac. But that is what the Bill will not merely invite; it will compel local government to take that route. This country is supposed to be a democracy. It is my view that in a democracy a government should be the servant of the people. The words used by the Minister appear to indicate that this Government have a rather different approach. I regret that. The Minister has tempted me to draft yet another amendment to meet some of his objections and to bring it back at Third Reading. I may well do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 18, line 34, at end insert—
("() No referendum held under this Part shall be binding on the authority unless 25 per cent. of the registered electors have voted in the referendum.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 which are grouped with it and set out in the same terms.
The amendment raises a point which we debated in Committee in a slightly different manner. What proportion of the community should participate in a referendum for that referendum to have validity and to force through a particular action? Again, we are dealing with the question of the confidence of the Government in their own proposals. If they are not prepared to put a figure on the level of participation in a referendum, one might be tempted to assume that, despite opinion polls indicating that the population are largely in favour of elected mayors, the Government are not all that confident. Indeed, when the London electorate was invited to vote on the matter it did not show a great deal of enthusiasm. Events since then are, I believe, more likely to provoke abstentions rather than votes, but that is neither here nor there.
It seems that if we are to take the route of using referendums, at the very least there ought to be a minimum participation figure for the result to be binding. What happened in Germany is an old canard; the consequences of minorities in referendums led to a dreadful cataclysm earlier in the last century. However, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I suggest that, despite the Minister's comments in Committee, there should be a minimum figure for participation.
The figure I have suggested would not have created any problems for either London or Wales. In the light of experience, the figure of 25 per cent is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although no doubt the noble Lord will think that this amendment is much more reasonable than the previous one, many of my arguments will sound familiar to him. I recognise the noble Lord's position. At first sight a figure of 25 per cent participation may not appear unreasonable. However, in this country we do not have precedents for setting any kind of threshold in elections. The one exception was that of Scotland, which I mentioned previously. The referendum in the 1970s led to a majority of those who voted supporting devolution, but the turn-out threshold was not reached. The result was a period of great anxiety and tension in Scottish politics which only recently we have begun to put right.
Any threshold can present such an outcome. We should also bear in mind that we are discussing local government. It is the hope, I believe, of all three parties that the changes to, and modernisation of, local government structures that we intend to implement will lead to higher participation and turn-outs in

699
elections. But we have no guarantee of that. In many parts of the country, the situation in local government unfortunately has deteriorated in recent years. That has resulted in major changes—for example, dramatic changes of control—taking place with low levels of turn-out. In at least one relatively recent case that I can think of the turn-out was less than 10 per cent.
With that background to the turn-out for local government elections, it would seem unreasonable to impose a threshold of 25 per cent or, indeed, a threshold of any kind. If the majority who vote, and who are persuaded to vote for change, do so, it would then be unreasonable for us to say to them, "Sorry, your majority opinion is not enough because not enough of you turned out".
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask why the Government ask local authorities which are considering transferring their housing stock to achieve a minimum turn-out of council tenants in such elections or referendums. I believe that the rationale behind it is to ensure that that is one of the pieces of evidence on which the council has properly consulted and that it achieves a sufficient turn-out in a tenants' ballot. Why is that situation treated differently from this one?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that in those circumstances we are dealing with a contractual tenancy arrangement where a majority vote would, or could, alter the tenancy position of all the tenants who have not voted. Therefore, I believe that we are dealing with a different situation; that is, a change of structure, control or policy by a vote in local authorities. I do not believe that the referendum turn-out can be regarded as significantly different from the question of turn-out in a local election.
Regrettably, if we were to set a turn-out figure of 25 per cent in local elections, at present a goodly number of local election results would be disqualified and become null and void. I hope that the whole process will lead to turn-outs substantially above 25 per cent and, indeed, substantially above what I believe was the previously proposed threshold of 40 per cent. Nevertheless, at this point we cannot require that. Were we to do so, it could lead to political frustration and ambiguity. Therefore, I hope that we shall not pursue that course.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister rightly quotes the background to what happened in Scotland many years ago. Indeed, that is not an unreasonable argument. However, the fact that the noble Lord will not include a figure, even as low as 25 per cent of the electorate, reveals, as I said earlier, a great lack of confidence. Perhaps the public are not as smitten with the proposals as the noble Lord wishes to pretend.
Having spent a large part of my life in local government, I can assure the Minister that I have watched with at least as much distress as he might have done the performance of local electorates in local
700
elections. However, the fact is that over many, many years—going back to a time long before I was involved in local government—as central government's control, guidance and funding of local government has increased, so local electorates' interest has diminished. That is a very sad fact.
However, it is also the case that the Bill does nothing to tackle that problem. Therefore, I am afraid that we shall see change being brought about and enforced on local communities in response to a very low rate of interest from the electorate. We shall probably find that electorates will continue not to be bothered greatly about what goes on in their communities unless perhaps something goes wrong. In the midst of this, among other things we are writing into the Bill procedures which, in my view, could be abused rather more easily than the present system might permit. I accept entirely that there are checks and balances. However, if things start to go wrong, perhaps then the community will begin to take an interest.
I believe that the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is entirely appropriate. That said, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 19, line 24, leave out ("must not exceed") and insert ("(unless such regulations otherwise provide) is to be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the point in the Bill where the Government propose a threshold. This, of course, relates to the figure concerning petitions. We have been over this ground before. I indicated during Committee stage that an amendment would be necessary to ensure that regulations enable a petition threshold to be set above or below 5 per cent. This amendment reinstates the effect from the introduction print of the Bill. I believe that it delivers more fully the commitments made in our response to the Joint Committee to keep the 5 per cent threshold under review. As I promised, it is a relatively minor amendment in textual terms.
Therefore, I hope that the House will agree that the purpose of the amendment is clear. There is quite a delicate balance to be struck between setting a threshold which is too high for local people to achieve and setting one so low that councils would be forced into referendums (at a cost to the local taxpayer) which, if defeated, would be nugatory. Therefore, we believe that 5 per cent strikes the right balance and that is the level at which we shall set the threshold. However, we also indicated that we would keep the threshold under review. The amendment enables maximum flexibility to give effect to the outcome of such a review.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 53, to which I shall refer with the leave of the House, makes a drafting change to the same subsection to ensure that the intended effect of the provision is in fact clear. I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not quarrel with the amendments and I understand the drafting

701
difficulties that have arisen over this particular provision. I wish merely to protest—and the noble Lord has given me the opportunity to do so—against the change in language which is occurring; for example, "the introductory print of the Bill" and "the introduction version of the Bill". That is not to criticise the Minister. I have come to the fairly clear conclusion that the problems in relation to the government amendments and in knowing precisely what the Government want to say in the Bill are due to a lack of resources of parliamentary counsel and so on devoted to the Bills.
I believe that it is entirely proper and good that there should be introduction versions of Bills to go before committees or groups which may consider them as draft legislation. However, I do not believe that it is right to slide into accepting that the Government present to Parliament as their Bill a version which they then say was merely introductory and which we all know will be amended at a later stage. I hope that the Minister will not take my comments personally because certainly they are not directed personally.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the point made by the noble Baroness. I believe that she is drawing rather wider implications from the use of these terms than the Government intend. However, I concur with her in some respects. I shall try to avoid using them in legislation before this House for which I am responsible. With that, I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 19, line 25, leave out ("any") and insert ("each").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Power of Secretary of State to require referendum]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Power to require referendum]:
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Time of elections etc.]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 21, line 17, at end insert (", and
(e) as to the number of electors signing the nomination papers for a candidate for mayor, which shall be not less than 30").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a sense, this is a probing amendment but it is also an amendment which I hope that the Minister may feel able to accept.
Clause 36 is the point at which the Minister has the power by regulations to set out the way in which the mayor will be required to stand for election. It has various conditions and the whole matter is dealt with by way of regulations. But there is no provision regarding the number of electors who would be required to sign the nomination papers for people standing as candidates for the office of mayor.
That should be a significant issue. It would be worth having that provision on the face of the Bill, although I am bound to admit that I have grave doubts about my amendment because I am doubtful whether 30 signatures are sufficient. We require an ordinary candidate standing for a local authority ward to have 10 electors on his nomination paper. I used to trail round so that I could have a nomination from every parish that I represented in my county division. Some district councils are represented by single parishes as wards and again they still have 10 signatures on the nomination paper.
The mayor is to stand for the whole district or possibly even the whole of a county or city. It seems to me that perhaps a more reasonable figure might be two signatories from every ward or county council division within a council area. The terminology will vary with types of authority. But names to show that he has wide support across the area of authority would be appropriate. Therefore, it may be that the figure which I have chosen is not appropriate. But I chose that figure because there is nothing about that on the face of the Bill. We are now into the area of what is to be included in regulations. I acknowledge that. But that could be something which is on the face of the Bill and I believe that it. is sufficiently important to be there. If we include that, it indicates that the office of mayor is seen to be serious and is acknowledged by the Government that that is a matter which both candidates and electors should take very seriously indeed.
I should have no difficulty with a figure much higher than 30. But this is a probing amendment so that the Government's thinking is out into the open. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my reaction to this amendment was as the noble Lord himself has articulated; that is, to have a higher number and perhaps a given number per ward or electoral division would be a good test. In the discussions on the mailshot to London electors, I thought that if the number of people nominating candidates for mayor were to be higher than the 10 per borough which is proposed, the Government's anxieties about providing publicity for restaurateurs and nightclub owners might have been answered because of the greater difficulty there would have been in obtaining nominations.
But it is an important test for a candidate to show that he or she has support across the area, which is, after all, the rationale for the nominations within a particular ward, if one is standing for a ward.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government do not feel able to support Amendment No. 57. As we said in Committee, we have not yet reached a firm view on whether the nomination requirements for mayoral candidates should differ from those which apply to councillors generally.
We recognise that this is an important issue which affects the political process and that there may be a number of differing views about what the requirement

703
should be. Therefore, we shall seek views from all interested parties on those matters before deciding how to proceed. We shall do the same in respect of expenses limits for mayoral candidates and referendum campaigns.
It is normal practice for rules for local government elections to be made by secondary legislation. The regulations which we make following the consultation exercise will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Therefore, noble Lords will have another opportunity to debate this issue which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, is extremely important. It is equally important that we get it right. We believe that the consultation is important. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Again, my gratitude stops there because there is an increasing tendency in legislation to deal with large parts of it as rules in orders. In many ways, that means that we are required to legislate on particular matters with blindfolds over our eyes or at any rate blinkers, because we can look only at what is on the paper before us.
I entirely accept the point about consultation. I am delighted to hear that the Government want to get this right. I could probably tell them now what the answer should be. If they agreed with that, we should have no difficulties at all. But I accept that it is normal practice to regulate on the detail of local elections. We must wait with bated breath.
However, I hoped that I should have flushed out the Government Front Bench and persuaded them to reveal that they have some thoughts on the matter. I have signally failed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
COMMISSION TO REPORT ON PRIMARIES FOR MAYORAL ELECTIONS
(" . The Secretary of State shall establish a commission which shall within one year of the enactment of this Act report on the introduction of primaries for the selection of candidates for the choice of elected mayor.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will have thoughts on this matter. The amendment proposes a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to establish a commission to report on the introduction of primaries for the selection of candidates for the position of elected mayor.
We are debating this Bill and elected mayors for local authorities in cities and other areas throughout the country at a time when the term used for the selection for candidates for the mayor of London is very often "a shambles".
The electoral college which Labour established has sadly—and I am sad about this—left an indelible impression that Labour's selection has been fixed. Sadly, speaking for my own party, it is not newsworthy to select a candidate by one-member, one-vote, by single transferable vote. We undertook the selection in a calm and ordered fashion. But, as I say, that is not a news story.
I believe that the shenanigans have done lasting, long-term harm and the mayors of other cities must not start under the same shadow. The shenanigans have also harmed politics and, in my view, the democratic process. The Government can protest—and they do—about that but quite honestly, the public know a fix when they see it. It is likely—I believe that we shall see it on 4th May—that voters, particularly the party's own members, will express their concern about the process through the way in which they vote, irrespective of who stands.
Until the past few weeks, I should not have advocated anything other than each political party choosing its own candidate in the way in which it sees best. However, in the context of debates about the Bill where we have used the terms "transparency" and "accountability" a great deal, I have been left wondering whether in fact we are going to provide for elected mayors who, on the basis of current experience, will be accountable to the party machine before their local electors.
The primary system in the United States is widely used. I am not suggesting, of course, that one should translate American methods to this country without careful consideration. We are different cultures, but we are both democracies. I understand that the primary system came about when the previous convention system.
"succumbed to public pressure for greater democratization and dispersion of political power".
That quotation comes from a report from the library of Congress itself. In the United States the different states—not universally, but in most cases—use primaries for choosing candidates for federal state and local nominees. The systems are diverse, although I understand that nearly 35 states and the district of Columbia have closed primaries; that is, with restricted participation. However, one must then consider the restrictions on the selections we have been observing through the newspapers in London. In those states, one has to declare one's allegiance. In 15 states, anyone may choose for which party one wishes to promote a candidate and express one's vote.
I appreciate that my remarks have been directed to the problems we have seen in the Labour Party selection process, but I cannot help but observe that they are not confined to that process. The Conservatives have had their own difficulties, which they overcame a little earlier. But the methods they have used for selecting assembly candidates are ones which I wish we were not witnessing. As I understand it—I daresay the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will correct me if I am wrong—the candidates for the London-wide list have been selected by what one should probably call a college; a relatively small group

705
of individuals who are the chairs of the constituency parties. Also, as I understand it, the candidates for Labour's London-wide list for the assembly have emerged—I cannot think of another word for it—from Millbank.
The amendment does not seek to impose a new system but to provide for serious consideration of a new system. That is why I have suggested a commission. I readily acknowledge that I am not the only person to have had the notion of opening up the selection process beyond a narrow band of people, some of whom may have a much greater weight of vote than others. It was only after I tabled the amendment that I remembered that I had read comments to that effect by the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush. I believe that that strengthens my argument that the call is coming from more than one side and from a number of quarters.
While I always feel a little embarrassed about talking of electoral politics from this House, I hope nevertheless that we may provide some kind of impetus for a serious consideration of how the sadly declining reputation of local government and politics in this country may be reversed. We have made no secret of our concerns about the introduction of elected mayors for local authorities, but if we are to have the prospect of elected mayors, no one will be more enthusiastic than my noble friends, my colleagues outside this Chamber and I to make sure that the system is as good as it can possibly be. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I want to add a particular argument to the points raised by my noble friend. I address the concern expressed on a number of occasions from the ministerial Benches about the possibility of frivolous candidates taking part in large elections and causing all sorts of problems. One of the advantages of the primary system is that it tends to eradicate such frivolous candidates because it is an extremely rigorous process.
I have in my hand the revised draft dated 9th January 1999 for the primary and election systems for the year 2001 in the city of Los Angeles. Although it is a large city, similar programmes will take place in all city elections. There are several large cities in our own country apart from London in which elections will take place. One must first declare that one wishes to be a candidate. At that time, one must make a statement of economic interests, which is deposited with the City Ethics Commission. That statement must,
"itemize investments and interest in real property held by the candidate on the date of declaration of candidacy, and sources of income received during the 12 months prior to the date of filing".
The statement lies on the table and in public. We know that certain candidates are rubbished before they reach the election process because their declarations prove to be as full of holes as a colander.
706
At a later stage, when one is to state one's occupational designation on the ballot, it is limited to no more than three words; such as "lawyer", "public attorney", or—
Lord Tope: "Peer of realm"!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood:—Or "peer of realm". I agree that it would be quite funny to run in an American election as a peer of the realm, but I do not believe it would be possible.
One may not mention the name of one's company or business. The only proper name which may be included is a geographic place name. So in a famous case which has been quoted to us on a number of occasions, one would state, "Garage owner, Haringey". That is all that would be permitted.
At the next stage one has to get together a nominating petition. In the city of Los Angeles, all the main officers—not only the mayor—must provide large numbers of signatures. If one is not willing to pay 300 dollars as a deposit then one has to accumulate a larger number of signatures. Those various provisions gradually enforce the fact that one must be a solid candidate in order to start the process going, particularly as one must have at least 500 but no more than 1,000 signatures on one's nomination form. You and other residents of Los Angeles may circulate your petition. The advice is rather charming. It states,
"Usually, between 800 and 1,000 signatures are needed to obtain 500 valid signatures".
In other words, before one gets anywhere near the election system itself, one must demonstrate in public—these are all public documents—that one is a person of solid intent. One must declare how much one earns and what property one possesses and one must be able to demonstrate a large amount of popular support. That seems to be one of the advantages of the system. If the rules were drawn up correctly, one would discourage most of the frivolous candidates.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask: if the system in Los Angeles is so good, why is the governance of Los Angeles so bad?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the governance of Los Angeles is interesting; sometimes excellent and sometimes appalling, which can, perhaps, be said of most large cities.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is an interesting idea. We should be grateful to the noble Baronesses for, at any rate, provoking us to think for a few moments about something else. However, I have a dreadful feeling in my bones that if this is pursued, yet another local government Bill will come along. If one includes the Greater London Authority Bill, which is a kind of local government Bill, we have had three in the past 15 months. That is knocking local government about a little.

707
However, we need to think carefully about how we arrive at our candidates. This point flows logically from those I raised about people's names on nomination papers for mayor. However, as regards the existing selection procedure, it is fairly easy to see how one can arrive at a mechanism to select a London-wide candidate for mayor. One would be able to include everybody in that machinery, if one had the strength of character to do so. One could have "one man one vote" or one could be slightly redistributive, if so inclined, which would be up to the party. It is also easy to see how one arrives at a candidate for a particular area within a city.
However, there is a lacuna concerning those on the party lists. Whether or not it is satisfactory, the Government's candidates emerged from Walworth Road and ours emerged from a secret enclave of senior constituency officials. Given the present timescale of the operation, that was the way things were done for this election. However, I have to say that I hope that my party—I cannot speak for others—will learn from the experience of this election and that we will do rather better next time.
I return to the "guts" of the matter; the primaries. The idea is worth studying. The amendment would create the background and pave the way for a study to be done. To that extent, I am happy to support the noble Baroness.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this has been an interesting and somewhat novel entrance to debate. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we do not intend to incorporate the idea into another local government Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, should overcome her diffidence and embarrassment about talking on electoral politics. I had not noticed such embarrassment and reticence before. However, I shall look out for it in future.
The amendment contains an interesting idea. However, we believe that, provided a candidate can meet the nomination requirements, it is for the candidates themselves to decide whether to stand for mayor. Where a candidate is to represent a political party, it is for the party concerned to decide how to select that candidate. We do not believe that that is an area where Government should be involved.
In response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, I agree that much can be learnt from looking at electoral systems and structures in other countries. However, I would perhaps argue that this particular example is alien to the political tradition and culture of this country, and there are concerns about it.
As all noble Lords will readily accept, the Government would not want to become involved in state sponsorship of primaries, which could focus attention on candidates from political parties to the possible detriment of independent candidates. The system in the United States, even in the example and detail given, militates against poor candidates. Why
708
should somebody who finds difficulty in raising a deposit be required to have more signatures than somebody who is readily able to raise the deposit for the primaries? The cost of conducting a primary campaign across a large area can be exceedingly expensive and militates against individual candidates.
In the United States, some of the costs of primaries are met by the taxpayer. We do not yet have evidence that taxpayers wish to fund the internal decisions of political parties. As I have said, any state sponsorship could militate against independent candidates.
We do not believe that this is an area where the Government should have a role. We believe that parties should make their own decision about selection of their candidates. We are totally happy to use a system which produced our leader, deputy leader, Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the amendment was not intended to create jobs for parliamentarians. That was not in my mind.
As regards the cost of primaries, one has to accept that there is a cost to democracy. I should like the country to debate further what cost should properly be met. The noble Baroness says that we do not yet have evidence that the taxpayer wants to fund internal selections. In proposing the amendment I attempt to suggest that the selection process should not be quite as internalised as that we have just witnessed, but that it should be broadened. I am not sure that the problems we witnessed will make the taxpayer more or less interested in funding the activities of parties. One could argue that either way.
I am sad that in what is almost their first attempt at the Bill—we have discussed the introductory version—the Government are so sure that everything is right. I believe that much can be learnt from other ways of doing things. As regards the argument that we should reject the idea of primaries because they are alien to the traditions of this country, I do not believe that gets off the ground. So, in spades, are the proposals for elected mayors. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 37 [Voting at elections of elected mayors]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 59, I must inform the House that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 60.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 21, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 87. Amendments Nos. 60 and 88 are also in this group.
With this group of amendments we return to the mechanism for electing mayors. The government amendments propose a first-past-the-post system. Our amendments propose, once again, an alternative rather than supplementary vote. That system will allow people to vote, as far as they wish, down the list of candidates, ranking them in preference rather than having their choice restricted to only two.
The main plank of the Minister's argument against our proposal, as put forward in the debate at the last stage, was the difficulty in explaining to voters the need for a different system for the election of authorities other than Greater London. He talked about the election for mayor of London being a high profile event and suggested that it may be thought that the Government were somehow letting other communities down by having a different system.
There is an answer, though not one that politicians are very good at giving; that is, "We have reflected and have decided"—they do not need to say that they were wrong—"that another system would be better". There is no shame in that. Indeed, there would be great credit in politicians who could show themselves to be open-minded.
There is a lesson to be learnt from what is happening at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was clear in his explanation at the last stage that, given the candidates who may be standing for the position of mayor of London, it would be right to allow the electorate to vote for more than two candidates, indicating their relative preferences, which may include putting some of them low on the list.
We on these Benches have always argued that politics is not a game of "Buggins' turn", though I accept that some more old-fashioned politicians feel that that is a cosy system for the two larger parties. The presence of Mr Ken Livingstone—I hesitate to say the "ghost" thereof—points up the desirability of allowing people to vote one, two, three, four and so forth if they wish.
The argument for a supplementary vote is that the votes count and there is more chance of "ownership" (to use management jargon); that people will feel more involved than in the first-past-the-post system. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that allowing supplementary votes is a better system than first past the post. People feel that they have a real stake in the matter. But it is not as effective as voting as far down the list as one wants.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in advocating the first-past-the-post system at the last stage, described it as having both simplicity and brutality. I agree with him to that extent. He suggested that we should treat the GLA as something of an experiment. I hope that the Government will accept that, having designed a system for one election, the read-over to other elections is not automatic. We do not want elected mayors throughout the country who may be elected on what may be a minority vote. It is important
710
that, if we are to have a new system, it should be one which involves people to the greatest extent and is as successful as it can be. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 60 and 88 are paired with Amendment No. 59. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, they would change the system of electing mayors to the system of first past the post.
This is a well-tried system of election that has stood this country well through thick and thin over the centuries. We need to think a little more carefully than perhaps we have as to whether we want to go to the more sophisticated systems that supposedly give a more valid result but do not necessarily do so. It is possible to elect somebody with a large proportion of second-choice votes.
Neither I nor my party is convinced that the new systems of voting are the improvement they are held out to be. It is interesting to recall—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will not forgive me for this—that the former Liberal Party in the good old, bad old days, when it was in a position to form a government, believed happily in the first-past-the-post system. It only changed its view as it saw its political circumstances alter and felt that the new system would give it the chance to recover an element of influence that the first-past-the-post system removed from it as a consequence of the creation of the Labour Party.
I do not believe that we should go in for these diverse systems of election across different parts of the government machine. In the final analysis, the governance of this country is one sophisticated machine consisting of many components, and if they do not work together, the system does not work well. Those who regard themselves as the most important components of that machine—I do not necessarily accept this—are the Members of the other place and they are without exception elected on the first-past-the-post system. If it is good enough for them, then it should be good enough for everybody else. Of course, if somebody is prepared to say that the justification for change and the belief I spelt out is not correct, I shall be happy to hear that, but it may lead to some interesting debates.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always happy to participate in a debate on electoral reform but we do have some rather set positions on these matters and we did discuss it at some length in Committee. For a brief moment I thought we were about to hear something new because, although we are used to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, defending to the last ditch the first-past-the-post system, as indeed do most spokespeople for his party, the logic of his historic analogy about how the Liberal Party changed its view in the light of its electoral fortunes looked as though it was leading to a change in the Tory Party position. But I was disappointed.
We discussed this matter at length in Committee. We also discussed it in relation to the GLA Bill and the arguments, broadly speaking, remain the same. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, sticks with the status

711
quo; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has a relatively sophisticated system of electoral reform and we, as always, take the third way in a relatively understandable form of electoral reform. We feel it would be most appropriate to apply the supplementary vote in relation to the mayor.
The argument between the supplementary vote and the alternative vote is relatively narrow. We accept that. But we believe that the supplementary vote has an edge. It is simple and easy to understand. People may feel that by saying that I am disparaging the electorate, but I quickly add that the vast majority of the electorate could probably even understand some of the more historical electoral systems. Nevertheless, simplicity, when one is changing the totality of a system to a mayoral-based local government system, is important and we do not want confusion here.
It is also my contention that the supplementary vote system is closest to the traditional method while at the same time allowing a clear result and ensuring that we do not have mistakes and unintentional votes. When we conduct a ballot to ascertain a clear preference in relation to a single high profile office like that of the mayor, it is important for there to be clarity, simplicity and acceptance as regards its conclusions. We believe that the supplementary vote has those characteristics rather than the alternative vote proposition. I give way.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am most grateful. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it absolutely refutes the calumnies that Labour has in some way tried to fix the election for the mayor of London that it has, for the principled reason he has just outlined, chosen the electoral system that just gives the outside squeak of a chance to an independent Livingstone candidate? Is my noble friend preparing us to defend any similar charges if some loony runs in Liverpool or Leeds by choosing the electoral system that actually gives independent loonies the best possible chance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely clear as to how I should respond. As I have been in this Chamber all afternoon, I do not know the latest developments in London, let alone in Liverpool and Leeds. We certainly take an approach that does not exclude candidates from outside the traditional party structures. But whether or not one refers to them as "loonies" is a matter of taste. The system that we propose would allow a break-through in the electoral system if the people of Liverpool or Leeds felt that it was necessary—to coin a phrase—to break the mould. Whether I would advise them to do so in London or elsewhere is an entirely different matter. I believe that my noble friend and I would probably be at one on advising them to vote for a mainstream candidate, preferably a Labour candidate.
We want to construct a system that will allow for some flexibility. Although it is not a conclusive argument, the system that we have applied in London would be a sensible one to apply to other cities and local authorities that chose the mayoral structure. It
712
would be difficult to explain why the systems were significantly different. Broadly speaking, I think that we should adopt the same approach. In my view, the alternative vote proposition has fewer merits than the supplementary vote in that context as regards clarity of result, simplicity of outcome and consistency with the arrangements that we already have in place in relation to the mayor of London. I therefore hope that we stick with what the Government propose. Again, it is the middle way and one that is completely understandable. I hope that the House will not adopt either of the propositions before us today.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, until we were into this debate, it had not occurred to me that we were talking about Derek Hatton.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I must point out that I was not talking about Derek Hatton and certainly do not intend to do so.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that is very understandable and most wise.
I retabled these amendments because of the argument that the rest of the country should follow London. The Minster said that it would be difficult to explain why other authorities were different from those in London. I say again, it is only difficult if one is not prepared to say that one will learn. The Minister also talked about the need for simplicity when changing the system. I recognise that this is not a matter for his department, but I hope that the Home Office will find ways to explain to Londoners the system with which they will be faced on 4th May; namely, one consisting of four votes. The publicity that one has seen so far talks only about the mayor—the most important job in London—and does not give any indication that there is more than one vote in the system. There is much education and information required in this respect.
I was sorry to hear the Minister's response, although I cannot say that I am entirely surprised. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Entitlement to vote]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Power to make provision about elections]:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Provisions with respect to referendums]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 23, line 6, at end insert ("notwithstanding that the question to be asked may include mention of an authority's fall-back proposals as drawn up under section 25 above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the referendum regulations. Its purpose is to probe why local authorities are not to be allowed to give an explicit second option on the face of the referendum question. As the Bill stands, there will be fall-back arrangements under Clause 25 but these

713
amount to little more than a cosy exchange between the local authority and the Secretary of State. The correspondence is not "copied" to the electorate.
On the last occasion, the Minister said that the outline fall-back arrangements—there are many different arrangements under this Bill—would give clarity. I believe that that was what he was saying, although he may have been saying that his amendments would give such clarity. In any event, the Government's argument is that there must be executive arrangements and they reject the status quo, or what has come to be known as the "status quo plus", of local organisation. Therefore, I feel no more confident than I did when we started the Bill's proceedings that the local electorate will be as involved as I believe it should be.
I realise that the amendment is quite difficult to follow when taken out of the context, but the proposal is to ensure that the next best option in the eyes of the local authority is spelled out as part of the referendum process and, indeed, as part of the referendum question. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, there is another reason why this amendment might be seen as important. Some areas of the country are still three-tier areas. Once the population has had an approach from both its county and its district council and, for example, has gone for an option in one case to have a directly elected mayor, it may well come to a different conclusion for the other tier authority. The amendment would allow for more flexibility in places where people have not had any experience of what it would be like to even think about having two people responsible for their well-being, socially, economically and environmentally. It is possible that that would work, although I still have particular reservations in that respect. Nevertheless, the amendment would offer the population a chance to have a second thought about exactly how these arrangements might work.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I followed the noble Baroness's point. We are not really talking about two-tier structures here; we are talking about structures within one of those tiers. However, I shall read what she said in Hansard to ascertain whether I need to give her a clearer answer. I did not quite follow the main point.
As far as I am concerned, the main point here is that there should be a clear answer to the referendum question, as well as a clear understanding on the part of those who are voting as to the consequences of voting "Yes" and the consequences of voting "No". In most cases, where we have held referenda, and where other countries have done so, there is a straight Yes/No answer rather than a series of questions to which one must answer Yes and No, which can actually give an inconsistent result. The amendment seems to imply an either/or form of question rather than a Yes/No form of question.
In our view, it is sensible to stick with the principle that the question is not to pose a choice between two options but to seek approval or rejection of the option
714
that is put before the electorate in that referendum. Having said that, I accept that it is important that those voting in a referendum either way know and understand the consequences of voting Yes or No. We have followed the Joint Committee in this respect in that it recommended that the Bill should be amended to clarify the position if there were a no vote. As noble Lords will recall, we have now done that. The Bill now requires that the authority must have adopted outline fall-back positions. Our draft regulations and guidance make clear that councils will be required to publicise both the main proposal and the fall-back proposal. In that way local people will know exactly what the consequences of a no vote will be, as well as the consequences of a yes vote.
I reassure the noble Baroness by saying that this is not the end of the process. If our approach to this matter is shown to be wrong, it can be changed in that we intend that the Bill will ultimately include a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the electoral commission—when that is established—on the regulations, including regulations for defining the questions in such referendums. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend made a good point as regards the questions being asked of a single elector in respect of more than one tier of local government and the fact that the answers may be different in respect of the different tiers. The Minister cautions us against having more than one question. However, as I recall, the referendum in Scotland was not confined to one question in that it contained a question about tax varying in addition to the question about whether people wanted a parliament.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that was a sequential question; it was not a list of options to which one could conceivably answer yes to all.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I take that point. However, that shows that referendums are not necessarily the rather neat provisions that we may have considered them to be.
The Minister said that voters would know the consequences of a no vote because of publicity that would be given to the fall-back proposals. That seems to me to be arguing against including a question on the referendum paper. If it is assumed that the voters take the publicity into account, they ought to be able to express a view on that as part of the process. However, I recognise that we shall not take the point further now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Duty of relevant authorities to adopt codes of conduct]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 27, line 16, after ("newspapers-) insert (", which with the approval of the Standards Board for England or the Standards Board for Wales may be a newspaper published by the authority,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Part III of the Bill concerns codes of conduct and ethical standards. My amendment concerns the availability of publicity on a code of conduct after it has been adopted by a local authority. It is a small point but one that I consider is worth spending a few minutes discussing.
The Bill provides that the code must be published in newspapers circulating in an area. At the previous stage of the Bill I proposed that, for the purposes we are discussing, a newspaper could be a newspaper published by an authority itself. The Minister was concerned about a danger of bias or the paper not being properly delivered and so on. I am, of course, aware of the cost of advertising in a commercial newspaper. I refer again to using councils' own newspapers, which often have a larger number of readers and are certainly more widely circulated than commercial newspapers. I take the points that were made at the previous stage but I believe that there may be some scope for variety here and for assessing the most effective method of circulation. The amendment proposes that the use of such a newspaper must be approved by the relevant standards board. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this amendment proposes that the Bill be amended so that a local authority may, with the approval of the standards board in England or Wales, publish information regarding the adoption of a code of conduct in a newspaper published by the authority.
We would certainly encourage local authorities to publicise the adoption of a code of conduct through their own publications. Indeed, the Bill as drafted would not prevent that. However, we are wary of including an amendment that would require the standards board to approve such publication.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the need for variety in appropriate circumstances. We appreciate the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in Committee that in some local authorities a local newspaper may not always reach as wide a population as one distributed by the local authority. There may be a case, therefore, for requiring a local authority to publicise that it has adopted a code in both a local newspaper and one of its own publications. We intend to consider that option further. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I hope that I do not argue against myself when I make my next point. The Minister will understand that I would not want an authority to be required to publish a newspaper if it does not normally do so. There is an "if" somewhere in that point. The Minister acknowledges the point. I am grateful for her comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Duty to comply with code of conduct]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 28, line 2, at end insert (", subject to subsections (9) to (11)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a matter of regret that sometimes human behaviour is not all that we would wish it to be. The amendments that are grouped with Amendment No. 66 seek to protect someone from the possible misbehaviour of those forming a larger group. When we talk of standards of conduct and codes of conduct, it may seem unreasonable—as they are designed to ensure that people behave well—to consider that what appears to be an entirely reasonable provision that should improve behaviour could be used in a perverse way. However, as we are considering the consequences of legislation we have to consider what is possible. We also have to consider the weaknesses of human beings and human frailty generally.
These amendments are designed to ensure that if a member of an authority felt that a code of conduct was designed in such a way as to make it impossible for him to continue to serve, there would be a right of appeal against the oppressive measures in the code. That situation is conceivable.
At present Clause 47 properly imposes on councillors a duty to comply with the current code of conduct. That code can, of course, be amended, in which case all councillors must sign up to the amended code. They have two months in which to do so. If they fail to do so, they cease to be councillors. On the face of it, that is an entirely reasonable procedure. No one could quarrel with the principle that is spelt out at all.
However, there may be a particularly iconoclastic individual on an authority who manages to get himself thoroughly disliked by everyone else. It is not inconceivable; this kind of thing happens in human organisations from time to time. It is sad when it happens. In my career, I can certainly recall having to ease at least two people out of employment for that reason. It was very sad but, despite everything that could be done, the situation was impossible.
In that kind of situation one can imagine an unreasonable temptation—which may in the end be given way to—for members of a standards committee to devise a new code of conduct. They could include in it, for example, conditions in regard to quantum of attendance, and then rig the timings of meetings inconveniently for the individual concerned so that he could not comply with them. One would then have a very false situation. The amendment seeks to provide a route for a person who feels that he or she is being abused in this way to have a right of appeal.
I may be accused of being utterly cynical and thinking too much about the dark side of human nature. I do not apologise for that. I recall that when I was in County Hall in the good old, bad old days, one of our most instructive days was spent—I have said this in the Chamber before—considering how one could set about defrauding the authority. That exercise was very helpful.
One needs to recognise, in any legislation that deals with human beings and human behaviour, that we should take into account the possibility of a darker side to our nature. We need to provide mechanisms which ensure that the darker side—if it comes out—is not allowed to prevail. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has made clear his fears about the potential that he sees for an individual to be victimised in some way.
The general principles underlying the code of conduct will be subject to extensive consultation, followed by debate under the affirmative resolution procedure in this House and the other place. The model code of conduct will also be the subject of careful consultation. There is provision in Clause 45 for the code to be drawn up by representatives of local government itself before being approved by Parliament.
Local authorities will be able to add their own provisions to the code, but these will have to be consistent with the code as well as with any guidance issued by the standards board. Members will be able to influence or contribute to the debate before such provisions are adopted. We are confident that careful drafting of the model code will ensure that politically or personally motivated inappropriate local additions to the model by an authority would not be considered "consistent with the national model", as the Bill requires.
So far as concerns the local authority's standards committee, it must comply with any regulations issued by the Secretary of State on size, composition and membership. It is required to send a copy of its terms of reference to the standards board, which could also issue guidance if it felt anything was inappropriate or unfair.
We do not contest the right of an individual to appeal against unreasonable or oppressive provisions, but we believe that the safeguards already built into the new ethical framework will prevent the need for any such measures. It is possible—although, in our view, unlikely—that a local authority may impose a condition on its code of conduct that is politically motivated but that complies outwardly with the tenets of the national model and the general principles. We cannot think of such a provision, but no doubt it would be remotely possible.
If the standards board had not excluded such a provision using its guidance, or if the Secretary of State had not covered it in the model code or standards committee regulations, it would still be possible for a member, using the test of "reasonableness", to apply for judicial review. On that basis, we feel that there is an opportunity for action to be taken in what we believe to be the extremely remote circumstances outlined by the noble Lord. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am delighted to hear that there
718
is a route by which an appeal can be made. I am not quite so delighted when I hear that it would be by way of judicial review. A judicial review tends to be expensive. It is not a route which I would describe as being freely available; it is expensively available.
That said, I will study the Minister's response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Standards committees]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 29, line 13, at end insert (", and
(c) may not have a majority of its members composed of members of the executive").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it should not take many minutes to deal with the amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it or agree to consider the point that it raises, which is that the local standards committee may not have a majority of its members composed of members of the executive of the authority.
I do not know what the Government intend by way of regulations in regard to this aspect, but it seems to me that if an authority is to have a standards committee that is representative of all the members of the authority, and given that the majority of members of the authority will not be on the executive, it follows that members of the local authority executive should not have a majority on the standards committee.
It is a straightforward and simple principle which I hope that the Government can accept. It would help both accountability and transparency in this area if the principle was enunciated. If the Minister tells me that he has in mind to have something such as this in regulations, I shall be happy to take the matter no further. However, I may have to think about it if he does not tell me that. I look forward to his reply with interest. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern. It is our intention in this context to maintain on the face of the Bill as much flexibility as possible for local authorities—which, of course, is normally the noble Lord's own plea. We are mindful that we do not want executive dominance and therefore we have included the requirement that there should be an independent member. Clause 48(5) includes a specific provision that prevents an elected mayor or executive leader being a member of the standards committee, and it also excludes any member of the executive from being its chair.
Alongside those provisions are references to at least one independent member being appointed to the standards committee, although, of course, local authorities could choose substantially more than one. There is also a reference to the fact that there should be at least two elected members on the standards committee to ensure that the council as a whole has ownership of that committee.

719
We believe that these safeguards provide sufficient guidance to ensure that councils are reasonably aware what the nature of the standards committee should be, but allow them to retain some choice as regards the precise composition of the committee in the light of their particular circumstances.
It is true that we will need to bring forward regulations in this area, although we do not want to be too prescriptive in the regulations. On the other hand, were there to be evidence of domination by the executive, we might bring forward such regulations in the light of experience. We would certainly have the power to do so under the Bill. For the moment, we should leave it flexible and leave it to the good sense of councils to decide on the composition of their standards committees.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I wish I could be as confident as he is that his aspirations in this particular area will be borne out. I have to inform him, as a matter of regret, that I have heard of one authority planning to have a standards committee of 15 members, nine of whom will be members of the executive. I am concerned and I am not as hopeful as he is that the high standards we ought to be able to expect from all local authorities will necessarily flow from this Bill, as it is at present drafted. I do not wish to pursue that any further at this stage. I shall consider what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Written allegations]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 33, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) Where a relevant Standards Board decides that any allegations made under this section shall not be investigated, it shall give its reasons in writing.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises a small point. The Bill, as drafted, permits people to make complaints in the form of written allegations to the standards board. The standards board has to consider those allegations. The Bill, as drafted, says nothing about having to make any form of written response as a result of those allegations, particularly if it decides not to pursue them. It might be argued that I am being unreasonable once again. I should hope that it would be the case that the standards board would automatically write to say whether or not it was going to undertake an investigation and why. I suspect that the Minister will tell me that is to be the case. If he tells me that it will be the case, then it will be. We have had this debate before, but what is said in the Chamber matters. It is right that a person who makes allegations does receive a response. Equally, I am sure that it is right that the standards board, on considering written allegations, will say, "There is not enough here to warrant investigation".
Unfortunately, when one considers some of the things that have happened in local government over the past 10, 15, 20 or more years, one might have
720
wished that some such procedure as this were in place. If there had been such procedure, perhaps some of the troubles we have had might have been prevented. This is intended to be helpful. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would never accuse the noble Lord of being unreasonable. We envisage that the board would reply in writing to the complainant if it was not to proceed with the investigation. We would expect that any such notification should state why the board did not consider it appropriate to investigate. Therefore, we are at one with the noble Lord on that.
I accept that it might help if there were in the Bill a provision to increase the accountability of the standards board. I should like to take away this amendment and consider whether to make that clear. I do take the point about matters in the history of local government where an investigation has been turned down without any investigation. We ought to cover that issue. I will look at it and consider whether we need to return on that point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am happy to await the outcome of his consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Conduct of investigations]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 34, line 16, at end insert (", or to a former member or co-opted member.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 54 deals with investigations by ethical standards officers. It occurred to me that sometimes these investigations might cover a period quite close to an election or just after an election. Therefore, the investigation ought to be able to consider behaviour that was relevant to former members in that particular situation. It is a somewhat dubious area because it seems that the only sanction an ethical standards officer has is to suspend a member. Of course, one cannot suspend a former member.
There is a more significant background issue that the standard of behaviour of members, both past and present, is very much what makes up the ethos of an authority. If an investigation were to run wide and require the examination of behaviour by former members, it would be unfortunate if it could not do so. Therefore, I have tabled Amendment No. 72. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for drawing our attention to this matter and for his helpful comments. We will look at ways of putting it beyond doubt that former members and co-opted members are included in all references to members in relation to investigations and case tribunals. We shall need to

721
return to the House at a later stage with proposals. I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for her response. I am used to being banged around a hit before I get anywhere at all. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I look forward to the results of her consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 73
Page 34, line 17, leave out within the period of five years ending with that time.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. The Bill, as drafted, would permit an ethical standards officer to undertake investigations in an authority where he had been a member provided that an interval of five years had intervened between his leaving the authority and starting the investigation. It might be argued that that is a perfectly reasonable and sufficient interval. I am not quite so sure about that. I know my own weakness. If I had to become an ethical standards officer—heaven forfend—and I had to undertake an investigation at Essex County Council, I am not sure that even after an interval of seven, eight or nine years I would still be unbiased. This amendment is here because I wish to say that an ethical standards officer may not undertake an investigation in an authority where he has formerly been a member. It is a simple point. It does not require argument in any greater detail. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we cannot accept that the current provisions of the Bill are deficient. Clause 54(4) provides that an ESO cannot conduct an investigation in relation to a member of another authority if within the past five years he had been an officer or member. In addition, Clause 54(5) provides that:
"An ethical standards officer who is directly or indirectly interested in any matter"—
irrespective of when it occurred—
"which is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation".
must disclose that interest to the standards board and must take part in the investigation. This means that if' an ESO had been a member or officer of an authority that was the subject of an investigation more than five years previously and there was still some issue that could reasonably be expected to influence his conduct of the investigation, the ESO must declare it and not take part in the investigation.
In making our provisions, we have sought to strike a reasonable balance between an outright prohibition, as suggested by the noble Lord, and the requirement to declare all relevant matters. We believe that these provisions taken together provide sufficient protection. I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. Her words do reassure me but I shall need to consider them with a little care before I decide what I finally do about the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Interim reports]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 74:
Leave out Clause 59.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 74 is what I would call a nuclear option with regard to Clause 59 because it seeks to remove the clause from the Bill. I must have been tired when I was preparing for this stage. I could not sit down and work out in detail amendments to Clause 59 to answer my particular concerns about it.
Clause 59 provides for a member to be suspended by an investigating officer if the investigating officer considers that the case is sufficiently serious and urgent to justify that. I do not have any difficulty with that proposition except in one regard. As I read the Bill, the investigating officer can do that on his own. I think that is right. He should have to refer to someone so that there is the opinion of more than one person. He should have to refer to a superior and say, "Look, this is the situation. I think that we should go for an immediate suspension and I would like your sanction for that". I apologise to the House for not being able to devise amendments to the clause to make clear my intention, but I had to table the amendment very quickly after returning from a few days away. I had expected to have a little more time but the exhaustion factor crept in. However, I think that the point I am making is a valid one. If the Minister tells me that he is prepared to consider it, I shall be quite happy with that for today's proceedings. There is time for it to be considered. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can understand the noble Lord's weariness by this stage of the Bill. It is difficult to achieve the objective so the noble Lord has decided to seek to delete the clause altogether. I actually believe that the provision meets what he is after.
Clause 59 provides that an ESO may issue an interim report recommending a suspension pending the outcome of a full investigation. The report will be referred to the president of the adjudication committee, who will convene a case tribunal under Clause 62(2) to make a decision. We envisage that these reports will be used very rarely. When an allegation is particularly serious—for example, when there is the allegation of financial misdemeanours—it would be sensible to move the councillor out of that situation on an interim basis. That could mean out of one committee or it could mean out of the whole council. We believe that we need that leeway. But in terms of an individual taking that decision, full-stop, the noble Lord is not right because of Clause 62(2).
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, although I am not completely reassured by it. The investigating officer has the power to suspend the member immediately. The member could remain under provisional suspension without reference to anyone else. I accept that one then has to go through all the rest of the procedure and that that should provide a proper safeguard. However, if it were the case—here I go again with my awkward mind—that the investigating officer had got it wrong, it could do irreparable damage to the reputation of someone through inadvertence. He would not wish to do that. The individual concerned would be immensely hurt if it happened, and rightly so. That is why I felt that it was necessary to have some provision for reference elsewhere before even a provisional suspension took place. Nonetheless, I shall study what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may intrude just for a moment. Without in any way attempting to truncate debate, I think there is a reasonable chance that we could finish this stage of the Bill by about eight o' clock. If that is the case I suggest that we go straight through. To be fair to those who are waiting to debate the orders, we should do our best to finish by then.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO MAKE RESTITUTION ORDERS
(". Where matters considered by an interim tribunal or a case tribunal are or become the subject of criminal proceedings in a court. it shall be open to that court, in considering any penalty resulting from a verdict of guilty, to apply a requirement, as a part of any penalty, that a restitution order be made so that any loss to the local taxpayer is repaid.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we had an interesting debate about whether it would be possible for the investigations by the ethical standards officer to come up with a recommendation for a restitution order against someone who committed an offence. The Minister went a great distance towards satisfying me on this point. He pointed out, I think with justification, that a restitution order would in effect amount to the kind of judgment that would be made in a criminal case. The laws of evidence in these tribunals would not be as strict as the laws of evidence in a court of law. That is a powerful argument.
I then went on to consider—my wicked mind again—what would happen in the event that someone commits a major financial impropriety which disadvantages the local taxpayer. The ethical standards officer investigating that would suspend the member. But if the case was of that severity, it would
724
be likely to finish up in court anyway, which was the other arm to the Minister's argument as to why we do not need my restitution order. I then tried to find out whether in a case of this nature there was a penalty in the event of a guilty verdict which would involve a restitution order. We are familiar with such orders with regard to drugs and some other crimes. But no one has been able to tell me whether, in a case of this kind of financial malfeasance against a local authority, a restitution order is presently available to a magistrates' court against a guilty party.
I believe that there should be such a possibility. It may not always work—we are all familiar with the problem of unpaid fines against particular individuals. But I do not think that an individual should be able to gain illicitly at the expense of the local taxpayer. If a person is found guilty of so doing, a restitution order should be possible. The amendment is designed specifically to make that a possibility, because I could not find any such provision. If the Minister assures me that such a penalty is presently available and could be used, I shall happily withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think I am able to satisfy the noble Lord that the mechanisms already exist. It is not the intention that the ethical framework will deal with criminal issues. Where criminal misconduct is suspected, the matter will be passed to the police or the appropriate authority. However, I assure the noble Lord that in those criminal cases that come before the court, where the actions of a councillor have resulted in financial loss to the authorities, they can already order restitution from the councillor if they consider it appropriate.
Nor does that prevent an authority from separately seeking to recover losses arising from misconduct, which it may do either by seeking a compensation order in criminal cases or through civil proceedings. So a number of lines are already available to local authorities to seek restitution. Actually collecting the money, as I pointed out earlier, may be a different matter. But as regards seeking restitution orders and having the means to establish the liability of a councillor, substantial mechanisms are already available to authorities to cover, I believe, all the contingencies about which the noble Lord is concerned.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am happy to hear the Minister's response. He will be pleased to hear that I shall happily refer it to my legal colleagues. On the assumption that he is right—I am sure he is and pay him absolute credit—it seems that they have learnt, as indeed have I, from the tabling of this amendment. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved amendment No. 76:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
PECUNIARY PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY
(" . The provisions of Appendix 1 of Department of the Environment Circular 16/92 shall, with effect from the enactment of this Act, extend to persons whose pecuniary interest arises solely from holding a lease of a residential property.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the first of two proposed new clauses. Noble Lords will not be surprised that the Bill is being used for some moderately tentative exploration as to whether a couple of local government issues might be dealt with in the context of the Bill as we have the opportunity.
The first is the question of pecuniary interests. Noble Lords will be aware that members have a duty to declare a pecuniary interest in a matter which is being debated, to take no part in the consideration of the matter, and not to vote without the dispensation of the Secretary of State. There are, as I understand it, three general dispensations: for members of local education authorities whose children are in full-time education; for members who are considering questions concerning the payment of statutory sick pay; and for members who are tenants of unfurnished accommodation. The last is the relevant dispensation.
The circular referred to in the amendment allows those tenants to take part in proceedings when a pecuniary interest arises from a tenancy, contractual or statutory, of a dwelling that has been let unfurnished. The dispensation is not unlimited. It extends only to considering, discussing and voting on matters concerning housing function affecting the whole or a part of the area. It does not apply when the pecuniary interests of the member would be different from those of a significant number of tenants who are not members, and it does not allow a member to vote on rents when the member's rent is in arrears for a given period.
My point is a short one. I appreciate that it is possibly not appropriate for primary legislation; nevertheless, I believe that it is worth raising. It is that, after many years of the right-to-buy, there are fewer tenants—given the transfers that have taken place, there are also fewer tenants of local authorities—and more leaseholders. There are occasions on which an authority must consider matters affecting the general body of its leaseholders and where their position should be on all fours with those of the local authority's tenants. The purpose of this amendment is to ask the Government whether they might consider extending that exemption and in effect bring it up to date. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has identified the fact that the existing rules on registration and declaration of interest and the corresponding general dispensations are rather complex. They are made up of a varied collection of guidance, regulations and statutory instruments and are potentially confusing for councillors. The issue needs addressing so that the rules can be clarified and simplified.
726
Under the new ethical framework, we are proposing that the rules on registration and declaration of interest should become part of the code of conduct for members. Alongside this, we have already made provision in Clause 67 for the standards committee to take on the role of considering dispensation requests. Where it remains appropriate, we would envisage that any general categories of dispensation, such as the one to which the noble Baroness has drawn attention, might also be covered in the code of conduct. As a consequence, we intend to bring forward suitable amendments at a later stage to repeal or disapply the existing legislation.
The amendment raises a useful question about the types of interest where a general dispensation may still be required that we shall need to consider in developing the code of conduct. Because the existing rules are to be repealed, the amendment will prove unnecessary. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that reply is helpful in explaining the Government's approach. I hope that the position of leaseholders will be covered in an appropriate fashion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 77:
Alter Clause 77, insert the following new clause—
PAYMENTS ETC. IN CASES OF MALADMINISTRATION
(".—(1) In section 31 of the Local Government Act 1974 (Commission for Local Administration: Reports on investigations: further provisions), for subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) In any case where it appears to an authority that a person has suffered injustice as a consequence of maladministration by that authority, following—

(a) an investigation of a complaint by that person by the authority, using the complaints procedure of that authority; or

(b) consideration of the possibility of a local settlement of a complaint by that person to a Commissioner for Local Administration; or

(c) consideration of a report laid before that authority under subsection (2) or (2C) above;
and that, as a result of that injustice, it appears to the authority that a payment should be made to, or some benefit should be provided for, that person, the authority may incur such expenditure as appears to them to be appropriate in making such a payment or providing such a benefit."").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the second of my proposed new clauses raising matters allied to the Bill but not directly dealt with by it. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the issue of compensation to a complainant.
Currently, a local authority is allowed to incur expenditure in making a compensatory payment only if the ombudsman has made a report on the complaint and has found injustice arising from maladministration. The various authorities involved would like to see legislative provision that would allow

727
local authorities to make such payment in circumstances where the authority itself believes that there is justification for the complaint and that compensation would be appropriate. I understand that there is a good deal of uncertainty as to whether authorities actually have the power to make payment in such circumstances.
The kind of situation I am suggesting is, for example, where a complaint has been investigated under the authority's own complaints system and the authority has found the complaint to be justified without the matter being taken to the local ombudsman; or where settlement is negotiated locally after a complaint has been made to the ombudsman but before the ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration causing injustice. ombudsman but before the ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration causing injustice. That would encourage local authorities to settle complaints at local level wherever possible, provide a speedier resolution for complainants and also save resources, because the council and ombudsman would then be left to concentrate on the more difficult cases. I am sure that all noble Lords would encourage councils to have robust internal complaints systems. I hope that the Minister can help us to overcome the uncertainty about the payment of compensation in the situation that I have outlined. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness would help to overcome any uncertainty as to whether the powers that she seeks already exist. We are aware that the amendment has the full support of the LGA and the Local Government Ombudsman. The Government support the efforts that have been made to encourage the local resolution of complaints. Ideally, complaints should be capable of local resolution with recourse to an ombudsman very much as a last resort. Where there are unnecessary obstructions to local resolution the Government fully support taking action. We need to consider how cases of misconduct, which also involve maladministration, that appear before the standards board should he treated and whether there should be consistency with those cases that are dealt with solely by the ombudsman or the authorities themselves.
Perhaps I should alert the noble Baroness to a point raised by our legal advisers about whether such an amendment is within the scope of this Bill. We wish to consider this matter further and may be able to return to it at a later stage. I hope that the noble Baroness feels reassured and is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope that the legal advice will come down on the side of the matter coming within the scope of the Bill. Given that the Long Title says no more about standards than that the Bill is intended to make,
"provision with respect to the functions and procedures of local authorities",
I believe that the points I have made fall squarely within that terminology, as does the whole of Part III
728
of the Bill. More expert legal minds than mine will be brought to bear on the matter. I am grateful for the Minister's response. Perhaps we can keep in touch on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 78 [Grants for welfare services]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 53, line 39, at end insert (", or
(d) by way of pilot or temporary scheme").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 77A and to speak also to Amendment No. 77B. We have tabled these amendments because of our concerns as to how the proposals in the Bill will affect very vulnerable people and work in practice. The Minister is aware that my noble friend Lady Hamwee wrote to him to voice our concerns. We are grateful for the very full reply. The proposed changes to the funding of welfare services will affect a large number of existing recipients of services. The proposals mean very radical changes to the present system, and for that reason we seek further reassurances from the Government.
We welcome the fact that the Government recognise a local authority's wider role in the integration of housing and welfare service provision. The theory of replacing the current system under which welfare services are funded from a variety of sources, mainly housing benefit, with cash-limited grants sounds a logical step. However, many believe that in practice the proposals will prove to be a little difficult and that in the changeover those now in receipt of these services, particularly the elderly, may not get what they have come to expect. Past experience shows that good intentions do not always work out on the ground.
There was so much concern about this matter that when the Government launched their consultation paper the DSS ran out of copies. Over 500 responses to the consultation were received. I understand that the Government have given serious consideration to those responses and have tried to incorporate some of them in the Bill. Although we are short of time tonight, can the Minister clarify, if not now perhaps at a later stage, what changes have been made as a result of representations from other people?
The area of particular concern is sheltered housing. There is a great deal of anxiety among those bodies which are concerned with the management of sheltered housing. The main concern is that the changes will involve a considerable degree of bureaucracy for very small amounts of money and may be very expensive to administer. Following consultations, the Government are working with groups to try to set up a proper framework in which local authorities can administer the new arrangements. We would be grateful if the Government could expand on that, if not tonight perhaps at Third Reading. There is also a particular

729
concern about elderly people now in sheltered housing who receive support by way of housing benefit. Can the Government provide reassurance that existing tenants will not suffer and lose their wardens as a result of the proposed changes?
A further area of concern is the total amount of grant available to local authorities to replace the present expenditure on benefits. We are grateful to the Minister for his clarification that the figures that the Government have bandied about are not set in tablets of stone. We understand that the Government will look carefully at what is being paid out at the moment and adjust their budget accordingly. Since my noble friend's letter to the Minister it has been drawn to my notice that perhaps the changes are being made because of the present legal system under which benefits are paid and the social security aspects of those payments. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarification also on that matter.
In conclusion, the Bill provides that the new funding arrangements will be brought into force in different geographical areas at different times. Given the widespread concern about the issues that I have raised this evening, perhaps the Minister will look seriously at the proposals encapsulated in the amendments; namely, that there should be pilots to see how the proposals work in those areas before they are implemented everywhere. We are talking about very vulnerable people, in particular the elderly, young people and those with special needs who require proper help with their housing. I hope that the Minister can meet that need, if not tonight perhaps at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be permitted to correct an error of omission in my response to Amendment No. 77. In referring to legal advice I should have said that legal advisers had raised a point about whether such an amendment would be deemed by the Officers of the House to be within the scope of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in response to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, we do not want to go down the road of piloting the proposals. We are committed to the Supporting People initiative and want some clarity of objective here. The principles in the Supporting People initiative have been welcomed by those concerned with housing and support services. As the noble Baroness indicated, the vast majority (82 per cent) of respondents were generally in favour of the proposals. Although the full arrangements will be implemented only in 2003, it is important to provide some stability of view as to where we are going. We are working closely with the stakeholders so that we can plan ahead.
However, I recognise the anxieties to which the noble Baroness refers. It is important that the grant from local authorities for supporting people will be at least as much as that which was spent in the previous year in the various budgets which the scheme replaces.
730
The joint commissioning group engaged on this will be encouraged to maintain continuity of funding at the point of transition. We realise that continuation is a key concern to many users and is, therefore, a priority. The practitioners' group is engaged in considering how we can maintain continuity and reassure people in that regard. I know of the concern of those involved in sheltered housing. The Government are anxious that the role of sheltered housing continues with high quality support services, in particular to vulnerable older people.
However, we need also some degree of flexibility in this area. Responses to the consultation from providers of sheltered housing welcomed the integration of support services into the other services provided to support older people in their homes. Therefore there is need to work closely with providers of sheltered housing so that we minimise any hiccups or discontinuity for older people and smooth the path of support for older people, which would be a better way of identifying priorities in support systems.
The noble Baroness queried the relationship between that system and social security policy. There is a problem of the linkage between the provision of sheltered housing and housing benefit. The Government are determined to see a clear line drawn between basic rent and support services. If one ties accommodation into a benefits infrastructure it does not allow the flexible approach that we hope the new arrangements will deliver.
However, because of the range of difficulties, although rejecting a pilot approach—it gives no certainty of where one aims to get—we are now talking with the stakeholders, the providers so that we have some flexibility as to how the system is introduced. In particular, we are discussing the benefits of phasing in the new scheme so that we can learn from the early stages of phasing. It is similar to piloting but it gives certainty as to where one intends to end up. Phased implementation would help to ensure that the new regime is implemented smoothly and that best practice is shared.
Subject to the agreement of the providers and others involved, we believe that that phased approach would be better than having an open-ended pilot approach which does not give the rest of the local authorities and providers certainty as to where we are going. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that that will be a better approach and will not pursue her amendment.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his lengthy reply. I am not sure that I agree with him that a pilot means that one will not do anything at the end of it. A pilot scheme ensures that one puts in place processes and methods that work. From the Minister's reply, I believe that it is the Government's intention not to bring the system into place at one time. With the reassurance that the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Housing benefit]:
[Amendment No. 77B not moved.]
Clause 80 [Allowances and pensions for certain local authority members]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 54. line 42, leave out ("of an executive").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 in the name of my noble friend.
The amendment seeks to delete from the section on allowances and pensions the words "of an executive". To single out councillors who are members of the executive in particular to receive pensions is divisive; and the Bill should not aim to be that. At earlier stages of the Bill, the Minister conceded that under the system other members of the council would have equally important work to do—for example, the chairman of the scrutiny and overview committee. However, the Bill allows for area committees. The chairmen of those committees are likely to spend at least as much time on their work as members of the executive. Chairmen of bodies which come into more contact with the public than does the executive are likely to undertake jobs with longer and perhaps more antisocial hours.
We believe that the council and the independent panel should set the appropriate remuneration, pensions and allowances for members of the council, depending on the structure that they choose. Partnership working—the Government seek to encourage it—may involve the chairmen of the scrutiny and overview committees more than members of the executive, who will be in the council offices, often making decisions.
We believe that the independent panel should set the provision for local councillors with perhaps guidance and input from the council. We do not think that it would be helpful to have anything that further divides councillors. As I read the clause again I was reminded of Animal Farm. Councillors are supposed to be elected to represent the people. If they become long-term professionals, at some point they will become indistinguishable from the officials. It is important that the position as regards all councillors is equitable and that there are not some who are councillors by profession: they have served a long time; they have a pension; and the likelihood of them moving on is remote. There is no provision in the Bill even for a maximum term for those on pensions. For a councillor in his fifties who has served for a long time to receive a pension might be another incentive to stay on. None of these issues has been thought through in the drafting of the provision. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure whether I understand clearly the noble Baroness's case. I do not know whether she proposes that fewer people than provided by the clause should have pensions or that the possibility of pensions should be extended to others. In her latter remarks, she seemed to believe that pensions should not be extended to anyone because
732
they encouraged individuals to stay on. As Members of your Lordships' House will know, it is not always pension rights which encourage people to stay on. I suspect that the same applies to councillors.
I understand the anxiety that the provision might be divisive. However, we have to face the fact that if we move to an executive structure many of those executive posts—perhaps by no means all—will effectively be full-time jobs. Although in general the tendency to full-time councillors is not necessarily supported by this side of the House, let alone the other side, the executive function will be equivalent for the time one is on the executive to a full-time job for many executive members. They will, therefore, miss out on pension rights in what would otherwise be their full-time job. It is that situation that we have to address; and we address it here in relation to executive members.
As regards general members of the council, or those who have been but cease to be members of the executive, the same arguments do not apply. If we were to make pensions more available to non-members of the executive, it would encourage a drift towards full-time councillors, which in general we are attempting to resist.
8 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I understand the drift of the Minister's response. However, if, as my noble friend suggested, many members of the council do a considerable amount of work, will there be an option to change the attitude towards pension remuneration? Once the provision is in the Act without guidance attached to it, we might be in difficulty and might have to return to statute in order to make a change.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Were we to extend this beyond the executive level, the Bill as it stands would have to be amended in primary legislation. Our position is that this is a facility—not a compulsory one—provided to executive members who would effectively be full-time. We recognise that other councillors would be able to choose whether they are in that position, whereas executive members would be full-time in some situations when they took on the executive position. It is a way of dealing with circumstances which may arise as a result of people taking up particular executive positions. The more general voluntary principle in relation to public service and council service would be appropriate in other circumstances.
With the leave of the House, and as we are dealing with this part of the Bill, perhaps I may mention that it is our intention to table an amendment at a later stage concerning issues relating to other allowances which were raised by noble Lords during the Committee stage. I have written to noble Lords on the Front Bench about that. I am not able to do so today, but I hope to be able to do so during the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—and I thank him for his last remark—does he agree that we are not talking about equivalent

733
pensions in cash terms for executive and other members of the authority? The pension is likely to be related to the amount that each member receives in salary remuneration. The divisiveness, to which my noble friend referred, is in treatment rather than in cash. I should not like it to be thought that we are suggesting that there should be a cosy financial arrangement for all members, but we want to make the point that equality of treatment is most important.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister if in my attempt at brevity clarity was forgone. It is plain that I am asking for the independent panel to set the allowances for each council as appropriate in each local circumstance. I ask the Minister to consider that request before the Third Reading of the Bill. As the shadow arrangements have been running for only a short time in the various councils, there is no proof that being an executive member will take more time than being, for example, chairman of the scrutiny and overview committee. The arrangements have not been in place long enough for anyone to know which position will take more time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 81:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause—
DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF FACILITIES OR SERVICES
(".—(1) A local authority shall not cause or permit discrimination as regards the provision of facilities or services save in respect of counseling, health care, education and in the prevention of the spread of disease.
(2) The Secretary of State may make and. from time to time revise, a code of practice on the discharge by local authorities of the duty under subsection (1).
(3) Any provision of a code of practice under subsection (2) which appears to a court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings in connection with the application of the duty under subsection (1) shall be taken into account in determining that question.
(4) A code of practice or a revised code of practice under this section shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(5) For the purposes of this section discrimination in the provision of facilities or services is provision which confers upon any group of persons exclusive benefit of such facilities or services not generally available.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment, which was accepted by the Table as complementary to the Bill as amended in Committee. However, when I spoke to it on Report on Monday, 28th February, on Amendment No. 1 to Clause 2, it was suggested that it should be withdrawn as preempting negotiations and discussions as to general amendments to this Bill and perhaps another Bill to be tabled in due course.
Of course, such discussions must ensue, but, surely, not in total secrecy at a late stage of a Bill so as to preclude the due exercise of the revisory role. The amendment proposes the introduction of a new type of prohibition on the decision-making by a local authority, whether an LEA or not, which is wholly compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a prohibition of positive discrimination in favour of any group of persons, irrespective of any particular sexual orientation, as regards the provision of facilities and services not generally available. This is not the occasion on which to deploy the argument as recorded in Monday's Official Report.
It is not known whether the Government in these discussions and negotiations are proposing any type of prohibition on the decision-making of a local authority. That is the problem which requires to be addressed. These negotiations—attended by certain noble Lords to my knowledge on the Cross Benches, but there may be others, and a right reverend Prelate, but there may be others—are held in strict confidence behind closed doors, albeit that already as a result of these negotiations amendments have been tabled; for instance, Amendment No. 86 by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and Amendment No. 235 to the Learning and Skills Bill by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. As yet, no amendment has been tabled as to the prohibition on any kind of decision-making by a local authority, save by this amendment and Amendment No. 82, which I shall move in due course.
The House as a whole—and I suspect the usual channels, but of course I do not know—is kept in the dark as to the Government's intentions, other than one intention to repeal section 82. Already, part of section 82 relating to teaching (section 2A(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1986) could be subsumed by Amendment No. 235 to the Learning and Skills Bill by amendment to the Education Act. But what about the other part, section 2A(1)(a), which could well be subsumed by Amendments Nos. 81 or 82, or by any other amendment which imposed a statutory prohibition on a local authority concerning decision-making?
We have heard a lot of talk about codes of practice without knowing whether they are to have legal efficacy or none. No draft of any implementing document, code of practice, regulations or anything has been laid before this House. We are still kept in the dark. We are now on the second day of Report and negotiations continue in confidence. Shall we be told one day, perhaps today, where the Government stand on this issue and on the merits of this amendment, apart from the objection that it ought not to be discussed because it is premature? Shall we be told on Third Reading that new amendments will be tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which represent where the Government then stand as a result of the negotiations? Will then the drafts of any relevant implementing documents be available for us to see?
Is it at all satisfactory, I respectfully ask at this hour of night, that such amendments should he tabled or that such amendments, if tabled, should be first tabled on Third Reading? According to our procedures, we will have foreclosed upon effective scrutiny.
Having said that, I wish to point out that there is no suggestion whatever of any improper motive or impropriety, in particular so far as concerns the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. However, this is an unusual practice. It seems to have crept up quite suddenly on this House. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it needs to be watched carefully. I gave the noble Lord notice that I was going to raise this point so that, if he was so advised, he would be able to deal with it.
Although I understand that the amendments to be tabled by the Government on Third Reading would need to be complementary to the Bill as it stands and that Clause 82 may only be rejected by another place, I do not understand why in principle Amendment No. 81 should not be debated on its own merits. Why must such a debate be precluded on the grounds that, having regard to the negotiations in train, it is premature?
In order to correct the record, I should like to make one point on the drafting which was taken against me in error at the previous stage. I do not believe, as was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the amendment ran into trouble. The difficulty that the noble Earl sought to identify is clearly avoided by subsection (5) of my amendment, which refers to,
"provision of facilities or services is provision which confers upon any group of persons exclusive benefit of such facilities not generally available".
There is nothing to prevent the noble Earl's PE teacher from providing a slightly different regime for someone with a club foot. Furthermore, I am prepared to address again the matter of definition with the noble Earl and any other noble Lord, if so required.
In due course I shall, as I always do, defer to the opinion of the House should any noble Lord wish to express such opinion. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, as the Member of this House who on Monday ran himself into the deepest trouble over the intervention of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, perhaps I may say that we are now in effect a working week further down the road on this issue. On Monday I said that my noble friend had raised a number of significant issues.
What I have heard since then, and what causes me concern, is that we now know that discussions are taking place, but that my noble friends who are deeply interested in this subject are not involved in those discussions. It is a fact that, when one is attempting to achieve an agreed conclusion in an area where there are differing points of view, agreement is achieved by discussion with all the parties and not only with some of them. Of course, one must accept that in politics, might can be right. It may be that if a sufficient number of people can, so to speak, be squared, then the views
736
of my noble friends can be discounted. However, I do not believe that that would be the most appropriate way to handle the matter.
Having said that, I had never assumed that these discussions would be easy. Still less did I expect conclusions to emerge. What normally happens in this kind of situation is that, in the event that a government are in disagreement, the government themselves attempt to put down amendments and seek a conclusion. However, we have not seen that. It may be that the matter is to be dealt with in another place. If that is the case, then we will have to deal with it when it returns to this House.
I say to my noble friend that I hope that he will not press his amendments tonight. However, I shall certainly support him in his argument that all interested parties in this debate should be involved in the discussions if we are to arrive at an agreed conclusion.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this debate is a little strange. I understand some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but his remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, reflect some of the misunderstanding of the Government's position here. I take the strictures made by the noble Lord on late amendments. Indeed, on occasion I have expressed my own irritation at the position Ministers find themselves forced into either by this House or through outside circumstances. However, as regards this Bill, perhaps I should make it clear that the Government have noted the views taken by this House on what is referred to in shorthand terms as section 28, and I do not intend to bring forward late amendments relating to that point.
For similar reasons, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, shortly moves her consequential amendment, I shall certainly not oppose it because all the amendments are the logical results of the decision previously taken by this House. It is therefore the case that I shall not ask the House to reconsider that matter until we have received the view of another place.
An entirely parallel area relates to the education concerns that were widely expressed in that debate, but which cannot be dealt with appropriately in this Bill, because it does not apply directly to schools in England and Wales. Therefore, in the context of our education legislation, we have engaged in discussions with the Churches and with others as to whether there is a satisfactory consensus that could be brought forward in relation to education concerns in the education legislation which is not yet before this House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is the noble Lord saying that discussions are taking place on the Bill with which I am involved that totally exclude noble Lords on these

737
Benches—that I am not privy even to discussions as to whether an amendment will be tabled to my Bill on this subject?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as was indicated, a commitment was given by myself and referred to by my noble friend Lady Blackstone that the Secretary of State for Education would consult with the Churches and others as to whether we could bring forward an amendment. That is the normal way for governments to consult with interested parties. At this stage, that consultation is not a multi-party discussion. Noble Lords opposite will be in a position to consider such amendments as we are able to bring forward in due course. Those amendments will have already achieved broad agreement with the Churches and others.
I believe that we are confusing several different issues here. We are confusing those issues that are appropriate to this Bill, some of which are being pursued separately in discussions—I think that the word "negotiations" suggests too institutionalised a form of discussion—between my colleagues in the Department for Education, the right reverend Prelate and others. It is hoped that the results of those discussions will be acceptable to this House when they are brought to fruition. They will then be dealt with in the Learning and Skills Bill. That is an entirely separate matter. It will then be dealt with in the normal way in the context of that Bill.
I turn to the amendments before us in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I do not agree with the first amendment, Amendment No. 81, but it is appropriate in this Bill. The amendment introduces a general non-discrimination clause of a rather particular kind in relation to the activities of local government. In my view, the amendment is unworkable. One has only to consider the range of services applied by local authorities to recognise that they depend critically on being able reasonably and legitimately to discriminate between different sections of their community in different contexts. I believe that that point was made previously by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Sometimes that involves conflicting priorities in the allocation of scarce resources, and sometimes it means providing to elements of the community services and resources which are not provided to others. So long as the local authority acts reasonably in that respect and within the law, clearly that is an essential task of local authorities. In my view, Amendment No. 81 would cut across the whole of that activity by local authorities so that they would not be able to discriminate, for example, in relation to the elderly, the disabled and, indeed, the gay and lesbian community in the provision of any such services. I believe that that would gravely restrict local authorities. Therefore, if the amendment were taken literally and applied to the whole range of local authority services, I believe that it would be unworkable.
I turn to Amendment No. 82, to which the noble Lord also spoke. I believe that in a sense it is not appropriate because it does not acknowledge the respective legal responsibilities of school bodies and of
738
local education authorities. It seeks to ensure that a local education authority does not cause or permit a school to use certain material as part of its sex education curriculum. Leaving aside the definitional problems of what is and is not appropriate and what the terminology used by the noble Lord means, we could find ourselves in deep water on that issue. However, the point that I wish to make is that, as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, it is not a matter for the local education authority but a matter for governors and schools to decide what material should be used. That is why I believe that the noble Lord's second amendment is not appropriate for this Bill and why aspects of it are being addressed in a different context.
I take the noble Lord's intentions seriously and I understand that he has proposed these amendments in order to help us through this matter. However, I do not believe that the first amendment is workable or the second appropriate to this legislation. I hope that he will not pursue them.
Baroness Young: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will clarify what he said about the arrangements on this Bill. Do I understand that negotiations have taken place between the Government and the Churches and others not named as I understand that no one, at any rate from this side of the House, has taken an interest in this matter? Do I understand that an amendment will be tabled to the Learning and Skills Bill which has a cross-over effect on Clause 82 of the Bill currently under discussion? Is that supposed to be an example of transparency or confusion?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there may be confusion among some noble Lords opposite. The matter has never been confusing to me. The education legislation is appropriate for education and local government legislation is appropriate for local government services. The discussions to which I refer, and which the noble Baroness and others tend to refer to as "negotiations", quite clearly are discussions. Their existence has been reported in the newspapers and elsewhere and they have been referred to by myself and by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. The discussions are a continuation of the normal discussions between the education department and representatives of the faiths, particularly the Church of England, which has so many schools to which this legislation would apply.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may put a question to the Minister for clarification. It seems to me that in this particular clause, put forward by my noble friend, we are discussing initiatives which might be taken by local authorities. I understand that that has happened on many occasions in the past when they have produced material, spent money on producing it and then presented it to the schools. It seems that that is a local government issue, not an educational issue.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the education legislation makes clear that decisions regarding material used in

739
schools for sex education is a matter for the governors of schools. Their responsibilities are governed by education legislation and not by this Bill or by other local government legislation.
I finalise my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. If those discussions reach fruition and we are able to come forward with an amendment which has broad acceptance among the people with whom the Government rightly have discussed the matter—namely, the providers of education and those representing the interests of the faiths and others—we shall do so in that context and shall deal with it in the normal way. If I have to say it again, I shall say it again: that is a different issue from the one on the face of this Bill.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, carried by the House the other day. At this late stage, I do not seek to bring forward a further amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, feared I would. I feel that we are now in a position where the current view of this House is clear and another place must take cognisance of that view. We shall need to consider the matter after the other place has done so. That is the position. I do not know whether I can be clearer than that. I hope that it is clear enough for noble Lords.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. There is a problem here. I take the view—perhaps quite wrongly—that it is right to amend an element of section 403 of the Education Act and to do certain things which have been suggested already and which, I believe, I supported in Committee. That is my personal view.
However, it is also my personal view that there should be a power of prohibition to prevent the local authority doing certain things. I express the matter quite generally. I dealt with the issue in my opening remarks, but I am in the dark. Is the Government's attitude that there should (as is my approach) be prohibition or that there should not? This is a problem; there is a nexus between the two views. It comes to the fore clearly when my noble friends who hold distinguished positions on the Front Bench do not appear to have been involved in those negotiations. I did not know that. We do not know much on the Back Benches about what goes on on the Front Bench, but I suspected that that was the case. It seems to me that there is something wrong about that: not wrong in an improper sense but something that should perhaps be considered and put right.
At this hour I shall not take issue with the noble Lord on his misinterpretation of the definition clause. Perhaps we may discuss that on some other occasion. I agree with the noble Lord that, of course, no one must table an amendment which is inconsistent with a Bill as amended in Committee. That would be contrary to our procedures. I thank the noble Lord for what he said. I hope that he will reconsider through the usual
740
channels the point of substance on procedure. I accept the noble Lord's assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause—
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL IN MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
(" .—(1) After section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 insert—
"Sexually explicit material in maintained schools.
2B.—(1) A local authority shall not cause or permit material of a sexually explicit nature to be available in any maintained school without the approval and the consent of the Board of Governors.
(2) In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably he drawn from the evidence before it.
(3) In subsection (1) "maintained school" means a maintained school or maintained nursery school within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.".
(2) In section 12(3) of that Act, after "Part II" there is inserted "(other than section 2B)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in essence, this is the same sort of problem. Those negotiations also give rise to the problem of definition. It was said in Committee that there was a problem in relation to the definition of "sexually explicit material". Surely nobody would want a lot of the material that we have seen in the exhibition to be made available. Call it what you will, it does not, in fact, involve a definition in law which requires the view of the courts or the opinion of the Attorney-General.
I have particularly drafted the amendment so that it should be for the view of the board of governors and it is entirely a matter for them and for the parents who sit on the board. They decide what is sexually explicit. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the point is taken that the board of governors could delegate that matter to a sub-committee. If the governors allow it, so be it, whatever anyone else thinks about the material. But if they prohibit it and say "No", then that is a classic example for my approach. The local authority should then be prohibited by an express prohibition from making that material available in schools.
Your Lordships may well think that in principle such a prohibition is desirable. That is, with respect, my personal opinion. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I made the main point on discussing the previous amendment. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to prohibit local authorities from making material available in schools. Local authorities in England and Wales do not have that ability. That is a matter for the governors. Therefore, the amendment is inappropriately targeted. I could have a discussion—although I shall not do so at this time of night—as to whether local authorities should, in principle, have a power of prohibition. But as the amendment is phrased it refers to making the material

741
available. That is a matter for the governors of the school and not for the local authorities. Therefore, the amendment is not phrased in a way which is appropriate for this Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may have an opportunity to consider what the noble Lord has said and ask for leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 [Wales]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 57, line 31, at end insert ("or paragraph 6 of Schedule 1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Commencement]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 58, line 4, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 5 and insert ("repeal of paragraph 63 of").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Executive arrangements: further pro vision]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 61, line 10, at end insert—
("Overview and scrutiny committees: education functions
6.—(1) In this paragraph "relevant English authority" means a local authority in England which is a local education authority.
(2) This paragraph applies to an overview and scrutiny committee of a relevant English authority if the committee's functions under section 19 relate wholly or partly to any education functions which are the responsibility of the authority's executive.
(3) This paragraph also applies to a sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee of a relevant English authority if the sub-committee's functions under section 19 relate wholly or partly to any education functions which are the responsibility of the authority's executive.
(4) An overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee to which this paragraph applies must include—

(a) one or more persons appointed as representatives of the persons who appoint foundation governors for Church of England schools in the area of the authority concerned, and

(b) one or more persons appointed as representatives of the persons who appoint foundation governors for Roman Catholic Church schools in the area of the authority concerned.

(5) A member of an overview and scrutiny committee or subcommittee appointed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) is to be entitled to vote at a meeting of the committee or sub-committee on any question—

(a) which relates to any education functions which are the responsibility of the authority concerned's executive, and

(b) which falls to be decided at the meeting.

(6) The Secretary of State may by directions to a relevant English authority require any of the authority's overview and scrutiny committees or sub-committees to which this paragraph applies to include persons who are appointed. in accordance with the directions, as representatives of the persons who appoint foundation governors for such of the foundation or voluntary
742
schools in the authority's area which are not Church of England schools or Roman Catholic Church schools as may be specified in the directions.
(7) Directions under sub-paragraph (6) may make provision with respect to the voting rights of persons appointed in accordance with such directions.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "relevant Welsh authority" means a local authority in Wales which is a local education authority.
(2) This paragraph applies to an overview and scrutiny committee of a relevant Welsh authority if the committee's functions under section 19 relate wholly or partly to any education functions which are the responsibility of the authority's executive.
(3) This paragraph also applies to a sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee of a relevant Welsh authority if the sub-committee's functions under section 19 relate wholly or partly to any education functions which arc the responsibility of the authority's executive.
(4) An overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee to which this paragraph applies must include one or more persons appointed as representatives of the persons who appoint foundation governors for the foundation or voluntary schools in the authority concerned's area which are specified in directions made by the National Assembly for Wales as schools which have a character connected with a particular religion, or particular religious denomination, specified in the directions.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply if there are no foundation or voluntary schools in the authority concerned's area which are specified in directions under that sub-paragraph.
(6) A member of an overview and scrutiny committee or subcommittee appointed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) is to be entitled to vote at a meeting of the committee or sub-committee on any question—

(a) which relates to any education functions which are the responsibility of the authority concerned's executive, and

(b) which falls to be decided at the meeting.

(7) The National Assembly for Wales may by directions to a relevant Welsh authority require any of the authority's overview and scrutiny committees or sub-committees to which this paragraph applies to include persons who are appointed, in accordance with the directions, as representatives of the persons who appoint foundation governors for such of the foundation or voluntary schools in the authority's area which are not specified in directions under sub-paragraph (4) as may be specified in directions under this sub-paragraph.
(8) Directions under sub-paragraph (7) may make provision with respect to the voting rights of persons appointed in accordance with such directions.
8.—(1) In this paragraph "relevant authority" means a local authority which is a local education authority.
(2) This paragraph applies to an overview and scrutiny committee of a relevant authority if the committee's functions under section 19 relate wholly or partly to any education functions which are the responsibility of the authority's executive.
(3) This paragraph also applies to a sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee of a relevant authority if the subcommittee's functions under section 19 relate wholly or partly to any education functions which are the responsibility of the authority's executive.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations require an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee to which this paragraph applies to include one or more persons elected, ill accordance with the regulations, as representatives of parent governors at maintained schools in the area of the relevant authority concerned.
(5) Regulations under this paragraph may make provision for—

(a) the number of persons who are to be elected in the case of any relevant authority,

743

(b) the procedure to be followed in connection with the election of such persons and the persons who are entitled to vote at such an election.

(c) the circumstances in which persons are qualified or disqualified for being so elected or for holding office once elected,

(d) the term of office of persons so elected and their voting rights,

(e) the application to any such committee or sub-committee, with or without any modification, of any enactment relating to committees or (as the case may be) subcommittees of a local authority,

(f) such other matters connected with such elections or persons so elected as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) Regulations under this paragraph may also make provision—

(a) enabling the Secretary of State to determine, where he considers it expedient to do so in view of the small number of maintained schools in the area of a relevant authority, that the requirement imposed on the committee or sub-committee by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) is to have effect as if it referred to representatives of parents of registered pupils (rather than representatives of parent governors) at those schools,

(b) for any regulations under this paragraph to have effect, where the Secretary of State makes any such determination, with such modifications as may be prescribed.

1998 C 31
9. Expressions used in paragraphs 6 to 8 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 have the same meaning in those paragraphs as in that Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Election of elected mayor]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 67. leave out lines 41 to 44.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) Regulations 2000
8.33 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move the first two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the Funding Code, although I shall later move that formally.
These instruments, together with negative procedure regulations that are currently lying before the House, and orders dealing with remuneration and transitional provisions that will be tabled shortly, constitute the framework for the community legal service fund that will replace civil legal aid in April this year.
744
I am sure the House will agree that legal aid, created by the post-war Labour government over 50 years ago, has been and remains an extremely valuable and important public service. But in recent years the structure of the scheme has increasingly begun to show its age. It provides few effective mechanisms for controlling expenditure, with the result that spending can spiral, and in the recent past has spiralled, out of control. And it contains no mechanisms for targeting spending on priorities, with the result that the shape of the scheme on the ground is largely determined by the types of work that private-practice lawyers prefer to do and where and how they prefer to practise.
By contrast, the new scheme—the community legal service fund—is designed to enable the Government, through the new legal services commission, to target the public resources available for funding legal services on priority categories and the most worthwhile cases. This House hardly needs to be told that Section 8 of the Access to Justice Act requires the commission,
"to prepare a code setting out the criteria according to which it is to decide whether to fund (or continue to fund) services as part of the Community Legal Services for an individual … and if so what services are to be funded".
The Funding Code is the principal mechanism for achieving that.
Section 8(5) provides for the code to specify the procedures for making these decisions, including conditions that the individual must first satisfy and procedures for appeal. Section 8(8) requires a process of consultation before the code is submitted to the Lord Chancellor and Parliament for approval. In fact there has been a two-stage consultation conducted in the spring and autumn of last year.
As implicitly required by the Act, the code is in two parts: the first contains criteria, the second procedures. The latter broadly replicates provisions in the existing legal aid regulations; for example, about granting and discharging certificates. I do not intend to try the patience of the House by describing these procedures in detail or at all.
The code criteria are based on a number of levels of service, defined in sections 1 and 2—and I am referring to sections of the Funding Code and not of the Act and when I refer to sections in the remainder of my speech, I shall be referring to the code—and designed to ensure that the services provided are proportionate to the matter in hand. The most important levels are, first, legal help, equivalent to advice and assistance now; and, secondly, legal representation, broadly equivalent to full civil legal aid. Legal help is delivered under the Legal Aid Board's general civil contracts which noble Lords will know came into effect on 1st January this year. Legal representation, like civil legal aid, will usually be administered through the issue of a certificate in each case.
Section 4 lists standard criteria that apply to all levels of service: for example, the case must be within the scope of the Act and the client must be financially eligible under regulations. The heart of the code, however, is section 5—the general funding code. That contains separate criteria for each level of service (except those unique to family cases). The criteria for

745
legal help in section 5.2 apply across the board to all categories of case. It would be neither appropriate nor practicable to apply more detailed and specific criteria when a client first seeks help.
On the other hand, the criteria for legal representation in sections 5.4 to 5.7 apply to civil cases (other than family cases) that do not fall in a priority or specialist category. Sections 6 to 13 replace or amend those criteria to reflect the priority or other special features of particular categories of case. The principle underlying most of the criteria in the code is that the public purse should support only cases that a reasonable and prudent private client, of adequate but not unlimited means, would choose to fund with his own money. The exception is where different criteria apply because the case has a significant wider public interest.
The most important criteria, reflecting the private client principle, concern prospects of success and cost benefit. In most circumstances, before cases can be considered for funding they must demonstrate prospects of success of at least 50 to 60 per cent at trial; and hence, a much higher chance of a successful settlement. Similarly, the commission will not fund cases where the likely benefit to be obtained by the client does not justify the likely cost. In the case of quantified financial claims, criterion 5.7.3 sets specific ratios of damages to costs, which vary according to the prospects of success. That provision reflects the kind of calculation that a private client would make before risking his own money. The cost-benefit test for unquantifiable cases is necessarily expressed in more general terms and will require judgment to apply. The intention is to take the quantified test as a guide when making such judgments, and in particular, to require cases with less strong prospects of success to demonstrate greater likely benefits relative to cost.
Sections 5.8 and 5.9 set out the criteria for support funding, which is the new type of funding designed, in particular, for exceptionally expensive personal injury cases. Support funding will be available where the case is pursued primarily under or with a view to obtaining a conditional fee agreement and the investigative or total costs exceed the thresholds prescribed in the criteria. There are requirements also relating to the form of the conditional fee agreement and the existence of adequate insurance against the opponent's costs. The other criteria are the same as those for legal representation.
Section 6 contains additional criteria that will apply in very expensive cases. Those are defined at C23 in the part of the code relating to procedures as cases likely to cost £25,000 to settlement or £75,000 if taken to trial. A few expensive cases take up a disproportionate share of the available resources and it is vital that they are particularly closely controlled. Criterion 6.3 requires all highly expensive cases to be subject to a satisfactory case plan for progressing the litigation. That will form part of an individual case contract between t he commission and the lawyers. Criterion 6.4 requires the commission to consider the availability of resources before granting funding in highly expensive cases, other than those in top priority categories. The
746
Lord Chancellor has issued a direction to the commission setting a central budget for that purpose and explaining in detail how it has been calculated. A copy of the direction is in the Library of the House.
Sections 7 and 8 set special criteria for judicial review cases and claims against public authorities alleging serious wrongdoing, abuse of position or power or significant breach of human rights. The priority given to such cases reflects the general public interest in ensuring that public bodies can be held properly to account through the courts. In particular, the House will note criterion 7.5.2 which provides that a presumption of funding will be granted in all judicial review cases where permission has been given by the court and the case has a significant wider public interest, overwhelming importance to the client or raises significant human rights issues.
Section 9 amends the normal criteria for clinical negligence cases, in particular by providing less stringent cost-benefit ratios. Those replicate guidelines introduced by the Legal Aid Board in December 1998, shortly before the specialist clinical negligence franchise category was created in February 1999. Funding was restricted to specialist practitioners from August 1999. Because those important reforms have been in place for so short a period, it was not thought appropriate to make a further change in the code at this stage. However, I am glad to say that there are already indications that the new guidance and the restriction to specialists arc bearing dividends by excluding weak cases from the scheme. The future funding of clinical negligence cases will be kept under review.
Section 10 contains criteria for housing cases. That reflects the priority being given to social welfare law generally as part of the Government's programme for tackling social exclusion. Housing is the principal category within the area of social welfare where legal representation is most likely to be required for proceedings.
Section 11 is a comprehensive set of criteria for family cases. New levels of service are introduced for family cases. Help with mediation covers legal advice in support of the mediation process. General family help funds a solicitor to negotiate a settlement to a matrimonial or other family dispute without recourse to contested legal proceedings. The new levels exist to ensure that wherever possible family disputes are resolved without unnecessary or unduly adversarial proceedings in court. In relation to legal representation in family cases, top priority is given in criteria 11.7 and 11.8 to child care cases, for which funding is available automatically. Other cases concerning the welfare of children and domestic violence also have a high priority, reflected by the relatively generous criteria in sections 11.9 to 11.11.
On the other hand, the criteria for matrimonial cases about financial provision in section 11.12 are broadly similar to those in the General Funding Code, with the addition of a requirement to attend a meeting with a mediator before representation can be provided. In effect, that continues the approach currently applied

747
under Section 29 of the Family Law Act 1996; that in certain circumstances, clients must explore the possibility of family mediation before receiving funding for litigation. The inclusion of this provision in the code accords with Section 8(3) of the Access to Justice Act which requires the Code to,
"reflect the principle that in many family disputes mediation will be more appropriate than court proceedings".
Sections 12 and 13 contain criteria for cases before mental health and immigration tribunals. As noble Lords will know, funding for immigration tribunals has been available under existing powers only since January this year. It did not form part of the legal aid scheme when the Access to Justice Act was passed and for that reason the tribunals are not listed in Schedule 2 to the Act, which defines the scope of the scheme. The Community Legal Service (Scope) Regulations before us today rectify that omission by amending the schedule. The regulations further amend the schedule to exclude certain proceedings under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; specifically, proceedings concerning anti-social behaviour orders, sex offender orders and related parenting orders. Although those are technically civil proceedings, they are closely akin to criminal proceedings and are more usually undertaken by criminal practitioners. The Government have therefore decided that it would be more appropriate for them to be funded as part of the Criminal Defence Service. In due course, they will be included in regulations defining the scope of the Criminal Defence Service. Meanwhile, legal aid remains available.
Finally, I turn to the Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) Regulations. Section 11(1) of the Access to Justice Act provides that,
"Except in prescribed circumstances, costs ordered against an individual in relation to any proceedings … funded for him [as part of the Community Legal Service] shall not exceed the amount (if any) which is a reasonable one for him to pay having regard to all the circumstances, including—

(a) the financial resources of all the parties to the proceedings, and

(b) their conduct in connection with the dispute to which the proceedings relate".

That provides the same protection that legally-aided litigants currently enjoy under Section 17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Regulation 3 of the cost protection regulations prescribes the exceptions to this rule. Cost protection does not apply where the client receives legal help or help at court. That broadly reflects the position under the current Act which does not provide cost protection where a litigant-in-person receives green form advice and assistance but is not formally represented by the solicitor in the proceedings. However, regulation 3(2) slightly extends the existing protection to cover the case where a client receives legal help before the issue of proceedings in which he subsequently receives legal representation. Cost protection now applies to any costs incurred by the opponent as a result of steps taken under legal help before the issue of proceedings—for example, steps required under a pre-action protocol.
748
Secondly, cost protection does not apply where the client receives litigation support or in most cases investigative support. These are the two forms of support funding in very expensive personal injury cases which I described earlier. These cases will primarily be pursued under a conditional fee agreement. That means that if the funded client's opponent loses the case, he or she will probably be liable to pay a success fee as well as normal costs. In those circumstances, we believe that it would be quite unfair if a successful opponent was unable to recover costs as a result of cost protection. It will therefore be a condition of litigation support that the funded client has insurance against the opponent's costs. The commission will approve the insurance policy in advance, and should the amount insured prove inadequate, Regulation 6 requires the commission rather than the client to meet the shortfall.
Regulation 4 deals with the enforcement of any costs order against the funded client, and broadly replicates the current position. Regulation 5 sets out the circumstances in which costs can be ordered against the commission in cases where cost protection does apply. This replicates the provision in Section 18 of the 1988 Act.
I have taken some time in going through the funding code and the regulations with which we are dealing. However, these are significant matters. These instruments are central to the new scheme that will replace civil legal aid in April. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st February be approved [11th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the regulations, and even more the funding code, implement the policy behind the Access to Justice Act. That policy includes a shift of negligence claims almost entirely to conditional fund agreements and involves the cash limiting of civil legal aid.
In the debates on the Access to Justice Bill, we expressed concern on both those issues. We were doubtful whether CFAs will prove as useful as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor believes. We reluctantly accept the principle of cash limiting but we fear that one result will be a real reduction in funding for civil legal aid, while the uncapped funding for criminal legal aid increases. However, that policy has been decided and it is not appropriate to debate those issues again today.
I should like to start a more detailed study of the code by stating that it seems to me to be extremely well drafted. I am someone who knows professionally a good deal about draftsmanship. It is clear, well laid out and, given the complexity of the subject matter, easy to understand. There are, however, a number of points I should like to raise.
The Law Society is particularly concerned about the timescale involved. The code is not only a lengthy document, but is accompanied by some 290 pages of guidance. The guidance, as I understand it, has had to

749
go to print while still under continuing consultation. I understand that the documents will not be made available to solicitors in hard copy until after 28th March, only four days before the orders and the code come into force.
Even starting from now, four weeks is not enough time to enable solicitor firms to train their staff and partners on the operation of a code which comes into force on 1st April. We believe that it would have been better to leave it for a few months longer, rather than to bring it into effect in an enormous rush.
I also have some criticism of the contents. Section 2.3 assumes that prospects of success can be forecast in a mechanistic way which can be expressed in an accurate percentage. Anybody with experience of practice will know that it is impossible to be anything like that precise. There is also an ambiguity in the text. For example, what is said to be a good prospect is a 60 to 80 per cent chance of success; a moderate prospect, 50 to 60 per cent. If the chance is estimated at 60 per cent, is it good or moderate? I believe that the code should say that "good" means at least 60 per cent but less than 80 per cent, and "moderate" means at least 50 per cent but less than 60 per cent.
Perhaps more seriously, there are problems with the fluctuations in prospects. Prospects, as seen by a client's lawyer, constantly alter throughout the run-up to a hearing. Documents may be disclosed on discovery which are either helpful or the opposite. New evidence may be obtained on behalf of one side or the other. What happens if, as a result of such fluctuations the prospect is downgraded from, let us say, very good to good and the case then ceases to meet the cost-benefit criteria in section 5.7.3? Will the funding then be withdrawn under section 14.2, even though the chances are still good? If section 14.2 is permissive, and that is what it appears to be, on what basis will a decision be made whether to maintain or withdraw funding?
Section 2.4 contains a definition of what constitutes the overwhelming importance of a case to the client, that being a factor in deciding, in a number of cases, whether or not assistance should be granted to the client. "Overwhelming importance", according to section 2.4 is limited to the preservation of life, liberty or physical safety or to preventing the loss of housing. But what about the loss of livelihood? Let us suppose that a teacher wants to challenge, by judicial review, a decision to put him or her on the list of those who are not allowed to work in schools. Is not that as important as housing? I am not referring here to the loss of a particular job, but to the loss of an entire career.
The overwhelming importance to the client is an expression which occurs in many places. Section 5.7.2, for example, states that full representation will be refused if the prospects are borderline, the case does not have significant public interest and is not of overwhelming importance to the client.
Section 11.11 deals with private law children's cases; proceedings for residence, contact, and so forth. Section 11.11.5 states that legal representation is
750
refused if the prospects of success are poor. That means, clearly, less than 50 per cent. I can see that representation should be refused in such a case if the case is, indeed, hopeless. But if there is a 25 to 30 per cent chance of success, for example, which is plainly not hopeless, should not the parents have a right to representation? After all, decisions on the care of a child, where the child is to live and what contact a parent is to have with a child can be absolutely shattering to the loser. It seems to me that to refuse assistance simply because the chances of success are clearly less than 50 per cent is inappropriate.
I turn to procedure. I have a minor point on Condition 8 which I shall raise simply out of curiosity. It concerns clients who are resident outside the United Kingdom. Section C8.2 states that the applications have to be in English or French. I just ask why French, and, if French, why not German, Dutch and Spanish, and so on?
Finally, section C61, again on procedure, gives power to the funding review committee, on appeal from a decision of the regional director, to reconsider that decision on most issues—for example on the question of the regional director's decision on prospects of success or whether the case is of overwhelming importance to the client—and the funding review committee can substitute its own decision. For some reason, where the issue is whether the case has a wider public interest, the powers of the funding review committee are limited to only judicial review. The committee can alter the decision of the regional director only if that decision is irrational. I wonder why that distinction is drawn.
I apologise for raising a number of detailed points. However, I believe that the code is of great importance. I shall plainly not object to the code on this occasion. However, I believe that it contains difficult issues which may need to be reconsidered, and that such reconsideration may need, in some cases, to be sooner rather than later.
9 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I do not think it appropriate at this stage to make observations about the principles that lie behind the code. A great deal was said about the principles in the course of the passage of the Access to Justice Act. Those discussions are now over and we must get on with administering the new regime.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I share a concern about the way in which the code and its guidance are being implemented. As I understand it, although there has been ample consultation on the code itself, the first draft of the guidance came out on 17th December and the procedure for consultation had to be completed by 10th January. Moreover, it is my understanding that the guidance did not, in that first edition, cover the code procedure. If those facts are true, then I suggest to the Minister that the consultation on the guidance at that stage was woefully inadequate. I suggest also to the Minister that the code without the guidance is no guidance at all.

751
There is now a second edition of the guidance, but it has only just appeared and I understand will not be in hard copy form in the hands of the relevant solicitors until the last few days in March. If the whole system is due to come on stream on 1st April, then I entirely share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the unfair effect that that will have on practitioners. In those circumstances I, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider the timing of the implementation of the code. A further six months would probably be a fair solution.
My second set of observations concerns the budgetary measures that lie behind the code. I also share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the introduction of budgetary constraints on legal aid was a bad move by the Government. Is the Minister in a position to tell your Lordships' House whether or not each one of the categories from six to 13 under the code will have its own special budget line? If so, is he also able to tell your Lordships' House what will happen in circumstances where one line runs out? Is there some central reserve which can be called upon or are the cash limits going to be implemented with peremptory severity?
Those questions are important, not only because of the views expressed by the Opposition during the passage of the Act and shared by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but also because of the impact that the European Convention on Human Rights might have on the implementation of the Bill. If these budgetary limits bite too severely and affect cases that would otherwise, on the criteria laid down in the Bill, be meritorious, then I suggest to the Minister that the Government are in danger of transgressing their own legal flagship.
Finally, I have one other point, and I shall express it tersely, in relation to the Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) Regulations 2000. I was disappointed that the Minister and Her Majesty's Government did not take the opportunity, under regulation 5(3)(a) to (d), to make life a bit easier for the non-funded defendant who faces an unmeritorious claim by a funded claimant.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords from the two Front Benches who have spoken and made their comments on these important regulations. I shall do my best to answer their questions. Indeed, that may be easier with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, not because they were easier questions as—such they certainly were not—but because he was good enough to give me some notice of what he was going to ask I have been able to make some inquiries concerning them.
I deal with his points not necessarily in the order in which he raised them. It is important to deal, first, with the issue of timing. It is our intention that the Funding Code should come into operation on 1st April and we point out that the changes were originally announced
752
a long time ago—October 1997. Since then, every element of the new system has been subject to extensive consultation—a point accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. We believe the profession has had every opportunity to prepare for change.
The Funding Code was subject to two rounds of consultation last year. Every firm that bid for a contract was sent a draft of the code in October last year and invited to comment. The final draft which contains relatively few changes together with the related guidance has been available on the board's website since early February. A full list of the changes to the code since October will be sent to every legal aid account holder next week, together with copies of all the new regulations that will take effect on 1st April.
There was an initial period for consultation to January, but the formal consultation period on the guidance ran to the 28th of last month. The guidance will be amended as required after the first two months of the scheme. I hope that that goes some way towards alleviating the fears of both noble Lords and of practitioners that those concerned will be put in difficulty by the timing involved.
Perhaps I may deal, first, with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I shall begin with the easiest one. The noble Lord asked why French as well as English is used. I am told—and I merely pass the information on to the noble Lord—that this is a treaty obligation. I understand the reason for this is that English and French are the two languages recognised by the Strasbourg convention on the transmission of legal aid applications.
The noble Lord asked about the 60 per cent "prospect of success" and questioned whether that signified moderate or good. As all of us who have practised know—even at the criminal Bar—estimating prospects is not a precise science, especially not at the criminal Bar. It is not possible to distinguish a 60 per cent case from a 59 per cent case or indeed a 61 per cent case. The bands based on the existing approach to estimating prospects of success, which are set out in the Bar Council's Guidelines on Legal Aid Opinions, reflect a broader judgment than that. A 50 to 60 per cent, or moderate case, will be a difficult case with arguments either way but one which, on balance, is more likely to win than not. However, a good case, with a 60 to 80 per cent chance of success at trial is one that will usually obtain a satisfactory settlement well before that stage.
I turn now to the noble Lord's point about "overwhelming importance" and whether that should include loss of livelihood. This criterion is intended for wholly exceptional cases. The effect is to apply the other criteria to them less stringently; for example, funding would be refused only if the prospects of success were poor. Unfortunately, loss of livelihood is a very broad term and could apply to any case where a person lost his job or business as a result of, say, injury or contractual dispute. Where such cases are within scope, it is right that the normal criteria for prospects and cost benefit should apply.
The "overwhelming importance" criterion is not relevant to child residence cases because the concept is not used in section 11.11 of the code. That already

753
provides that private law children cases may be funded, provided that the prospects of success are not poor. We believe that it would be quite wrong to provide funding for legal representation in residence and contact cases that are clearly more likely than not to lose. Adversarial proceedings are best avoided in children's cases in any event. Children need stability and certainty in their lives, not repeated and probably pointless legal disputes between their parents.
There is no "prospects of success" criterion for funding for general family health or family mediation. In the context of private children cases, "prospects of success" means the prospect of securing what the client would regard as a significant improvement in arrangements for the children.
A good question is: what happens if the prospects of success change during the case? As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, criterion 14.2 provides for funding to be withdrawn if the criteria for grant are no longer satisfied. Funding would almost always be withdrawn if prospects fell below the minimum level to justify a grant. If prospects fell into a lower band so that the cost-benefit criterion was no longer satisfied, funding would normally be withdrawn as well. However, the guidance provides for two exceptions under paragraph 13.8.3:
"The Commission has discretion to delay discharge of the certificate for a limited period to allow a settlement to be negotiated … and discretion to continue funding, if it is in the interests of the Community Legal Service Fund to do so".
That would apply where substantial costs had already been committed to a case that was approaching its conclusions. The limited prospects of winning and recovering those costs might then outweigh the certainty of losing them if the case was abandoned.
I move on now to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the teacher. The criteria for judicial review also refer to significant human rights issues. That might well apply in the case of the teacher to whom the noble Lord referred and have a similar effect of classifying the case as one of "overwhelming importance".
I have done my best to deal with the points that were helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I now turn to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As regards budgetary constraints, I can tell the noble Lord that there is a special budget that applies only to section 6 of the code—the high-cost cases—and not for other types of case. As I understand it, the question does not arise as far as concerns sections 7 to 13 of the code. I am conscious that I have taken much of your Lordships' time. I hope that my answers are satisfactory to some extent. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Funding Code
9.13 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 28th February be approved.—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2000
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This instrument, together with negative procedure regulations that are shortly to be laid before the House and rules of court will give effect to Parliament's intention to increase access to justice through making it easier and more affordable to use conditional fee agreements.
Many tens of thousands of people have already benefited from being able to take claims using conditional fee agreements. Many more people will benefit once provisions of the Access to Justice Act 1999 are implemented in April this year. These provisions will allow success fees payable under conditional fee agreements and insurance premiums against the risk of legal costs to be recovered from a losing opponent, rather than from the claimant's own compensation for the wrong or loss that has been suffered.
Section 27 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 substituted the existing Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 with two new sections. The new Section 58 set out the conditions that were to be satisfied to create an enforceable conditional fee agreement. Read together with the new Section 58A it provides that all proceedings may be the subject of an enforceable conditional fee agreement, except specified family proceedings and criminal proceedings other than those under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under the new Section 58(4) the Lord Chancellor may specify the proceedings for which a conditional fee agreement can provide for a success fee. Article 3 of this order provides that success fees may be agreed for any civil proceedings.
So conditional fees will be available in all civil cases. The new provisions for recovery will make their use attractive in cases not involving money. Claimants in these cases cannot rely currently on the prospect of recovering damages to meet the success fee and any insurance premium against the risk of costs. From 1st April it will be easier for them to use conditional fee agreements. Defendants will benefit similarly by being able to use conditional fees. If they are successful, their success fee will be recoverable from the claimant.
The new Section 58A(1) allows the use of conditional fee agreements in proceedings under-Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 82 allows people aggrieved by a statutory nuisance to seek an order for that nuisance to be put right. These cases concern, for example, the failure of a landlord to maintain rented housing in a habitable condition. In the light of representations from housing support groups, the Government have decided that

755
conditional fee agreements can be made in these cases, but a success fee will not be available. Article 3 of the order therefore makes this exception.
Under the new Section 58(4) the Lord Chancellor also sets the maximum success fee applicable to conditional fee agreements. In consultation last autumn he took the opportunity to ask whether the current limit of 100 per cent for the success fee continued to be appropriate. Opinion among respondents was mixed. Some, including insurers and some solicitors firms, felt that no maximum was needed as assessment by the courts would weed out success fees set at an unreasonable level. Others believed, particularly in respect of personal injury cases, that the 100 per cent limit should be retained to protect unworldly clients.
The Law Society and the Bar believed that for proceedings which might be heard in the Commercial Court and the technology and construction courts a limit of 100 per cent was neither needed nor desirable. The same would also be true, it was argued, of some shipping cases in the Admiralty Court. Clients in proceedings heard in these courts tended to be sophisticated users of litigation services who did not need the protection afforded by the 100 per cent limit.
The Lord Chancellor has, for the time being, decided that the maximum success fee should continue to be 100 per cent for all claims. Article 4 of the order retains this maximum for all agreements where there are success fees. The Lord Chancellor wishes to see how the new scheme for conditional fee agreements is developing before deciding on whether to make any
756
changes. He wishes to expand the role of his department as sponsor of the legal sector, especially in the international sphere and will keep under continuous review what is best in partnership with the providers and users of legal services. In the meantime a higher limit will not be set.
Article 2 of the order revokes the Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1998.
This instrument is central to the new scheme for conditional fees. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the principle behind this matter was extensively debated when we were considering the Access to Justice Bill. There is no point in considering that principle again today.
So far as concerns the success fee, I strongly take the view that it was appropriate to have a ceiling on it. It seems to me, for example, that when one is involved in commercial cases or shipping cases, one almost inevitably has clients who do not need to rely on conditional fee agreements in order to litigate. It would be very unfortunate if the use of conditional fee agreements was extended to cover those cases. I believe that a success fee limit should be retained.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have nothing whatever to add to what the noble Lord has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past nine o'clock.

  Chile: Presidential Inauguration
  Chile: Presidential Inauguration
  Congo: EU Arms Embargo
  Congo: EU Arms Embargo
  Regional and Minority Languages Charters
  Regional and Minority Languages Charters
  Food Aid
  Food Aid
  Ethiopia: Shortfall in Staple Foods
  Ethiopia: Shortfall in Staple Foods
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Former President Yeltsin
  Former President Yeltsin
  Home Office Website
  Home Office Website
  The Tote and the Horserace Betting Levy Board
  The Tote and the Horserace Betting Levy Board
  Burglary: Mandatory Sentences
  Burglary: Mandatory Sentences
  Stansted Hijacking: Political Asylum Claims
  Stansted Hijacking: Political Asylum Claims
  Epichlorohydrin
  Epichlorohydrin
  Respiratory Symptoms in Children
  Respiratory Symptoms in Children
  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive: Charging
  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive: Charging
  Abnormal Loads: Ignoring of Signs
  Abnormal Loads: Ignoring of Signs
  Road Safety Strategy
  Road Safety Strategy
  Motorcyclists: Safety Improvements
  Motorcyclists: Safety Improvements
  Linford Christie
  Linford Christie
  Northern Ireland: Curriculum Review
  Northern Ireland: Curriculum Review
  RUC: Criminal Injuries Compensation
  RUC: Criminal Injuries Compensation